Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 17

May 17[edit]

File:Escapade (play).jpg[edit]

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: No consensus, defaulting to status quo (non-free). -Fastily 09:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a faithful two-dimensional reproduction of the play's poster (pamphlet?). Someone could take a photo of it and release the photo under a free license, per WP:FREER as well as WP:GETTY, point 16. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain in the US at the very least. The nominator's claim (if I understand correctly) is that (1) there is no copyright in the poster/pamphlet, but (2) there is a copyright in the photograph because it has minor three-dimensional elements. To (1), the poster/pamphlet is {{PD-simple}} typesetting, below the US threshold of originality. To (2), the official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". Here, the pamphlet is a two-dimensional work, even though there are some minor folds in the photograph. (JohnCWiesenthal I am misunderstanding "faithful two-dimensional reproduction", please let me know!) Wikiacc (¶) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no creativity in the reproduction and no copyright in the image. But the text is copyrightable; some creative effort has gone into selecting and positioning the words, particularly the paragraphs at the bottom. Accordingly the fair use claim currently on the file is the appropriate licence. Do nothing. Stifle (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2024 (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:Benedictine College Wordmark.png[edit]

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 There is a clear consensus that a non-free image is not acceptable here. The consensus is weaker on whether the image is above the threshold of originality, but we generally err on the side of declaring images copyrightable so I'm deleting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free images- as well as WP:NFCC#8, as it doesn't significantly enhance the article any more than the actual college logo itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether {{PD-textlogo}} might apply here. Clear delete if not (NFCC#10c also not met). Stifle (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think textlogo would apply given the B and cross device on the left, but whether that qualifies as sufficiently creative to be PD anyway I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My question is how is it different than any other university article on Wikipedia? It's not violating any guidelines. Corky 03:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is different by using multiple logos when one would suffice, and it is violating our NFCC guidelines (and policies), as the nomination states. Stifle (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether it's compliant with our non free policy, which it isn't. If other articles do the same thing, they should also be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Textbook WP:NFCC#3a violation. Also agree with the comments above that the "B" in complex enough to exceed TOO in the US. -Fastily 09:16, 27 May 2024 (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:Beyonce-heat.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The packaging is well below the threshold of originality. Someone could buy this product (as it is still on the market) and take a freely licensed photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (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:10Rs, Obverse, Pakistani Rupee, 2008 320px.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file has the same use, purpose, and copyright as files that were deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5 for not meeting WP:NFCC#8. Wikiacc (¶) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (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:Pierre Victor Auger.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From FbrG (talk · contribs):

Hey, thanks for the follow up. I wanted to propose a deletion of this file due to the unknown copyright status, and because there now is a CC-BY-SA-4 image o commons, that could(should?) be used instead (File:9. Tagung 1959 Physiker stehend P. Auger,Paris, Otto Hahn - W134Nr.058141 - Willy Pragher (cropped).jpg). Unfortunately, I struggled to find the correct procedure for the proposal.
— User:FbrG 20:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I believe that {{subst:rnfu}} could be used in such circumstances, especially if another image can readily be identified? Felix QW (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2024 (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.