Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 October 1

October 1

File:Shirish Saravanan Rare-Pic.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work when the uploader's talk page is full of copyrighted-related tags. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2023 (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:Simon Lyndon 2018 WhiteGumValley.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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exif states that this image is a screenshot. Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2023 (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:Simon Pearce Professional Dancer.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exif states that this image is a screenshot. Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2023 (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:Stephen McPartland MP.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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NC license at source. Incompatible to be converted to fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2023 (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:Stephanie Santiago.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exif states that this image is a screenshot. Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2023 (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:BJ Blazkowicz.png

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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale is non-existent and the image was uploaded by a blocked user. File is used exclusively for decorative purposes, and the characters design from The New Order is already in the infobox. An image for the Wolfenstein 3D design only (full body) would be fair game though. NegativeMP1 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pixel version would be sufficient, as the reader can compare it themselves to the current design. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (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:USS Lorain Launch 1944.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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Lorain Launch 1944.jpg. Uploader is clearly not the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2023 (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:Eleanorrathbone.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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this image is PD in the UK, its US copyright will have been restored and not expired if it was taken after 1927. There are several images of the subject on Commons, so conversion to non-free use will be hard to justify. Felix QW (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2023 (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:Frank Briant.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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US copyright of this image, published in the UK in 1934, is likely to have been restored and will only expire in 2030, 95 years after publication. Curiously, the metadata of this file which indicate a 1924 dating seem to come from this file, which should indeed be PD in both the UK (anonymous and more than 70 years old) and the US (studio photograph, presumably published very soon after creation, that is more than 95 years old). So this file could be replaced by that public domain image, rendering it ineligible for non-free use. Felix QW (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2023 (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:Smokeycover.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: Remove from Foobar -FASTILY 21:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this image on Foobar is purely decorative. It isn't necessary, and therefore fails NFCC 8 (and if anyone is doubting, yes the copyright was renewed). —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matr1x-101 Firstly it should be noted that file is also in use at Smokey Stover in a way that is almost certainly compatible with fair use so the file should not be deleted even if the image is removed from the Foobar article, so this discussion would probably be better on the article talk page. As we're here though I'll continue. I don't think the use at Foobar is as simple as you make out - the article contains the sourced statement that the word's earliest documented use [is] in the 1930s comic Smokey Stover. An image of that use would be directly illustrating the text and not purely decorative. However, it is not clear to me (at least at the displayed resolution) that this image is that first use? It contains the word "Phoo" but that looks to be onomatopoeia for a sound rather than a use of the word "Foo" in the sense used in the article or image caption. This means I'm leaning towards removing the image for not being relevant (regardless of its copyright status) but explicitly stating that a different Smokey Stover image (i.e. one that does show the first actual use) could meet the requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Regardless of origin stories and whatnot, we can easily just add {{Cite comic}} if we wanted to source the unsourced comment. The use of the image doesn't increase the reader's understanding on the topic. Yes, the use of the image on Smokey Stover is definitely fair use, but the use of Foobar is decorative and should be removed. I think this matter is best discussed here, since it is a copyright issue, and posting to some obscure talk page of some article is unlikely to gather attention from admins. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 17:15, 2 October 2023 (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.