Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

File:TomWaits Vancouver2008.jpg

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, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image of Tom Waits waiting for the rain to stop during the filming of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The reader doesn't need to see an image of Waits or any actor waiting in the rain to understand that it might have rained at times during the filming or that the actor appeared in the film. Not only is there no sourced critical commentary of this particular anywhere in the article, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of weather problems at all during the film. So, there's no reason the reader needs to see this per WP:NFC#CS. There is also really nothing historic about this particular photo at all, so claiming it to be {{Non-free historic image}} is quite a leap. Heath Ledger died before the film was completed, but a non-free image, particularly this non-free image, is not needed at all for the reader to understand that the shooting of the film continued on after his death. Suggest delete if the non-free content use issues raised above are not addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no discussion about the image, and its stated purpose is "To illustrate Tom Waits during filming in Vancouver on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus." which pretty much screams out "DECORATIVE" as its use. -- Whpq (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "To illustrate" is generally an invalid use rationale, since all images illustrate and mere illustration does not satisfy NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2019 (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:Jews hiding in the Carpathians during the Slovak National Uprising.jpg

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: Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image failing WP:NFCC#8 as the photo is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. That Jews hid can be described in text and so it also fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File is sourced to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which is claiming copyright over it in "Rights and Restrictions". That seems bit strange since the photo obviously didn't originate with the museum, but my guess is that it was donated to the museum by the original copyright holder. The non-free use rationale is also a bit confusing since it states that the photo is unpublished (which would fail WP:NFCC#4), but it technically is published since it appears on the museum's website. If there's no way to convert this to public domain or get WP:CONSENT for it from the museum, then I agree that it fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 as currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was donated to the museum by the original copyright holder; the website states clearly that USHMM owns the copyright. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFCC#8 says nothing about there being significant sourced commentary in the article. As for NFCC#1, there isn't any free photo that I could find of Jews hiding in the mountains, which is a noteworthy historical event. From a common-sense perspective, it's pretty hard to imagine that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which holds the copyright of this photo, would object to this use of it. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The way NFCC#8 has been commonly been interpreted in discussions such as this is given in WP:NFC#CS. As for NFCC#1, a replaceable free equivalent doesn't automatically need to be another image; it can also be textual content per WP:FREER. So, if the sourced article content states "Jews hiding in the mountains" and that is sufficiently understandble without using non-free image, than there's really no need to use a photo which basically shows "Jews hiding in the mountains" unless the particular photo itself is somehow the subject of some sort of sourced commentary. I think there would be a much stronger argument made for non-free use and a stronger connection between image and article content if there was actually some sourced article content about the Mittelman family (some of the people shown in the photo) in the article and not just a mention by name in the caption.
  As for nobody has complained or is likely to complain, there's not really a good way to argue in favor of non-free use as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NEVERSUE. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is not really the same as fair use/fair dealing as explained here and this policy has been purposely been set up to be quite restrictive. So, it's not necessarily a question of whether Wikipedia will be sued, but rather more of a question as to whether the use of this particular non-free file complies with relevant policy and is consistent the WMF's Exemption Doctrine Policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: It would be nice if copyright holders had a middle ground between not releasing images and releasing images for any purpose. However, since this image is not deemed appropriate I've speedied it. In the end, it was just one non-notable family among many, but the many deserve an illustration in my opinion. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (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:Rise of the Robots The Novel cover.jpg

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, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already non-free media on this page and the two are virtually identical. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFC#cite_note-3, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Can only see keeping this if someone feels the novel meets WP:NBOOK and wants to create a stand-alone article about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not displayed in accordance with use rationale. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2019 (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:2006 Washington senate election map.png

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, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2019 (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:The Ocean by Steve Angello and Saturday, Monday featuring Julia Spada.jpg

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, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope. Willy1018 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a logo but it is orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted by Salavat, this is not a logo, but rather a cover for a musical single. Unused. -- Whpq (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2019 (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.