Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 15



File:Arrow Dynamics 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 as F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Arrow Dynamics Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by JlACEer ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Superseded by lossless PNG version: File:ArrowDynamics.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant. Reyk YO! 09:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Replaced by a better version. Why does this need discussion?— JlACEer ( talk ) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Strophoid.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Strophoid.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Reyk ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This graph is no longer used anywhere and has been superseded by a nicer looking SVG version. I would have G7 speedied it, except that someone edited it to add labels a while ago. Reyk YO! 05:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Veronica - Vatican2.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. Replaced with a freely-licensed (no frame), higher-resolution image: c:File:Vatican Veil of Veronica.jpg —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Pricejb ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This was. Deletion review/Log/2019 September 8 concluded that the copyrightability of the image and/or any fair use claim should be discussed in more depth here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  09:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per same reasons of previous FfD. Unused and unusable. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete low-resolution, very blurry, would be a detriment to any article it is forced into - F ASTILY   23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value as the file is of terrible quality. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the file's low resolution, but there's no other file out there which actually shows the subject of the article. Originally brought up as a copyright violation, but I'm still not sure why. Only orphaned because it was previously deleted. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the one who initiated the deletion review. Copying from my proposal there: One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Here is the image, in its original context in the article (Veil of Veronica):
 * There are at least six images in existence which bear a marked resemblance to each other and which are claimed to be the original Veil, a direct copy of it or, in two cases, the Mandylion. Each member of this group is enclosed in an elaborate outer frame with a gilded metal sheet (or riza in Russian) within, in which is cut an aperture where the face appears; at the lower extreme of the face there are three points which correspond to the shape of the hair and beard.
 * Comment I am under the impression that the Vatican Veronica is displayed every year and that for that reason a free alternative could be created. Is that right? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Likewise under the impression that a free alternative may be available. At least as importantly, if we're going to base an image on fair use, this may be our only one, but it looks like there are better images out there that would be better suited, no? What am I missing? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Likewise under the impression that a free alternative may be available. At least as importantly, if we're going to base an image on fair use, this may be our only one, but it looks like there are better images out there that would be better suited, no? What am I missing? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems like more discussion on WP:NFCC is needed.
 * Question Would cropping this image to exclude the frame etc. be PD-art? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it is now obvious that this file fails NFCC#1 due to the frames and the annual display that makes taking new photos possible. I've gone ahead and created what I believe is a PD-art version and also of better quality: File:Vatican Veil of Veronica.jpg. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.