Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22[edit]

File:Little Girl with Chicken - 2005.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the original photograph was ever released under a free license. This makes the free license of the photograph of the photograph invalid. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2015 (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:Vince Lombardi.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image which is being used in Vince Lombardi and Modern history of American football. Image has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for each usage, but I don't think these particular usages satisfy WP:NFCC#1 for "Vince Lombardi" and NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (for "Modern history of American football"). There are two freely licensed images on Commons (File:Vince lombardi bart starr.jpg and File:Vince Lombardi.jpg) which could be use for the same encyclopedic purpose in both articles. The non-free image, however, might be acceptable as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I'm not sure because it's source in unclear. The source url provided is a dead link and this archived version of the source looks as if Sports Legends Revealed! is claiming copyright, but it seems that they just took the images from somewhere else. Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is deceased and no similar free image has been found. While a few images of the subject do exist, they are not showing the individual as clearly and prominently, nor do they feature the subject. While cropping is often used, my experience is that it is a last resort. This image and others like it are widely available on the internet so there is no harm in also showing it here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is deceased, but either of the two Commons images could serve, in my opinion, basically the same encyclopedic purpose per NFCC#1 as the non-free one. Moreover, I don't think "being widely available on the Internet" means that an image is considered to satisfy the WP:NFCC for Wikipedia purposes. Regardless, if the non-free is determined to be acceptable for "Vince Lombardi", there are still WP:NFCC#8 problems with respect to "Modern history of American football". One of the freely licensed Commons image defintiely should be used there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I'm concerned, there are no grounds for argument here. This fails NFCC 1 because of the free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2015 (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:AmericanFootballLeague.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 in American Football League, remove in all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in American Football League (the "AFL"), History of American football and Modern history of American football. It has a non-free rationale (nfur) for each usage, but only the one for "American Football League" seems valid. Usage in the two history article seems primarily decorative and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. The AFL is mentioned in the two articles, but the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and does not significantly improve the reader's understanding of the text in a way the omitting the logo would be detrimental to that understanding. Not sure if this logo is old enough to qualify as public domain, but if it isn't then it should be removed from the two history articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we commonly use logos in articles about the subject matter. Reasonable usage applies as the AFL is a strong part of the history. I have no objection to beefing up the content of the articles in question to reflect that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that is common to use a logo of an organization in the infobox of the Wikipedia article about said organization which is why the use of the logo is American Football League is considered acceptable per WP:NFCC#8. In other articles, however, the usage of such a logo is generally only considered acceptable if the logo itself is the subject of sourced commentary, so that not seeing the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of what is being discussed. Simply talking about the AFL in these other articles is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason to use the logo, especially when "American Football League" is wikilinked and the reader can see the logo there. Feel free to "beef up" the other articles to include such discussion if you wish, but the burden to do so is the burden of the editor wishing to use or retain non-free content per WP:NFCCE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (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:1939 Waynesberg vs Fordham football game.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 in 1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game, remove from Modern history of American football. — ξ ^xplicit 02:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in 1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game and Modern history of American football. It has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for each, but I don't think the image is really needed for the "history" article per WP:NFCC#8 since it's usage is primarily decorative. The wikilink for "1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game" in the image's caption could easily be added to the inline text "NBC broadcast the first televised college football game ever between Waynesburg and Fordham on September 30, 1939, on station W2XBS ....". The link will take the reader to the stand-alone article about the game where the image could be seen and the contextual significance of the image is more easily understood. Is it possible that the image is old enough to qualify as public domain? If it is, then it can be used in both articles without worrying about WP:NFCC; If it's not, however, then I think it should be removed from the history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep image shows the specific event in action, including the camera, broadcaster, and game. That's the subject of the whole article--it's not decorative, it's the topic in question. As for the history article, it might be removed from that article but that does not warrant deletion of the image. That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, WP:FFD has been changed from "Files for Deletion" to "Files for Discussion" since WP:NFCR was merged into it a few months back. This means non-free content matters which used to be discussed at NFCR are now being discussed here. I am not suggesting that the image be deleted outright; I am only discussing whether it's non-free usage in "Modern history of American football" satisfies WP:NFCC#8. I do not think it does, so I think it should be removed from only that particular article. I think the image is fine for "1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could be argued that the image is an essential component of the fact stated in the article. The event - the very first broadcast is one of the key events in in american football history. Because of the fact in the article is regarding a visual event, a photograph of the event corresponds to the nature of what happened and its presence also highlights the importance of what happened. Rybkovich (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the image is an "essential component of the facts" stated in the stand-alone article about the game, but I don't that's the case for the history article. There's no information provided in the sentence "NBC broadcast the first televised college football game ever between Waynesburg and Fordham on September 30, 1939, on station W2XBS with one camera and Bill Stern was the sole announcer. Estimates are that the broadcast reached approximately 1,000 television sets" which requires the use of a non-free image and which the reader will not understand if such an image is omitted per NFCC#8. A wikilink to the stand-alone article about the game where the reader can see the image is more than sufficient. The same sentence also mentions Bill Stern and W2XBS, but we do not need images for them. They are wikilinked within the article itself which what should be done for that game. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just edited the article so it would be more clear that it is the first american football television broadcast ever, not just between those two teams. That broadcast is the first step in what became one of the most significant changes to the game.

- NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

- The presence emphasizes the importance of the event. The article is regarding the highlights of the history of the sport, the image emphasizes the enormous importance of that event. Unless there is a detailed discussion regarding what happened a reader of the history may not realize the importance of the fact. The detailed emphasis would be out of place as the article is broad and very long already. A wiki link on its own can generate the miss impression that the fact is a side issue.Rybkovich (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two parts to NFCC#8, the last part being "and its [the non-free image's] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Omitting the image or wikilinking to the stand-alone article about the game does not "de-emphazize" the importance/significance of the event in any way or turn it into a side issue. Wikilinks are for taking readers to other Wikipedia articles where something relevant is being discussed in more detail. It's exactly because "the article is broad" and does not contain any sourced commentary of the image itself that usage of the image is mainly decorative and not needed for the reader to understand that the the first televised American football game ever was between Waynesburg and Fordham on September 30, 1939. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. You make good points. I assume our rules are based on US fair use copyright law. If I have time I'll look into the key cases and see how they could be used as a guide on this specific issue. I'll follow up if I find something on point. For how long more will this discussion continue and how will it be ultimately decided? Rybkovich (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, WP:NFC states that "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below. The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." (I underlined the last part for emphasis)

FFD discussions typically last a minimum of seven days, but sometimes it takes a bit longer for a disucssion to be resolved. I believe the normal process is not too different from AFD in that typically an administrator will review the arguments of both sides and close the discussion per WP:FFDAI based upon the quality of the arguments made in consideration of relevant policies and guidelines. A non-admin closure may be possible in this case because it does not involve the outright deletion of a file, but NACs can be tricky because closing discussions is not really simply case of counting up !votes to decide which side has more. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2015 (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:Avataar Shooting still.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 for unestablished contextual significance. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator; this image doesn't add much of anything to the article, and certainly not enough to meet the NFCC threshold. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2015 (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:PDVD 021.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC#8. Apparently used only to illustrate the statement (in the caption) that they seven academy awards. —teb728 t c 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator; this image doesn't add much of anything to the article, and certainly not enough to meet the NFCC threshold. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (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:Paulolost.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in the same article as the "fair use rationale" claims. No contextual significance. Wcam (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator; this image doesn't add much of anything to the article, and certainly not enough to meet the NFCC threshold. For where it's used, fails NFCC 1 very clearly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. There's no sourced commentary in the article Rodrigo Santoro which requires the use of this screenshot and there are plenty of freely licensed images being used to show what Santoro looks like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2015 (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.