Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29[edit]

File:Chicago Race Riot 1919.gif[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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete/Orphan/Low quality:The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, and has other physical image quality concerns. Replaced by File:Map of 1919 Chicago Race Riot Hot Spots extending over the Black Belt.jpg

Delete Image has been superseded by superior version.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2019 (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:Xavier Administration Building 1932.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain claim is "Published as university history" which doesn't make a lick of sense. Unfortunately the link provided is the main university website, not the specific page the image came from, and I can't find the image on the site to verify publication date/free license (even checked the archived version here). No results on reverse image search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not guaranteed to be public domain. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 30 July 2019 (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:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.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 per consensus below. File is unused locally and available on Commons. "Keep local" does not automatically immunize files from deletion, particularly when WP:NOTWEBHOST is the concern raised. -FASTILY 00:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD was declined. Am contesting the need to keep local - no need, as it is fully in the scope of Commons, and is already there under this filename. Uploader is community-banned so there is no purpose to keeping this for monitoring/watchlist reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, as far as I know the uploaders request to keep local is universally accepted. If nominator would like to change that, I recommend an RFC, and not a deletion discussion. If this image were nominated for any other reason, I'd have voted Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, {{Keep local}} is universally accepted and attempting to delete a file so marked will discourage editors from uploading to the project if they know their wishes can be overridden by will of the community. As I said in my speedy keep vote, if there were any other reason to delete this, I would whole heartily support. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think {{Keep local}} requests are as universally accepted as claimed just because the uploader wants a local version kept. I could possibly see honoring such a request for a photo taken by the uploader, but this is no such photo. The uploader seems to have just found the photo online, downloaded it onto their computer, and then uploaded to Wikipedia under an acceptable license. Someone else could've same thing, only uploaded the file to Commons instead. I think there's going to have to be a really good reason for keeping a local version and I'm not seeing any such reason at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to think it, it is universally accepted. The source of the image is irrelevant, if someone takes the time to find an image and upload it to this project, and wishes to keep the copy local to this project, that wish should be honored. Some people simply do not like dealing with Commons (I count myself among that group) and while {{Keep local}} retains local copies here, it does not stop others from uploading the content to Commons for use on other projects. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to where it clearly states "Keep local" is universally accepted? Was there a community discussion (i.e. RFC where this was established)? Otherwise, you're just expecting everyone to assume that it's "universally accepted" because some users don't like dealing with Commons. WP:MTC#What not to transfer actually did use to say something about this, but that content was removed a few years ago; so, maybe things aren't as universally accepted as they once were. FWIW, the Commons shadowing issue can be fixed by changing the name of the Commons file, but this local file would still not be being used anywhere. It has been replaced in the article by File:Senator Geraldine Thompson.jpg, and there doesn't otherwise appear to be any real encyclopedic need to keep a local version of it anymore. If there's no encyclopedic need for it, then it appears that item 2 of WP:NOTWEBHOST comes into play. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, if the reason given for deletion were literally anything else I'd support. I refuse to help set precedent here by voting to delete an image on the basis of it's keep-local status. Please read the reason given and vote with that, not with what the other reasons could be. I don't have a link handy to older discussion on the topic, though I do recall efforts to delete the keep-local template that failed (and are the closest thing to an RFC on the topic that I can quickly find). Also, if we start allowing deletions of keep-local content, it will discourage editors from uploading files here as we're effectively ceding local control to a project with different rules/expectations. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for clarification in support of the claim that "keep local" is universally accepted, but I'm not suggesting the file should be deleted per WP:F8. I think the file fails item 2 of WP:NOTWEBHOST and that is in my opinion a valid reason for deletion. The file might not be eligble for speedy deletion, but I don't think that necessarily means that the file can't be deleted if there's a FFD consensus to do so. Your argument for keep the file seems to be just as much of a "could be" argument as anything anyone else has posted. You seem to be arguing that deleting this one particular file will lead to a flood of similar deletion nominations, but nobody can real say what it will lead to. What is the encyclopedic value of keeping this file to Wikipedia? As I pointed out, it's not currently be used in any articles and there doesn't really seem to be any articles where it can be used. If the only real reason for keeping the file would be to use Wikipedia as a WEBHOST (even with the best of intentions) then that would be something that's clearly not allowed per relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm just not effective at communicating here, so I'll try again: the reason provided by the person proposing deletion was not any of the reasons you just gave. The reason given was due to the keep-local status and the image being on Commons. If the proposer would like to amend their reasoning to include one of the reasons you just cited, I would whole heartily agree with deletion. Not sure why you think I'm saying the file can never be deleted when I've said I'd support deletion for any other reason (unrelated to keep-local, anyways). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got the point you were making, but this is FFD, not a speedy deletion or Prod nomination. It's not unreasonable to expect that during the course of discussion about the file that someone else might point out another reason why the file should be deleted that the nominator didn't mention. It seems unnecessary to close the FFD and start another, or have the nominator amend their original post simply to change the reason for nominating the file for deletion. The administrator reviewing this discussion will assess all of the comments, not just the nominator's, and see whether a consensus is established based upon applicable policy and guidelines, and their close will be worded to reflect whatever that consensus turns out to be. I do apologize, however, if my last post misrepresented your position; it wasn't done intentionally. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the slippery slope that would be created if this is deleted given how this was nominated, I would prefer the request be amended. Also, to answer something a little more you mentioned earlier: if you go to Template talk:Keep local, there are three deletion discussions linked at the top, with conversations on that page that link to discussed at WT:CSD. You can see during some of those discussions, editors were nominating images tagged {{Keep local}} for FFD, and just as then, that behavior should be frowned upon. Provide a legitimate reason to delete an image, not simply that it is tagged {{Keep local}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTHOST, we do not host files solely for the purpose of hosting files. This file is not currently used as the article about the subject of the photograph, Geraldine Thompson, currently uses a different picture of her. Furthermore, should it be useful to use this image on a page, there is a perfectly usable Commons copy of the file, so there is no need to host a local copy. Furthermore, per WP:OWN, the uploader is not given an unrestricted right to host files on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHOST is not applicable, this is free content that has encyclopedic value. Unless you're asserting that the uploader is hotlinking this image from their personal webhost? The fact that the deletion is being made in an attempt to circumvent {{Keep local}} is the reason why this should not be deleted (the nominator even admitted they attempted a WP:PROD first). As I said elsewhere in this discussion, were it nominated for deletion for any other reason I would very likely support.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:50, 2 August 2019 (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.

Non-free image gallery in Democratic Party (Italy)[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 -FASTILY 00:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image gallery of former logos in Democratic Party (Italy)#Symbols which is pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC#8,WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Checking through the article, I found two sentences about the party's change in branding for two of the logos (one in Democratic Party (Italy)#Foundation and leadership election and one in Democratic Party (Italy)#Leadership of Nicola Zingaretti) so perhaps these respective logos can be moved there. However, none of the files are really all that different from the main infobox logo or from each other for that matter and I'm not sure all of them are needed per WP:NFCC#3a or WP:FREER unless more sourced critical commentary about each of them can be added to the article and the files are incorporated in a manner other than a stand-alone image gallery subsection.

One other thing to consider is whether the files really need to be licensed as {{non-free logo}}. The only really complex element (at least in my opinion) is the "olive branch" imagery, and if that's not really enough to push this above c:COM:TOO United States then these might be OK to relicense as public domain for local use on English Wikipedia using {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. c:COM:TOO Italy is not so clear, but the files could be moved to Commons as {{PD-logo}} if these would also be public domain in Italy. On the other hand, if these cannot be converted to some sort of public domain or otherwise shown to have been released under a free license that Wikipedia accepts, then the non-free content use policy issues will need to be addressed in order to keep all or any of the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2019 (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:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a lot of non-free media on this page--we don't need three more pieces. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have separate files for each remix's cover art and I combined it together for the "Other remixes" section. The cover art and the meme surrounding the amount of horses on the cover and their colors is relevant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If what you've stated is true, then the file is a user-created collage/montage which is a problem per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3a. You've basically taken three non-free files and combined them into a different non-free file. If the original copyright holder had done this, then the file might be OK to be treated as a single file, but you doing it is sort of a type of "image original reasearch". You're going to need to provide copyright information on each individual file you used in the non-free use rationale per WP:NFCC#10a and then still clarify how the file's non-free use provides the context required by WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here I would say that you only need one remix cover (the Billy Ray Cyrus one) to demonstration how the other covers work, and to discuss from there the meme of just adding different colored horses for the others. You don't need to show them all in this type of situation. If there was an official montage of the four covers, then we'd be okay with that montage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Masem (t) 00:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly and Masem: I understand both of your arguments and believe that fair use doesn't cover this collage's inclusion. I will replaced it with what was on the article before: free images of the remix artists. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A user created montage creates as many non-free cases as there are non-free original elements to it (see WP:NFG). I fail to see why it's necessary to include every cover of every remix. There's horses on the covers. We get that, and can see that from prior album covers. That new horses have a different color isn't something that can't be conveyed by text, thus generating a WP:NFCC #8 failure. I don't think anyone seeing any cover version of this song would be lost looking at it if it was not one of the covers already extant in the article. There's also no sourced prose here supporting the additional album covers having different horses being significant enough to draw attention in secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is already one piece of nonfree media used for identification, and that is what's permitted. More than that must require substantial discussion of the media itself (not the item it was used for) in reliable sources, and that doesn't seem to be present here. Also, the nonfree content rationale is not valid, as two parts of it are marked "n.a." rather than being explained. Every portion of NFCC is applicable to every nonfree image, and rationales must actually be completed, not marked with placeholders. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 1 August 2019 (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.