Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27[edit]

File:Flaka e janarit.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has uploaded many images which are copyright violations. There is no good reason to believe this image is own work as claimed given their track record. Whpq (talk) 00:44, 27 July 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:Moon Man - Notorious KKK.ogg[edit]

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 as G5 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racist "song" consisting mostly of the N-word, added by a known sockpuppet and not necessary for context on the sole article to use it. Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean we need to allow this kind of garbage. ONR (talk) 01:31, 27 July 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:Cityscape I 360.jpg[edit]

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. OK, first off when an image is contested on WP:NFCC grounds, merely saying "keep" or "free use established" is not quite enough. We cannot simply use a non-free image unless it's established that it satisfies each criterion, and since it's a WMF-given policy a group of people here cannot simply override it. Thus, most keep arguments here don't carry the day.

Now as for keeping the image under WP:NFCC it looks like all uses outside of Richard Diebenkorn and Bay Area Figurative Movement fail WP:NFCC#8 in light of the comments. It also looks like from Marchjuly's and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comments that the current use in these two articles are not (yet) compliant with NFCC. Thus there is no legit use at this moment and this file will be deleted, but people can ask on WP:REFUND or WP:DELREV for restoration if they have legit WP:NFCC#8 compliant rationales for using it on either article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Richard Diebenkorn and Bay Area Figurative Movement at minimum. Rationale given for being unique examples for this visual medium. --Knulclunk (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File is being used in five articles: 20th-century Western painting, Bay Area Figurative Movement, History of painting, Landscape painting, Richard Diebenkorn, and Western painting. Even though each of these uses is separate from the other, basically somebody just copied-and-pasted the same non-free use ratianale for each (only changing the name of the article). Doing such a thing might save some time, but it doesn't provide the separate, specific non-free use rationales for each use required by WP:NFCC#10c and basically is assuming that all that is needed for NFCCP compliance is a rationale of some kind. This approach to adding non-free images to article is not helpful and seems to be assuming some kind of automatic non-free use based on a kind of WP:THOUSANDWORDS type of reasoning.

Non-free use does seem OK in the Diebenkorn article at first glance. Generally, a non-free image such as this would be allowed to show an example of the artist's work or style. The problem here though is that there is really no discussion of the painting anywhere at all in the article (its only mentioned by name in the caption) so the contextual connection between image and content required by WP:NFCC#8 is unclear. Moreover, the is another non-free example of Diebenkorn's work being used given the article, and File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No. 67'.jpg is much more tied into the article content than Cityscape I 360, so it's not clear why two examples of Diebenkorn's work is needed per WP:NFCC#3a. Perhaps more sourced critical commentary of Cityscape I 360 itself or how it is representative of the Diebenkorn's particular style could be added to the article to strengthen its justification for non-free use; otherwise, I think removing the file from the article is appropriate.
The non-free use in "Bay Area Figurative Movement", like the non-free use in the Diebenkorn article, seems like in should be OK. It could be reasoned that the painting is considered to be the most or one of most representative examples of the works created by artists discussed in the article. However, this also has the same issues as mentioned above: the painting is mentioned by name only one time in the image's caption; there's no critical commentary about the painting or how is best serves as an example of the movement's style; and there is another non-free image File:'Still Life with Cup', oil on canvas painting by Paul Wonner, 1959, private collection.jpg apparently being used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. It's not clear why two examples of this movement's style is needed, and how removing one of the two would be detrimental to the reader's understanding per NFCC#8. As with the Diebenkorn article, the justification for non-free use would be much stronger and clearer if there was actually some sourced content about the painting and why it's seen as representative of this particular movement in the article to provide the context for non-free use; simply mentioning the painter by name and assuming that in and of itself is a justification for this type of non-free use is not really something allowed per WP:FREER.
The three other articles where the file is being used are articles about a particular genre/style or historical aspects of painting in general. Justifying non-free use in these articles is going to be really hard in the first place per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. The way the file is being used in these article seems to be just as one in a gallery of other images, which is not really allowed for non-free content per WP:NFG, with maybe a single mention by name. These articles do contain freely-licensed or PD images as well, so it's not clear why this particular file also needs to be used as such. Suggest removing the file from all of these articles based upon current usage.

It seems to me that given the current use of the file, keep for "Bay Area Figurative Movement" seems the best place to use this file if more critical commentary about the painting and how it represents the movement's style can be added to the article. I could also see keep for the painter's article, except there is another file also being used as an example of his work which is much better tied into the article content; two examples don't really seem to be needed and removing that Ocean Park file from the article seems more detrimental to the reader's understanding than removing this one. Finally, I'm really not seeing any justification for non-free use in the other articles; there are links to both the article about the movement and the artist in each of these articles, and the file can be seen there if needed. The use in an image gallery without a real sourced critical commentary about the painting in any of these articles doesn't seem to be permitted by NFCC#1, NFCC#8 or NFG; so, I suggest remove from these articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in all cases, free use established for this important example. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As posted in #File:Three Flags.jpg, this file is non-free content, not "free use". It seems in your effort to save time and copy-and-paste the same kind of WP:LIKEIMAGE !vote in all of these discusions, you are mistaking "free use" for "fair use". However, simply arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE in not really a good way to justify the non-free use of any file; so, it would be helpful if you can be more specific as to how you feel each of this file's non-free uses meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria. The problem is that this has not been established which is why the file's non-free use is being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The uses in all articles except the artist's bio and Bay Area Figurative Movement are unaccompanied by substantive sourced commentary, just token textual allusions to "support" display in an image gallery. This cannot satisfy nonfree content policy requirements. The use in the artist's bio as an example without commentary is redundant, since another example of the artist's work is provided, with detailed, communicative sourced commentary. The use in Bay Area Figurative Movement is on the surface plausible, but the supporting reference is, on careful examination, clearly unacceptable. The claim that the painting is "important" is cited only to artsy.com. The cited page does not actually discuss the work in question or characterize its importance. Instead, it lists works of the artist that are currently for sale, and urges those willing to sell the artist's works to consign their paintings to . . . artsy.com. In short, this is an advertising page for a vendor, and is not a reliable source regarding the painting's purported importance (or much of anything else). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sensing a little disagreement on whether the use in the Diebenkorn and BAFM articles is OK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The consensus was keep the image and the thread was closed. For Diebenkorn and Bay Area, see discussion above. The deletion question has been resolved to keep. I’m not quite sure why we’re still on this page. If there are concerns with image overuse in some of the other articles, take it up on those talk pages or just remove them from those articles. Knulclunk (talk) 03:43, 28 July 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:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.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:Ralph Goings.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph Goings.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:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.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:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg[edit]

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: keep. Mostly because of the unaddressed PD-simple point made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This file is being used in six different articles. The two keep !votes above seem to be implying that each one of these uses is WP:NFCC-compliant because no specifics are given for any of the individual uses. The first "keep" !vote is bascially a WP:LIKEIMAGE !vote which simply seems to have been just copied-and-pasted from one FFD discussion to another. The second "keep" seems to be arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE, but it's not clear if "free use" is meant to mean "fair use". Simply arguing fair use is irrelevant because, as explained in WP:NFC#Background, the NFCC has been purposely made to be more restrictive that simple fair use. At the same time, trying the argue "free use" makes no sense because there is nothing "free" about this image at all, at least for Wikipedia's purposes when used in the context of copyrighted content. The six uses of this file are as follows: 20th-century Western painting#Geometric abstraction, Op Art, Hard-Edge, Color field, Minimal Art, New Realism, Post-painterly abstraction, Washington Color School, Western painting#Geometric abstraction, Op Art, Hard-Edge, Color field, Minimal Art, New Realism, History of painting#New abstraction from the 1950s through the 1980s and Kenneth Noland#Selected museum collections.
The "20th-century painting" and "Western painting" articles are basically general overviews of various different types of artwork and genres. The painting is not mentioned by name anywhere in either article (the painter Noland is mentioned by name a few times, but these are linked to the stand-alone article about him), and there is no sourced crtical commentary of the painting anywhere at all. There are other a number of other examples of this type of painting given in the relevant sections, so it's not clear why this one is need per WP:NFCC#3a since there's really none of the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8. The same can be said for the non-free use in "History of painting". So, remove the file from these three articles per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8.
The article "Post-painterly abstraction" seems to be primarily about an exhibition where this painting appeared. There is no sourced critical commentary of the painting anywhere in the article and it's mentioned by name only in the file's caption. The caption describes the painting as a "notable example of post-painterly abstraction selected by Greenberg for the exhibition", but this is unsourced, so it's not clear whether this is WP:OR or maybe even WP:SYN. Moreover, the painting doesn't have it's own stand-alone article, so how "notable" it is is also debatable. Finally, there is also another example of a painting which appeared in the exhibition also being used in the article, so it's not clear why two are needed to serve this encyclopedic purpose. Remove from this article per NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a.

The non-free uses in "Kenneth Noland" and "Washington Color School" seem to have the most potential for NFCC compliance. The painting is the only image being used in "Washington Color School", so NFCC#3a is not an issue and it's possible that it could be justified to be a representative example of this particular school's style. Once again, however, the problem is that the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption and there is no critical commentary about it found anywhere in the article. Adding specific content (preferably supported by citations) about the painting to article would better tie it into the article content and provide a much stronger justification for non-free use. The non-free use in the Noland article is problematic because the use is clearly decorative in the "Selected museum collections" section. Non-free content is not really allowed to be used like this per WP:NFLISTS, and it's not even clear in which museum's collection the painting can be found. It would be much better to move the image to the another section where critical commentary about it can be found to use as an example of Noland's style. However, like in "Washington Color School", there is no such critical commentary anywhere to be found in the article, and there is already another non-free image being used in Kenneth Noland#Career; so, it's not clear why two are needed per NFCC#3a. It might be possible that different paintings from different periods or Noland's career could be used as representative examples, but there relevant sourced content in the article making that distinction. So, while I can see non-free use being possibly justified in these two articles, I think there has to be a much stronger connection established between article content and image in order to meet NFCC#8. So, possible keep in these two articles if the NFCC#8 issue can be addressed.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this pass the threshold of originality? If not, move to Commons. If yes, delete, as none of the WP:NFCC#8 issues are likely to be addressed, even in the artist's bio. None of its current uses discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this meets TOO. That it is a painting isn't really relevant. It's not any more complex than something like this or this. The constituent parts are merely stripes, and their arrangement is in no real way either numerous or original. Minimalists can appreciate the aesthetics of minimalism all they want, but that doesn't make this work anything other than a simple arrangement of geometric shapes. GMG ^talk 16:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Minimalist art for discussion regarding TOO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 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:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.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:Riley, Cataract 3.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riley, Cataract 3.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:BlackGreyBeat.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.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:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.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:Typewriter-eraser.JPG[edit]

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: Keep only in Typewroter Eraser, Scale X. The other uses apparently don't meet WP:NFCC guidance, and merely saying "keep" without addressing any of the criteria is not quite enough to establish an use rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established for this important piece. Defines the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in [Typewriter Eraser, Scale X]], remove from Pop art where it violates WP:NFCC#1. Freely licensed examples of pop art exist. ℯ xplicit 23:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Typewriter Eraser, Scale X (standard NFC use), remove from Pop art where no sourced critical discussion can be found. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 2 August 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:For Pearl.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:For Pearl.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:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.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:CottonMillFounder.jpg[edit]

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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion discussion at Commons, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cotton Mill Founder statue, Vaasa University.jpg, sculpture is not copyright-free, and no FoP in Finland. Possibly okay under NFCC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fair-use for August Alexander Levón as the only image we have of the long-dead subject of that article. But remove from University of Vaasa, where it would be easy to take a picture of the building from a perspective that did not have the non-free sculpture. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped it, placed it in his bio article and removed it from the school article, and retagged it as nonfree. I also filed a Graphics Lab request to remove the flagpole that appears to be coming out of his head in the cropped version. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DMacks-the article is rough but he is notable--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 30 July 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:Ready For It? Taylor Swift.jpeg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no source, and if it this the official single art it is not the user's own work to release into the public domain. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transfer to Commons as ineligible for copyright. Though God only knows what earthly use this is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it can be proven that this is the official cover art, this will most likely be deleted as out of scope for commons as a fan-made art with no realistic educational purpose. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "God only knows what earthly use this is"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:18, 30 July 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:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works in the ~~USA~~ India FASTILY 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not in the USA.

Apart from which, the rest of your nomination carries little weight anyway, even in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to type India. There is no FOP for 2D works in India. -FASTILY 18:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{FoP-India}} seems fairly permissive, so seems clean for commons? DMacks (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have to decide whether this image of an engraved tablet on a 3D object is really in image of the 2D "text" nature (similar to a poster or painting) here. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't. Engravings are 2D works: c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#India -FASTILY 20:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that (as you can see because I linked the commons tag for it). It's an object with an engraving and the use-case is not clear to me whether it is merely the engraving component being illustrated (it is prominent in the image) or the whole object-with-engraving (possibly some historical artifact or other commemoriative 3D thing--it's not just a simple signpost) is the focus here. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking around, there appear to be a bunch of similar markers, all engravings on non-descript stone/tile mountings. So it's mostly the protected portion on a comparably insignificant 3D mounting rather than some text incidentally present on a substantive 3D object. That definitely makes it outside the realm of FoP-India. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 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:Lok Sabha TV logo.jpg[edit]

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 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lok Sabha TV logo.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:Tropic Sun Theatre sign.jpg[edit]

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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

advert-style image with doubtful licensing claim Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but relicense as fair-use for Full Throttle Theatre Company (possibly crop down to just the logo, removing the contact info). It's the logo of the article's subject (or at least its predecessor company/name) and there is a major section of the article about this specific era of its history. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with keeping it so long as it is cropped to just show the logo, in line with WP:NFCC#3b. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped and retagged. I couldn't find an official image in the company's website, so this can suffice as its logo. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 27 July 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:Everyday single cover.jpeg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the official cover; in the file's page it says "it can be obtained from Republic Records" but Republic didn't publish the cover anywhere. Music01 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 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.