Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2[edit]

File:100 1462.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:05, 2 July 2017 (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:Andrew Pickens (commemorative plaque at the South Carolina statehouse).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works in the USA FASTILY 05:43, 2 July 2017 (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:Mast General Store, Hendersonville, NC (29 October 2006).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, derivative of non-free content (statue), there is no FOP for 3D works in the USA FASTILY 05:44, 2 July 2017 (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:Statue of Wade Hampton (lawn of the South Carolina Statehouse).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: keep. As {{PD-old-70}}. Sandstein 18:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (statue), there is no FOP for 3D works in the USA FASTILY 05:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this statue was done by Frederick Ruckstull who died over 70 years ago, so {{PD-old-70}} would apply to the statue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 10 July 2017 (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:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.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: relisted on 2017 July 11. Sandstein 18:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png (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:RUeyegouge.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: no consensus. Sandstein 18:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initially tagged with a disputed fair use rationale but removed by uploader. Re-listing for discussion as it appears to fail WP:NFCC#8.

While the injury shown in the photograph is discussed in the article, I don't see how having this image is essential to discussing the topic. If the point is to show how an eye-gouging injury appears (which isn't the topic here), then I don't see how a news photo is essential. This is a "nice to have" image, not a critical one. It's important to note that you don't always need an image to understand a topic - we know that a player suffered a horrific injury that ended his career and had a huge impact on his life simply by reading the text. The image does not provide any encyclopedic information that's part of a sourced discussion other than that it looks horrific. But we already knew that from reading the text and cited sources.

Also, non-free content in listicles are discouraged per WP:NFCC.

FWIW, this image was previously kept after a discussion that resulted in "no consensus". Ytoyoda (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Point of order the speedy template wasn't removed by me. This images isn't reproducible and the image is essential to illustrating the damage that can occur after an eye gouging Gnevin (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you'd removed it. Also, I think you're missing the point of my issue with the image - of course the image isn't reproducible and it's essential to illustrating the damage. My point is that illustrating the damage isn't the point of the paragraph - the text discusses the incident and the damage it did to the player's career and life. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator here has neglected to mention the DR where deletion for a similar reason last time was overturned. My reasons for keeping remains the same that while it may be gruesome, it serves a illustration about what eye-gouging can do at the worst end of the scale and is critical for making that point. Some things you just cannot put into words and you need the visual aid to show you what it is like to get the full understanding. This is one of those things. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that previous nomination is mentioned above pretty clearly, the last sentenc. Also, "what eye-gouging can do" is already explained in text in explicit terms and can be understood without the accompanying visual, while the way it appears is not mentioned in the text. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you mentioned the Files For Deletion discussion, not the Deletion Review one which was fairly unanimous in restoring it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, though I don't see how it's a major crime here - the DR simply overturned the speedy deletion because was it wasn't a clear and cut case, and the resulting FfD (which I mentioned, sorry) ended with no consensus because, surprise, it's not a clear and cut case. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss how this image satisfies WP:NFCC#1 & 8, particularly in why this concept is not sufficiently explained with text alone, and secondarily why no free use images can suitably replace the fair use image.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it can be replaced or explained with text? Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnevin: I feel like I've already explained that. You don't need an image to know that eye-gouging happened or understand its seriousness. It's right in the text. And it's telling that none of the other examples of eye-gouging seem to need accompanying visuals. On the other hand, the burden of proof is for users who want to keep non-free content in a free encyclopedia. What exactly are we learning from the image that we're not seeing in text? And is that encyclopedic enough to violate copyright (which is essentially what NFC does)? Ytoyoda (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image may be (mildly) offensive, but the content should not deleted just because it's offensive. However, if it lacks encyclopedic value, then it can be deleted. However, that would be harder to prove because the image may have some encyclopedic value. Nevertheless, this image is non-free and should comply NFCC, so I'll evaluate the compliance. The "Examples" section can be already understood without the image as the article subject is not mainly about case examples of eye gouging. Also, I can see a list of high-profile examples. The section also mentions cases of Gavin Quinnell and Aurélien Rougerie, outweighing the image usage of Harding's injured eye. When the image was nominated in May 2010, Quinnell and Rougerie were not previously mentioned, and the image was added after the FFD. Years later, the article has been improved to the point of whether the image still has its use. However, because free content is strongly encouraged, and the article can still attract sensitive readers, including highly sensitive ones, I would say... ~~"delete". However, someone would say "double standards" and compare this to the image of the little kid's corpse. I'll just vote retain status quo, defaulting to "keep".~~ George Ho (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Changed to delete per further comments, like above, by nom. George Ho (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just going to be relisted forever Gnevin (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To bring this into a more active discussion venue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can easily be described as "a red eye", that is in text form. So WP:NFCC#1 is not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And if it was described as such you would not convey the complete and total damaged inflicted upon the eye. It's much like saying we don't need a picture of the Grand Canon ,it can be described as a hole in the ground. Also yet a other relisting? Gnevin (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2017 (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.

Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song)[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: relisted on 2017 July 17. czar 02:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Off the Wall by Michael Jackson A-side US vinyl single.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Michaeljoffthewall.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:EStategy.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. czar 02:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal on the ground that this is claimed as self, but looks like a third party organisational logo, some of which are exempt in Ukraine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially re-license to "PD-ineligible-USonly". Logo is made up of simple shapes and text. Wouldn't suggest moving to Commons though as the Commons TOO article doesn't cover Ukraine. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be a user created logo. There is no evidence of that it was published previously outside of Wikipedia. The description page is translated as "I created this file". If this is not an official logo, it should be deleted. ℯ xplicit 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this an official logo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no statement as to what this is the logo for. I can find no use of this logo anywhere outside of Wikipedia. The user is claiming they made the logo. But we cannot use made-up logos to represent some entity. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (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:PortoEuropaProgramInside.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used decoratively. The stated purpose in the non-free usage rationale is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" but it is not being used for that purpose as it simply decoration for a section of the article. There is no sourced commentary about the image and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the subject. Whpq (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the image extravagant for the context, it's in Japanese: fine for that country, not so useful in English Wikipedia. The provenance is a little hazy, too. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A delete after less than 24 hours is hasty. In particular, the Porto Europa portion of the article can be expected to expand significantly, as attractions are a popular focus on Wikipedia. The image does provide context for the attractions in Porto Europa, even if you do not read Japanese, and can be expected to increase the reader's understanding once the text is added. Also see WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDVIEW. The sourced commentary is coming: no one expects an article to come through AfC completely written; this portion of the article is due to be expanded significantly shortly. The provenance of this item is rock solid. BTW, I don't do decor. Please note that the present image provides context for seven different attractions. It was chosen specifically to avoid having to place seven separate pictures of each of these attractions as they are described.Oddjob84 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free images has much stricter usage requirements than other images. Non-free content must satisfy all the non-free content criteria. That you state "sourced commentary is coming" which indicates that indeed, WP:NFCC#8 is not currently met. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page has been updated to reflect its intended appearance. Suggest closing discussion and relisting if needed. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how anything has really been addressed. The need for the image is still not there. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A full copy of a non-free source that can be cited is not necessary and does not comply with NFCC. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These should have been bundled. WP:NFCC#8: lacks contextual significance in the text itself. The program is not the subject of commentary such that it would need to be visualized for readers to understand it. Link to it as external media, if necessary, but the current in-text allusions to the program are out-of-order: Even if the reader did refer to the program in its low-res version, the importance of the visualization is still not backed/necessitated by secondary sourcing (no secondary source says it is necessary to see that portion of the program), and the image remains too inconsequential to be useful to the reader anyway. czar 02:34, 17 July 2017 (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:WakayamaExpoProgramInside.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used decoratively. The stated uses in the non-free usage rationale are "Supports opening event for resort/artificial island. Illustrates size and scope of event, serves as verification of event existence, location, date". However, there is little mention of this expo. the size and scope could be described with words. And we do no host non-free content as source for verification; that's done through referencing. Whpq (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the image extravagant for the context, it's in Japanese: fine for that country, not so useful in English Wikipedia. The provenance is a little hazy, too. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Japan Expo is an interesting sidelight, but not entirely essential to the article. As stated on the talk page, nearly all written references to this event are apparently in Japanese, and are awaiting the potential (text) contributions of a Japanese-speaking editor. Again, I do suggest that the drawings on the image provide sufficient context for an English speaker to derive some information and context. As stated on the article talk page, articles in English are extremely difficult to come by, particularly given the passage of time. Text cannot be added without citations, and neither can be attracted without some mention of the event. See also WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDVIEW. I accept no responsibility for "extravagant", which was in the hands of the original artist, and again, I don't do decor. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You can reference non-online sources in the references. We do not keep non-free images or content for the purposes of referencing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page has been updated to reflect its intended appearance. Suggest closing discussion and relisting if needed. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how anything has really been addressed. The need for the image is still not there -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A full copy of a non-free source that can be cited is not necessary and does not comply with NFCC. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFCC#8: lacks contextual significance in the text itself. The program is not the subject of commentary such that it would need to be visualized for readers to understand it. Link to it as external media, if necessary, but the current in-text allusions to the program are out-of-order: Even if the reader did refer to the program in its low-res version, the importance of the visualization is still not backed/necessitated by secondary sourcing (no secondary source says it is necessary to see that portion of the program), and the image remains too inconsequential to be useful to the reader anyway. czar 02:34, 17 July 2017 (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 Bridge '84 Year of the Banger.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: relicense as non-free unless WP:OTRS confirms otherwise. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted poster. The permission for free use should be confirmed via WP:OTRS. XXN, 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free poster and remove from the user page. Salavat (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2017 (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:MarcusSingletaryCloseup2015.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused retouched photograph, a version of File:Marcus Singletary New CloseUp 2015.jpg, which differs a bit from original. XXN, 14:48, 2 July 2017 (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:ABC News Channel.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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ℯ xplicit 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as suitable for commons, but it's tagged with a non-free license, Either this is free or it isn't. Which is it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously simple enough for Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's TOO is pretty low so if relicensed it should be "PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia" and kept here on Commons. Salavat (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PD-ineligible-USonly per commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Australia but also note that Commons has plenty of similar logos: commons:Category:Logos of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, at least for now. czar 02:29, 17 July 2017 (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:IOS 11 Files App Icon.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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File is unused.
WP:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion (point 12: Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy) Batreeqah ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to largely duplicate File:IOS 11 Files App Icon.png which is used in the article Files (software). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:51, 2 July 2017 (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.