Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 29

< February 28	March 1 >

February 29

File:Norton Wankel air induction cooling.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 A free diagram containing equivalent information could be created, even though (as noted below) it may require some talent to do so. The accuracy of the free diagram can be checked against the source from which this image was taken. You may want to go to WP:GL with a request. If anyone would like me to email them a copy of this image so that you can use it to create a free image, please let me know. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free file - a diagram of the operational principle of an air-cooling system - should be deleted. It fails WP:NFCC#1 because a free diagram containing the same information could be created. It was speedily deleted for the said reason, but subsequently undeleted by the same admin after being requested by the uploader. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This very low-res image was specifically added to enhance the reader experience. Prose-alone could not convey the complexity, being an integrated cooling and air/fuel delivery system - more than just cooling. A full rationale at upload included citation detail. It is reasonable to assume this schematic was created by a graphics-professional; GF assumes approval by the inventing-engineer under interview. The rendering depicts complex twin-pathways of cool fresh air, heated fresh air, super-heated contaminated (combustion) exhaust gases and layout of various engineering components with a relative-scale. Colour was deemed necessary for clarity of publication. The relative air and gas temperatures - the purpose of the illustration and associated prose - are annotated as just-readable data, and, again as approved by the engineer, these visible figures are intended as part of the reference quoted.

It is not possible to create a simplistic, amateur replication of this complex 3-D diagram relating to now-obsolete technology which was superseded. Removal of the image will detract from the article and remove the citation-detail contained therein. Use of this image is both encyclopedic and compliant.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the retention of this very useful diagram. Arrivisto (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just as the nom states, fails WP:NFCC#1. Creating a free 3D figure to replace this image is definitely possible. It may not be easy, but that's not WP:NFCC#1's concern. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors contribute to build content for the public good, others go out of their way to act as deletionist bots; your argument fails to address the loss of verified data, Steel1943.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I follow. It's numbers and data ... can be out in a free alternative. I had to point this out in another discussion about a non-free drawing of train specs. A free alternative to show the same data can be created. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. A recreation could not be checked for data-accuracy due to the rarity of the publication, similarly any 3-D interpretation. We've already had 'words' elsewhere (forcing me to abandon the article) on a completely different example, where a somewhat-respected author, writer and occasional WP contributor has altered prose, so that it now contains two-sets of contradictory numbers. Both are correct, but I doubt that he'd know how and why, by just cloning another author in the WP, parrot-fashion way, and it needs a reliable source - ie., an original drawing (which I also possess, 1960s) to explain the conundrum, not words alone. Arguing semantics of process to delete content is to the detriment of WP.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the source is rare or not, Rocknrollmancer. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Motor Cycle Mechanics 1974 is a perfectly acceptable source. In fact, you can even cite the original picture in that magazine as a source for a textual description of how the system works, or as source material for the reproduction. There is no need to display it in the article on the grounds that you want to use it as a source. You are really saying that you have a reliable source, but instead of using it as a source, you want to embed it in the article. That is not the purpose of media in articles in the first place, much less so non-free media. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 3 March 2016 (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:Cite Template not working.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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User experienced a technical issue awhile ago, and has requested on the file description page that admins "DELETE THIS IMAGE AFTER MY ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED" FASTILY 10:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies for speedy deletion under G7. I have marked it for deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:27, 29 February 2016 (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:Usedtoloveyouvideo.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 ⚡ 05:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. No significant encyclopedic value in adding just a face of Stefani. Any free image will do. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image most definitely does not fail WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8; the 'Music video' section reads "Stefani on the verge of tears and dealing with emotions". So, there's a picture showing Stefani with near tears in her eyes. The key difference between the cover art and the music video pic is the emotions. The single cover shows a straight shot of Stefani, whereas the video thumbnail displays the mentioned emotions in the article. If you were to watch the actually video, you would see that this is literally Stefani throughout the entire music video; some scenes show her staring off into the distance, and some show her looking at the intended viewer right in front of her. If the image were to be removed, the reader's understanding of the article would decrease because there would now be no example to show Stefani in the aforementioned emotional state. Like I said, the cover art does not prove her emotions like the file listed does. Carbrera (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All that is good to read, thing is that the image is easily replaceable by words, "Stefani on the verge of tears", which makes it redundant for using a separate screenshot in reader's understanding of the article. And it does not talk about any other varied emotion. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is just me, but a reader may read "Stefani on the verge of tears", then look at the single art and think: "That doesn't look like she's on the verge of tears", because the video pic isn't on the page. But if they pan his/her vision to the left of the page, they will see a pic of Stefani crying and think: "Oh, so that's what the music video looks like". Carbrera (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2016 (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:QVC.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of issues here. First, does this logo, irrespective of colour, meet the treshold of originality in the US? Because if no, it needs to be deleted and the correctly coloured logo uploaded to Commons under its title (there is currently a differently coloured logo there). And if it is copyrightable, the listing on QVC Germany probably fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 (and the Commons file tagged for deletion). There are also copyright aspects of the SVG source code to consider which make this a bit more complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local copy and let the commons image thru. I agree with Commons, this is not original enough to be copyrighted, making it a free image. The Commons image is the same image, so merely deleting the local copy is the best answer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd like to add, that I do see the colors are slightly different, but QVC doesn't seem to have a set color scheme (their current webpage shows red) and the Commons image is newer). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2016 (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:Walk Away Renee.ogg

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 ⚡ 09:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in its use in Baroque pop since the article is not about the actual song which this sound excerpt is from. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is about the style of the song and it is historically significant for being the genre's first notable hit and earliest exemplar. Obviously it's impossible to demonstrate music with words, so it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#8.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an image, this file would fail the concept in WP:NFC#UUI point #3. That, and in addition to this file failing WP:NFCC#8 as I stated above, it also fails WP:NFCC#1 since a non-free file isn't necessary to illustrate Baroque pop when a free alternative can be created to illustrate the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free media which exists to illustrate the subject. How does one even go about doing that? Taking a time machine back to 1966 and recording a hit song under public domain? If you had a non-free, historically significant image of a bouquet of flowers (baroque pop genre), and it included a one-of-a-kind rose that had its own significance independent from the bouquet (baroque pop song), it would be appropriate to crop the image in order for it to be properly represented. The Beatles article isn't about "Norwegian Wood" or "Eleanor Rigby", and yet samples of those tracks appear on the article. If your concerns were valid, then they should be replaced with public domain cover versions of those songs. Which would be absurd.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention of the song at Baroque pop is that "it is considered by Stanley to be the first recognizable baroque pop single" which tells nothing about the song that requires the non-free usage. The second note also identifies four other songs and I would see no reason why this song is needed on the page in contrast to those songs. Further, the song isn't even used at Walk Away Renée which at least has an (unsourced) comment about the flute usage that could justify its usage there, provided that it was sourced and actually discussed in some detail. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the auditive aspects of the song are not discussed, so embedding this file here is not necessary to understand the statements made about either the genre or the song (WP:NFCC#8). Nothing in the article suggests that baroque pop is a genre that has passed ("baroque pop is"); we do not need a time machine to see how the file fails WP:NFCC#1 because it's possible to create a free alternative. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Baroque pop. The fact that this song belongs to this musical genre can be understood by text alone. There is no need for a sound file to understand this, and there is no other information about the song in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2016 (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:SMStationDigital.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this eligible for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2016 (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:Yo, Picasso.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: in the absence of proof of publication before 1923, I'm afraid this is a delete. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this eligible for ~~{{PD-US}}~~ {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}? Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you would have to find proof of publication. feel free to change license. put do not migrate to commons, since it has been deleted once before there. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Duckduckstop: Good catch: I meant {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. I've corrected my statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant deletion discussion on Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hmm... Maybe a template called {{Non-free Picasso art}} needs to be created? Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (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:Chamorro Council.svg

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 discussion does acknowledge that the organization for which this logo exists is distinct from the concept of scouting in general and even though they may be considered interchangeable, there's no consensus that this is sufficient to ignore the distinction. If a separate article on the Chamaroo Council or the like is created, then it seems sufficient to allow the image. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting in Guam because it is not the logo of an organisation called 'Scouting in Guam'. It should only be used in an article about the organisation to which the logo belongs. Additionally, the file seems to violate WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring the issue of whether a former logo is appropriate here. You seem to misunderstand what's going on — Scouting in Guam was previously administered by the Chamorro Council (whose logo this is), so this logo is that of the parent organisation. The significant issue is the scope of the article (i.e. its subject), and not at all the title of the article; if we renamed this article "Chamorro Council" and kept the same contents, this image would not be any more or less suitable. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be more of an article which discusses scouting in general, and several organisations are discussed in the article. Since the article isn't focused on any single organisation, it's not appropriate to show logos in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, and thank you for being the voice of common sense.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contingent upon any outstanding NFCC concerns remaining unresolved before this discussion is closed. Logos of parent organizations in articles are generally considered to be inappropriate for articles about their sub-entities per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Moreover, single logo is typically considered acceptable in the main infobox when it serves as the primary means of identification per WP:NFCC#3a. If the article is primarily about the Chamorro Council then File:Chamorro Council.svg should be the only logo used in the infobox, and maybe the article should be moved accordingly. If it's about scouting in Guam in general, then this logo should not be used in the infobox. Simply adding logos to the main infobox does not mean that their usage complies with WP:NFCC. Unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced commentary, then I don't feel the way it is currently being used satisfies WP:NFCC#8. In addition to NFCC#8, there are also NFCC problems to consider because of the lack of sourcing information provided. There's no way to verify WP:NFCC#4 or WP:NFCC#10a without better sourcing information. I tried Google searching for the image, but the only hit I got was for chamorrousa.com/home which seems to be a private business which is not directly related to scouting. Each usage of a non-free image must satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria and valid non-free use rationales cannot really be written for those usages that don't; therefore, renaming the article may resolve NFCC#8, but it would not solve the other problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decorative. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2016 (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:Aloha Council logo.svg

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 There are concerns both about the immediate usage at the pages in question and about its sourcing. Even the keep supporters acknowledge that this is not the organization per se but merely general articles about scouting in the region. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is used in Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands and Scouting in Palau, but neither article is an article about this organisation. The file seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 in both articles. Additionally, it says that The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America. and this information does not seem to be sufficiently detailed to comply with WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Council administers Scouting in both jurisdictions, along with Scouting in the majority of Hawaii. This is fundamentally the same situation as putting the logo of the Presbytery of Northern New England in an article about "Presbyterianism in New Hampshire" (assuming that "Presbyterianism in NH" could easily be seen to be notable); perhaps that kind of thing is generally seen as nonfreeimage overkill, but in both situations, this would be the logo of the relevant local organisation. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, logos only end up in the article about the organisation but not in other articles, so an article titled 'Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands' or 'Presbyterianism in New Hampshire' should not contain logos but instead refer to articles about the organisations where the logos appear. If an organisation isn't notable, this means that the logo isn't to be used anywhere at all. The only reason for having an article like 'Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands' or 'Presbyterianism in New Hampshire' is for discussing multiple organisations and/or activities outside such organisations. If all activities are directly related to a single organisation, the title would typically not exist as an article (although there might be a redirect). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: "The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America" is automatically inserted by {{Non-free use rationale logo}} when the "owner" field is filled but the "source" field is left blank. If you think this is insufficient (WP:NFCC#10: "[The] media description page contains[:] Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder[.]"), you should ask that template to be updated to produce an error message promoting the editor to fill all necessary fields with valid information (as it does when the "use" field is blank). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, and thank you again!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands" and "Scouting in Palau", unless the NFCC issues are resolved before this discussion is closed. If, according to the above comments, the Aloha Council administers both local scouting organizations, then I don't think it's appropriate to use the logo in either article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Generally. one logo is considered acceptable for the main infobox when it is used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. This seems to be role being served by both File:Aloha Council Northern Marianas.svg and File:Aloha Council Palau.svg in their respective articles. The usage of a "parent" organization's logo is generally not allowed to be used in articles about its child entities, unless the logo itself is subject to sourced commentary so that context required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. I don't see any of that in either article and simply adding the logo to the main infobox does not automatically make its usage non-free compliant.

There is also the problem of the lack of sourcing information provided. There's no way to verify whether the logo has been previously published (WP:NFCC#4) or its copyright status (WP:NFCC#10a). I could not find the logo being used anywhere on the www.alohacouncilbsa.org so I checked some older archived versions of the website. The earliest I found was this from April 2004. It shows a similar logo, but not the exact same one being discussed here. This one from February 2009 shows a completely different logo. So even if the NFCC#8 issues can be sorted out, there's still other NFCC issues related to sourcing which need to be resolved to fully satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2016 (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:Krushnaa-Patil-mountaineer-India.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a living person fails WP:NFCC#1 ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for speedy deletion under WP:F7. I have nominated it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 1 March 2016 (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:Krushnaa-everest-summit-251x300.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a living person fails WP:NFCC#1 ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for speedy deletion under WP:F7. I have nominated it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 1 March 2016 (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.