Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26

File:DFB-Pokal logo 2001.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 ⚡ 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo currently being used in 2001–02 DFB-Pokal and 2002–03 DFB-Pokal. File was also being used in 2009–10 DFB-Pokal, 2008–09 DFB-Pokal, 2007–08 DFB-Pokal, 2006–07 DFB-Pokal, 2005–06 DFB-Pokal and 2004–05 DFB-Pokal, but was removed because it lacked a the separate specific non-free use rationales required non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c and instead was provide with a single group-type rationale for "DFB-Polka" articles. A seperate specific non-fre euse ratioanle was provided for DFB-Pokal, but the lfile was not be used there.

Using a logo such a this in multiple season articles about a reoccuring event is not really allowed per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI and group-type rationales are not allowed per NFCC#10c, so the file was removed from all of the individual season articles except "2001-02 DFB-Porkal". If the name of the file accurately reflects when the logo was created, then using it the 2001-2002 season article could possibly be allowed since this was the first occurrence where the logo was used; use in the subsequent season articles, however, is typically not allowed and logos specific to those particluar seasons should be used instead. Even if such season specific logos do not exist, the default is not to automatically use the same logo on all the individual season articles.

The logo was re-added to "2002–03 DFB-Pokal" and a corresponding rationale was provided for that use; moreover, rationales were also provided for the other season articles, but the files have not yet been re-addedf to those article. If the non-free use of this logo is to be justified, then it could only really be done for the main part article about the cup itslelf as a "former" logo (if the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary) and perhaps in main infobox of the article about the season when the logo was first used. In all of the other articles, non-fee use should not be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2017 (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:Jamie Clayton as Nomi Marks.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 ⚡ 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much replaceable given she's still alive and active (this is only used on her BLP, not on a character page); insufficient FUR on image page. Nik thestunned 12:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a promotional still from a copyrighted television series. I don't think it's very replaceable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. No reason for a non-free iamge to be used in a BLP about the actress since a freely licensed equivalent image could possibly created or found. This should have been tagged for speedy deletion with {{rfu}} since the consensus against this type of non-free use is quite clear. The only way this could be used as non-free would be if it were used on a stand-alone article about the character. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that if a free alternative image of an actor can exist then fair-use images are immediately deleted. But I assumed that if the image used comes from one of their films/shows then it is acceppable. I noticed this being done with Sandra Peabody; both images used there are screenshots from her movies and have been up there for quite some time without any trouble. Is that also not considere acceptable? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED are not valid justifications for non-free use because the other file(s) may be being used in a manner that is acceptable or simply have not been noticed by anyone so far. This is a case of the latter since the non-free use of those two files is clearly not justified (in my opinion). So, I have tagged them for speedy deletion. FWIW, there are over 500,000 non-free files being used on Wikipedia and more are being added each day; therefore, a questionable non-free image, like a questionable article, can go quite some time before its noticed. It's a good idea not to assume that since a particular file is being used a certain way that all similar files are also OK to be used in such a way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2017 (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:WaterRace ingame 1.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 ⚡ 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is claimed to be non-free and does not have a fair use rationale for its use on WaterRace. However, the game's source code was apparently released with a GPL license in 2003. My question is does that license extend to image assets? If so, the image should be relicensed as a derivative of a freely-licensed work. clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 26 May 2017 (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:The company car.jpeg

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 ⚡ 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No author and incorrect license. Sreejith K (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image should have been deleted ages ago per WP:F4. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 26 May 2017 (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:TrumpOrb.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: keep. ℯ xplicit 04:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this request on my talk page by Herostratus, I'm going to bring this here as opposed to the delayed speedy deletion as it is quite contentious and more input would be appreciated.

Original WP:F7 rationale placed by Ceosad was:

There exists a free equivalent. Due to that, the image fails WP:NFCCP and WP:F7 criterias. File:President Trump's Trip Abroad (34031496153).jpg is an image that does not differ significantly from this one, and thus is a perfectly fine replacement.

Original F7 dispute placed by Herostratus was:

Well I mean of course its not replaceable. The entire article is about that exact precise photograph, along with what followed from the publication of that photograph, including the fact of that exact precise photograph being widely disseminated on worldwide social media.

Yes there were (apparently) United States government cameramen at that event where this photograph was taken (and photos taken by them are public domain). But the article is not about that event (except peripherally), it is about that particular photograph. Someone did add a public-domain photo of the event to the article, and fine. But it's a completely different photograph from a completely different angle and is not the photograph that became famous and is the subject of the article, and because that photograph is quite different it would be highly misleading and puzzling to imply to readers that it is.

Even if (unlikely) a somewhat similar photograph were obtainable, that would not be the same photograph that was "tweeted round the world". And if we have no photograph... well it makes the article much less clear, and in an article that is (mostly) about a photograph you ought to be able show the photo. N.B. the article contains text such as "The photograph, which was described as odd,[13] creepy,[14] weird,[15] eerie,[16][17], or bizarre[18] by commentators, was quickly disseminated through social media...". so obviously an entirely different photograph would not illustrate that.

I have no opinion either way and am just facilitating this discussion per the request on my talk page. Majora (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question really revolves around whether the meme of the creepy/eerie/weird photo is notable enough to bother including in an encyclopedia at all. If it is, then this particular photograph is illustrative of it in a way that other angles are not, based on the "stage lighting" effect from this particular angle. bd2412 T 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. The article is at AfD right now and of course anyone is welcome to express an opinion or argument on that. That's a separate issue though. Herostratus (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working under the assumption that the article is OK, the file seems like it's textbook fair use. It is THE picture that went viral - no freely available file can convey that information. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this? This was a tagging that was just a mistake, and the tagging editor hasn't engaged, and it looks pretty open-and-shut to me, if you're ever going to allow any fair use images. Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come one now. You've been here long enough to know that that is not how it works. The FFD will run its course. --Majora (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

grumbles to self Herostratus (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been AfDed, so that could result in a deletion too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if it is deleted, but we don't jump the gun on these matters I don't think. If it's a merge it would probably still be used. Herostratus (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the specific image that is the subject of numerous sources of critical commentary, this falls under fair use. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that is the specific photo news agencies refer to, not the alternate version, and fair use applies to it The Verified Cactus 100% 15:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image itself has value. We can delete the article about it, instead. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 17:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, different issue. The article is under discussion, and maybe it will be merged into Riyadh Summit 2017 or elsewhere. If a paragraph or two is merged in, this image should probably go with it (and would be valid fair use in that article; the image description would have to be changed to reflect the new article). So I'd suggest that the image not be deleted even if the article is deleted. Herostratus (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the article has been kept, no consensus to delete. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, keep. The whole article (and incident) revolves around that precise pic. MaeseLeon (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The AfD nomination is closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keeping the article. Therefore, I'll say keep this image for now as the dark background and the glowing orb balance each other very well. The free image can illustrate the topic, but it fails to replace this non-free image. --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (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.