Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11[edit]

File:Jp demo.ogg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Jean Paul's Demo Tape" - it feels rather promotional, and probably doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 11 May 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:David Morrissey Deal.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 ⚡ 02:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File was intially proposed for deletion, but was de-prodded; therefore, I am bringing it up for discussion here. The file is basically being used in a decorative manner n David Morrissey#2000s. While it miay be true that Morrissey won critical aclaim for his portrayal of Gordon Brown, the reader does not need to see this particular image to understand any of the relevant content regarding the Morrissey's portrayal. In addition, the image itself is not the subject of a sourced commentary, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the image relates to a significant aspect of his career, the content and context of the image is relevant Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does seeing this particular screenshot of Morissey as "Brown" significantly improve the reader's understanding of what is written about the protrayal in that particular section and how is not seeng this screenshot detrimental to that understanding? The caption says that Morissey "put on 2 stone (28 lb/13 kg) and had his hair permed and dyed" for the role, which is probably true; however, how does seeing this screenshot help the reader understand that. There are number of other roles that Morrissey played described in that relevant section as well. How does a screenshot of this particular role differ from say addding a screenshot of any of those other roles. Simply claiming he won acclaim for this particular role does not in and of itself justify a non-free screenshot of Morrissey as Brown. The sentence "A BBC News Online writer praised Morrissey's grasp of Brown's physical tics in a review that criticised the rest of the film." does not require that the reader see this particular screenshot to be understood. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Relating to a significant aspect of his career" is not listed as an exemption to the WP:NFCC#8. The bar for inclusion is high: does the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article and would its removal be detrimental to that understanding? No. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 17 May 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:Robert miles photo.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. None of the Keep votes accurately considered NFCC here. "The people who need to provide evidence are those that want to delete the image" is wrong, as was pointed out. Saying that we haven't got images for some other musicians is a WP:OTHERSTUFF-type comment and isn't relevant here (not to mention that we have got free images for quite a few others of the era, thus disproving that issue). But let's look at NFCC. It is quite clearly stated that the policy disallows "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (my bold). Now clearly Miles was a recently active public person and so a free image is reasonably likely to be obtained. Of course, that may turn out not to be the case, but we can't know that. We certainly can't keep a non-free image as a "stopgap" until one is possibly found, as one comment mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for deletion by Thryduulf with the rationale: "The subject of this high resolution image died less than 2 days ago. There is no evidence that any attempt has been made to source a free image, let alone that one does not exist.". In light of this RfC and edit warring at Robert Miles (removing and re-insertion of this file), it's clear that wider community consensus on this matter is needed. Please note: this is a procedural nomination, and I am neutral. FASTILY 01:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that anyone has sought to obtain a free image. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The people who need to provide evidence are those that want to delete the image. I have conducted a search for free images and didn't find one. There's no process to record this and, in any case, you can't prove a negative. If people think that there's a free image to be found then let them produce it. Until then, this image is an adequate substitute per our fair use guideline. Andrew D. (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong. To whit: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original nominator. Per WP:NFCCE "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". NFC criterion 1 reads: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (my emphasis). While no new photographs can be taken of Robert Miles, he was a public figure for years so there is very real possibility that someone could upload a photograph under a free license taken before his death or an existing photograph may be reliscenced if the copyright owner is asked (it happens regularly). wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is clear on the matter, point three states in part "An EDP may not allow [non-free] material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." (WP:NFCC is our EDP). It is not possible to prove that there is no freely licensed image available, but it is possible to document the extensive efforts made to locate one. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some evidence that we have searched for, but have not found a free license image of Robert Miles: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Robert%20Miles&license=4%2C5%2C6%2C9%2C10 Samboy (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you've searched Flickr. Where else have you searched? Have you asked any of the flickr photographers whether they would relicense? Have you asked on any fan forums? Have you asked his label? What about family and friends - it's likely too soon to sensitively ask close friends and relatives but have you looked for contact details? Have you identified whether any of his friends and relatives are known to be particularly keen on Wikipedia? I see from news reports that Norman Cook was a friend, his article has a free photograph that looks posed and not at a gig - have you investigated whether that was released by the subject or the photographer to see if they have photos of Miles they could release? What other steps have you taken? This is the level of effort required to show that no free equivalent can be obtained. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone else would chime in, but since they haven’t: There is no English Wikipedia policy which says we need to contact the love ones or fans of deceased people to ask them to openly license a picture before we resort to using a non-free image. I didn’t address your wording of policy before, so: The wording on WP:NFCCE “could be created” means just that; no free image of Robert Miles could be created today because he is deceased. In terms of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy , the entire quote of that policy is relevant: “An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.” (emphasis mine). In terms of the “well, maybe someone has a picture of the deceased person which we might be able to get a free license for” argument, we have some 9,890 non-free biographical images, many of which we might be able to replace with a free version if someone came forward with a freely licensed picture of them — but they haven’t, so we use the non-free image in the meantime. In terms of burden of proof, I have reasonable proof there isn’t a free image of Robert Miles on the Internet right now: 1) Nothing on Flickr 2) Google Image Search of free images produces nothing 3) A Flickr search for non-free images only has copies of the handful of (probably commercial) images I have seen of this musician, so the “let’s ask someone on Flickr to openly license their image” angle can’t help us. 4) His page has been on the Wikipedia for over a decade yet no one added a freely licensed image of him during that time. Since we didn’t get a consensus to have a postmortem waiting period before uploading an image of a recently deceased person, now is the best time to add a picture of Robert Miles; a non free one until when and if someone comes forward with a free one. Samboy (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone who has contributed free-license images of musicians (Jonn Serrie and Lajosa) to the Wikipedia. This article has been around since 2004; despite that, no one has been able to come up with a free image of him. His peak of popularity was in an era after copyright laws were changed to not allow us to use publicity photographs, but before digital cameras were ubiquitous enough for fans to easily take pictures of him (this was back when security would still confiscate cameras from people going to public events). Getting a free image of 1990s artists can be difficult or impossible; to wit, the image we have of Kurt Cobain is one which the photographer subsequently converted in to one with a proprietary license. Samboy (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musicians of the 1990s onwards have almost certainly made public appearances (Miles did loads of tours and gigs), and with the explosion in smartphones, it is inconceivable that a free image isn't available. It's just no-one has put any effort into discovering one. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His article states he was active until this year, there is no requirement for a photo of him from the time of his peak popularity (this image is undated but he looks older than he does in photos from the 1990s). If his appearance significantly changed, and his appearance was the subject of significant coverage in the article then a non-free photo illustrating that section (not the infobox) might be justified (see "Weird Al" Yankovic#New look and career to present). Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the RfC is closed as maintaining the "status quo" and considering NFCC adequate. Therefore, I'll vote to keep this image as an acceptable non-free content and an indefinite stopgap until either the image is proven to have a high commercial value or a permissibly free image is uploaded to Commons. When I say "permissibly", an image at Commons should not have copyright or licensing issues. However, Commons and OTRS service are understaffed, leading to constant backlogs, slowing down progress to make images permissibly free to use. Therefore, we are left with an acceptable non-free content.
I appreciate Thryduulf's principles on making Wikipedia a place to provide free content. However, actions based on principles of proving free content may be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on circumstances. Removing an image of a deceased person without discussion or verifying its commercial interests would create more tensions within the community. Same for removing such image after the first FFD nomination is closed as "no consensus" or "kept". Also, communication between copyright holder and recipient is very severely limited, even with email, especially to a low-income person. (Note that a copyright holder and an uploader may not occasionally or usually be the same person.) Well, bold edits are welcome as long as they are acceptable, but an acceptable bold edit is subjective at best.
I don't know how many more individual cases about non-free images of deceased persons will be made after this nomination. However, since the failure of RfC, we are stuck with case-by-case method, which to me... is intensifying tensions among the community. In the case of Robert Miles, even when he was a musician, the fact that a free image wasn't uploaded while he was alive reveals how inconvenient obtaining a permissibly free image is. Pressuring someone to find a permissibly free image makes the community and Wikipedia more unwelcoming, especially to editors. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Rambling Man. Furthermore, given his recent death, NFCC#2 is unlikely to be met here. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 17 May 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:Ingrid dela Paz, November 2014.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear own work – Train2104 (t • c) 01:56, 11 May 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:RajKrishna Kapoor (1946).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a little complex. If this image was published in the United States, it would fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. However, it wasn't. It was published outside the U.S. The image's Indian copyright expired in 2006 (60 years after its publication) which is after the WP:URAA restoration date of January 1, 1991.

So, the tags on the image are correct. The image is PD in India but since the U.S. copyright lapsed and since the Indian copyright was still valid on the restoration date, the U.S. copyright was restored and is still active (until 2041). Since we care very much about the image's copyright status in the U.S. we can't keep it. Unfortunately, the image does not qualify for fair use either in its current form since it is used as simple filler in a personal life section of an article and nothing more. Majora (talk) 02:42, 11 May 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:Broadway tower Edit4.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - derivative work of File:Broadway tower.jpg only used in an old featured picture discussion. Kelly ^hi! 06:37, 11 May 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:DKD Nollywood Actor.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of "fair use" with free license tag. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:26, 11 May 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:Dean Kutzler.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused in articles. NN autobiog Widefox; talk 13:29, 11 May 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:Abraham Maslow.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: remove from Brooklyn College. ℯ xplicit 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.

Done. Kept on Abraham Maslow. Widefox; talk 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, no justification for removal, and certainly not sufficient discussion before removal. Please do not take upon yourself the authority of an admin by removing again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Beyond My Ken can you point to where that about admins is in policy? Please don't give others the false impression that only admins can challenge, care, or enforce things, especially copyright. You're also edit warring against consensus, which is blockable, even if we agree here about the image, OK?
my action [1] is valid per WP:NFCCE ...the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or ... correct at the time [2]

Now, BMK added [3], undone here [4]. At that point "D"iscussion (BRD) is wise, rather than [5]. Similar, article has [6] [7] [8] [9] ...so...

BMK, I see no case being made here, per burden in WP:NFCCE Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.. To clarify, don't re-add, or add that second contested fair use until there's consensus here. Widefox; talk 12:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Brooklyn College#Notable faculty. This file is essentially being used to illustrate a single entry in an embedded list. This type of non-free is not really allowed because it tends to be more "decorative" than "contextual" per WP:NFLISTS. The non-free use in Abraham Maslow seems fine because the image is being used as the primary means of identification of the subject and Maslow has been dead since 1970. There are more than 40 people listed as "notable faculty" in that particular section, and only 4 images being used. There are most likely quite a number of other free images of other individuals on the list which can be used instead of the Maslow one. In addition, the rationale provided for the College's article looks to be a simple copy-and-paste effort with only the article name being different from the rationale provided for the Maslow article. A much stronger reason for non-free use in the College's article needs to be provided in my opinion to justify this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's my reading too, but it's up to BMK to justify inclusion per burden. I would be in favour of inclusion iff a section was devoted to Maslow. Widefox; talk 12:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section is called "Files for discussion", not "Files for deletion". There was a complaint that the use of the image in Brooklyn College violated NFCC, and @Widefox: almost immediately deleted it from that article without any discussion at all. That's not consensus, that's bullshit. We have this section so that the community can make a decision about whether the NGCC complaint is valid, not so Widefox can go all cowboy and play admin and delete at the drop of a hat. Widefox's actions are antithetical to the collegial and consensual spirit of Wikipedia, and do not encourage discussion, but inhibit it. The world isn't going to end if we spend a bit of time actually discussing the use of the image, instead of ramming the deletion through without it. So, if Widefox will back off, I'll be glad to discuss the use of this image per NFCC, but I'm doing nothing until I get an assurance from them that they'll wait for a consensus decision, and not go off half-cocked again. My time is valuable, and I'm not going to waste it if Widefox is just going to do what they want to do anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK read Wikipedia:NFCCE. The burden is on you to make your case. Go ahead. I count 3:1 !votes against you above (so far). Widefox; talk 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, as long as you continue to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, removing an image without any discussion at all, I'm not participating in this charade. You apparently enjoy being a hatchetman, so you can just go ahead and continue to damage Wikipedia all on your own, without the cover that a phoney "discussion" gives you (since you're going to do what you want to do anyway). I'm happy to participate in any real discussion which determines consensus, but I won't be your beard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not a vote, if there's no argument for keeping, then we may as well close this. Widefox; talk 21:23, 15 May 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:Kulmmanghising.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 Tavix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio from [10], F9 declined by Patar knight (talk · contribs). – Train2104 (t • c) 18:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo in question is a posed publicity photo that has been used in this news article and this news article. The photo description claims the image was taken in 2015. The first news article has a publication date of 2013-12-22 which is earlier than the purported date of the photo. The oddly web friendly sizing of the image at 300x441 is also the exact same dimension on the two news articles. The claim of own work seems rather dubious, and OTRS verification would be needed. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 11 May 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.