Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 6

May 6

File:Bookshop2.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bookshop2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

image does not depict or correspond to the relevant article on Douglas Hyde Gallery The Douglas Hyde (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This FFD was originally opened for File:Bookshop2.jpg.ext and got closed automatically because the file doesn't exist. I'm assuming it was meant for File:Bookshop2.jpg, which appears in the Douglas Hyde Gallery article. hinnk (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And… probably shouldn't have bothered. File:Bookshop2.jpg is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia, so there's nothing to do here.

@The Douglas Hyde Please review Wikipedia's policy on usernames that represent companies. The image itself isn't likely to be deleted for the reason you mention, but if you'd like a change be made to the Douglas Hyde Gallery article (such as removing the image or changing the caption), I'd recommend going to the talk page and using {{Edit COI}} with a description of the change. hinnk (talk) 20:48, 6 May 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:Iowa Nebraska border- Missouri River flooding.jpeg

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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be PD-USGov but tagged as NC-ND at flickr source. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License at Flickr is in error/boiler plate. This is a product of the US Army Corps of Engineers and is PD no matter what label they slap on it. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly marked at PD-USGov rather than PD-USGov-Military-Army. I believe that since it was taken by a federal employee during official duties it does fall under PD per 17 U.S. Code § 105 DairyEnjoyer (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both would suffice (distinction without a difference). Buffs (talk) 17:38, 6 May 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:Hacker T. Dog and Phil Fletcher.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject is still alive. A free photo could conceivably be made ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 6 May 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:Coronation State Portrait of King Charles III by Peter Kuhfeld.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. ✗plicit 00:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a non-free image under Crown Copyright [1]. Not being used for "critical commentary" as is claimed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's being used to illustrate its page on English Wikipedia which cannot be illustrated any other way, so falls within fair use (I think, but am not a WikiLawyer after flunking the jar exam twice). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This falls under the category of fair use and there are multiple examples for it, namely Official White House portraits of Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 04:24, 7 May 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:Coronation State Portrait of Queen Camilla by Paul Benney.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. ✗plicit 00:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a non-free image under Crown Copyright [2]. Not being used for "critical commentary" as is claimed, nor is it a low-resolution image. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fair use may apply as the image illustrates the English Wikipedia page topic which cannot be illustrated any other way. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This falls under the category of fair use and there are multiple examples for it, namely Official White House portraits of Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Portrait of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 04:24, 7 May 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.