Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19[edit]

File:Dutch-Americans.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: relisted on 2021 February 8. FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dutch-Americans.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:Ron Mueck head.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free 2D art. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 2D art. It is a 3D art inside British Museum and should fall under British FOP. That's why I think my transfer of this file to Commons is justifiable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag is wrong can’t it just be replaced with the correct one? I agree with JWilz12345 above. Dreamspy (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamspy: the Commons file was actually speedily deleted, without a discussion. See commons:File:Ron Mueck head.jpg's log there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the only question here will be if this is a 3D work or not, and/or if museum indoors are covered by the British FoP. Supposedly their FoP is broad, that it covers "premises open to public" too, which supposedly includes public museums' interiors. Also, this is a 3D work and not a 2D work - it is a sculpture and not a painting. The speedy deletion at Commons is just plain wrong - it was better if Magog the Ogre just opened a regular deletion request as this is an image that shows a potentially FoP-reliant object. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 and Dreamspy: On this video on YouTube from a visitor it can be clearly seen that this object is very much 3D. According to c:COM:FOP UK The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. I guess the question is whether this is a "work of artistic craftsmanship"? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy NFCC, given there are other works that could be in the infobox. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: This is not what is being claimed as Tbhotch added {{Freedom of panorama}}. Looking at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wax figures of actors in the Madame Tussauds London (which was kept), I don't see any valid reason for deletion, neither here or on Commons. @GRuban and Gone Postal: is there any relevant difference between those wax figures and Mask II? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what the procedure of voting in a project I am not really involved in is. However, my understanding of FoP in Britain is aligned with keeping of this file. It is publically accessible, and that is the requirement. If we were talking about a photo that somebody has made in an archive of the museum, whether or not they got there legitimately or not and whether or not they had a right to take that photo, then that would be a violation. If I am mistaken, please do let me know. Gone Postal (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gone Postal: Thank you. FYI, on English Wikipedia the word "keep" or "delete" in bold (sometimes with additional instructions) is used instead of "vk" and "vd" templates. And all discussions started on the same day are kept on one page. Other than that it's mostly the same as Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, there is FOP for 3D works in the UK per c:COM:FOP UK. Sorry, my mistake - I thought there was not FOP in the UK. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-upload. Without watching the video it is clear that this is a 3D work. FoP applies. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tbhotch: actually I transferred this file to Commons a day ago, but per the public logs Magog the Ogre speedily deleted it without even a deletion request, claiming it as a "2D work". So perhaps better delete this file as redundant to the Commons copy and help restore that Commons copy I moved there. Actually, it is now on commons:Commons:Undeletion request#File:Ron Mueck head.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is uploaded there, it shouldn't be deleted here. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama "The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. " --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I took the photograph and it is of course a (very large) 3D sculpture. I don't know why the image has a 2D tag. Jack1956 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The file on Commons has been restored. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:05, 21 January 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:Mourning angel after bus bombing.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 ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mourning angel after bus bombing.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is copyrighted, File:Mourning Angel of Tolyatti.jpg serve the purpose. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:12, 19 January 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:Mourning Angel of Tolyatti.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: Converted to fair use -FASTILY 22:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mourning angel after bus bombing.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's fair use -- easily fair use -- and I added the template for that. The article is about the statue, and one of the criteria for uploading a non free file is "This is a photograph or other kind of depiction of a copyrighted, three-dimensional creative work, such as a statue or work of architecture. The article contains a discussion of that work which requires illustration." (It then says "The photograph as such is free, or was provided by the creator of the sculpture" which isn't true but doesn't belong or matter near as I can tell, because the whole point is about using a non-free image in fair use. Weird.)

FWIW, even if it wasn't fair use it'd probably be OK to use here. The file is not free, because Russia does not have freedom of panorama. That does mean it's not eligible to be on Commons. That has nothing to do with us. The file shouldn't be on the Russian Wikipedia (although it is), because Russia doesn't have full freedom of panorama. However, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't concern us here. The United States does have freedom of panorama, and that's the operative law for the English Wikipedia. We don't recognize the Russian law -- I can go to Russia, take pictures of statues, and publish them on the English Wikipedia.

To be fair, this image wasn't creased that way. It was taken by a Russian and (illegally, I guess) published in Russia. However, the photographer indicated that he was releasing it under Creative Commons. And we don't really recognize or pay attention to Russian law and whether or not something is legal or illegal in Russia; we don't recognize the Russian Federation's law that the sculptor (I guess) owns right to all photos. If we didn't I couldn't go to Russian and publish pictures of statues here. QED, it's legit. Even if it wasn't fiar use, which it is. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: The United States does have freedom of panorama Only for buildings and public interiors, not for artwork. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Really... stricter than Russia then? At least in Russia you can publish pictures of trees in a park. But OK, thanks for the info. But at any rate it's now a fair use issue as I've so tagged it and so a denial of the fair use claim'd be required. I don't see one sticking, but I've been wrong before. Herostratus (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Trees are generally not eligible for copyright protection. (buildings can be though, for example photos from recently constructed buildings in Iran are not OK) The US mostly relies on fair use, so you can often publish similar pictures. But FOP often allows an image to be freely licensed (some countries have non-commercial FOP though) whereas fair use does not. I agree it's fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random trees in the woods, no; but trees in a designed park where they've been planted (or left after a culling) as artifice would fall more in the area of flower beds, topiary, and similar stuff... these are more like buildings or statues than natural landscapes, but unless specifically exempted in the law wouldn't fall under the "buildings" rubric by default, I wouldn't think. Anyway, in Russia you can publish pictures of parks; American, I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this complies with WP:Non-free content (as showing an unfree sculpture). @Herostratus and Alexis Jazz: I had some similar thoughts before, that any FOP-reliant objects not allowed on Commons is allowed here (in their original qualities and resolutions), until this discussion (User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#Restoration of a deleted file) changed my point of view. I see no difference between Russian and US FOP's (I treat noncommercial FOP as no FOP for the sake of Wiki). It's worse in our situation, as we don't have FOP of any sort and our copyright law only allows uses for reporting of current events, and illustration of publications for teaching purposes as long as the use is fair use. Supposedly there should be no best-quality images of the likes of Bonifacio Shrine and EDSA Shrine for our case, except one for each and complying with WP:NFCC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 19 January 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:Tomas robert bearbeitet.mp3[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 ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tomas robert bearbeitet.mp3. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 11:31, 23 January 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:Dino Galvani1.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: Converted to fair use -FASTILY 22:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dino Galvani1.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the description says, "Image from Film Star Who's Who on the Screen 1938. UK magazine." The 1939 edition can be found on eBay, as well as the 1936 and 1983 editions (multiple copies of each) but I can't find a 1938 edition so either the 1938 edition is rare or it's a typo from the uploader. It's probably a publicity photo. I relicensed it as fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:14, 19 January 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:Rare (Alternate Album Cover) by Selena Gomez.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 ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC, fair use should be encouraged only if it satisfies minimal usage. For the article Rare (Selena Gomez album), there are three album covers, which is more than enough for an album infobox (see Template:Infobox album. While this cover illustrates "Target, Japanese edition and overseas deluxe edition cover" (as described in the infobox), per Extra album cover, the addition of an extra album cover is encouraged only when "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original." In this case, this cover represents certain releases to Target and Japan (I haven't seen sources for "overseas deluxe edition"), thus it is questionable whether this cover satisfies WP:NFCC criterion 3 for "minimal usage". HĐ (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except standard edition per NFCC, nom, and numerous other prior FFDs. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable to keep File:Selena Gomez - Rare (Deluxe).png (a different image than this file), which is used by Apple Music, arguably one of the largest music platforms. Otherwise, for this Target cover image, I concur with you. HĐ (talk) 13:45, 19 January 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:Ibrahim Mammadov.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 ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file comes from Azerbaijani Wikipedia which got it from [1] [2]. The "original" from zengilan.com was already photoshopped, but the uploader (Freedom Wolfs) photoshopped it some more to make it worse. But I see no way to verify that the depicted man is indeed Ibrahim Mammadov. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC since the subject is not verifiable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus because Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 31#File:Ibrahim Mammadov.jpg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:37, 19 January 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:BAA Aberdeen logo.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 ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 11:47, 23 January 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:Wikiarianit.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 ⚡ 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikiarianit.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly delete but not so much because there is no source or metadata or high resolution, as the image was uploaded to sqwiki in 2007 with a {{PD}} tag and we shouldn't hold ancient uploads to the current standard, but because all the other files from the uploader don't seem to be own work either. To their credit, for about the first 10 uploads they did include a source link but then they stopped including that. And this image wasn't among the first 10. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:57, 22 January 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.