Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1

File:FB IMG 1498753346805.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filename indicates file is taken from Facebook – Train2104 (t • c) 01:12, 1 July 2017 (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:Loona OT7 members.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work, but not sure that the individual images in the montage are own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Derivative work using copyrighted images as a source for the collage. A previous image similar to this with 6 members (File:Loona, first six members.jpg) was submitted under fair use and deleted as replaceable. This looks like an attempt to sidestep fair use by simply claiming copyright. One of the montage images is clearly cropped from an image that can be found here. Another is a crop of this one. Another one seems to be from a CD cover. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2017 (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:JB Pritzker.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have come from the subject's Twitter page. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, it did. I thought that would be fine; I apologize if I was mistaken. IGotzDaMastaPlan (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2017 (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:Gateshead FC New Stadium Graphic.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: no consensus. Sandstein 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally removed from Gateshead F.C. but my edit was reverted.

The image of the stadium is not discussed in the article and does not appear to be topic of discussion, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. No NFC rationale for the specific article, either. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My only comment would to reiterate User:Number 57's comment on his reversion edit, "Er, yes it is. Read the Stadium section" - quote from article, "On 28 October 2009, Gateshead unveiled plans for a new 8,000 capacity stadium..." TubularWorld (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted by TubularWorld, the nominator obviously hasn't bothered to read the article as this is quite clearly mentioned. Number 5 7 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: @TubularWorld: I'd add that mentioning a topic is not the same thing as discussing the image. Not to repeat myself, but the image is not the topic of discussion, the stadium is, and no amount of sarcasm changes that. You might have heard of the phrase Lord Privy Seal. Not everything that's mentioned in an article requires a visual aid, and it's unclear exactly what the visual aid is adding to the article. Keep in mind that we're building a free license encyclopedia, and free use should not be claimed unless absolutely necessary. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole paragraph on the new stadium, which is what the picture is of. I can't see how it could possibly be unclear what the image is adding. Number 5 7 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's obviously not clear to me, beyond it being a picture of something that's mentioned in the text. Why don't you explain what sourced, encyclopedic information the image is adding, then? What sourced, encyclopedic information do we lose if we remove the image? You haven't answered either of these questions that help us determine whether the use of the image meets NFCC#8. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's informing readers what the planned stadium looked like. The answers to your questions are so obvious I'm struggling to see why you can't answer them yourself unless you are trying to make some kind of odd point here. Number 5 7 20:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Number 57's most recent response here:

It's informing readers what the planned stadium looked like.

This answers why the image is there, but it doesn't answer the important NFCC#8 question: why do we need the image. And it's an important distinction because there's no mention of the stadium's appearance anywhere in the article so there's no context for the image. It's the classic decorative, non-essential image. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2017 (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:Vartkes Serenkulian.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referral to FFD as this image was apparently considered to be under a free license at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: this is PD and I have the source for it. It's from the same publication as this photo. Can you give me a couple of days to revise the photograph's information so I can conform it to its PD status? I'm busy for the next few days. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'm sure no-one reading this FFD, is going to go against what you say. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I fixed up the Commons license. See: [1]. You're free to delete this file. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why does the source link of the Commons file say "This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think it's a technical issue. The problem lies with the name of the file. There's two files: one on Wikipedia and the other on Commons. The one of Commons is PD, while the one on Wikipedia is not. Obviously, given that the source is PD, we should keep the Commons file. Perhaps renaming it should do the trick and the file on the Wikipedia gets deleted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDolet: My question is about the source not the Commons filepage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: My apologies. I missed your point. I'm not having that problem. When I click on the link provided, I can see the entire book. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2017 (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:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 ('Garden Island makes a winning work').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: relisted on 2017 July 11. Sandstein 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 ('Garden Island makes a winning work').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:IOS 11 32-bit iPhone 7 Plus.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 G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot of a home screen with a dialog box. This exact dialog box depicted is not discussed in the article (only the fact that 32-bit applications are banned on iOS 11). Thus, it fails WP:NFCC#8. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: What if it was discussed in the article? The screenshot shows a pop-up that says 32-bit apps aren't supported on iOS 11 and that developers need to update it, readers will get to know what actually happens if you attempt to launch a 32-bit app on iOS 11, and it turns out that it won't open, that apparently increases their understanding of "32-bit apps are not supported on iOS 11". Hayman30 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not crop the picture to just show this dialog? No need to have a full-size screenshot with non-free elements. This applies to several other images on the article too, I think it simply violates WP:NFCCP.–Totie (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is still unnecessary. A source can be found with an exact statement that such a message occurs, and that can be cited instead. The non-free image is not needed to illustrate this, thus it violates NFCC #1 and #8. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: There's a need to illustrate this indeed. That screenshot could tell the reader how exactly the pop-up looks like, not simply describing it with one or two lines. Moreover, we cannot be too precise when describing the alert, all the sentences in the prompt cannot be fully included as it would be considered as "excessively detailed". The screenshot could give readers a full look at the pop-up, without being excessively detailed when describing it, thus increases the reader's understanding. Notable sources I found so far ([2][3]) also included a screenshot of the prompt, presumably to increase the reader's understanding of the topic as well. Hayman30 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC #1 also applies to replacement of non-free media with text. "32-bit only apps are not supported or shown in the App Store in iOS 11, and users who attempt to open such apps receive an alert about the app's incompatibility." is informative enough to not require a screenshot, hence this image fails NFCC 1, because it can be reasonably understood without non-free media. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text summarizes the content of the prompt, the screenshot shows the original and full content in the prompt graphically without having to describe it precisely in text. It apparently enhances reader's understanding. And don't forget those buttons down there. Since we can't talk too much about the prompt, the screenshot can show the readers what options are users going to get after the alert popped up. Thus the reader can fully understand what happens after you attempt to launch a 32-bit app. Hayman30 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Apple help files. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is clearly replaceable with text. - --Whpq (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - author requests deletion, I know my argument is weak. Hayman30 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7 Since the author of the file, User:Hayman30 is requesting deletion, the file can be speedy deleted per WP:G7. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:26, 7 July 2017 (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.

Unused personal images

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 November 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: Deleted -FASTILY 00:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal images - out of project scope.

Selected from the intersection of categories Wikipedia orphaned files and Wikipedia files of no use beyond Wikipedia via http://petscan.wmflabs.org/?language=en&project=wikipedia&categories=Wikipedia%20files%20of%20no%20use%20beyond%20Wikipedia%0D%0AWikipedia%20orphaned%20files&ns%5B6%5D=1&common_wiki=cats&interface_language=en&active_tab=tab_pageprops XXN, 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is the orphaned classification? I randomly clicked on an image in the list (File:Richard1.JPG)) and it is in fact used, and as far as I can tell, it as been in use for some time. I.e., it was not added some time after the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I thinked that Category:Wikipedia orphaned files is maintained, updated with both additions and removals, but seems that it's not. For the record, this file was tagged as orphaned in 2011[4] and since late 2015 it's in use[5].

OK. I wrote a python script to check the usage for these files, and it found 4 files in use. I removed them from this list and the ffd tags from file pages. XXN, 23:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - File:8-Week Old German Shepherd Puppy.jpg - Can be transferred to Commons,

- File:Miss Bono Userpage.jpeg - Part of someones userpage and although not used it could be useful,

- File:User-Asakawano-Leighton-Beach.jpg - Can be transferred to Commons,

Delete the rest. –Davey2010^Talk 17:41, 3 July 2017 (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:User Account Control.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: relisted on 2017 July 9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:User Account Control.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:Danniella Westbrook 2012.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 Deleted - G5 as uploaded by ZestyLemonz –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata states it's a screenshot however that could be wrong, Anyway uploader has uploaded various copyvio images in the past claiming to be "Own work" when they're not so I'm dubious here, They've been asked to go to OTRS in the past and have refused so I see no other way of resolving this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this is a selfie as claimed, then the author must be the man in the photo, however, the user who uploaded it is most likely to be female from their username. I wouldn't trust anything this user uploads to be honest, especially if they are refusing to go to OTRS. — anemone projectors 15:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedy delete G5 as the upload of a confirmed sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz) -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2017 (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:Danny walters.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 Deleted - G5 as uploaded by ZestyLemonz –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has uploaded various copyvio images in the past claiming to be "Own work" when they're not so I'm dubious here, They've been asked to go to OTRS in the past and have refused so I see no other way of resolving this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedy delete G5 as the upload of a confirmed sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz) -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2017 (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:Louisa Lytton.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 Deleted - G5 as uploaded by ZestyLemonz –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata states it's a screenshot however that could be wrong, Anyway uploader has uploaded various copyvio images in the past claiming to be "Own work" when they're not so I'm dubious here, They've been asked to go to OTRS in the past and have refused so I see no other way of resolving this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedy delete G5 as the upload of a confirmed sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz) -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2017 (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:Kim Woodburn.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 Deleted - G5 as uploaded by ZestyLemonz –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has uploaded various copyvio images in the past claiming to be "Own work" when they're not so I'm dubious here, They've been asked to go to OTRS in the past and have refused so I see no other way of resolving this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedy delete G5 as the upload of a confirmed sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz) -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2017 (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:DonaldGrantham.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a computer-generated derivative work of this image, which appears in the promotional materials of the for-profit university he founded (e.g.). Uploader provided insufficient information to determine if they are the copyright holder, but a possible previous version they submitted, File:Donald grantham.jpg, was deleted. FourViolas (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a derivative image. It looks like they just applied a photoshop filter to give it a hand skethc look. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2017 (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.