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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:RubinAndPeterson.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TropicAces (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low quality. Educational use that could be derived from this photo is questionable as figures depicted are indiscernible. BriefEdits (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:53, 4 July 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: keep. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:18, 3 October 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]

• Comment: The file that replaced this non-free one in the main infobox was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 3#File:New York Times, May 24, 2020 cover.jpg. The primary reasons I originally nominated this file for discussion were because it had been replaced in the main infobox by a "free equivalent" and had simply been moved to another part of the article in a manner which didn't seem to meet NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. If, however, the consensus is to reuse this file in main infobox for primary identification purposes now that the "PD" file which replaced it has been deleted, then this file can possibly be kept. However, there's no real need for two non-free images of the paper's front page to be used for primary identification purposes per WP:NFCC#3a; so, if this file isn't intended for use in the main infobox in favour of another more recent non-free image of the paper's front page, I think it will need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we can find 'a newer cover. I am relieved the corona cover of the NYT was deleted as non-free. This 15 November 2012 issue is more representative of how the paper looks like, although a more recent cover is more desirable. I don't accept that just the masthead is enough. A masthead doesn't give the feel of the newspaper. We need to have a full page displayed. See for example The Washington Post page or Los Angeles Times page or The Times of London page or Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung page or Paris Le Figaro page or La Stampa of Rome or La Nacion of Argentina or El Pais of Spain or Al Ahram of Egypt or The Times of India page. Need I go on or these examples are enough of how our newspaper pages generally look like? Incidentally the same treatment applies for print magazine covers in general. The crux of the matter is we need one cover page at least that can be put in infobox. My uploaded 15 November 2012 NYT page is conveniently available for use for now. Let it stay in infobox until a colleague cam provide a more recent cover from say June 2020. But in all cases, we do need one valid cover for use in infobox at least. Just a masthead won't do I'm afraid. werldwayd (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked BigrTex to restore the file and relist this discussion since the "PD" file was deleted. Non-free images, however, need to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7 to avoid being speedily deleted as orphaned non-free use per WP:F5; so, if you feel the file's non-free use is justified in the main infobox (which others seem to feel as well), then you should re-add the file to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will add it temporarily to the infobox. But this is just for now until a more recent cover can be found for the infobox then this version can be deleted. In any case I am ok for other colleagues continuing the discussion whether this usage is valid or not. If it is eventually cancelled, so be it. werldwayd (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone please explain to me why there should be any non-free image here at all? The New York Times existed before 1925. --B (talk) 11:13, 13 July 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: keep. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more justification: the image depicts three necessarily non-free artefacts of the episode: first, the cookie. Used to support the plot description e.g. "digital clones stored in an egg-shaped object" (which can't go into more detail because of WP:OR and MOS:TVPLOT, and such detail wouldn't give the same illustration as the real thing) and the production section, which discusses the origins and ideas behind the fictional tech. Second, Matt Trent. His clothing, facial expression, body language etc. all convey the character in a way that words can't. He is the subject of discussion in the plot and detailed discussion under production, where the development of Trent's character is given a full paragraph. Third, style of the second story's location, which as before is discussed in the plot and the production.
    To specifically counteract the argument Koavf gives in the nomination, I've addressed the educational value of the image, which is not "purely for decoration" because it depicts major aspects of the work in question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. There are scenes that I think from this episode that would be more interesting (what someone's "censored" vision looks like, for example, or what the view from "inside" the egg looked like) but that would need to have sourced discussion too. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some further critical description could be added to the article but the rationale is sound. This is a seminal moment of the episode. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one seems fair Daveout (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Bilorv's assessment. The entire episode revolves around Hamm's character and his interaction in that room with the egg. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MOS:TVIMAGE which states that screenshots may only be used in infoboxes "if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." I find no "explicit, sourced analytical commentary" about the scene in question.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:05, 15 July 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: keep. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secret Origin of Felicity Smoak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Autumnking2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for educational reasons, no critical commentary that greatly adds in understanding over text. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf - Keep The image is a promotional image released prior to the episode which also highlights a significant element of the episode, used as per Manual of Style guidelines at MOS:TVIMAGE. It illustrates a significant alternative appearance for a member of the main cast of the series, about whom the episode is focused on/titled for, which is referred to in the body of the article. AutumnKing (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep MOS:TVIMAGE does say that "if a promotional poster or image exists then it may be used" in the infobox of an episode article. The source of this 'promotional photo' seems a little questionable to me - did the copyright holder really release it as such, or was it a screenshot that was released. MOS:TVIMAGE says that screenshots "may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." I think this should also apply to promotional posters and images, and there is no "explicit, sourced analytical commentary" about this image.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the image is one of a series of official photos released by The CW/WB and published on 4 Nov 2014, prior to the episode airing on 5 Nov 2014, rather than a screenshot. In fact, the image appears to have been taken specifically for promotional purposes, as it does not appear as part of a scene in that episode (it is later used in a subsequent season as a reference back to the characters appearance). AutumnKing (talk) 15:14, 15 July 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: keep. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

See File talk:HeartcatchPreCure.png. The question is: If there is a non-free logo on X-TV Series. Can there also be one at List of X-TV Series episodes. I would say no, however Andy Dingley does not agree. What does the community think? Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The logo is right in the file. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That's a different article. Our scope for judging this should be at the article level, not the series.

This was tagged initially under WP:NFCC#8 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just think there is a reason that the articles in Category:Lists of American television series episodes have no non-free media in them.Jonteemil (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartCatch is a season of PreCure SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe this meets NFCC #8; the box art does little to nothing to increase readers' understanding of the list of episodes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take a look at each article of SpongeBob seasons, there are images of box arts. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There isn't one at List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes which really is the relevant Spongebob page.Jonteemil (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Look at the articles of each season. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I replaced the license, could be enough to stop the confusion. I«ias!:,,.:usbk»I 08:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus is 3 people voted Keep, 2 voted Comment, and 1 voted delete, so far. «Iias!:,,.:usbkI» 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are not many TV series that have article structures as complex as this one. Power Rangers comes close but in looking at a few articles, I found logos on seasons but no box art on either seasons or season episode articles. I am generally okay with 'the' DVD cover (of the season) in the infobox of a season article (expecting the episode list to be included or a single separate multi-season episode list). The idea that this 'season' has 16 DVD covers, 3 Blu-Ray covers, and a Movie cover makes the selection of the 15th DVD volume and the 2nd Blu-Ray volume quite arbitrary.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the license appears to be good now. Further discussion for image replacement can always be held at another venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 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: Reduce to single image. Rough consensus for the middle image, but the specifics can be worked out through normal editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assault on Martin Gugino.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Feoffer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is not necessary to have three frames of the non free video in question for wp per nfcc#3. There are plenty of reports that cover the details of the event and you can link to the video, to understand how most this the man being push down by the officers, only one frame is needed to establish context within article Masem (t) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three different events are illustrated, each of which requires a very small still frame to convey the totality of the situation and necessary context of what has become a major source of public controversy. While it is a simple matter for you and I to watch the video, we serve a global audience and not all users have access to broadband HD video. Feoffer (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Using something as illustration to help the reader identify the article, what's that?! HumanxAnthro (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce to a single screenshot/image per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFG and Masem. No need for a user created collage of three images if one can serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Which of the three should be used can be resolved through discussion, but the "best" image seems to be the middle one, which seems like a reasonable representative image of the three. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce to a single screenshot/image. This does not need three frames for a reader to understand and so contravenes WP:NFCC#3a. I concur with Marchjuly that the middle frame matches well with the commentary in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce to a single screenshot/image per Marchjuly. I would like to add that the collage does not compliment the article, but rather distracts from it due to its visual weight. It's an unusual argument, but I posit that reducing it to a single image will improve the reading experience even though the text will not be changed. Bowler the Carmine (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Add initial encounter. I reject using one frame as that would be even more contextless. Each image shows a different aspect of the encounter and I would argue for a forth showing his initial approach to the officers. Using only the middle image is highly misleading, giving the impression that the officers are trying to help him when in fact an officer is pulling another away from helping him. As for visual weight, yes, it has it. It is not a caricature of the situation; it is the situation and arguing it has too much weight is to reject the reality of what happened. 2604:4080:13d1:8060:6ddf:7107:145a:ce58 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSN Org Chart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rifleman 82 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Replaced by File:RSN_Structure.svg. Seloloving (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 04:54, 4 July 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. ƏXPLICIT 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:A teacher giving an Islamic lesson at Belle Vue Boys School, Bradford, UK.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FFaruq (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:An Islamic lesson given in Lavender Hill Girls School, London, UK.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FFaruq (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Both non-free images are claimed to b used for visual identification for the article on the Muslim Educational Trust. The use of two non-free images for this purpose fails WP:NFCC#3a. The images themselves are not logos, crests, seals or any sort of image that would be used by an organisation as an identifying mark. As such, they do not fulfill the purposes of visual identification as claimed and their usage also fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no sourced commentary about the images themselves. Whpq (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Neither of these two images are really representative of the subject of the article despite being claimed at such in their respective non-free use rationales. They are pretty generic shots of a classroom scene, nothing of which cannot be understand from text alone or possibly a free equivalent image taken of a similar scene. FWIW, there is a Muslim Education Trust UK which also seems to be a publisher (see here) which might be the same organization. If it is, then perhaps the logo being used on the books the organization publishes could be found and used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the article. The organization's official website is a dead link and there are no archived versions of it that I can find. I did, however, find this old archived website from October 2001 which might belong to the same organization. My guess is that the organization changed its website address (this appears to be the same oranization) at some point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 2 July 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westpac Express HSV-4676.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mdhennessey (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

On the official MSC website, the photo is credited as "courtesy of Austal, Ltd." This appears to indicate that it's not a government work. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the source page provided by the nominator makes it clear this photo did not originate with the US military. -- Whpq (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the claim of ((PD-USGov-Military-Army)) appears a bit iffy at best. The source website is claiming copyirght over its content and it doesn't appear to be an offical US Army/Navy website; so, unless it can be shown that the photo actually was taken by an employee of the US Government and didn't originate with the source website, then it can't be kept. As explained in WP:PD#US government works, official US government websites occassionally host files whose copyright is owned by others, and that appears to be the case per www.msc.navy.mil/annualreport/2002/perspective.htm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 2 July 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.