Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 3

February 3

File:Retablo final, Francisco Díaz de León, 1928.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the image was published before 1930. — Ирука¹³ 02:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm perplexed that the nominator thinks a file labeled 1928, named 1928. where the source labels the uncropped image from 1928, and the publisher of the webpage says it's from 1928 is somehow lacking "evidence that the image was published before 1930". Seems pretty clear it was published in 1928. Buffs (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is recorded as 1928, for example here in 2020 and here in the Blaisten Museum; this is not a date invented on Commons or Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Liquor Control Board of Ontario (logo).svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't keep non-free former logos. I don't think a single sentence counts as "significant" commentary. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Excavations at Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, July 2023.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FUR does not pass muster: we do not allow FURs for pictures of things and people that presently exist (unless other exigent circumstances are in play), only those that have died or been destroyed, such that no public-domain image could be produced. Moreover, at this resolution, the encyclopaedic value of the image is trivial; conversely, its commercial value is high, as it came from Reuters. The image itself is not discussed in the article. The stated licensing of "non-free historic image" is, in any case, untenable, since the image itself (as opposed to the thing it depicts) has no significant historical value. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree w/ nom. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In November 2023 a representative of Palestine's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities described the necropolis as "almost completely destroyed", so no appropriately licensed photograph depicting the archaeological remains at their most intact could be created after that point. The image becomes historically important as a visual record of the site before its destruction.
I agree that at such low resolution encyclopedia value is reduced compared to if we could use the original, and that is perhaps enough to justify its removal, though don't agree that the commercial value of the same low resolution version is high. It is worth noting that WP:NFCI states Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity". I think it is very unlikely that a 0.03MP image would replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material but if consensus is that it may, and the image isn't adding enough to the article perhaps it should be deleted. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.