Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 3

 &lt; May 2 May 4 &gt;

File:The Ataris - The Boys of Summer cover.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: no consensus. Whpq (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:The Ataris - The Boys of Summer cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by EHonkoop ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Nonfree cover song image is used as a secondary image in the article about the actual song, not in the primary infobox as the nonfree rationale states. Since it is not used in the main infobox in the article, it does not enjoy the "primary visual identification" exemption given to album covers which actually are used in the main infobox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - One cover art should've been enough for every song article IMHO. Too bad almost certain editors don't see why another cover art is unnecessary. Do we need a cover art to illustrate a successful/notable release of one version or something? Is free text insufficient for readers to understand one version or another? I appreciate illustrating one release, but the matter is whether deleting this cover art can harm understanding of the specific version (or the whole song). As long as multiple versions are covered in one same article, maybe it's time to... see how deleting this cover art can affect such understanding. George Ho (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Compared to DJ Sammy's version of the song, the Ataris' version isn't as notable. However, there is enough info in the section to possibly make a standalone article, and the artwork is still much different than both Henley's or Sammy's, and it can't be described easily using words alone. Even so, if given the choice to delete one of the two images, I'd have to go with this one. If we must, that is. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 19:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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:The Boys of Summer by DJ Sammy featuring Loona.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: no consensus. Whpq (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:The Boys of Summer by DJ Sammy featuring Loona.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by George Ho ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Nonfree image not used in the main infobox for the song. Only the primary infobox image enjoys the "primary visual identification" exemption for nonfree images. Since this image is used later in the article, it is replaceable by free text saying that the song was covered by this artist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete (or no objections to any outcome) - I initially wasn't gonna say anything until one vote here was made. I uploaded this cover art to the other one, thinking that a cover art is still necessary to illustrate one version. However, some time after that, I figured that one cover art should be enough for any song article. Too bad certain editors would disagree with that assumption. I'm unsure how deleting this cover art would harm understanding of the specific version of one song, but I believe readers can without this cover art still understand the whole song and its various versions from over the years. In other words, as I figured, this cover art that I uploaded may not be contextually significant to the article subject or the specific version. BTW, this vote isn't meant to invoke WP:G7; rather just a vote and nothing more. George Ho (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is most definitely a notable cover version and could stand alone as its own article with some work that could easily be accomplished IMO. I've been around the web and seen enough information about this cover to warrant a reasonably detailed standalone article. Meanwhile, this artwork differs greatly than the original, and if the readers keep picturing similar versions of Henley's artwork for each cover version, I'd consider that borderline detrimental to their understanding of the subject. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 19:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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:ShaxianDelicaciesLogo.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: no consensus. Whpq (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:ShaxianDelicaciesLogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by WhisperToMe ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Commons has an alternative image, and it's not clear if this image also meets the criteria. Q𝟤𝟪 01:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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:20070530 35 East Wacker Clock.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 ⚡ 11:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:20070530 35 East Wacker Clock.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The pictured sculpture was erected in 1926 and should now be in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, there is freely-licenced image of this clock on Commons (File:Father Time Clock, Chicago 1 26 18 (39562865785).jpg). Michalg95 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a note, the uploader of the local file has released it under the GFDL and CC BY-SA up to version 2.5 (see photo source). So we should be able to move this one to Commons as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - the subject of the photo is now public domain so the only copyright of concern is the copyright of the photo itself.  The uploader had provided an explicit license statement for the photo which released the photo under a free license.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, as both clock and photo are free. Restoring the larger version would be appreciated. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore. Photograph is under a free license and the clock is now public domain.  We can move this to Commons as well. Abzeronow (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mansurchak block map.jpg
<div class="archived boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 ⚡  01:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Mansurchak block map.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Rupak bharti ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't believe this qualifies for fair use because someone could draw their own map using publicly available data. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - very clearly fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:37, 9 May 2023 (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:LOVE (Indiana).jpg
<div class="archived boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: Remove non-free templates as sculpture is not copyrighted. Whpq (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:LOVE (Indiana).jpg">File:LOVE (Indiana).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lottie Ford ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Consensus on Commons is that the Love sculptures are not copyrighted. See discussion at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/04. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, change to license on the source photo.
 * The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2023 (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.