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⚡ 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Interstate 5 shutdown during May 2020 George Floyd protest.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bri (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We now have a free picture of protestors on the freeway (File:May 2020 Seattle protest ES 2.jpg) so I don't see how this can meet NFCC#1 or NFCC#8; the other image plus text should be able to convey adequately without a non-free image.

It's possible that the image is not copyrighted to begin with because it is an automated image without originality, but I'll let someone more knowledgeable weigh in on that. buidhe 01:45, 3 June 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  ★  Bigr Tex 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Relisted to 2020 July 1, per nominator's request.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werldwayd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File was being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of The New York Times, but was replaced with the free image File:New York Times, May 24, 2020 cover.jpg. This made the non-free file orphaned; so it was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. The uploader saw the tagging and re-added the file to The New York Times#Digital era, which de-orphaned the file, but created quite a few other WP:NFCCP issues that now need to be resolved.Using a non-free file for primary identification purposes at the top or in the main infobox is a different from using the same file within the body of the article and requires a completely different type of justification per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. There's not sourced critical commentary about this particular front page anywhere in the article which means that it's use seems more decorative than contextual and probably cannot be kept unless some more specific sourced commentary about this particular day's front page is found and added to support using the image. Moreover, even restoring the file to the infobox might now have issues with WP:FREER because there are a number of freely licensed images of the front in addition to the one currently used which could serve basically the same purpose as any non-free one used in the infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who added it back as I was the one who had originally uploaded the cover. I clearly pinpointed why I was doing the move here in my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_York_Times&diff=959420149&oldid=959410455 Quote: "The infobox now carries a cover which is not a representative of what NYT looks like but a one day novelty. Keep this cover as a more representative of what NYT looks like in general" Unquote... To reiterate my point: I find that the use of the current image of a plain page with listing of the dead of the Coronavirus pandemic is a highly unrepresentative depiction of The New York Times. We have picked an anomaly in design made for one day as actually representing what The New York Times newspaper generally looks like. It couldn't be further from the truth. It is a highly misleading in that regard. I suggest immediate reinstatement of File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg or better, a newer but representative version of the paper in the infobox as it actually looks like 364 days of the year rather than this "once in a lifetime" thing. The current depiction in the infobox could be used further down in the article possibly with a brief discussion of the special design of the paper on specific circumstances. But it has no place in the infobox as the cover of the NYT. Colleague User:Marchjuly provides a great solution for the whole dilemma and I quote: "There are a number of freely licensed images of the front in addition to the one currently used which could serve basically the same purpose as any non-free one used in the infobox". That's brilliant! Let's use one of those available images then and demote the present one in the infobox further down the article. werldwayd (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your reasons were for re-adding the image, you basically did so without updating the in non-free use rationale you provided when you uploaded the file. The way the file is being used now isn’t the same way it was used then and the rationale needs to reflect this new use. Moreover, I’m not sure it’s the individual stories that appear on a paper’s front page are what serve as primary identification. It’s the masthead which seems to identify the paper and thus it’s the masthead which serves as primary identification. The stories and the photos appearing on the front page change daily, but the masthead remains the same. The content appearing in the current infobox image may be a one time thing, but the same could be said about the front page for any issue of the paper has ever been published. The image you uploaded could be replaced by a similar image of the front page of today or tomorrow’s NYT with out any real loss of encyclopedic information, which makes the use of any non-free image a bit questionable, particularly when there are two free images (those were the images I was referring to in my original post, but I should’ve been more specific on that point) showing the masthead currently being used in the article.

If you feel that the current image is too much a “once in a lifetime” type of thing and contextually wrong for the infobox, then perhaps you should discuss that at Talk:The New York Times. Illegitimate Barrister is the editor who replaced the infobox image; so, perhaps he can clarify why. However, the way the non-free image is being used now doesn’t seem to meet the WP:NFCCP; if the consensus, turns out that’s it better to use this non-free or a more recent non-free in the main infobox (perhaps the front page underwent a major reworking since November 2012) instead of the current free one, then it should be moved back and the other one moved into the body of the article. Whether any non-free is still needed per WP:FREER now that an apparently free equivalent exists is not clear and is one of the things hopefully this FFD will resolve. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I have now posted a message on Talk:The New York Times exactly as you suggested. There are no responses as yet to my post, but I have serious reservations about what we presently have as an image on our NYT infobox. werldwayd (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A more detailed explanation is available at #File:New York Times, May 24, 2020 cover.jpg; essentially, this image does a better job of showing what NYT looks like than the current image, which is not free (the text-only deal does not apply when the text has unique creative expression and arrangement). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:49, 22 June 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sammy Corporation logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The logo of Sammy Corporation, a Japanese company, was uploaded in 2017 as non-free. The left portion of the logo consists of two simple shapes forming an "S" but doesn't look complex enough to the US courts' eyes. c:COM:TOO US has a gallery of logos whose designs do not suffice enough for copyright protection. On the other hand, c:COM:TOO Japan, while Japan doesn't rely on the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, was vague on how "creative" a work should be to guarantee copyright protection in that country. (Maybe I'm wrong about the Japanese law.) Either the image should be moved to Commons, or it should be re-labeled as "PD-ineligible-USonly". George Ho (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons. I think this falls under "geometric shapes" not "artistic appreciation". Wikiacc (¶) 23:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost forgot. If moved to Commons, then the previous revision(s), larger than the current one, should be undeleted and then moved. George Ho (talk) 23:40, 3 June 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: Resolved -FASTILY 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblem of Lahore.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maligbro1223 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

too high resolution for fair use 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DatBot has already reduced the resolution considerably. Wikiacc (¶) 22:42, 3 June 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  ★  Bigr Tex 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York Times, May 24, 2020 cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Illegitimate Barrister (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May not be public domain as a newspaper 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free See background materials on how the page was constructed. Creative choices were made in whom to include, the order and arrangement of names, and especially in the text excerpts for each person. I believe compilation copyright applies, at the very least. Wikiacc (¶) 22:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove or at least demote to a lower level. I have serious misgivings about choosing this particular cover of The New York Times in the infobox area. This is a one-off event, once in a lifetime rarity or novelty design, now presented as if NYT looks like this normally. It may be highly confusing to say the least for a person who would like to see what the newspaper looks like. I also share the serious concern that NYT picked certain names on an arbitrary basis and this raises many ethical issues as well. Did the paper get the permission of the involved victim's family, etc. To say the least, this particular "NYT corona virus cover" should not be in the infobox. We may create a section of "special designs of NYT" where this specific cover may be used as an illustration, but put in context alongside a text discussing NYT's depiction of a certain special circumstance or event. werldwayd (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Wikiacc. A fair-use version could be uploaded instead, but it seems editors prefer to use another front page for the infobox. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikiacc. Compilation copyright seems to apply here. — Goszei (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or demote per Wikiacc and Werldwayd. The descriptions for each person are, to me, expressions that go above the threshold of originality, especially since more than a few of them are based on opinion and not fact. I'd be more willing to go back to the 2012 NYT cover for the infobox to show what the page normally looks like. If special one-off covers are ever discussed, then maybe we can move it over there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or relicense as non-free The selection of names alone may or may not be copyrightable, but the descriptions with the names show the necessary modicum of creativity under Feist. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:09, 27 June 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: (non-admin closure) Out of scope. Files were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so any issues with them will need to be discussed and resolved on Wikimedia Commons. FFD is for discussing files uploaded locally to Wikipedia and thus its scope of application does not cover these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FC Balasa.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MagisterCorvus123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unencyclopedic, private photo

File:Protest în fața unei clădiri importante.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MagisterCorvus123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unencyclopedic, private photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.98.64.34 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 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⚡ 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Runthejewels.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by R2me2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not discussed critically or used for educational purposes, fairly similar to standard cover and the differences can be communicated via text. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. buidhe 22:46, 8 June 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.