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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:JaymeCloss.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gourami Watcher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since Jayme Closs (pictured) has heroically led to her own rescue, it is no longer reasonable to say this photo is irreplaceable. There is a good possibility we can find a free photo replacement for this image as she is alive and well. I also considered the possibility of arguing fair use based on the depiction of a notable historical event but that also does not fit (as this does not depict the subject of the article: Kidnapping of Jayme Closs).

Another less-convincing argument to delete is privacy as she is still a minor and very much still in danger. Jayme Cross is not notable and not a public figure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Closs is living and a free photograph would be possible to obtain in the future. As the uploader of the image, I support its deletion.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 01:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gourami Watcher: As the uploader, you can try and tag the file with ((db-author)) per WP:G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wisconsin-State-Journal-1952-09-04-p1-top.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MikeB17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free newspaper scan being used in a decorative manner which fails both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in Wisconsin State Journal#Supports Senator Joe McCarthy. It seems that newspapers have always endorsed candidates for public office, sometimes even quite passionately, when the people running the paper feel the candidate either best represents their ideals/interests as individuals or a company; however, a scan of a newspaper front page is not really needed to understand that unless the imagery of the page itself is/was the subject of critical commentary by others (i.e., reliable sources) at the time.The fact that the Wisconsin State Journal endorsed McCarthy doesn't requiring seeing this particular scan to be understand; the article content and sources cited are sufficient for that. Moreover, the claim made in the rationale that seeing this image decisively demonstrates the between the two is like trying to argue WP:THOUSANDWORDS in favor of non-free use. There's no really sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article of that particular front page and how it decisively demonstrates anything; so, the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Any interpretation of the image needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources stating this is how others interpreted the image; otherwise, it's nothing more that a little image-based WP:OR. I could possibly see this type of non-free use being justified if other regional or national papers where discussing this particular front page as part of their commentary on McCarthy, the election or even the paper at the time or since that time, but that doesn't appear to be the case at all. So, it'S seems more that acceptable as a free equivalent to simply quite and cite the particular headline appearing on the page per WP:FREER. Suggest delete, unless the NFCC#8 issue is satisfactorily addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user and feeling my way here. It seems that articles on newspapers include a characteristic front page image at the top as a standard (see Wisconsin State Journal, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune), that's what made me think it might be permissible to include such images in some cases. I'm not completely sure the Wisconsin State Journal does indeed have a copyright on this image. This entire area seems to be a rat's nest, but my understanding is that in order to assert copyright in this situation, the paper has to have asserted it in the paper on the day of publication. I searched the microfilm at the Wisconsin Historical Society rigorously and could't find such an assertion in the paper on that day. In any event, I argue that the image in question adds materially to understanding the issue at hand, which is the full-throated support this paper gave to McCarthy throughout his political career. They did not matter-of-factly endorse the man, they were virtually part of his campaign. This is the point the image makes and that a textual explanation will make less well. MikeB17 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates NFCC#1: as mainly text, it is replaceable by mere descriptive text, quotes, or paraphrasing. The image itself is not the subject of commentary, even if the information conveyed is. "The newspaper endorsed McCarthy." No need to bend copyright. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the deal, it would be good to see an explanation of why it's the norm for articles on newspapers to have a random front page image at the top purely as a matter of decoration (see Wisconsin State Journal, The Sacramento Bee, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). -- MikeB17 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: relisted on 2019 January 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna - another suitcase in another hall.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:7 Gold.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ElSaxo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

replaced by vector version at File:7 Gold logo.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABN AMRO.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CoolKid1993 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:ABN-AMRO Logo new colors.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: ABN-AMRO changed their colors or the logo was never correct? Might be worth moving it over to Commons for historic reference and clearly tagged as being the old logo of the bank between .... and ..... What do you think? Multichill (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: Seems to me that they're the same logo, the "new colors" logo was uploaded before the local one here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Achelous and Hercules (1947) by Thomas Hart Benton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid license tag, the work is published after 1924. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: relisted on 2019 January 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vat69.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.