Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27

File:Duncan-portrait.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a painting is a derivative work. Not enough information for me to determine the copyright status of the original painting, so need to presume that this is a copyright violation. ★ Bigr Tex 02:16, 27 June 2016 (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:Stewart Jackson MP's response to Rupert Myers's question over lies.jpeg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that a screenshot of Twitter is not original enough to be copyrightable. Especially given that the text of the tweet is somewhat long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Derivative work of copyrighted text. Sandstein 15:51, 27 June 2016 (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:Sharad Joshi.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only copyright license I can see on http://www.sharadjoshi.co.in/vyaktitva.html is "All rights reserved", and this isn't an "own work". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 27 June 2016 (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:Corporate27.jpeg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of a building unfortunately is not a "simple" image. This image has apparently been previously published here http://www.17threalty.com/homes-mls/results.php?page=831&property_type=S&subdivision=&city=Y22391&min_price=900000&max_price=1500000&beds=&baths=&lang=es&btn_search=++Search+for+Properties+++ (according to Google) but I can't find it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 27 June 2016 (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:This caterpillar 789 super dump truck has been converted into a vehicle born suicide bomb.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: NFCC#8 czar 21:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not credit this photo as being a "vehicle suicide bomb", much less it being converted into an armored fighting vehicle. This is WP:OR That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has not found WP:OR. It was normal human error. I had two google books open at once, and used the url of the wrong one. Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The FUR contains several errors. For example:

WP:NFCC#10c requires you to state why each NFCC criterion is satisfied. The FUR states that this is 'non-replaceable' which is an assertion that the file satisfies WP:NFCC#1 but not an explanation as to why WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied, although the "purpose of use" field contains a statement saying that it isn't replaceable by text.^[why?]
The FUR states that ISIS is not a signatory to any international intellectual property rights agreements, so this image is probably in the public domain. However, international copyright treaties only discuss countries and are only signed by countries. ISIS is not a country, so the statement is incorrect.
The FUR is missing a rationale for WP:NFCC#8. Why does the uploader think that the article needs a picture of a remodelled ISIS version of the vechicle although the ISIS version only gets a short mention and without discussing what ISIS has changed? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional concerns brought up that may not have been seen. @Geo Swan: ping!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 11:04, 27 June 2016 (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:Sajad Gharibi.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 as F9 by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, potential copyright violation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definite copyright violation: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2016 (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:Hans Asperger Vienna.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 ★ Bigr Tex 19:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fails WP:NFCC#8 in Asperger syndrome. It is a picture of a person, but the article is not a biography article about the person, and you don't need to see a picture of this person in order to understand the article. This looks very similar to the recent discussions about shootings where non-free pictures of perpetrators have been deleted on the grounds that the articles are not biographies about the perpetrators. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed on Talk:Asperger syndrome, for the record.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this picture at this article has nothing to do with the use of images in articles about shootings - even saying that shows a total lack of understanding - and a lack of even a momentary effort trying to understand - the subject of this article, the use of the image in this article, and the difficulty of finding illustrative images for many articles about mental/neurodevelopmental disorders (and the controversy over such images when we do find them). This image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic," by showing the actual person after whom the condition is named, doing the work he did that led to the condition being identified. As mentioned it is hard to find any good images for articles in this space; this image is particularly on point and helpful. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the same situation as non-free images of perpetrators in shooting articles – saying that this isn't the case shows a total lack of understanding. We don't use non-free images of perpetrators in articles about shootings because a picture of the perpetrator says nothing about the shooting, and for the same reason, we don't show pictures of researchers in articles about the researchers' discoveries since a picture of the researcher says nothing about the researcher's discovery.

It's not relevant it is difficult to find 'illustrative images for many articles about mental/neurodevelopmental disorders' since the image doesn't say anything about a mental/neurodevelopmental disorder – the image just shows a person, but a picture of a person is not a picture of a mental/neurodevelopmental disorder. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also being discussed - after a fashion - at both Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Asperger syndrome and indeed User talk:Redrose64#Comment. But although I've been told to stay away, that doesn't stop others from reading and commenting, does it? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removal of this image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 5 July 2016 (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:Press conference of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on EU referendum and Scottish independence on 24 June 2016.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This unfree file fails WP:FREER. The subject (Nicola Sturgeon holding a press conference) could be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using non-free content at all. Sandstein 15:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. This is not "a press conference", but the press conference where Sturgeon announces the second Scottish independence referendum, and the image has received significant commentary in RS already for its historic importance and symbolism (e.g. there is no British flag, but a Scottish and an EU flag). The image was released by the Scottish government under a CC-BY-NC license, so it's really a free image in the common sense of that term, and it's only a self-imposed restriction (by Wikimedians) that it can't be uploaded on Commons. However, Wikipedia allows the use of CC-BY-NC pictures if they have a fair use rationale. --Tataral (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, having an use rationale is only one tenth of the requirements for using NC media; the other nine tenets of WP:NFCC have to be met as well. For example WP:NFCC#8 which says that the image needs to contribute significantly to the article topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what is does. --Tataral (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, how does a picture (which thousands of versions exist, has anyone looked into getting a free one?) of Sturgeon doing a press conference enhance any article? It doesn't, is the simple answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You don't need a picture of someone holding a press conference to understand that the person held a press conference. Fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photo highlights a significant event in the aftermath of the EU Referendum, as does the file of David Cameron announcing his resignation which, interestingly, it not being considered for deletion. This file allows readers to automatically see a conference was held by the First Minister outlining the Scottish Governments long term proposals in the aftermath of the referendum. Goodreg3 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron's image is uploaded under a completely different licence. I'm afraid it demonstrates that you really don't understand how the fair use policy works at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lazy uploading. There are hundreds of journalists and photographers that could release an image like that for free. Attempting to use fair use here is completely against the fair use policy and worse, against the spirit of such images. It adds absolutely nothing to the article, it's Sturgeon doing a press conference. Big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2016 (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:Leakydamwithveg.ogg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a broken audio file. Cube00 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (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.

Files used in Meena Kumari article

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 second file. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two non-free images are being used in the Meena Kumari article. As the subject is deceased, a single non-free image would be within policy but placing two there is contrary to WP:NFCC#3a. I don't have any particular preference for image however File:Meena Kumari.jpg was the one that was first used so absent any other criteria, I'd recommend using that image. Whpq (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2016 (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:Seal of Chhattisgarh.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: keep in Chhattisgarh, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly and Government of Chhattisgarh seem to be sub-entities of Chhattisgarh, and therefore the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 in those articles. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2016 (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:Thoughtbaseshot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot, likely uploaded for ThoughtBase, which was deleted in 2007 "nn web". ★ Bigr Tex 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an orphaned and useless image. Commons wouldn't need something like this, so there's no reason to move it there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (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:FotoFly-Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, likely uploaded for FotoFly, which was speedy deleted in 2007. ★ Bigr Tex 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an orphaned and useless image. Commons wouldn't need something like this, so there's no reason to move it there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (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:Fotoshot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot, likely uploaded for FotoFly, which was speedy deleted in 2007. ★ Bigr Tex 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an orphaned and useless image. Commons wouldn't need something like this, so there's no reason to move it there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (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:Lettera a.jpeg

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 ⚡ 06:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture in unidentified country. It's unclear if there is any freedom of panorama in that country. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's in Italy based on the Draft:Walter Noetico page which means "no" in terms of FoP.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators, Stefan and Jo-Jo Eumerus, With regard to the image Sculpture "Lettera a", I have uploaded it, for insertion under "clarification needed" for one of the statements at the beginning of text for Walter Noetico Artist, and while preparing the "inline citations" I thought it a good idea to include a visual image of what it is, this Neoilluminist Alphabet which was invented by this Artist. Having uploaded this image, I then was unable to connect it with the page itself, and it was left "floating" on the Commons section. I also, at that time, was unsure of what Licensing tag to use, and left it blank, but later I believe that I did insert a Licence tag to it. As for the FoP, this sculpture is not in a public place. The image of it was given to me by the Artist himself for the purposes of my working on a page creation (together with other numerous hard paper journals, newspaper cuttings, books and art catalogues etc, since his prime activity was in the years way back from the age of internet). Could you kindly revise this matter and your decision please? If you do need an email from Maestro Noetico to confirm his authorisation and permission to use the material, I can arrange for that to be sent. If I made a mistake, I do apologise, because I am quite new to the Wikipedia and am often quite confused by what is the correct and best way of action. I am, however, all atyour disposal to make matters coherent, in good light and in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Many thanks for your time and attention. --Richard F Morris (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Richard F Morris[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.