Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8[edit]

File:StAnneGlass1.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be public domain but permission field states "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Dubious public domain claim. Works by Philippine parishes can be copyrighted. No evidence of formal permission (maybe blanket statement was only provided). If the parish is willing to have this image released under PD which means even commeecial reuses by other people is allowed, then needs submission of email correspondence of consent for public domain licensing. If the parish doesn't want their image to be reused commercially, then (to the uploader) sorry, this must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 8 April 2021 (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:StAnne2016.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be public domain but permission field states "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Dubious public domain claim. Works by Philippine parishes can be copyrighted. No evidence of formal permission (maybe blanket statement was only provided). If the parish is willing to have this image released under PD which means even commeecial reuses by other people is allowed, then needs submission of email correspondence of consent for public domain licensing. If the parish doesn't want their image to be reused commercially, then (to the uploader) sorry, this must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:55, 8 April 2021 (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:AnneImage2000.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as public domain but there's a statement "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Not in public domain as claimed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 8 April 2021 (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:Citogenesis.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: keep. ✗plicit 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC; its omission wouldn't be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic. Those who wish to use it in the article should ask Munroe to release it under a license that allows commercial use, which he has done for other Wikipedia-related strips. Nardog (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader. I have mailed the author a request. In the meantime, it is certainly fair use, and seems to meet NFCC for the reasons noted on the image page -- this comic is responsible for the attention to citogenesis on WP, which is the longest section on the page; the comic itself is discussed there in context and responsible for the coinage for this subclass of circular citation. Its inclusion adds clarity and detail about this origin, and it is used on the page where the comic is being discussed.~~which does seem to enlarge a reader's understanding of that section if not the article~~ – SJ + 06:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The use here is to describe the term "citogenesis", however, this can be done with text and/or free media alone. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: the primary use in the article is to illustrate the comic that coined the term, in the section about the use of that term, next to the paragraph discussing the comic. Edited to make that clearer. – SJ + 16:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly leaning delete based on the fact that the comic itself is not discussed in significant sourced commentary in my opinion. In my view, the comic is briefly mentioned as where the term was what brought the term into use and how circular reporting is typically developed in Wikipedia, but not in detail where the inclusion of the topic would significantly help the reader understand the commentary of the citogenesis comic in particular. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This comic is the source of the word; it's very relevant to the topic. This Slate article provides sourced commentary. SnowFire (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although brief, there is sourced commentary about the comic and its popularisation of the phrase citogenesis -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2021 (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.

Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song)[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: relisted on 2021 April 16. ✗plicit 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Show Me the Way cover 1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Showmethewayps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Show Me the Way by Peter Frampton UK vinyl side-A.png (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:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article(s) are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 23:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally prodded for deletion, but that was contested; so, I’m bringing this up for discussion here. This is non-free cover art whose non-free use in The personal is political#The Carol Hanisch essay fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3). While the essay may be Wikipedia notable, there's no reason to show the cover of the publication it appeared in unless the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary; so, basically this file's non-free use in WP:DECORATIVE in the article about the essay and removing the file from the article is not going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article per WP:NFC#CS. For reference, the file was also being used in New York Radical Women and Shulamith Firestone, but these uses didn't have the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c; so, the file was removed from those articles per WP:NFCCE. The file's use in those other two articles also doesn't seem to satisfy NFCC#8 and simply adding a rationale for each would not make the file's non-free use in each policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the cover contains identifying context and content relating to the article, the use satisfies NFCI#1. NFCI#1 "relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys." Those familiar with the work would certainly concur that the cover is important to context and identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B014:7CF8:3E90:6514:247C:72BC (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-free use you're referring to above would make sense if the file was used for primary identification purposes at the top of a stand-alone article about the publication itself, but that's not the case here (at least it doesn't seem to be the case). The personal is political is an article is about a "political argument" and the particular section where the file is used is about an "essay" defending or expounding upon said argument that appeared in a publication; moreover, the title of the essay doesn't even seem to be listed on the cover of the publication (not that it really would matter if it did). If the essay was published as a separate work on its own (e.g. a pamphlet, a short book) and this was cover art used for that publication, then it could be argued that it would be a type of use given as one of the examples in the guideline WP:NFCI, but that's not really the case here.
  NFCI just lists some examples of non-free use generally considered to be OK to use, but it doesn't mean that WP:NFCCP compliance is automatic for each of these examples. I don't think the non-free content use policy and the consensus about using non-free cover art extends to separate works that appeared within the primary published work the cover art represents. Non-free album covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes of songs that appear on albums; non-free book covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in Wikipedia articles about chapters or excepts from books; and non-free magazine or newspaper covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in Wikipedia articles about articles or other pieces that appear in magazines or newspapers. The article where this file is being used also states "It [The essay] has since been reprinted in Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader." yet there isn't a non-free image of the cover art of that publication and one isn't really needed for that sentence to be understood. Maybe you could clarify why you think omitting this file would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article content corresponding to it ("The essay was published under the title, "The Personal Is Political", in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation in 1970.), and how omitting it is different from omitting the cover for Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader.
  Just a final note about your account. The IP address you used to post here is different from the one used to contest the proposed deletion at File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg. Assuming that you made both posts, it might be easier and help avoid confusion if you either used a static IP account or registered for an account. A new IP showing up each time to post something might give the mistaken impression of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. If you've previously edited Wikipedia using some other account, it might be best for you to log in and use that account instead of a different IP address each time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded and posted this image, intended as an illustration for the essay, much as one might have cover art for a song (regardless of whether or not the song is named on the front page of an album). Substantively, I think that situating the article within a underground newspaper publication of second-wave feminism is highly illustrative of the context of its production. While there's a lot of disavowing of ownership for this phrase, it remains the case that it is popularized by this particular article by Carol Hanisch, whose naming was the responsibility of New York Radical Women and the those who produced this particular publication. Currently, no other images serve to illustrate the context in which this term was popularized and this seems like a strong candidate to do so.

Re the criteria… We're debating whether the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, "The ‘personal is political’ has long been recognised as the definitive slogan of second-wave feminism." (Rogan, Frances; Budgeon, Shelley (2018). "The Personal is Political: Assessing Feminist Fundamentals in the Digital Age". Social Sciences. 7 (8): 132. doi:10.3390/socsci7080132.) This image places it within the context of 2nd wave feminism, of samizdat-style feminist newspapers, and of examination of women's personal lives through consciousness raising circles. At least four of the seven headlines represent the kind of "personal issues" that Hanisch is drawing attention to.

Re the placement of the image / the section on the Hanisch article. Carol Hanisch's essay undoubtedly meets the notability criteria. See the previous quote and follow-up literature such as this and this, but (as the editor involved) I saw little benefit in separating the article into two and it isn't currently long enough to split off per WP:SUMMARY. This stylistic choice serves the reader, as does keeping the image.--Carwil (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book cover is not the subject of significant sourced commentary, adn its removal does not detract from the understanding of the publication of the essay. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2021 (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:StAnneRelic1.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as public domain but there's a statement "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Not in public domain as claimed - public domain means it can be totally used by anyone from the world, even for commercial purposes, without permission from the copyright holder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 8 April 2021 (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:DEDICDIO1.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as public domain but there's a statement "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Not in public domain as claimed - public domain means it can be totally used by anyone from the world, even for commercial purposes, without permission from the copyright holder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:10, 8 April 2021 (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:DEDICCPG1.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as public domain but there's a statement "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Not in public domain as claimed - public domain means it can be totally used by anyone from the world, even for commercial purposes, without permission from the copyright holder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 8 April 2021 (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:Dedication plaque, Jubilee Parish Church (Malicboy, Quezon).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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as public domain but there's a statement "Copyright: St. Anne Parish & Diocesan Shrine Parish Youth Committee". Not in public domain as claimed - public domain means it can be totally used by anyone from the world, even for commercial purposes, without permission from the copyright holder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 8 April 2021 (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:KatrinMeissner.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder of this image. The EXIF data shows the author to be "Jehu Abiram" with an explicit copyright notice "(c)JehuAbiram2012" in the EXIF. WP:OTRS confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (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:Kentucky Jones publicity photo.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this image adds anything that isn't already covered by the pre-existing free image File:Rickey Der Dennis Weaver Kentucky Jones 1964.JPG. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with the nominator. This image is essentially redundant to the free image. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I wrote the article and uploaded all the photos. The photo with both Dennis Weaver and Ricky Der — which I found later and uploaded second — best supports the article because it depicts the two main characters as opposed to only one. I had previously uploaded the photo of Dennis Weaver alone. I don't feel the urge to delete things from Wikipedia as much as other editors seem to, so I just left both photos in the article. If you must delete one, delete the one with only Dennis Weaver, as it contributes less than the Weaver/Der photo. If you are proposing deletion of the Weaver/Der photo, then I oppose, because you would be deleting a photo with two characters and retaining one with only one character, even though both photos are equally justified when it comes to use in a Wikipedia article (as publicity photos elsewhere in Wikipedia are). Mdnavman (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

@Mdnavman: nobody is proposing to delete the Weaver/Der photo, as it's a free image and extremely useful. Because it is free, there's no need for the use of a fair use image of Weaver alone that doesn't convey any additional information. As stated above see NFCC#1, which says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since there is a free equivalent, we don't need a non-free image as well. FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2021 (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:Misc-2006playoffs-1024.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 ⚡ 05:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned bracket with a ton of non-free content with no fair use rationale. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it incorporates non-free logos with no non-free usage rationale, and also not used in any articles. -- Whpq (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (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:Kim Janey for Mayor (2021).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 ⚡ 03:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not, in fact, used "to serve as primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", which was the non-free use rationale given SecretName101 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Image use is purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as db-author Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2021 (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.