Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 5

< July 4	July 6 >

July 5

File:Microsoft 1984-Scott McGregor, Charles Simonyi, and Gordon Letwin.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. B (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File's non-free use in Scott A. McGregor#1978–1998: Software industry doesn't, in my opinion, meet WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS), with its non-free use being more more WP:DECORATIVE than not. There's no real sourced critical commentary about the photo itself anywhere in McGregor article (the only mention of Fortune (the magazine where the photo first appeared) is a simple declarative statement in the image's caption) and while there's may be some historical significance to the three persons in the photo coming together as a group and to the things they accomplished while they worked at MIcorsoft, the same cannot automatically be said about the photo itself per WP:ITSHISTORIC. There's quite a lot of detail (e.g. "In placing each engineer next to the other two, visually, and in context of an interview with Fortune on behalf of Microsoft, this photo highlights the significance of each person that would not be communicable with prose alone.") about why the file "needs to be" used in its non-free use rationale, but none of that seems to reflect how it's actually being used in the article and none of the interpretations made about the photo in the non-free use rationale are supported by any secondary sourced commentary about it in the article. If such commentary can be properly supported by secondary reliable sources, then it should be added to the article along with supporting citations; if not, then it's nothing more than a kind of image-related WP:OR which is insufficient to justify the file's non-free use simply based upon a caption saying the three were pictured together in a 1984 issue of Fortune magazine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's claimed purpose is not borne out by its actual usage as noted in the nomination. As it is currently used, it fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The core issue here seems to be "none of [the free use rationale given for the image] seems to reflect how it's actually being used in the article". I'm working on addressing this right now with improvements to the article's prose (and referenced expansion of McGregor's time at Microsoft). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A secondary issue seem to be that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1, but I believe the original rationale ("No free image alternative exists publicly than can illustrate the presence, significance, and nature of these three engineers at Microsoft in the 1980s") stands; no other photographs exist, let alone free ones, of McGregor from the mid-1980s, so there is no free equivalent. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And the other secondary issue seems to be that, while the "events" themselves may be historic, the image is not itself necessarily so as a result (per WP:ITSHISTORIC). I agree; this image is certainly not "historic". That said, its being an image of a historic set of events (McGregor's tenure at Microsoft developing the first version of Microsoft Windows) "can be part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8 (contextual significance)" (per WP:ITSHISTORIC again)—I do believe that is the case here. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:53, 12 July 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:AlexandraTaraReade.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. She is a living person, and File:Tara Reade (cropped, color cast removed).png exists. Editors at the talk page may decide not to use the 1992 photo for editorial reasons, but that's not a reason to use a modern photo which is not the subject of critical commentary. Plenty of living people have no photo in their article. Either take the 1992 photo or leave it (i.e. no photo at all). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by King of Hearts. Reade is still living and non-free images are pretty much never allowed for a living person absent some pretty exceptional circumstances like the things mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Reade's involvement in the event and her claims are certainly things worth mentioning, but none of them are really related to her current physical appearance and the fact that she appeared on TV and was interviewed doesn't really require that a non-free screenshot of her be seen to be understood. It's not unreasonable that to expect that Reade will make further public appearances as we get closer to the 2020 US Presidential Election, which means that somebody could take a photo of her and release it under a free license acceptable for Commons. This seems to be a clear fail per WP:F7 and WP:FREER that it probably could've been tagged with {{rfu}} instead of bringing it up for discussion here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight up fails WP:NFCC#1 as a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 7 July 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.