Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 7

October 7

File:Blow Your Own Horn.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have been unable to verify provenance (IMDB didn't have the image in 2020, or in 2017. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons after undeleting the previous revision. The source is a 1923 issue of Moving Picture World. hinnk (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, hinnk. Previous revision undeleted, and withdraw this nomination — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:14, 7 October 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:Ken Catchpole.jpg

Unused; TOO for Australia is very low, meaning that the club logos make this likely non-free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable memorabilia of the Club and the Indvidual being a notable person with a Rigby BAckground. Another user has removed it from Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club (Tasmania) page. As in his opinion it is not notable. This I disagree with. Mmunji1 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's threshold of originality doesn't matter for enwiki, but the lower logo is easily above the US's TOO too - it's the same one as File:Player Dress Uniform Logo.jpg. That's more easily seen in the revdeleted, unreduced version, but the reduction doesn't make it public domain. Image is unfree and unused; delete as an F5. Wasn't a proper use of nonfree imagery on Eastern Suburbs RUFC (Tasmania), either. —Cryptic 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That it is. I must have been tired when I posted this FFD; that logo is easily past the TOO for all involved parties. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuad Shukr handout.png

This is a procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 29. The main question seems to be whether the low-quality image at File:Fuad Shukr.jpg is an adequate free substitute. (I am neutral.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there are two images of the subject at Commons. File:Fuad shukr 1.png is currently nominated for deletion and is overwhelmingly likely to be deleted, since it's from a news site that allows reuse but not modification. We can dismiss that, at least for now. If it turns out there's another page on that site that does say all the images on it can be freely modified - my non-existent Persian isn't good enough to find one, even with Google's help - we can revisit this.
The other image, File:Fuad Shukr.jpg, is an undated US government image (or at least it used to be distributed on a US government site), but it's entirely inadequate for identification: neither eye is visible; the shape of the nose is unclear; the colors are distorted; and we don't know if it's been flopped left-to-right because the same site also had an upscaled, flopped version. It's a visual match for two of my neighbors, could've been a visual match for me if I hadn't lost most of the hair from the top of my head before I could grow that thick a mustache, and you can't even tell for certain that it's the same person as in the other two images. I contend that it's bad enough that the non-free image meets WP:Non-free content § Meeting the no free equivalent criterion: the encyclopedic purpose is to identify the subject, and the free image simply doesn't do that. It's not appreciably better for that use than the images in c:Category:Blank persons placeholders (men). —Cryptic 13:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The low-quality image at File:Fuad Shukr.jpg is not an adequate free substitute, being more of a smudge than a portrait, because the facial features are too indistinct to say that the image represents the subject. The other image uploaded to the Commons will be deleted. This leaves us with no image that fits the purpose in the article, meaning that an otherwise usable non-free is not rendered unusable because a free file exists.—Alalch E. 16:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So,I apparently didn't do the paperwork right the first time around, that's on me, and I thank Cryptic for fixing it up. My argument has always been that the original image, which appears to be a blown-up screengrab from CCTV or something like that, is of such a low quality that not having an image at all would be preferable. However, we don't have to settle for no image at all because after the subject's death this image was deliberately widely distributed as a publicity image, it is meant to be used in this way and I think a reasonable interpretation of fair-use says that we can and should use it instead of the other image. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the purpose of NFCC for dead or inaccessible historical figures is for identification. The free image is unusable for identification, making an NFCC image usable. It's about the purpose of our rules rather than the exact same situation, it fulfills the same purpose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NFCC is very clear. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose Per Cryptic, the free image doesn't satisfy the purpose of identifying the subject. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]