Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

File:Boys from NRH Adolescent Residential Program.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 ⚡ 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cameras with 3 other files tagged as no permission on commons. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (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:Brian Scudamore got junk.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 ⚡ 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a promo photo of 1-800-GOT-JUNK? with its founder, Brian Scudamore. EXIF states that this image is scanned. No source. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Brian Scudamore is still alive so the file couldn't be converted to fair use either. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2022 (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:Blesma Logo small use.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 ⚡ 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:New Blesma Logo.jpg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to other JPG file. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2022 (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:Oppose.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Symbol oppose vote.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2022 (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:Hermann Julius Hoefle mug shot 1961.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: Status quo. There is no consensus at this time to include this image in List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust -FASTILY 03:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on behalf of Lotje (talk · contribs) in order to discuss the addition of this image to List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is less the image and more that "major" is a foggy inclusion criterium for the list. I mean, Hitler and Himmler are obvious but farther down the hierarchy it becomes less clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiair with non-free use rationale guidelines, and because the file shows in the infobox of the person in question, I added it to aforesaid list.

The licensing on the image (Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.) to me, meant it can be used on the English Wikipedia for the purpose it was meant to be, that is: showing a photo of Herman Höfle. Sometimes, images with limited permission (like for example the one on the Martin Weiss (Nazi official) page), show also on the Russian Wikipedia. Wondering if that government can have these images deleted. Hopefully images on the English version can not be ordered to delete. Nobody wants a rewrite of history, and propaganda, which in my opinion, is similar to advertising, should not get any impact on free knowledge. A lot has changed recently and I am concerned it could start with an image and end up with God knows what. The warning on the Russian article leaves no doubt. Maybe the Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger-article is a good example of how hick-ups with licensing could be avoided and making sure files do not get deleted: File:Friedrich Wilhelm Krüger.jpg is not the file that ends up in the infobox. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lotje (talk · contribs) This image for Hermann Höfle is already being used on his article to illustrate him. The image of Martin Weiss is being used on his article to illustrate him. Unless there's a free alternative available for dead people, there's pretty widespread acceptance that such use of non-free images is acceptable.

The question at issue here is whether the inclusion of this (and presumably other non-free images) on List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust is appropriate. The key point is that non-free content may only be used if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In this case, we already have articles about the individuals. The inclusion of them on this list also seems like it would violate the WP:NFLISTS guideline. It looks like this was discussed a couple of years ago at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 28#Non-free media in List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust where the result was the removal of all non-free images from the article.

Finally, I'm not sure what exactly it is you're concerned about with the Russian article you're referencing or how it applies here. Just from using Google Translate, it seems to be a pretty straightforward discussion about whether the sinking of the warship is independently notable of (and so needs an additional article in addition to) the warship. Nothing about non-free content. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VernoWhitney: thanks for looking into this. I take it, the bot will remove all immages that are 'erroneously added to the list.

As to the Russian Wikipedia: the google translation (that is for editing the file) reads:
Keep your safety in mind when editing this article. Two Wikipedians who criticized the Belarusian and Russian authorities were arrested in Belarus, and criminal cases have been opened against them. Please, for your own security, only make edits if you are completely anonymous (your account name does not appear along with any of your personal data) or you are located outside of Russia and Belarus. If you are afraid that your personal data has become known to outsiders, you can create an additional account to edit articles on conflicting topics. You can copy flags from your old account to your new one. See VP:VIRT-LD for details . Read the Wikimedia Foundation's Internet Safety Guidelines . In case of any security threats to Wikipedians, write to talktohumanrights wikimedia.org.

That is what I am concerned about. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the edit warning, so thanks for that. I still don't think that it applies to this use of non-free content, though. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The image has never had a non-free usage rationale for its use in a list. As such, that makes it unusuable in the list article as it does not meet WP:NFCC#10c. And I do not see how a rationale could be created for the list article. One does not need an image to understand the contents of the list so I don't see how any rationale can be made that would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2022 (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:Maxkoegel.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 ⚡ 01:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as violation of WP:NFCC#1. Replaceable by File:2015 09 15 KZ Ravensbrück Max Koegel 1 IMG 2353 S.JPG VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2022 (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:Meiman dissidents.gif

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 ⚡ 01:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This image is in use on 4 articles of individuals and one of a group (Soviet dissidents). Of the articles of individuals, 2 of them (Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Podrabinek) have free images so the use of this one violates WP:NFCC#1. On Petro Grigorenko there is already a different non-free image in use in the infobox, and so I believe this image's use there is superfluous and violates WP:NFCC#3a. On Naum Meiman it is one of two group shots, and I believe both of them violate WP:NFCC#3. I think one of the two images should be chosen and then cropped appropriately and used for identification. This choice and cropping could also affect File:Chebotaryov-meiman.jpg and the article Nikolai Chebotaryov.

The use of this image on Soviet dissidents seems closer to acceptable, but while skimming over it I didn't see anything specific about this group of dissidents that would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What a coincidence. I was going to bring this file here too. I concur with the nominator's analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on a representative image for Naum Meiman? I'm leaning towards the young version from File:Chebotaryov-meiman.jpg just because it's higher quality. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opinion on which is more suitable. -- Whpq (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2022 (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:Black bangladeshi band banner.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 ⚡ 01:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in Bangladesh. Furthermore, this is unlikely to be the uploader's own work due to the small size and "Facebook Uploads" being the source. Copyright issues aside, the image is low quality and not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2022 (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.