Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

F-GZCP.jpg

File:F-GZCP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evercat (notify | contribs).

There are other free images of an Air France A330 on Commons which are similar to F-GZCP. While I understand that F-GZCP is "lost" when photos of it is replaceable (Anyone may have photos of it yet to be published or someone could ask an author to release a photo under a free license). Bidgee (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that, while a freely licensed replacement would be good, this file's rationale for fair use is relatively sound. The file should be deleted, but ONLY if/once a freely licensed replacement is produced. Otherwise, I think it should stay. Mattpat (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no differences to F-GZCN and F-GZCP (Other then the registration on both aircraft). Just to have a photo so it shows the registration is like having a photo of a unfree photo of a car just because of it's registration plate yet there is a free image of the same model car which can easily replace it. Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pefectly acceptable to use a photo of the actual aircraft involved. There is a valid fair-use rationale for the said use. Photo is irreplaceable in the sense that it cannot be recreated. If a free-use image is released, then naturally it would be used instead, even if a poorer quality image. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Qantas Flight 72 article doesn't use the aircraft that was involved with it's incident but uses the same model aircraft in Qantas colours, the same goes for Japan Airlines Flight 446, Colgan Air Flight 3407, Comair Flight 191 and Britannia Airways Flight 226A. Also the registered F-GZCP aircraft would still have replaceable images even if the aircraft has been lost but it still doesn't stop anyone with a photograph of the aircraft to freely license it but we can use an aircraft with a different registration with a free license as it's the same model, same look, same livery and same aircraft. Bidgee (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not the same aircraft! If you want to play it that way, BOAC Flight 712 uses two images of the actual aircraft. Both are used under fair use rationales. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? They are similar, same model, same livery and free. BOAC Flight 712 is of the incident/accident and I wouldn't see the problem if fair-use images of the remains of F-GZCP were included in the article but having an unfree image of the aircraft itself pre the incident/accident shouldn't be uploaded or used since the similar F-GZCN can easily show what F-GZCP was like only thing thats not the same is the rego and can still be replaced as all you need to do is find someone willing to freely license an image of F-GZCP. Bidgee (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment
    (free use same aircraft) you could say the same thing about dead people, but it's the rationale used for dead people images.
    
    (identical aircraft) if you don't have the exact aircraft, then ofcourse you'd be using a most similar photo as possible.
    
    70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference with a aircraft and people. People change in looks (greatly change) over time were as aircraft's don't (Unless they change livery but thats all that changes). There is a free image on commons of an A330 in Air France livery on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why that would matter for people, since various biography articles have various photos of people at various ages, which many are not all that similar to their age at death. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    
    and can still be replaced as all you need to do is find someone willing to freely As I said, your argument equally applies to people. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is the image of the plane that the article refers to. You don't need more explanation than that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What additional useful information does the user extract if we use a photo of F-GZCP instead of another Air France Airbus A330? None, except for the registration number. Remember people, we are an encyclopedia, photos (especially fair-use ones) should be used only when they have something significant information-wise to add to the article. Additionally, if the user wants to see the actual plane for whatever reason, the external links provide a variety of photos. --Ferengi (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, and the value to the readers of articles is significantly increased by addition of topical and relevant illustrations (photographs, diagrams, etc). Photos and illustrations should be used everywhere, because they focus reader attention and increase the percentage of the text that they read and remember. Pages with photos or other illustrations are statistically seen as higher quality and more fun to read in readability studies. The objection that we should only use them "when appropriate" is just wrong - they're always appropriate, they always add something significant information-wise, because that's how human beings process the articles (or pages on books, etc). We limit fair use images per policy to those which are significant and notable, but using images is always the right thing to do (if we can). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So NFCC #8 can be removed then? Perhaps you should propose this? The fact it exists though would seem to be a suggestion that the community doesn't consider unfree images to be appropriate in absolutely any circumstances. Adambro (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC #8 should remain and be enforced exactly as it has been in the past. Which I have done repeatedly and will be perfectly happy to do going forwards - I tag and delete unfree images as appropriate, or supply rationales where their use is inappropriate. Where we disagree is where this image falls under NFCC #8. NFCC#8 has never in the past been used to attempt to justify replacing a nonfree image of the article subject with a free image of a similar object. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The mere fact that this is a photograph of the plane involved in the accident makes its inclusion credible. – Zntrip 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Other free photos can display a A330 in Air France livey, Only difference is the rego. If it had of been a photo the aircraft in trouble or the remains of the aircraft would suit fair-use but this image is replaceable even with it being lost (Please read my comments above). Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Japan Airlines Flight 123, Helios Airways Flight 522, American Airlines Flight 96, Korean Air Lines Flight 902, and a host of other incidents make do with CGI Renderings, so I fail to see how using a non-free-use image can be used when their are alternative methods. Also, is it that hard to go to airliners.net and ask photographers to submit pictures? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me augment my arguments above by quoting some policy: this image fails criterion 8 of WP:NFCC: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Can't see how that is not satisfied with a free image of an Air France Airbus A330. As such it could even had been submitted for speedy deletion per WP:RAT#Speedy deletion and WP:CSD#I7. --Ferengi (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few comments: I do not believe that we can claim fair use in this case; Specifically:
- "(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"" — the use of an image of the same plane type achieves this, there is no visual difference between the two at resolutions appropriate for fair-use (as in you cannot see the registration anyway).
- "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" — the claimed fair-use image has potential commercial use by the original author
- "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" — the use of the actual plane image vs one of the same types would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
- There are many existing images currently under non-free licences or unpublished that can be released by the photographer under open licences. Thanks/wangi (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are not infringing the photographers commercial value of the image. They published it on Flickr. It's already up there [1], under CC-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic. Our reuse here does not affect the commercial value or ability to resell. Anything that photographers CC-anything publish on Flickr is pretty well past the "dilluting commercial value" step relative to use on Wikipedia.
  - The image is significant because it is of the actual crash plane. Most readers not being able to tell the difference is an excuse, not a viable challenge to the significance of the actual crash aircraft being in the image. The WP:FAIR policy in no place has an exception "But you can't use fair use if normal people wouldn't be able to tell the difference". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would suggest you read point 8 of that policy: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Not exactly "you can't use fair use if normal people wouldn't be able to tell the difference" but certainly very relevant to this discussion. See also my other recent comments. Adambro (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An image of a 99% identical plane, in the correct colours, exists on a free license. Therefore, using this non-free version clearly fails the NFCC. And this deletion debate is moot anyway, because as of the time of this comment, the image is not used in any article, so it is eligible for speedy deletion as unused non-free media (CSD F5). If the supporters do not build consensus for its use on the article talk page and get it inclued in the article, a bot will come along and legitimately tag this for deletion anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To have a photo of the exact plane where the only difference from other aircraft of which freely licensed photos are available or can easily be created is the small letters painted on the side isn't justifiable. It doesn't add significantly to a reader's understanding of the subject, in fact, it doesn't add anything at all. It also remains feasible that a freely licensed image of this exact aircraft will be located and as such I think it is too early to claim that isn't possible, especially where the benefit to readers in using an image of the exact plane is negligible. Adambro (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 and probably #1, per MickMacNee. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a free use image of the actual aircraft is available from Commons. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point that one out? What's the filename? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots has said he was mistaken. Adambro (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes no sense to have a photo of a standin when a photo of the actual plane is available under a mostly-free license. Until another photo of the actual plane can be found, this one is valid, as it's connected to a historical event. If there were no free-use pictures of a person involved in a major news story, would you put a picture of someone else in the article because they mostly look like the same person? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a rubbish analogy. You are not talking about some random other person, you are talking about their identical twin, wearing identical clothes no less. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable because it's that particular plane that crashed, not a random other A330. It's significant for the same reason. It's license is almost completely Wikipedia compatible anyways. (note for closing admin - I restored after an earlier speedy deletion which was out of process)

Regarding the twins analogy - we do not freely interchange images of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. They're different. This aircraft which crashed is different than other A330s. That the average reader cannot tell the difference does not mean that the images of the actual crash airplane are not notable for being of that specific plane. We can illustrate the article with any A330 image, yes, but the argument that we MUST NOT use this one and that it is not notable for being of the specific crash plane is specious. It's notable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying that this particular aircraft is notable. We have an entire article dedicated to its last flight and it is currently presumably sitting in bits on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. Whether it is notable isn't the question in my view. The main point is that it simply doesn't significantly improve a reader's understanding to show them a photo of the exact plane since the only difference from a freely licensed image is the small letters painted on the side. If it doesn't improve a reader's understanding we can't justify using an unfree image. It is this most fundamental point which you seem to fail to consider. Your suggestion that the licence is almost free is irrelevant. For WMF purposes there are two situations, freely licensed or unfree. To use the latter needs a solid fair use rationale, regardless of whether it is "almost completely Wikipedia compatible". Adambro (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel reinterpretation of NFCC#8 which has not been supported before, and is not supported by the WMF board policy statement from which WP:FAIR was derived nor by prior case history on english Wikipedia.

The article isn't on "The A330" in the generic sense. It's about the unfortunate end of F-GZCP. We're not trying to show readers "this is what an A330 looks like". The specific aircraft which crashed is entirely relevant to the value of the illustration. We have plenty of precedent that images of things now destroyed or moments lost in history are perfectly valid fair use exceptions and justifications - we can't send someone back in time to photograph the plane before its crash, the world only has available what was taken before a few days ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you consider my suggestion that we comply with NFCC#8 which says fair use can only be used where it significantly improves a reader's understanding is a "novel reinterpretation". How should I interpret this? How does this image significantly improve a reader's understanding? Adambro (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image does comply with NFCC#8. We've always interpreted NFCC#8 in a way which is entirely inclusive of this image. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? If by "we" you refer to the community in general, why hasn't NFCC#8 been removed since you seem to be endorsing completely ignoring it. Adambro (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Georgewilliamherbert is a blatant disregard of fair-use policy. Said policy does not examine notability but other factors which have been analyzed in depth by others and me higher up in this discussion. Also the people analogy is ludicrous at best. People have personalities, feelings, souls, that differentiate them from any other person, even their clone. Comparing an inaminate object to a person defies explanation. --Ferengi (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in Wikipedia for many years, and I was quite involved in the policy debates which led to the Board's fair-use policy statement and the current version of WP:FAIR. To say that my position is blatant disregard of policy I helped write is slightly hard to believe.

We've been here before. This is not the way NFCC#8 has been interpreted before. If you all want to change NFCC#8 to support this interpretation, that's fine - take it to the talk page on NFCC. Policy as it stands now, and has stood for the last 2 plus years, supports keeping this image. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be really interested in seeing a precedent example like this where a non free image has been used instead of a suitable free alternative, of something so obviously similar as to be near identical. The image is absolutely there to illustrate the type of aircraft lost in an accurate setting, it is not there to put across some metaphysical point that this is a photograph of the actual piece of machinery that no longer exists. And in actual fact, the low resolution fair use image is actually worse for illustration purposes - you cannot even make out the registration on the image with leaving Wikipedia, so from that POV, it is utterly useless, indistinguishable as it is from any other image of an aircraft in that production run and in the correct Air France livery. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with your phrasing the problem. The image is absolutely there to illustrate the aircraft lost in an accurate setting. A generic A330 is not as notable or applicable - because it's not the same plane. Whether random readers can tell or not is not the point and not relevant - substituting images of something else on articles, rather than the article subject, in an attempt to minimize use of fair-use images, has not been policy or precedent in the past. Where the object or event that is the article subject is notable, images of the specific object are appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised that I have to explain that to an experienced administrator but here it goes: NFCC#8 examines what the image has to offer information wise. The best possible case would be to have photos of the plane during or after the accident, excellent example of which is BOAC Flight 712, where it is obvious that fair use is justified. Barring such photos, a generic photo of the plane, at a moment unrelated to the accident, can only offer information as to what an Airbus A330-200 in Air France livery, with the letters F-GZCP barely discernible on the fuselage, looks like. A free photo of the same plane model in identical livery offers virtually the same amount of information, thus validating deletion of photo in question per NFCC#8. --Ferengi (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing NFCC unless it can be demonstrated from the photo that any substantial differences to the plane in this particular photo from any other Air France A330 is the cause of the crash. (e.g. missing or damaged exterior) - Mailer Diablo 19:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most appropriate photo considering the usage. Alaney2k (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothictheatre.jpg

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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gothictheatre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maliciousactivity (notify | contribs).

While there aren't any apparent problems with this image itself, the uploader has uploaded many images to Commons that plainly aren't self-created: see File:Redrockslogo.jpg and File:Ogdentheater1919.jpg for examples. With such demonstrations of bad faith, no reason to AGF and expect that the nominator really took this photo himself/herself. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered the picture at this website. Speedy deleted as a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2009 (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.

Eldad Regev player card.jpg

File:Eldad Regev player card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NYC2TLV (notify | contribs).

derivtive work. Uploader is not copyright holder Rettetast (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sands Bethlehem.jpg

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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sands Bethlehem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Phillies1fan777 (notify | contribs).

Copyvio crop of [2] – Quadell ^(talk) 14:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (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.

Martin Tower.jpg

File:Martin Tower.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Phillies1fan777 (notify | contribs).

Probable copyvio. On the same day he uploaded File:Venetain Macao.jpg and the Sands photo above, both of which were unambiguous copyvios, both of which he claim PD-release, just like this one. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem graffiti.jpg

File:Bethlehem graffiti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Phillies1fan777 (notify | contribs).

This may be the author's own creation, or it may be a copyvio. It's just a mediocre photo of graffiti, though. There are many better photos that are not from users with a history of copyvio problems. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touch my hand.JPG

File:Touch my hand.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alexander.hugh.george (notify | contribs).

The source provided for the image is [3], which is a website to provide album/single covers of albums/singles that do not have covers. Since this is not an official single cover, it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muskoka Muskoka.jpg

File:Muskoka Muskoka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcbon (notify | contribs).

Muskoka-Magazine.jpg Marcbon (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]