Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 13



File:Admiral&

 * 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 ⚡  04:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Admiral& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Katicabral ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The subject is barely discussed in the article, so it fails NFCC. However, it's possible that the image is PD due to age, we just have absolutely no information on it. Does anyone want to help look? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 13 May 2020 (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:Arthur a denny home.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 F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur a denny home.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jacqke ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Purely decorative use, fails NFCC. However, given that the subject died in 1899 it is very possible that this falls under a PD criterion, we just need to find evidence of it. King of ♥<b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t remember why I added the photo. Looking at the source, it would have been taken in 1907 or earlier; that's the year it was demolished. The source suggests 1889 or earlier,  as the year of the Seattle fire that destroyed the photographer’s negatives. Jacqke (talk)}


 * Keep --> Re-license as PD-US-expired. Closing admin should restore the revision deleted original version of the file. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2020 (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.

File:MidwayHouseX7546.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:MidwayHouseX7546.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Oddharmonic ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Claims "a modern replacement would not show the building in a historical context", but unclear what that even means. <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:19, 13 May 2020 (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.

File:Boycover1989.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Textbook violation of NFCC criteria 3a and 8. May be restored if substantial critical commentary regarding this image is added to the article. - F ASTILY   02:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Boycover1989.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Wk3v78k23tnsa ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Three covers for one album with no critical commentary, etc. is over the top. WP:NFCC. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Commentary could not be any clearer: Jazz Impressions of A Boy Named Charlie Brown: Jazz Impressions of A Boy Named Charlie Brown was released on CD in 1989 under the title A Boy Named Charlie Brown and featured a live bonus track of "Fly Me to the Moon". Fantasy Records also inserted a new cover image featuring Charlie Brown in a red shirt and baseball cap and rolling his eyes. Is there a rule on Wiki about "over the top," or is that just another opinion of "I personally think this is a bit much, but that is just me?"Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Did you click on the link I provided to WP:NFCC? Did you read that? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails NFCC 3a and 8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain I think that is passes NFCC 3a and 8 because all versions are in heavy circulation and help the reader. It is also discussed in the entry in detail. Yes, it may be a bit over the top, but the "red" cover is heavily distributed. We're Only in It for the Money has three covers listed and that passes NFCC 3a and 8. Physical Graffiti is practically a picture book. The Beatles (album) features a few covers as well. Just my take.OldandGood2876 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Physical Graffiti and The Beatles (album) each have one non-free image, while We're Only in It for the Money's second image is the subject of significant critical discussion in cited prose. If you want more pictures in Jazz Impressions of A Boy Named Charlie Brown, you can have as many freely licensed images you want. The issue is that there's a limit to the number of non-free images in an article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (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.