Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11[edit]

File:Steve-clark.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 ⚡ 06:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's already the free alternative File:Steve Clark.jpeg. It's not as good a picture but perfectly suitable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NFCC1 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 12 August 2018 (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:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.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. First off, saying "fair use established" is not enough to keep an image. We have strict rules about which images can be kept and which ones can be deleted and which need to be addressed. It seems that consensus is that most uses are inappropriate due to WP:NFCC#8, and that the use in Hans Hoffman is questionable as there are already non-free images there (WP:NFCC#3). Color Field is also questionable for NFCC#8 reasons and there are widespread WP:NFCC#10c concerns as well. Thus there does not seem to be consensus to support the use of the image in any article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with all the ones below, JJMC89 has first removed fair use templates with inadequate explanation, and then put these up here. This is not a good way to proceed. In any case, some fair uses remained, so I'm not sure what the point of "discussing" here is. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Hans Hofmann and Color Field in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the individual painting. The uses here are particularly poor in terms of NFCC policy compliance, since they typically are used to illustrate of ten lengthy, generally unsourced lists of artists characterized as important, displayed in de facto galleries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File is currently being used in seven times in six articles: Hans Hofmann, Color Field#Historical roots, Abstract expressionism#Gorky, Hofmann, and Graham, twice in History of painting#Abstract expressionism, Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts) and Western painting#Abstract expressionism.
Possible keep in "Hans Hoffman". The file is being used in the main infobox of the Hofmann article which seems inappropriate because the main infobox image should serve the encyclopedic purpose of primarily identifying Hofmann himself, and not one of his works. While I could see moving the file to the article body as an example of the Hofmann's particular style, there are already two other non-free image apparently serving that purpose which is problematic per WP:NFCC#3a. Moreover, there is no specific sourced commentary of The Gate anywhere at all in the article which is a problem because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. Of the three files mentioned above File:Hans Hofmann Effervescence 1944.jpg appears to be from an earlier period than The Gate, but File:Hans Hofmann Pompeii 1959.jpg seems to have been painted around the same time. It might be possible to justify two non-free images as representative examples from different periods of Hofmann's career, but not two painted within the same year or within a year or two of each other without any specific sourced critical commentary of either painting. Simply mentioning the painting by name twice in the article is not enough of a sufficient justification for non-free use per WP:FREER. So, I suggest remove either The Gate or Pompeii with the remaining being kept as a representative of Hofmann's work circa 1959–60.

Remove from "History of painting#Abstract expressionism", "Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts)" and "Western painting#Abstract expressionism". These particular non-free use do not seem NFCCP compliant at all. These are more general historical/genre articles with hatnotes or links to more specific articles where this file can be seen, and this seems more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:FREER. The "Western painting" articles seems to bascially summarize content found in other articles and the painting isn't even mentioned a single time by name. The same thing can be said for the "Modernism" article where the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption and the artist is only mentioned by name three times in the entire article. The file is actually being used twice in the same section of the "History of painting" article (once in the body of the section and once in an image gallery) which is completely unnecessary per NFCC#3a and fails NFCC#10c (a separate specific rationale is needed for "each use", not "each article"). There are hatnotes and links to related articles where the painting might be seen so even a single use in the "History of painting" article is questionale per NFCC#8.
Possible keep in the "Color Field" article, but remove from "Abstract expressionism". The "Color Field", like "Hans Hofmann", seems more suitable for this file. There is some discussion of Hofmann in "Color Field", but it's unsourced so it's not clear how much is WP:OR or WP:SYN. It would be better to have sourced critical commentary about the painting itself in the body of the article (instead of an unsourced claim in the file's caption) which shows how this painting not only is representative of Hofmann's work, but also of this particular style of painting. The use in "Abstact expressionism" cannot really be justified because the "Color Field" subsection appears to be just a summary of the "Color Field" article, so there's doesn't seem to be a real need for the readr to see the file here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples of Hofmann's work in Hans Hofmann (NFCC#3a), and the image shouldn't be in the infobox. There is no sourced commentary about the work in any of the articles it is used in (Hans Hofmann, abstract expressionism, Color Field, modernism, Western painting, and history of painting) (NFCC#8). Some don't even mention the work. Since all uses violate policy, the file should be deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons? If not, then unsure - I went copyright.gov and did not find a copyright renewal of Hofmann's art portraits, including this image. If that's the case, then would moving it to Commons be all right? BTW, I found the 1942 self-portrait of him and consider it the better image for the infobox than this one. Indeed, I could not find a renewal at the 1969 and 1970 catalogs. --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need input on the question posted by George Ho. Imma summon GermanJoe as they have in the past processed such questions well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Pings do not work within the comment section of {{relist}}. Re-pinging GermanJoe. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all usages violate NFCC # 10c (insufficient cookie-cutter rationales). They also violate NFCC #8 with little or no contextual significance. Arguably some sourced detailed coverage specifically about the image in Hans Hofmann or Color field could justify a non-free usage in the future, but the current articles don't have that content. Regarding a Commons transfer: the Guggenheim Foundation notes a copyright claim by "© 2018 Renate, Hans & Maria Hofmann Trust/Artist's Rights Society (ARS), New York". Of course this claim may or may not be valid, but without clear evidence for an invalid claim we shouldn't move such files to Commons (see also Hans Hofmann#Hofmann Estate for details). GermanJoe (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (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.