Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21[edit]

File:WrestleManiaLogos.jpg[edit]

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG there is no well-justified reason why this gallery is needed, the logos are not discussed in article at all and appear to be used only in a decorative way. LGA _talk^edits 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as plainly decorative gallery of logos. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2013 (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:Ragashenry.gif[edit]

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, sourced to random website, while the underlying photo is likely to be public domain, the original phtoo would have been black and white so this colorized version involves creativitity and is likely copyrighted Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (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:Steenkamp Tropika.jpg[edit]

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: deleted. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says that we cannot use a fair use image "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". For anyone who was alive and a public figure in the digital camera age, there's a reasonable expectation that we could receive a freely licensed photo. Please see also this comment from Jimbo (He said at the time that it was not yet policy - it has since become policy.) "In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license. We are powerful enough now that we can insist on this, and get it, from just about any celebrity, or we can get a free photo in a number of different ways. Using fair use in such cases discourages us from creatively looking for a way to enlarge the commons." --B (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been dead only a week and as a model would have countless photographs taken of her, there is a high chance one of those could be released CC-BY-SA and used as a replacement. LGA _talk^edits 08:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "could" is the key word here. As you mention, Googling her name reveals a large number of images; however, none of them are free. Logically, any copyright owner of any photograph could give Wikipedia permission to use their image. But many don't, so we are stuck using fair use images for deceased persons. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:34, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thus, per my reasoning above, I say keep because no free images of her have been shown to exist, and given that she is deceased, none can ever be created (which is outlined in WP:NFCC point 1). In addition, the image satisfies the other points of WP:NFCC, such as being used on only Steenkamp's page, and it does not detract from the copyright of the TV series. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 10:41, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

This is meant to be a Free Encyclopedia, the key word is free, there is no indication here that an exhaustive search has been done, it can't have been only a week has passed since her death. Has her agent been contacted and asked if they have a picture that can be released, what about the model agencys she has worked for ? Until those very basic steps have been taken then there remains a high chance of a image being released. LGA _talk^edits 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment that rationale only works if you want to delete all non-free images off Wikipedia. To do so, you would need to open an RFC, and not to nominate only this image. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until a free image presents itself, a screen shot can be used. Once there is a free image, the non-free one should be deleted. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 15:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presumably replaceable. The death of a public figure does not operate as a carte blanche authorization to use a nonfree image ; the fact a free image might not prove easy to immediately locate online does not show, as required under WP:NFCI, "that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2013 (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.