Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 9

April 9

File:Culbertson Widow Home M2.jpg

Originally nominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 22#Derivative works of historical markers, however, when the multiple individual nominations were consolidated into a mass-nom, this file was inadvertently omitted. Original nomination was: "Derivative works of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content." SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for same reason:

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg

non-free image used simply for decoration - the purpose of use makes this clear. Image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't written the article yet; give me a chance for God sake. I uploaded the image to check positioning and whatnot. In the article, I'll specifically mention that image. Bertaut (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latin Music Legends Forever USPS Stamp 2011.jpg

These two additional images are included in this nomination for the same reason.
File:Mendez vs. Westminster USPS Stamp.jpg and File:Merengue USPS Stamp.jpg
Delete: these post-1978 USPS copyright stamps fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8 - non-free stamp image being used in non-stamp articles. In each instance prose could or does provide enough information that the use of a non-free image in the articles will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. There are even inline links to some stamp. There is overuse of non-free images in Rafael López (illustrator and artist) which is unacceptable. One non-free image showing the artist's work should be enough, so even deleting all three stamps will still leave two non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilustrating the artist that made the stamps article (Rafael López (illustrator and artist)) is a valid NFCC use (in contrast to using to illustrate their subjects, "merengue" or "Tito Puente, Carmen Miranda, Selena, Carlos Gardel, and Celia Cruz") ^walk victor falk^talk 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there's an argument for having too many of them, they should not be all deleted. Which ones to keep is an editorial decision that should be discussed at Talk:Rafael López (illustrator and artist). ^walk victor falk^talk 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- So they also fail WP:NFCC#3a for non-free overuse in the article about the artist. One way or another the stamps should go, so choose one stamp to keep and get rid of all other non-free images to comply with NFCC. Besides which none of the stamps have any critical commentary about any of the stamps which is necessary to pass NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sfs95.jpg

Composite of four non-free screenshots from a video game. Used in an image gallery in the video game article. No explanation why these particular four screenshots are needed. Heavy image over-use, with these four plus five other standalone screenshots in the same article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sfs95team.jpg

Non-free screenshot from a video game, used with the rationale that it shows the logos of certain football clubs. But the presence of "all the Italian club teams" is not something that's in need of visual illustration by means of their logos; can easily be covered by text alone; fails NFCC8. Uploader has been edit-warring removing semi-speedy tags four times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kb 1949 450.jpg

Copyright violation. Image was made after 1943 year, we can't use PD-Russia-2008 template. Dinamik (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg

Fails fair use rationale, similar to #8 at WP:NFC#UUI, an article about this incident would justify the image, not a general article on kissing CTJF83 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This RfD is a response to posting of a conflict of interest for the user, and an RfC for the user's edits, at Talk:Kiss#Kissing image placement. It's an obvious and wrongful misuse of the RfD board. Even if there is a legitimate rationale for deleting the image, the timing of this request is tantamount to gaming the system.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, I wouldn't have noticed this picture if you hadn't been so adamant about moving the gay kiss image. Either way, an image that fails NFCC fails it, whether it is brought up now or later, still fails. CTJF83 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epic fail!. Per Fair use rules, this image is used by the section "Contemporary practices", we live in contemporary times, definitely it can be replaced by free media. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love how they indicate the free alternative in the fair use rationale... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we might have an odd problem here: if the original photograph is copyrighted, and the graffiti was created as a derivative work from it and placed in the public space without authorization from the photograph's authors, is it actually legal for us to invoke F.o.P. on it? But if we decide to be not so anal about that and keep the mural, then I'd argue the point about the "iconicity" of the kissing for the Eastern Bloc mentality is served even better by the mural than by the original. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This picture is historically famous in and of itself, iconic for the Cold War: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ^walk victor falk^talk 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then create an article on it, then we can keep the pic. The point is, the fair-use rationale for Kiss doesn't cut it, the fair-use rationale for an article about these 2 kissing would cut it. CTJF83 11:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as pointed out below. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current use completely fails WP:NFCC#1. In a article about the "event", another discussion will be needed. --Damiens.rf 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this in the Erich Honnecker#In popular culture. (FUR: "This picture became an iconic symbol of the Cold War, of the relations between the URSS and its satellites and of Breznev-era gerontocracy in particular.") ^walk victor falk^talk 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F088809-0038, Berlin, East Side Gallery.jpg is free and basically does the job. CTJF83 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for the kiss article, but not for Honecker's. It could also be included in Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet satellite. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not suitable for the subject of kiss. The picture is iconic itself and the subject of great attention which would qualify for an article. ATM it is included at Erich Honecker as an irreplacable capture of the event under discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I didn't want to vote, but since most of the rationales so far seem to miss the point, IMO, I'll vote. The reference to kissing between men is mentioned in the article as a customary greeting in certain cultures. Who the men are is irrelevant, so the political rationales seem off topic. They could have been any two men anywhere. The irony is that the "gay kiss" (per the other image's description and User:Ctjf83's description of it) is not discussed anywhere, nor even implied. Obviously, the sexual orientation of a person is as unrelated to the purpose of a kiss (see article's section headings) as their race, height, hair color, profession, favorite sport, political leaning, or whether they have a job. A photo of two men kissing, (whether greeting or affectionate), wouldn't be called "two attorneys kissing," or "two mathematicians kissing," for instance. Their personal life is irrelevant. That's why User:Ctjf83's first caption, "gay kiss," changed to "tongue kiss," now something else, and calling those who move or remove the image either "homophobic" or "heterosexual," has twisted this debate away from the article itself. Men greeting each other with a kiss is relevant to the commentary; gays kissing is not. If User:Ctjf83 can add sourced material describing a "gay kiss" as unique in either methods or purposes, then he should do so to support his image. Otherwise the existing Breznev image is the only one of two men that appears relevant to the commentary. Changing the caption on such an obvious "gay kissing" photo does little. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you going off on a long unrelated tangent about other photos? The main point I made is this image could have been replaced with a free image on Kiss, because it only showed a kiss, and wasn't described in detail in the article. Now that it is on Erich Honecker, it has more reason to be kept, not sure enough to keep it over the free image File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F088809-0038, Berlin, East Side Gallery.jpg though. CTJF83 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion over which of the mural or the photograph ought to choose should take place at Talk:kiss. Regardless of the result, this image should be kept as it is in the Erich Honecker article and could also possibly be included in Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet satellite as I point above.^walk victor falk^talk 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Turkish Cypriot political rally in London, 1950s.jpg

Non-free historical photograph of a not particularly notable event, merely decorative use, not the object of commentary in the article, not needed to understand article; fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Hi, did I upload this image incorrectly? This event was extremely important as it was the rise of Turkish Cypriot demonstrations in the UK against the Cypriot atrocities. To call this event a form of decoration is shameful. WPC2011 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this particular demonstration was so important, why then is the article not telling us anything about it? Actually, neither the article nor the image page are currently telling us even as much as when exactly this demonstration was. If you don't even know the date, how can you claim it was an "extremely important" event? And even if the article did speak about it, the image doesn't seem to convey any particularly crucial piece of visual information that text couldn't also cover. If you simply want to inform the reader of the fact that this demonstration happened (or such demonstrations in general), you can do so easily with text alone; you don't need a non-free image for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event occurred in 1958 when the first wave of armed conflict between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot communities began. The demonstration was to bring to the British publics attention of the events and forceful movement of Turkish Cypriots to the enclaves. The reason why I never placed this information into the image page is because I did not know that I was meant to be so descriptive. WPC2011 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villagestreet.jpg

Orphaned, unidentified subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject is apparently a village called Levkotopos, Greece [6]. Consider move to Commons, together with the rest from this uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to commons per Fut.Perf. The fruits ones are nice. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashu 1.jpg

Orphaned, and as this appears to be a subject currently lacking notability, I see no reason to move this to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA 11333.png

Orphaned. Similar logo on Commons as File:Brooklyn Dodgers 1910-1913 logo.png, which sees two usages. I have no idea about the validity or historical use of this logo, but we're not using it. If it is actually a correct historic logo, let's move it to Commons with a better name. I was uncomfortable doing so without knowing any information behind it. If it's not an actual historic logo, let's get rid of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fogbuildingdude.jpg

Orphaned, low quality (low-res and out of focus). SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hull Hornets.JPG

Orphaned sports team photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & move to commons I have unorphaned it as I think it has a historical values as the Hull Hornets were founded in 2005 and this is a photo from 2006. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:On the Floor (video).jpg

Violates WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC mandates minimal use of copyrighted images. Two frames jammed into one file is two separate images, not one, and cannot be described as "minimal use". Having video images at all is extremely questionable under NFCC, and having two isn't acceptable. —Kww(talk) 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image in question portrays the concept of the video. One frame is not sufficient in this case. On top of that, the images are used in a way that will not replace the original recording. The use of this image in the song article is the best use of a screengrab I have ever seen; it describes how the image ties in to the commentary, something most screengrabs don't do. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might help your keep argument if you actually demonstrated how both images that have been sandwiched together individually meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I used two frames because I felt it was significant to portray the concepts in the video. It is Lopez's first video in 3 years. It has a clear concept and/or story. I felt that after constructing the video section two images were required to portray scenes from the video. Per WP:NFCC I considered this minimal and fair usuage. The two frames used are the two most prominent scenes of the video... the upper attracted much mention from the media and critics hence I felt it was necessary to show exactly how Lopez was dressed. The second frame shows Lopez dancing, an important part of her career and the song overall. I trawled through various articles and found that in all cased of multiple image use it was always two frames sandwiched together not shown separately as separate images. A regards for how two images sandwiched together meet the criteria of WP:NFCC i don't think it makes a difference whether they were sandwiched together or not... IMO both frames together put forward a strong argument for existing in the article. I believe its been properly attributed as two frames and I don't see an issue with this. However if it is an issue... I'll happily upload both frames as separate images though I will still argue that they both have a place in the article. The guideline appears to be contradictory as on the one had its very existance encourages readers to upload screenshots from the video, whilst GA reviews nearly always ask for an image from the video. Yet there is a strong opposition to the uploading of images unless they depict something words can't. Alas I've simply done what I've always been told and shown is acceptable. Pages like WP:NFCC just go to show how sometimes wikipedia can't even makes its own mind up when its own policies are open to interpretation. If a music video has multiple scenes what constitutes minimum usuage for screenshots? Compare something like Speechless (Ciara song) with something like S&M (song). S&M has multiple different scenes whereas Speechless has similar scenes and few of them thus how can minimum usuage mean the same thing for the two songs? I am aware that I've picked two songs as examples but they are songs that spring to mind where the music videos are completely differnet in composition and style. I'm trying to demonstrate that WP:NFCC will apply differently according to the specific music video / scenario in question. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The normal rationale for having these images at all is identification, and that doesn't require two images, just one. Can you show that both images pass all ten criteria of WP:NFCC, and that both are necessary?—Kww(talk) 04:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I think that both frames are required, I believe that's good enough. Like I demonstrated ... I believe there is rational for both images. I would now appreciate it Kev if you held fire and waited for others to comment. You've said your piece about why you think it should be deleted and I've commented why I think both frames should exist either as a single image or as two. I wouldn't have uploaded the image (frames) if I didn't think it passed WP:NFCC. I've put forward my comments as best I understand the policy. I've provided reasons why I believe both frames are necessary which is important in indentifying that the image increases user understanding of the subject matter at hand and conveys important information. I've nothing more to say on the matter tbh. If the image is deleted I won't argue. But I genuinly believe there is no infringment here. If its going to be massive issue I might concede that perhaps just the upper frame is more appropriate but judging by articles like Ride (Ciara song) there appears to be a disjointed approach to the application of WP:NFCC — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus washing disciple's feet sculpture in Beeville, TX IMG 0986.JPG

Orphaned, and most likely a derivative of a copyrighted statue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sparrow chick.jpg

Image is no longer on flickr, no way to verify the license ({{flickrreview}}). Was overwritten some years back, which I've undone [7]. Image was claimed by later uploader to be of the wrong species. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file is on Commons with upload information etc., so I think it should be deleted and this discussion moved there if needed. (This file also has the same name as a different one on Commons.) The author is a Commons user, so I'll ask him for confirmation if possible. —innotata 15:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]