Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22

< January 21	January 23 >

January 22[edit]

File:CGP Grey stick figure.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: no consensus. Somewhat complicated discussion here. Excuse me for talking in terms of sides/camps, but here is an analysis of the discussion:

On the delete side, we have the statement that the non-free image(s) has a function in the article that could be satisfied by using the freely licensed image of the subject and thus the non-free image(s) should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. There is also the contestation that a BLP subject's desire to use a non-free image in their biography cannot override the non-free content policy.
On the keep side, we have the statement that the non-free image does a better job illustrating the style and brand of the YouTube channel in a way that the freely licensed image cannot do; and that the freely licensed image thus does not trigger WP:NFCC#1. There is a secondary argument that the article subject requested the use of the non-free image.
Both sides also cite precedents, such as using a logo on a corporation article or not using a TV screenshot in an actor article, with rebutting arguments also being mentioned by the other camp. The headcount is 5 keep to 3-4 delete depending on whether we count the nomination as part of "delete" in this case.
Therea secondary question raised by Masem on using a non-copyrightable logo, but it didn't get any discussion that I can see ... and actually I am not even certain about which logo we are talking about. Another secondary discussion which didn't get input is about whether the stick figure can be used in the article but not in the infobox.

On balance, it appears that the BLP argument is not very solidly grounded (i.e it is not reason for keeping) as there are compelling counterarguments that the WP:BLP policy says nothing about non-free image but the "is the free image actually a replacement" discussion is murkier. It seems like there are convincing arguments on both sides about the selected persona of the article subject and Wikipedia's general practices regarding non-free images and thus no consensus about whether the image use is WP:NFCC#1 compliant. So this is a no consensus, default to keep (it seems like a no-consensus close of a non-free discussion does not justify deletion, per WP:CON). Finally, since I see that one of the stick figure images is unused and tagged for deletion, the images here can still be deleted under WP:NFCC#7 if they don't get used in articles/are redundant; this discussion mostly dealt with WP:NFCC#1 compliance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for daily deletion as failing WP:NFCC#1/WP:CSD#F7 by @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. FASTILY 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding NFCC, there is a free equivalent, but it cannot be used as the subject has requested for this illustration to be used instead (see Talk:CGP Grey/Archive 1 § An image of his face, spoiler alert.). Regarding CSD, this file uses {{Non-free video screenshot}}, which is intended for screenshots of videos. The media file in question is taken from a portion of an image included in a The Daily Dot article, which itself was taken from "Should all locks have keys? Phones, Castles, Encryption, and You." on YouTube. See the file description for further info. Are you talking about the needed SVG conversion? I don't think FFD should be a place to bring light to that issue. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 04:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I uploaded File:CGP Grey stick figure.svg. If above file is deleted feel free to delete this file as well. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two versions of the same non-free file aren't needed regardless per WP:NFCC#3a. Moreover, even if the png version is kept, it's not clear a svg would meet WP:NFCC#1 or NFCC#3a as explained in WP:FREER unless it's a vector version created by the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based upon the current rationale given for non-free use. The BLP justification for using a non-free image like this was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons and the consensus seemed to be that that is not a sufficient justification to meet WP:FREER. The subject may not want images of him posted online, but a non-free image is not justified because the subject wants to use their logo instead since there's no requirement that any image be used at all. The subject could just as easily make a freely licensed version of the stickman logo or some other image available for use in the article. Another non-free file File:CGPGreySymbol.png was used in the article, but that was deleted per WP:F7. There also seem to be files uploaded to Commons deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CGP Grey logo 900px.jpg.I can't tell if the file being discussed here is that same as either of those files; if it is, then it's not clear whether it was just WP:BOLDly reuploaded under a different name without realizing that the previous versions had been deleted, or if it was uploaded because the uploader didn't agree with the previous deletions. I'm assuming the former since the previous non-free version was uploaded in 2012 by a different editor.
If the arguments being made are that this is NFCC compliant because (1) the subject wants us to use and (2) we can't create a free equivalent of it, then I think those are not sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#1 and the image's non-free use cannot be justified not only in the main infobox, but also anywhere in the article per WP:NFCCP. The article is BLP and non-free images for primary identification purposes of the subjects of BLPs are really limited only to exceptional cases. On the other hand, if the argument is that this could be used in the body of the article per WP:NFCC#8 as a representative example of the subject's creative work output, their online persona and that type of non-free use can be supported by sourced critical commentary of the image, or that image is going to be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the image itself, then that might be worth discussing more. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Fastily was able to confirm User talk:Fastily#File:CGP Grey stick figure.png that the previously deleted files are actually different than the one being discussed here; so, I've stricken that part from my post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added File:CGP Grey stick figure.svg to the nom -FASTILY 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is living, but I wouldn't necessary call recluse, simply that they don't want their face to be associated with their handle, which is a reasonable request that we can accept (Our original handling of the Star Wars Kid, before he fully associated his name with that identity a few years ago, rings with this). But that does not create a special class of use of a non-free image to replace what is apparently a free image of the actual person. To add: the person lives in the UK, so while the simplicity of the image (certain the logo) may fail to be copyrightable in the US, it won't be in the UK. So unless there is detailed discussion from third-parties of his chosen avatar (more than, "this is just what he uses on YouTube"), the image should be deleted. There is the option to not have an infobox image, and just use the logo, which I'd argue fails copyrightability in the US and those could be updated to en.wiki as PD-USonly, and not necessary use that as the infobox image but just as a general image "The CGP Grey channel logo". --Masem (t) 06:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the png version as identifying the subject in a way that would be impossible for any freely-obtainable photograph, and as an image that is discussed and sourced in the article itself. The argument for deletion, that a free replacement photo could be obtained, would only apply if this were a non-free photo of the subject, but it isn't. To me this seems analogous to the way we would use a non-free logo on a corporate article like Twitter: sure, we could (and often do) represent the company itself by a photo of its corporate headquarters, and because of replaceability we wouldn't allow a non-free photo of the headquarters, but that doesn't make the logo replaceable by a building. In the same way, the public image of this blogger is some form of this image; if we had good reason we could also include a photo of his face, and for that we would need a free photo, but the photo wouldn't replace this image. I think it passes all the NFCC, and particularly #8, although it could reasonably be downsized and meet 3b even better. But delete the SVG version as we don't need its scalability here and it is worse with respect to 3b. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the PNG. For sake of argument, let's pretend there was no BLPPRIVACY request. Even in that case, I would still support keeping this image, because no photograph could identify CGP Grey in the same way that his infamous avatar does. It is his personal brand; I see this as akin to having a fair-use logo on the article of a company. The image also serves a secondary purpose: it demonstrates the art style of his videos. Even if a consensus emerged that this image shouldn't be the article's lead image, I would still advocate putting it or a similar image in the Videos section. –IagoQnsi (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IagoQnsi. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's first point. This isn't a non-free photo - it's a non-free non-photographic representation which aids in identification and improves the reader's understanding of the subject in a way that a photo or text cannot. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a flat-out NFCC#1 violation. A free image of the subject exists and is available on Commons. We may elect, as an editorial decision, not to display the image in the article, respecting the subject's wishes, but that routine editorial decision does not create an exception to nonfree image policy. The article subject is not a private person, but a public figure who makes public appearances at which he is freely photographed. Nothing in BLP policy compels this result. The use rationale for the image states clearly that is intended to identify the article subject, and that the nonfree image is a better identifier for the subject than any available free image. The latter may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. There are many, many performers who are arguably more easily identified by a nonfree image of their most famous role (eg, Michael Dorn), but NFC policy does not allow us to use the nonfree images. Other, related attempts to justify the use of this image also fail. Despite what some editors have claimed, this is not the subject's logo or avatar. It is a cropped screenshot showing an animated depiction of the subject in performance, and is no more acceptable for use in a BLP than a screenshot of an actor in their most famous role, which is to say, not acceptable at all. Ans even if there is a consensus here that such "better" nonfree images should be used, that consensus would conflict with, and be overridden by, WMF nonfree content policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The big difference between this case and the case of someone like Michael Dorn/Worf is: Dorn only publicly appears as Worf within the context of Star Trek; when he appears in public or in other acting roles, he is not Worf. Grey, however, is almost exclusively known by his stick figure in all public appearances. It's not just a character on the CGP Grey YouTube channel. It's how he appears in his alternate channels, CGPGrey2 and CGP Play. When he makes vlogs, he never shows his face, censoring his face with the stick figure head if it accidentally appears. When he appears in others' content, he is still portrayed as his stick figure, as in this video by Numberphile or these tweets by LinusTechTips and Captain Disillusion. In the official animated versions of both his podcasts (which are otherwise audio-only), he is shown as his stick figure (Hello Internet and Cortex). The stick figure is not just one character from one of his projects; it is universally used across his entire career.

Another point is that, although Dorn is most famous for playing Worf, he is not Worf; no one would consider Dorn and Worf to be the same entity. Grey, on the other hand, is not seen as a separate entity from his stick figure. The stick figure is not a character he plays; it IS a depiction of himself for all intents and purposes. You noted that we don't use a non-free photo of Worf on the Michael Dorn article, and you are correct. However, we do use a non-free photo of Worf on the Worf article. I would argue that using the stick figure image on the CGP Grey article is more akin to the Worf case than the Michael Dorn case. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2020 (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:Leoniagara.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 ⚡ 10:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, superior version available: File:Leonid Meteor Storm 1833.jpg FASTILY 04:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file - though I will say when I originally loaded this version I loaded it because of the warning of copyright and chose a low resolution version on purpose. perhaps a more appropriate way to go would be to upgrade the existing one here with the higher quality one that was loaded elsewhere. But I don't care much - if everyone agrees the other one is better, and I do, go for it. Smkolins (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2020 (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:Christopher The Sopranos Pilot.jpeg[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 because not used to increase understanding of the article, and not necessary at all to understand the article. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2020 (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:Mohammed Moqbel.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo of a non-notable YouTuber. (Was previously used in now-deleted article Mohammed Moqbel). kingboyk (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2020 (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:Vishal arora kaku.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image uploaded for promotional purposes (see old revs), no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2020 (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.