Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18[edit]

File:Body 10 and Body 13.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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Body 10 and Body 13.jpg (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:Manchester United vs Ipswich Town (4 March 1995) programme.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: speedily deleted by Explicit per CSD F5 (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is a collage of several photographs of players, and if you look closely, you can also read the location and date on it. We already have freely licensed images of players, and have the location and date reflected in prose. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Harrias and The Rambling Man:, as this image is in a featured article nomination that they are the authors of. This FfD was recommended by the latter when I raised an objection to the image's inclusion in Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. per the rationale above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat the nominator makes a good point. I feel that criterion 8 either needs to be re-worked, or we have a substantial number of "fair use" images which don't meet all the criteria. I cannot in good faith claim the front cover of a programme significantly increases reader's understanding of the article. But then every single album cover we use would fall under this (e.g. File:Queen Greatest Hits.png), as would every single character actor (e.g. File:Phil mitchell.jpg). This probably needs an RFC because it affects literally tens of thousands of articles. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the image does indeed satisfy fair use as it serves the function of the primary visual identifier of this particular game. Individual football matches do not often have specific logos or branding designed for them, so the match programme serves that function in a de facto manner. – PeeJay 08:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @PeeJay2K3 and NapHit: Is it actually the primary visual identifier of this particular game though? People watching on TV won't ever see it, it's just for the small percentage of fans in the stadium that day. There's zero discussion about the match booklet in the article on the match (while album covers or book covers often are the subject of critical commentary that can be reflected in cited prose). If, as you say, "Individual football matches do not often have specific logos or branding", then we don't get to just establish that that some other non-free image else gets to be used in the infobox. Every non-free image has to be individually justified - just throwing something in because we want an image in the infobox is explicitly against the non-free content policy. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say so, yes. There is nothing else that would serve that function. Even if we found a photo from the game that someone had the rights to release for our use, none could be as effective at identifying this match as the image in question and would be more appropriate to use as decoration of the match summary section. The most iconic photos from the match (I recall one of Cole celebrating a goal with the ball tucked under his arm) are all copyrighted and unlikely ever to be released. – PeeJay 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "There is nothing else that would serve that function." does not mean that, therefore, this image is allowed. There's no requirement for there to be an image in the infobox, nor is there a free pass for articles to have at least one non-free image. If anything, your comment here has made me feel more strongly that this image doesn't belong in the article. If there's an iconic picture of the match - which I presume has that designation because it's been discussed by third party sources (and therefore can be described in the article using cited prose), that would be a better case for using a non-free image (because it would be the subject of critical discussion, while the match program is not). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per the squirrel, this is far from the primary visual identifier of the game. I would say that literally no fan of association football remembers a particular match because of the image of the programme. That is patently absurd. Matches are remembered as a result of the content of the game almost invariably. It is certainly a shame that free images of the match aren't available, but that's the way it is. The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that images of programmes almost invariably fail criterion 8. Now then, that means we delete this image post-haste, or we widen the discussion to an RFC which discusses the merit of the current wording of criterion 8 and get expert (legal) advice too. After all, non-free images are contentious for that very reason. Suggesting this "identifies the match" is nonsense, it's produced and printed before the match has even taken place!!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think dismissing it as not representative of the match at all is a little much. It is the programme for the match, the only document associated with the event published for public consumption - it has the names of the teams and the date right on there, so how could it not serve as an identifier of this match? – Pee Jay 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That's pretty crazy, we don't need a non-free image to tell us the names of the teams!! It really adds literally nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject under discussion. The image itself is not even discussed. Programmes are not even mentioned (they are sold for every single British football match since forever, it's really "so what", like saying "a football was used for the occasion"). It's purely decorative and that makes it inappropriate for fair use. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with PeeJay. I feel the images satisfy fair use as it is the primary way of visually identifying the match. As TRM states, if we extrapolate this to the wider project, album covers could fall under this remit. A wider discussion is probably necessary around that issue. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a primary way of identifying the match would be an image of one of the goals, or the scoreboard, or a video of the fans singing "we want ten". An image of the programme which was designed and published before the match doesn't identify the match at all. It's like suggesting a screenshot of Ceefax noting the game happened "identifies the match". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 20 April 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:Match programme Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009).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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is a photograph of players with the match date on it. We already have freely licensed images of players, and have the date reflected in prose. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:50, 18 April 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:Manchester United v Arsenal 2004 match programme.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is a photograph of a players, with some text and smaller elements surrounding it. We already have freely licensed images of the same player. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:52, 18 April 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:Manchester United v Arsenal programme (21 September 2003).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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is a photograph of a player, and we already have freely licensed images of the same player. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:53, 18 April 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:Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. program, 1999.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is a collage of several photographs of players, with smaller elements on the sides. We already have freely licensed images of players. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:54, 18 April 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:United Review cover October 1990.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image is an illustration and a photograph of players, and if you look closely, you can also read the location and date on it. We already have freely licensed images of players, and have the location and date reflected in prose. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:55, 18 April 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:Manchester United F.C. 3–5 West Bromwich Albion F.C. (1978) programme.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

I don't see any information that a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose. The image an illustration of the stadium with some clip art carolers in front of it. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:56, 18 April 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:CatwomanVol4.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

This image is being used only in List of female supervillains and in a purely decorative purpose. There's no critical discussion of the image or the focus of the image in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:10, 18 April 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:HobgoblinSpiderManTheAnimatedSeries.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free content criteria #3a: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Not sufficiently different from the main image of the character used in the infobox, File:Hobgoblin (Marvel Comics).png. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:17, 18 April 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:Philmitchell2dtv.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 ⚡ 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free file criteria #8: "Contextual significance. 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."

This is a purely decorative use of non-free image; there's no critical discussion of the depiction of the character in the article that the file is used in. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:58, 18 April 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.