Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10

File:Kamarhati map.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted picture passed as user's own Veggies (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an unambiguous copyvio from Google maps -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2019 (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:Jay and silent bob strike back OST Cover.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor variations in the display of the same central promotional image do not justify the use of multiple nonfree images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2019 (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:Jennifer's Body CD Soundtrack.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Jennifer's Body#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. In addition, the soundtrack cover is really not all that different from File:Jennifers body ver2.jpg poster art being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox; so, the album cover art is also not needed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there were a separate article on the Jennifer's Body soundtrack album, there would be no discussion about the use of this image, as such images are normally included in album article infoboxes. The "Soundtrack" section of the Jennifer's Body article, which includes an album infobox, is a de facto separate article, so this is an obvious keep. I could spin it off right now, but it's better to keep the two together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel it is WP:NALBUM for a stand-alone article, then maybe it should be split of per WP:FILMSCORE since that guideline seems to suggest that separate articles in cases like this are fine. Moreover, just using {{Infobox album}} in and of itself is not really a justification for using a non-free image cover as explained on the template's documentation page. As for being a "de facto" article, I'm not sure it's so obvious given the criteria listed in NALBUM (other than perhaps #5). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A section in an article is not "a de facto separate article. This image is not displayed in accordance with its use rationale. Finally, this use violates the minimal use NFCC criterion, since the soundtrack cover and the main promotional feature the same nonfree promotional image, with minimal variation reflecting mostly the different physical dimensions of the products it is incorporated in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (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:Trillium cernuum 3.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-only license, sending to FFD to give uploader the opportunity to re-release it under a free license. FASTILY 06:10, 10 January 2019 (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:Sixlets.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: relisted on 2019 January 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sixlets.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Alfhausen.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2019 (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:Africa HIV-AIDS-colorscheme2 300px.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2019 (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:1976 Alternate US Pres Election.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2019 (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:2000 Washington gubernatorial election map.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2019 (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:Sporting activities and Governing Bodies recognised by the Sports Councils.pdf

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: speedy delete. F7 as requested Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A 5 page PDF is not a valid use for a NF images, where basically it is only there to show one line of data on page 5. A link to the original PDF on the web would be more suitable. Also the image size of over 4Mpixels per page is way in excess of the norm. I can reduce the page to 100,000 pixels and it's unreadable. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's to show that in 2011, Welsh Association of Sub Aqua Clubs was recognised by Sport UK as the Governing Body for Sub Aqua in Wales. A link to the original pdf on the web would indeed be more suitable and I would have linked to it, if it still existed. But it doesn't. Internet archive has a snapshot of the page, but not the actual document. So feel free to explain how we're going to perform that trick. All of this is clear from the article, its talk page and the FUR I added on the file page. Doesn't WP:BEFORE apply to FfD?
Finally, what would be the point of reducing the page size if it makes it unreadable? Surely the whole point of the document is for people to read it? --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that the pdf is text-based and is actually only 253 Kb (as anyone can see from the File page), not the many megabytes that it would be if converted to an image. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The web archive link does work if you click the link on the page to https://web.archive.org/web/20140113205104/http://www.uksport.gov.uk/docLib.php?doc=Publications/UKRecognisedNGBsandSportList2013.pdf Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might even be suitable as a free file using {{PD-ineligible}}. There is no creativity in the document, it's just a list. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe in some cases the way a list has been formatted, etc. and the way the entries are ordered can sometimes make it eligible for copyright protection. I'll @Diannaa: since she would know about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's strange. If you follow the archive link from the article reference (13 July 2014), clicking on the download link gives the file not found message. The archive link from the file page (7 August 2013) allows you to download it. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Speedy Delete F7 The file isn't needed, as a copy has been found in the Internet Archive. I'll update the archive url in the article reference and solve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this needs to be licensed as non-free per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and maybe even MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. It seems that the reason for using this is to provide some sort of quasi-citation to support a claim being made in the article. A cited source needs to WP:PUBLISHED, but that doesn't mean it needs to be available online. I don't see any reason while the original source for the pdf cannot be cited per WP:SAYWHERE. The specific page where the relevant information can be found can even be added to aid verification. If the link is no longer active, then it can be marked with {{deadlink}}. If an archived version cannot be found, then perhaps the file can be uploaded to an external website and a convenience link then added to the citation using the |via= parameter. Assuming that the pdf has not be altered in anyway (there's no way to tell that from just looking at file; so, seeing it is not really necessary) and it was originally published by a reliable source, simply citing the source seems more than acceptable as a free equivalent alternative to as non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually to provide a real citation (not a quasi-one). Are you suggesting that I should just upload my original downloaded copy to my own website and use that as the citation? So it's usable if I upload it to any other website, but not if I upload it to Wikipedia? There seems to be a slight gap in the logic there. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (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.