Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

File:Duncan Montgomery Gray Sr.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 November 6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duncan Montgomery Gray Sr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:Kazakh ASSR in 1932.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 1938 Atlas is not necessarily copyright free, More information on the sourcing/authorship is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for pointing this out. To be honest I just took it from the Russian Wikipedia assuming that the image was ok to use (see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Kazassr1932.jpg) Sdrawkcab (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

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

File:Princess Anastasia St Peterline Livery Oct 2018.jpg

Querying if the mural artwork here would have a seperate copyright, or not covered by Freedom of Panorama. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crash.GIF

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution image, with very obvious half-toning. Not used in mainspace, but it is used in a talk page discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to its being deleted. The talk page discussion is old. Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.jpg

"Szabó Ervin Könyvtár permits non commercial use" but licensed as CC-BY-SA,Image may be PD by date, but needs clarification. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Today's Take logo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in a section of an article contrary to the stated purpose of being there "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question." The article is about the Today show, and not just this one segment. There is no significant sourced critical commentary about the logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joshua James Full Portrait.jpg

Contested WP:CSD#F4 as "no source".

F4 does not require a source. It requires " the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status". As a photograph of someone who died in 1902, and for where the claim of federal PD status (via the Coastguard) is credible, we do not need to know that source – the age alone is adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide a verifiable source proving this was a work of the US coast guard as claimed. -FASTILY 22:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a non-federal work, it's old enough to be PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it's old enough to be PD" ^{[citation needed]}. Then prove it. -FASTILY 01:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hufc-80s.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 ⚡ 06:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 22:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hartlepool.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 ⚡ 06:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 22:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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