Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

October 31

File:Molitor top.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Molitor top.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:27, 31 October 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:Carrikerella ceratophora.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: relisted on 2019 November 23. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrikerella ceratophora.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:Chplan.gif

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 ⚡ 02:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory licencing claims made when uploading. Uploader added the GFDL-self (and CC-Sharealike) template while also writing "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted." in big letters across the top. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the additional stipulation of non-commercial makes this invalid for free use. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 31 October 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:Diary entry of James Humphreys.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion per WP:NFCC#1 & WP:NFCC#8 by JJMC89 FASTILY 19:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1. This is less than 1/365th of the entire work. It illustrates the method used by a criminal that directly led to the imprisonment of 13 police officers - an event that was in the newspapers at the time for several weeks. 2 I struggle to see how this piece of unique court evidence can somehow be "created" without just directly copying it 3 It was important enough to have been included in a television documentary as an example of the evidence that was presented in court. 4 Simply describing what was in the diary is not sufficiently demonstrative enough for people to see what evidence was presented. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is less than 1/365th of the entire work. Criterion 3 (minimal use) isn't being disputed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that: the dispute is other, more dubious, grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image can trivially be replaced with (free) prose (criterion 1). A rewording of the caption with some additional text would be sufficient. (Example: Humphreys's diary contains line entries documenting £50 payment to Det. Chief Inspector George Fenwick of the OPB at the SPQR restaurant and £50 each to Wally Virgo and another policeman at the Nellie Dean pub. Add more detail if you like.) Removing the image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of Humphreys, the article subject (criterion 8) [or even the evidence itself, especially if replaced with prose]. What the evidence looks like is irrelevant; its contents (which can be described in prose) is what matters and made the case. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would lose all impact and blend in with the rest of the text: by that very act readers' understanding would be diminished. Images explain and support the context of the prose. Removing this is obviously detrimental to the reader and their understanding. I can't believe this is small image of something so important in Humphreys's is up for question on such tenuous grounds. As someone who works in the field of intellectual property, I find it hard to see just how or why this image is even being questioned: its ability to explain was grasped by the television documentary (who could have had the narrator just read the words), but they also understood the need to show the evidence itself, not just read the words. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it would lose all impact and blend in with the rest of the text Non-free images are only to be used when there is no free equivalent, not to make things stand out. I've already demonstrated that it can be replaced with text that shows the same thing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't the same, is it? If it had been printed text, I'd agree with you, but this isn't: it's a handwritten diary entry, a proof of a crime presented in court and seen as important enough for a documentary for inclusion. They could also have narrated the words, but they didn't: they useful the image, which is a thousand miles away from just having the text. This small file is so far away from things that need to be looked into I'm scratching my head over why it's here. As someone who works in IP—including dealing with copyright infringements—this is so far away from a potential problem that it's laughable. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it is the same. I said it is replaceable with free prose, which has equivalent encyclopedic value. This is an encyclopedia, not a documentary. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is intentionally stricter than US law. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "equivalent". There is a monumental difference between the typed word and the example of the diary entry. I am well aware that this is an encyclopaedia, but the aim of an encyclopaedia and a documentary are the same: to inform in a visual manner: words and images both carry different levels and types of information to different types of readers. All we have here is one small example of the layout, manner and style in which Humphreys recorded his bribes. This is too narrow a reading of the policy and such a beneficial example in terms of the article's subject matter that I can't understand the pushback on this. - SchroCat (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ This photo fails WP:NFCC#8 as there's nothing written in the article that requires seeing this copyrighted media to understand, nor does the article become less comprehensible without it. Seeing isn't required for believing; that's why we verify to reliable sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 7 November 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:Masahiro Sakurai.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion per WP:NFCC#1 by Begoon FASTILY 19:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a living person so a free image could be created. Fails WP:NFCC#1. No valid explanation for why this image cannot be replaced in the NFUR-- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 31 October 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:ArchiePunisher.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: Use only on Archie Meets the Punisher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free comic cover is being used in 3 articles. There is no objection to its use for identification in Archie Meets the Punisher. But its use in Crossover (fiction) fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. There are already free images being used to illustrate the crossover in comic and its removal would not detrimental to a reader's understanding of crossovers in fiction.

In the Stan Goldberg article, the cover is one of the comics that Goldberg worked on but the cover is not the subject of an significant sourced commentary and fails WP:NFCC#8.

I recommending keeping this file for use only in the Archie Meets the Punisher article and removing it from the others. Whpq (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solely at Archie Meets the Punisher works for me. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 4 November 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.