Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9[edit]

File:Trial Memorandum of President Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf[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: Violates WP:NFCC#3b & WP:NFCC#8, per below, and as established in this discussion -FASTILY 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_February_7#File:Answer_of_President_Trump_to_the_Trial_Memorandum_Of_The_United_States_House_Of_Representatives_In_The_Second_Impeachment_Trial_Of_President_Donald_John_Trump.pdf this is a 78 page PDF, we are not a non-free host for the sake of convenience. Specifically fails WP:NFCC#3. How can we allow this 78 page plain text PDF, but disallow excessive quotations? From WP:NFC, Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. is unacceptable, Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed that we were going to continue on the purpose discussion on the other file's entry for Files for Discussion about Trump's answer, then apply similar consensus for Trump's brief so we were clear as it relates to Trump's sole 2 files. Or are we going to argue on this file individually separate from the other one? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind really, but this file is much larger, and I don't think it's common to merge two deletion dicussions from different users. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylsss I understand your concerns, and I want to propose a solution. I do think that we should not compromise WP:NPOV and have both sides represented, though you have legitimate issues over global polices of fair use that must be followed. For specifically this file, if I uploaded a compressed file in low-resolution, and only included the first 3 pages of the file (which is the cover page and the table of contents, and none of the actual content of his brief), and then in the WP article, I inserted the media and cited the source of the file, whether it be CNN/NYT/etc, would that alleviate your concerns? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFCC#3b states: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." Therefore, by its plain terms, we may meet NFCC 3(b) by demonstrating that "a portion will [not] suffice". In this matter, a portion will not suffice because the entirety of the work is necessary to educate readers of Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Additionally, a portion will not suffice because it would not match the complete coverage of the arguments of the House of Representatives, the opposing side in this matter. (See example of House coverage.) A "delete" outcome in this discussion would violate WP:NPOV, a core policy of this project. That policy states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis added). In fact, the NPOV policy is so crucial to this project that it has been enshrined in WP:Five pillars, meta:Founding principles, and meta:Neutral point of view. It must not be taken lightly. The NPOV policy does not contain an exception in regards to NFCC or any other policy. If the Wikipedia community intended there to be an exception to the NPOV policy, we would have so stated. Therefore, using "a portion will [not] suffice", by the clear and unambiguous language of our policies, and NFCC 3(b) is met. Edge3 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC 3b and 8. The entire work is not necessary (3b), and readers can understand the article's subject without having the work present (8). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 4 March 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:Frances Day.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Film Star Who's Who " Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:53, 9 February 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:Peter Gawthorne1.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Film Star Who's Who " Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:53, 9 February 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:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.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 ⚡ 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local image of this church is no longer needed, as there are plenty of usable images in Commons at commons:Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso, as a cultural heritage monument and having permission from the Italian cultural ministry. The original file at Commons (deleted through this DR) may be restored if the subject indeed falls under cultural heritage monument and if authorization extends to pre-2014 images. Any way, no need for a local file of this image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:42, 9 February 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:Henry Louis Wallace (criminal).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 ⚡ 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot apparently taken by the State of North Carolina (not Florida as claimed in description). The sources cited by the author don't agree with the uploader's claim that North Carolina mugshots are unambiguously free of copyright. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 22#Template:PD-NCGov. Relicense to non-free or delete. Wikiacc (¶) 03:57, 9 February 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:Rollen Stewart at the Kingdome, Seattle WA, late 1970s.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS received for 5 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 04:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I uploaded this file, and I own the copyright on it. Please let me know how I can properly grant permission for its use on Wikipedia. Thanks. Shamrox (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shamrox. I see two major problems here:

You claim that the source of the photo is "Family photo archives". Simply owning a physical copy of the photograph does not necessarily bestow ownership of copyright. Unless you inherited the photo and have the legal documents to prove this, then copyright resides with the original photographer, which means you cannot publish the photo on Wikipedia without the photographer's written consent (i.e. this is a copyright violation).
Assuming you are the copyright holder and can prove it, then please follow the instructions at WP:DCP. Your original submission to OTRS (ticket:2020090510005351) is severely malformed. -FASTILY 00:29, 17 February 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:DavidHamiltonGolland2017.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. Wikiacc (¶) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS received for 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can confirm that no response has been received since mid-November to the request for the attributed author to verify their permission. ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 9 February 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:Paramapatham - Theatrical Poster.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. Wikiacc (¶) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS received for 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 9 February 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:Qoki ZiNdlovukazi.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. Wikiacc (¶) 03:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS received for 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 04:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space and basically an abandoned draft) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 9 February 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:RyanToys Review.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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a picture of a living person. Fair use is not allowed for living persons on Wikipedia 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about the Youtube channel, and not the person. The Youtube channel in question uses this as the channel image, so its usage for visual identification is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 01:42, 11 February 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.