if there's a heavy preference for not having people, why were the replacements kept by the original editors? (why did they stick). Does Wikipedia have a polic

if there's a heavy preference for not having people, why were the replacements kept by the original editors? (why did they stick). Does Wikipedia have a policy on logos in photos in general? There is a ton of stuff companies could do that include their brand in an incidental way. Here is the article on kidney stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease imagine a medical supply company took an objectively much better photo but had its logo in tiny letters somewhere on the tape measure or a beaker or something. seems to me a fair trade, it's pretty hard to take stunning photos and there are lots of subjects that don't have it. as long as it's just a few pixels and passes a normal human filter (it's better than what it replaced) I am just not seeing the huge harm. if the after picture was worse, it should get shown in this outrage article.