Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9

File:Wilmalaan.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilmalaan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:{{{Uploader}}}#File:Wilmalaan.jpg listed for deletion|{{{Uploader}}}]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:{{{Uploader}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/{{{Uploader}}}|contribs]] | [[Special:ListFiles/{{{Uploader}}}|uploads]] | [[Special:Log/upload/{{{Uploader}}}|upload log]]).

{{{Reason}}} not used - 213.46.50.15 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Jenny Romatowski.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 all of living individuals, no consensus on those of non-living individuals. — ξ ^xplicit

Extended content

Discussion

Non-free images of baseball cards used to illustrate the articles about the baseball players, some of whom are living persons; some of these images have high resolution. They all violate WP:NFCC#2, the images of living persons also violate WP:NFCC#1, and the high-resolution ones also violate WP:NFCC#3b. See also examples of unacceptable use of non-free images, items 1 ("Pictures of people still alive…") and 8 ("A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds"). —Bkell (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The living people are an obvious delete. There is no reason to have copyrighted images for living people. The deceased were all professional athletes during the middle of this past century. Images should be available through fans and relatives. The fact that they were a novelty to many fans since they were female ballplayers should only increase the chances that there are fan photos available. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ones of living people. No judgement on the others. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones of deceased people in the absence of anything stronger than speculative suppositions that free substitutes might be available. E.g. the one that showed up on my watchlist, File:Alva Jo Fischer.jpg, appears to be both low-resolution and to have a valid non-free usage rationale, and I imagine that others in this group are similar, so they should not be indiscriminately deleted. If and when free substitutes become available, we can delete them individually. The ones of people who are still living should be deleted now, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that, for the images of deceased people, the reason for deletion I gave above was not "speculative suppositions that free substitutes might be available" but a violation of WP:NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities. It has been longstanding practice to disallow non-free images from press agencies for this reason (see item 7 of the examples of unacceptable use of non-free images), and it seems to me that baseball cards are a similar case, since the "original market role" of baseball cards is to sell photographs of baseball players. —Bkell (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all:

WP:NFCC#1: Free photos of living people can be created.
WP:NFCC#2: WP:NFCC#2 says that you shouldn't use the images in a way which is detrimental to commercial use of a work, but basically it boils down to not using a whole work, since copies of a whole work usually is what a company would sell. For example, if you use a single frame from a copyrighted film, you don't affect the commercial use of the film, but if you distribute a copy of the entire film, you do affect the commercial use of the film. Similarly, if you use a Getty photo, you use the entire work (and thus affect the commercial use of the work), but if you crop out a single eye from a group photo, you don't affect the commercial use of the whole photo. In these cases, Wikipedia uses a full copy of the works (the entire cards), so I would say that we have a WP:NFCC#2 violation in the same way as in the Getty case.
WP:NFCC#3b: This one says that we should only use a small part of a work. However, we are in fact using the entire works, so the images also fail WP:NFCC#3b. In fact, you could say that WP:NFCC#2 basically is a special case of WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the living, keep the dead. Baseball cards have never been sold for the purpose of selling photographs: they started as a method of selling chewing gum, and they've now become a method of selling themselves as collectibles. Who's going to buy a digital image of even the rarest baseball card? We may have bad claims of fair use for some of the dead players, but let's keep all of them, whether good or bad, and have a renomination for any bad ones immediately upon the closure of this one: there are just too many of them right now to permit a reasonable discussion of individual images. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the living, keep the dead. Agreed with Nyttend, commercial opportunities cannot be compromised by a couple of low-resolution images.--Darius (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2012 (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.

File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image is not discussed in article. It does not prove the assertion that the topic has gone "viral". Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Here is a revision of the article which included the image. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 8. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:28, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Degreesymbol 2.png

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 ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Degreesymbol.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Louis A. McCall, Sr.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid PD tag. This must be considered a non-free file. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions are slightly off from Commons version (commons:File:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.jpg), but for all intents and purposes this is a scaled down version of that image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:48, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Southwest.com Takeoff Logo.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 01:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vector version of the same file already exists at Southwest Airlines Logo.svg JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vector image is not nearly the same, i.e. it doesn't have southwest.com and it is glossy which is misleading. The real logo on request for deletion is 100% correct and 100% needed as this is how most of America and the world identify Southwest Airlines. This logo is very imperative for this article and it would be a catastrophe without it or with that completely wrong logo someone attempted to make that is 100% wrong. Kairportflier (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we clearly need this. How do you close this discussion? Kairportflier (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, an administrator will close the discussion after a week or later. This discussion was started on 9 September, so unless speedily closed, it would normally not be closed until tomorrow at the earliest. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2012 (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.

File:Sss.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo which shadows Commons. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Flag of Enga.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use: replaceable by shadowed Commons file. Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Girls Generation 2012.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussions:

This is a local version of File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg, uploaded supposedly to comply with WP:IFN. However, I see nothing on there prohibiting non-English characters. Even worse, if IFN were to actually ban non-English characters, then we would have to keep a local copy of every Commons file with a non-English name, which clearly subverts the goal of Commons to be a repository that every Wikimedia project can use with only one copy of each file. Now are we going to propose that Commons ban non-English names? I think not. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as G4 Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 2#File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the ANI report occurred after this FfD, so G4 is not valid here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that WP:IFN only talks about Wikipedia file names. A file on Commons is not a Wikipedia file, so I don't see why Commons files would have to comply with that policy. Anyway, if someone doesn't like a particular Commons file name, this can easily be fixed using a redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (updated vote with rationale below) WP:IFN states that a title name be "descriptive or at least readable", and Korean is not readable on the English Wikipedia. The creation of this local copy was necessary prior to its becoming a Featured Article, and such an action was recommended by a Commons admin (see dif). —Eustress ^talk 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline doesn't say for whom it should be readable. Korean is readable for a lot of people. And then again, the guideline only talks about files hosted on Wikipedia. It doesn't even mention file names for files hosted on other projects. Besides, if you want to be able to use an English file name, all you need is a redirect, which was pointed out in the previous discussion. Also, why was this file restored without bringing it to WP:DRV? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is consistency. If we do this for this particular one, then we will have to do it for every file in a non-Latin script. This is clearly not what Wikimedia Commons was designed for. Since WP:IFN does not state clearly what "descriptive or at least readable" means, we must interpret it to mean what makes the most sense, i.e. not having to keep a local copy of all foreign-named files. If you want to change IFN, then propose it. Now regarding "The creation of this local copy was necessary prior to its becoming a Featured Article [sic]" - says who? I do not see any request from one of the FPC voters other than yourself. "Such an action was recommended by a Commons admin" - that is simply not true. What Techman224 said was, well, if you're really going to do that, go ahead. He did not particularly recommend it. And again, what is wrong with having a redirect? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect will serve the same purpose. —howcheng {chat} 23:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't make a redirect a Featured Picture. Hence, I believe an enwp copy was and is necessary. —Eustress ^talk 13:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be so, but still you haven't given any evidence that IFN supports this. When in doubt, we should err on the safe side - in terms of interpreting policy, this means not taking it to mean anything that it does not literally say. There is simply no consensus for your claim; as I repeat, you were the only one at FPC who thought that the English name was necessary. If all the Latin-alphabet Wikipedias had a policy of no non-Latin characters, this would result in a bajillion different copies of the same featured picture. Unless you can get Commons to implement a policy of no non-Latin characters in featured pictures, it would be silly to make the same rule for Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement that FPs must use Latin characters in the filename. Because the two images are identical, we can just transfer the FP tag to the other image. Presto, problem solved. —howcheng {chat} 16:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That sounds reasonable, but it would be nice if a solution were spelled out more clearly somewhere (either at FPC or IFN) because the issue will inevitably resurface, and I read IFN to mean one thing, King of Hearts (KOH) another -- and as I said earlier, the current solution was suggested by a Commons admin. Regarding the immediate issue, if the FP status can at least be transferred, that would be appreciated. Regarding the need for a more clear guideline, is KOH or someone else willing to take the lead? —Eustress ^talk 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done: Wikipedia talk:File names#RfC: Filenames in non-Latin scripts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't you use a redirect on Commons ? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; redundant to a Commons image, and the Commons image can be tagged with the FP stuff easily. An attempt to force English-language titles on images is a great example of opposing Commons' purpose as a multilingual site, and an attempt to create English-language titles here for images entitled in other languages is an attack at the basic idea of a shared repository. Free images on Commons should never be separately uploaded here except for temporary purposes; that's why we have an F8 criterion for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create redirect / transfer Featured Picture status to original Per conversation above —Eustress ^talk 16:38, 12 September 2012 (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.

File:Paul3.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 as F1 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2012 (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.

File:Paulie.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2012 (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.