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 File:D Ream-U R the Best Thing 1993.jpg, keep File:D Ream-U R the Best Thing 1994.jpg -FASTILY 05:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:D Ream-U R the Best Thing 1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:D Ream-U R the Best Thing 1994.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The original (1992) single release of "U R the Best Thing" wasn't successful; the 1993 and 1994 reissues were. (The cover art of the original (1992) release was deleted when no one contested the PROD tag.) However, the 1994 reissue (man crouching on a floor) performed better on charts than the 1993 one (two people under red light). Honestly, either reissue cover art is IMO more suitable than the original (1992) release cover art due to better chart performance.

If further success is more important to the song, then let's go for the 1994 reissue (man crouching on floor). On the other hand, the 1993 reissue (two people surrounded by red lighting) may be more suitable if earlier success is sufficient enough. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except 1994 reissue per nom and WP:NFCC#8. This reissue will be the most recognizable, as well. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 29 December 2020 (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. Wikiacc (¶) 04:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mastacraft3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arkzar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused personal image, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 01:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find the previous user's reason for de-PRODing insufficient; orphaned files that are useless should be deleted. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 29 December 2020 (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: Not PD. Converting to fair use would result in a textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Blasio Letter to VNY.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Passani (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the city government of New York are usually copyrighted. Wikiacc (¶) 04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public letters written by US officials are in the public domain. To add to that, the letter has obviously been provided as an acknowledgement to La Voce di New York and meant for public display. Passani (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public display is not the same thing as no copyright. Do you have a source for this claim? Wikiacc (¶) 05:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google will bring up plenty of references to how public letters by US government officials are in the public domain (here, for example). Passani (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are presenting implies federal level US government. Point 11 even states "The same is not necessarily true of letters written by state government employees or government employees in other countries." The article is not exhaustive and say "U.S. government" without stating it is the federal government, but the source really says something different from what you think it does. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You may argue that the page I quoted does not say what I claim it says, but it DOES NOT claim the contrary either. This requires more research that I intend to do. In the meantime, the image should NOT be deleted. Passani (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not in the public domain as claimed in the license tag (public letter) or by reason of this being a US government work. Works of of the federal government in the US is public domain. A letter written by Bill de Blasio in his capacity of mayor of New York is not a work of the federal government. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - the fact that Bill de Blasio is not a US government official is NOT evidence that the letter is not in the public domain. This requires more research. Passani (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1. State Government/ City level government are part of US Government. 2. Only document of Federal Government and direct subsidiary (e.g. NASA, US Army) are in public domain (correct me by stating US copyright law if i am wrong). 3. Can't assume something as public domain. You need proof such as law clause and/or DOB/Day of Death interpretation or other evidence, which clearly not applicate in this case. Matthew hk (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete (comment) - Still researching. Research on multiple levels. There is still space to claim Public Domain (albeit I'll hand it to those who argue that it is not as straightforward as citing copyright law when it comes to US states and city administrations), but even if there weren't, fair use can easily be demonstrated in this case. Passani (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated your vote above....so i boldly strike off the duplicate. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for legal advice. Here's my findings. It is correct that, as others argued, while public documents by US officials are PD, this does not automatically apply to documents by State officials or local administration officials, hence there is no support in copyright law for saying that this letter is PD. Having said this, Georgia vs. Public.Resource.org (Dec. 2019, which, to be clear is not the same case as here) seems to indicate that SCOTUS is going in the direction of considering work by State officials as PD. Here is the more interesting part though: in a case like this, there is a strong fair use argument, added to the fact that the chances that the author would object to publication are infinitesimal. Would the admins agree to keep the file if were I to change the metadata and claim fair use? I read what the WP:IMAGEPOL and it seems to me that this case would fall rather nicely in the non-free fair use admitted by WP. Passani (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this image as non-free content would require that it meet all of the non-free content criteria. Without any stated rationale, it's difficult to evaluate if it meets the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.". I also observe that the 10 policies in non-free content criteria are either met or easily "meetable" Passani (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2021 (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⚡ 07:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ftsalonga.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Badagnani (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low-quality GIF image that has no usage on enwiki, as this has been replaced with the pin overlay on an SVG map. If such a file is needed in future, it can be reproduced in higher quality using the SVG of New York state to extract Long Island. Lewis Cawte (Talk) 14:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - higher quality image can be found at File:Location map District of Columbia street.png. Orphaned and obselete. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How is a map of Washington, D.C. related to the nominated image? I don't see the connection. - Eureka Lott 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a low quality unused map. -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2020 (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⚡ 07:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airport PAPI example.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Akhristov (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, seems to be superseded by File:Comparison visual landing systems.svg, doesn't make much sense to move to Commons. Lewis Cawte (Talk) 15:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (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⚡ 07:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hkf logo1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ohconfucius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is exactly the same logo as File:Hkferry.png, a WP:NFC. One non-free fair use logo should use on one article, not upload twice (with different dimension) and use it on two articles. Matthew hk (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NVM. The logo at Hongkong and Yaumati Ferry was updated and replaced with the current logo and the aforementioned HKF logo now only used in Hong Kong Ferry article and the uploaded twice may be automatically resolved by unused nfc deletion. Matthew hk (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2020 (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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in depth. -FASTILY 05:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice Liddell in Alice - Madness Returns.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyxaros (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is used in Portrayals of Alice in Wonderland to illustrate one minor entry on a long list of portrayals. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. This version is clearly shown as different than other "portrayals". The game cover art was used before, which is the one that should be topic of discussion. nyxærös 08:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the material is sourced and this is essentially a list article. If one wants to see an image, there is a non-free one at the video game article. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can say the same for all the other articles. If one wants to see an image, one can click. This doesn't mean that we remove the image(s), does it? Sourced or not, it is already stated that this character is not based on the original illustration from the book, thus differs from most of the other versions. So the reader would want to see it. If you don't like it maybe you should remove the unsourced information, remove template:more citations needed and get rid of it completely. All I did was to replace a video game cover which was incorrectly used as a depiction of a character. nyxærös 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not an expression of my liking or disliking the image or the description of the character in the video game(s) in the article. This nomination is made because on of the non-free content criteria is not met. You state "We can say the same for all the other articles", but we are not discussing images in other articles,; we are discussing this specific image and its use in portrayals article. You also state "Sourced or not, it is already stated that this character is not based on the original illustration from the book, thus differs from most of the other versions" But that actually does make a difference. WP:NFCC#8 needs more than just some text. Contextual significance needs more than just unsourced commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2021 (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.