Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 April 12

< April 11	April 13 >

April 12[edit]

File:Carnival Vista-680x510.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: Consensus is the boat itself in its current state is not completed enough to be replaceable by a photo. Consensus also shows that a similar looking boat would not be adequate because such a boat does not yet exist. Once the boat is completed, a free image would instantly be available and therefore the non-free image should be removed on sight. Until such time, at this point currently, consensus is to keep the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the ship is finished enough now for photographs to be taken. This non-free image is unnecessary and fails both WP:NFCC#1 and 8 Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image depicts the ship in service. The real ship has not yet been launched and is still more than a year away from entering service. To say that it is finished enough for photographs to be taken of it as a ship, as opposed to a construction site, is simply untrue. The image therefore passes #1. As to #8, the ship is the first in its class and is therefore unique, and there is no other illustration in the article to indicate what it will look like in service. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A press kit rendering of a finished ship in service and a photograph of a half-finished ship at the dry dock are not interchangeable as the former is much more informative to a casual reader. Furthermore, these "artist's conception" renderings always have a clear expiration date — when the ship is finished, it will be replaced by a photograph with suitable license. Thus, I see no point in removing the picture "ahead of time". Tupsumato (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Externally it will look pretty much just like the Carnival Breeze and some of their other ships. THe small differences could be adequately replaced with text alone without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic. We don't have a need for a non-free images just because the ship has a different name - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship image: "Avoid using images that are not of the ship in the infobox. If an image is considered absolutely necessary, use a sister ship of the same class and design." In this particular case, there is no such sister ship. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To some people, all cruise ships look the same... Tupsumato (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "replace it with a similar-looking ship" doesn't sound like a great option. It should be one of these: (a) this image used under a claim of fair use, (b) a photo of the partially constructed ship taken by a Wikipedian, (c) a photo submitted by Carnival under a free license (has anyone considered writing to them and asking them for one?), or (d) nothing. --B (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that there is no disagreement that the moment the ship is launched, this image, if it still exists, should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. I'm unclear why we should keep it under those conditions. I can tell you this - if we are content to use an image under a claim of fair use, there is a 0.0% chance that anyone will donate a free content one. One of Wikipedia's missions is to encourage the creation of freely-licensed media. It's one thing to use fair use for things that will never ever be turned into freely-licensed media (dvd covers and the like) but it's another thing to use something like this. By doing so, we remove any incentive to create a freely-licensed photo. --B (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2015 (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:Turkmenistan Arms on Space Desk.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV screenshot to show a national emblem. We can use simply the emblem to achieve the same end Peripitus (Talk) 10:57, 12 April 2015 (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 Byzantine Empire.png[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 as F5 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahistorical flag, a mix-up of the modern Greek coat of arms and Byzantine elements, being passed of as a historical (?) flag. Dubious copyright status, the various elements themselves are free of copyright, but the combination appears to derive from some alternate history website... Constantine ✍ 11:46, 12 April 2015 (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:Mills cat.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. The image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as the article can still be understood without the image (second part of #8). Non-free media must meet all parts of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot was used in the plot section of That Darn Cat! against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself, but then was recently moved to the reception section that has no critical commentary about the screenshot that would be needed to pass WP:FILMNFI. Since the fair use rationale states the screenshot is being used "to illustrate film being described", the article already has the film poster for this purpose, thus the screenshot is replaceable and fails WP:NFCC#3a. The screenshot does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8.

For Hayley Mills, she is still alive and acting thereby the image fails WP:NFC#UUI#1, in that a free image can reasonably be found "to illustrate actress being described." A fair use image cannot be used for living people because there is a reasonable chance that there is or an image could be created of the person and it is not an acceptable use of fair use to have this images as a placeholder until a free image can be found. Aspects (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Last month there was an attempt to delete this file that has resulted in this proposal. Each argument above was effectively rebutted on the file's talk page, and those rationales still apply. The main ideas upon which focus should be extended is that this file does not need critical commentary, which is reserved for the film itself, and that this file (a photograph) depicts the subject of the film (a cat) in a very different manner than does the drawing that is used in the Ibox template. As for the H. Mills article, I am still looking for a free pic of the mega-star, but so far I have not been able to find one. It is not so easy as some might lead us to believe. In any case, even if this file is ultimately removed from the Mills article, it should be kept as an integral part of the film article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 23:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each argument was not effectively rebutted because you keep insisting that WP:FILMNFI does not say there needs to be critical commentary for the image to be in the film article and that is exactly what it states. "Film and television screen shots are for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." and "Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Unlike what you stated on the file talk page the third paragraph and in fact the entire section is talking about non-free images in used in film articles and every word about critical commentary mentioned is about the images and not about critical commentary of the film itself. By your reading, every single film article that has any sort of critical commentary would have a screenshot, when in fact, very few film articles have screenshots because they do not have the critical commentary necessary for a particular screenshot to be in use in the article. Aspects (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, Aspects, but you still don't seem to follow that it is the screenshot that supplements the critical commentary of the film. The critical commentary for That Darn Cat is in the "Reception" section of the film article. Since the image file is now in that section, it adds to that critical commentary as an "iconic shot", as well as other aspects of the film that it illustrates: "Non-free images can illustrate technical or thematic aspects of the film. Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." Ref. WP:FILMNFI. Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine 13:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical commentary that the screenshot supplements. The screenshot is not an "iconic shot," rather it is just one of many screenshots that could be taken from the film that have both of the characters in it. For this to be an "iconic shot" there would need to be critical commentary about it being such, especially when none of the non-free use rationale, article or image caption state the screenshot is an "iconic shot." Aspects (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no idea why it was originally removed from the film article, but it never should have been. This image has stood the test of time on Wikipedia since 2006, which means that it has satisfied the requirements for nearly ten years. – Paine 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Note Around the same time this image was uploaded and added to That Darn Cat!, Oanabay04 also uploaded File:Mills summer.jpeg for Summer Magic, [1], and File:Mills moon.jpg for The Moon-Spinners, [2]. Like this image, neither of these two images had critical commentary and were recently removed as failing WP:NFCC and have been deleted from Wikipedia. In my opinion, this pattern shows that the images were not added to increase the understanding of the films, but to have as many film images of Hayley Mills as possible and their removals were not detrimental to the understanding of the films, thus again failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note The image was removed from Hayley Mills on April 20 and since Paine Ellsworth removed the fair use rationale for that article on April 29, the second paragraph in my original post can be ignored as moot. Aspects (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "pattern" here other than the same thing has happened to all three images in terms of somebody removing them from the film articles for which they were uploaded (note the reason for deletion for each one: CSD F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days). This file was also removed from its film article, but it was caught and put back into the film article, so it could not be "easily deleted". I don't know about the others, but this image definitely supports the critical commentary in its film article and depicts the main subject of the film (the cat) in a manner very different from the drawing in the ibox. A thought that may come to mind is that if the other two files had not been removed from their articles, they would probably still be here in support of the critical commentaries of those films. – Paine 00:02, 5 May 2015 (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:IBM Smarter Computing, Cloud, Data and Security.jpeg[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising. This infographic serves no purpose but promotion of IBM Smarter Computing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:57, 12 April 2015 (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.