Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 15

< June 14	June 16 >

June 15

File:Nineveh Eagles.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 ⚡ 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non free team photo being used decoratively. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Whpq. No valid rationale for image in that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 18 June 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:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 June 23.
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: delete. In addition to the keep arguments failing to properly argue for the retention of the image by citing policy (particularly the incredibly strict WP:NFCC), there is also an established precedent from January 2016 that, in general, a non-free image of a perpetrator of a crime is only merited where one does not exist and can not be created in the article about the individual, not about the incident itself. Hodgkinson may merit an separate article in the future and a non-free image in the infobox in that article would be acceptable; however, that is not the case as of this moment, and therefore the use of a non-free image in this circumstance is unjustified. ℯ xplicit 00:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file description page claims the file is to be used "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". Not only is 2017 Congressional baseball shooting not a biographical article, but there is no reliably-sourced prose in the article about Mr. Hodgkinson that requires or benefits from using copyrighted material to understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as uploader. It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures, as this perpetator of a high-profile shooting is. 2017 Congressional baseball shooting is (currently) his biographical article; he is likely to get a separate article in time. His appearance (e.g., his age, skin color) provides potentially significant context for the shooting. Sandstein 16:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Normal practice[s]" are those upon which we've agreed to and codified into policies, guidelines, and manuals; I've seen nothing that addresses using copyrighted material in contravention of our other operating procedures when the article discusses a "significant public figure". There is no reliably-sourced prose in the article for which Mr. Hodgkinson's personal appearance is pertinent; even if there were, there would need to be some indescribable aspect of his visage (or clothing worn, hairstyle, etc.) to warrant using somebody else's copyrighted material to illustrate it so that our readers could understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No matter. We don't normally illustrate our biographies because we want to discuss the specific hairstyle, etc., of our subjects, but because an image is an integral part of any biography. Sandstein 22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the non-free content criteria policy, we illustrate biographies (or any article) with copyrighted material only when "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I'm saying that seeing Mr. Hodgkinson increases readers' understand of nothing in the article; everything that is reliably cited in the article is equally understood without the photo. As to your claim that "an image is an integral part of any biography", I can find that borne out by none of our policies, guidelines, or manuals. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your description on the file's page are "The person is dead. Free photographs of him are unlikely to exist as he was no public figure." That contradicts your current argument. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC) PS- there is almost no chance he gets his own article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a public figure before his death. He is now. Sandstein 22:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a neutral image of the man, there is no chance of getting another free one now that he is dead, and per Sandstein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed neither this file's "neutrality" nor its replaceability as reasons for its deletion. I said that its non-free-use rationale was incorrect, and that there is no articular need for it (and therefore no policy-based allowance for its use). — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, stop WP:BLUDGEONing. You don't need to reply to every person in this discussion. It is annoying and disruptive. Assume the closer isn't a mindless drone and can handle this without your constant input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you made this comment, I'd replied to only 29% of the comments; 29% is a far cry from "every comment in a discussion."
Secondly, in the four replies I had made at that time: the first said I was unable to substantiate claims made; the second was explaining to you that your comment didn't address the reasons I made for deletion (I did reiterate my initial rationale to you, but only because I assumed you'd missed it); the third comment elaborated on US state and locality copyright, and noted the efforts I'd thus made; and the fourth was half-reiteration of the copyright uncertainty I'd explained previously, and half-information about our required stance in the face of unknown copyright statuses. So yes, while I did repeat myself in 25% of the replies I posted, I should think that's well below the ephemeral threshold given. I'll reply when and where necessary to ensure others understand the policies, guidelines, and manuals relevant to the file in question, as well as to ask questions, request clarification, and correct inaccuracies.
Also, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process is an essay. As it (presumably) reflects your "advice or opinions", I'd recommend using it phrased as a request, not a demand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replace. I see this image is also available via AP, which has a strong commercial interest[1] UUI#7 applies, so replace it with a mugshot[2] - I'm never entirely sure whether there's a federal lack of copyright on mugshots, but a mugshot is going to have less commercial impact and enough relevant context to improve the claim of fair use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether the mugshot to which you linked is public domain or not depends on whether St. Clair County or Illinois retains such copyrights. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information about those entities' copyrights either way. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well overall the whole thing makes me... uncomfortable. I am more comfortable with the mugshot. It was probably not produced by the Illinois state government (probably a local government), but it was provided by them to the press, and it looks like for ownership purposes, under state law, this effectively defaults ownership to the state over the IP rights of the local government: "[a]ll records created or received by or under the authority of or coming into the custody, control, or possession of public officials of this State in the course of their public duties are the property of the State."([3]). Presumably they would be similarly willing to provide the image to most legitimate news organizations, and so no one organization can probably claim a strong case of commercial opportunity lost by someone else using it. So in a nutshell, if were going to use a non-free image, we should use this one or another in a similar legal situation. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove- apparently there is a mugshot, use that. The uploader admits this is a non-free image. In this picture he is wearing sunglasses too.. that is not overly useful for identification purposes. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, we're uncertain about the copyright status of St. Clair County or Illinoisan mugshots, meaning we're left to presume they are equally non-free content. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No way I would accept a mugshot. That is a NPOV issue, since that isn't the mugshot from this crime and that puts him in the worst possible light. The image must be neutral. His acts already speak for themselves. Using a mugshot would confuse the reader. "Was he arrested for this, then the cops shot him?" Bad all the way around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAPTION? Also, confusing the reader is not a valid rationale for fair use as far as I'm aware. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it as a rationale for this image, I'm saying I would oppose a mugshot regardless because it was misleading. Whatever image we use, it should be neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sandstein 22:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well any image touched by the state government is presumed to by copyright per above. And an image distributed by the state government is fairly presumed to be a better fair use candidate than this one. So... are we done here? You don't get to pick and choose your fair use images. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a silly thing to even say. Of course we choose which image we use under fair use. We choose the image based on quality, on neutrality, circumstances of copyright, etc. So if we have to choose between two copyrighted images with similar copyright issues, we choose the one that best represents the person and isn't confusing, misleading or otherwise problematic. Virtually every time we use an image as Fair Use, there were other options and we simply chose the best of the available options. Since WP:NPOV and WP:BLP come into play, the plain jane photo is the logical choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't choose which image is most fairly usable, and one licensed to a state government is less commercially infringing that one that isn't. You are confusing image choice in an article (i.e., NPOV) with whether we have a valid fair use claim over another image with another more valid fair use claim. We can choose not to use that more valid fair use image in an article, but its existence means we have to take it or leave it. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - This picture doesn't add much value as the sunglasses obscure his face. I would strongly oppose a mugshot but feel we can do better here in a non free image. Has anyone reached out for permission requests? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I agree that it is appropriate to use this image for now, due to the arguments above. I can't help feeling that the "there may be better non-free images" argument and the "send out permission requests" argument are putting the cart before the horse here. Wouldn't it make much more sense to find a better non-free image and then discuss it? Or send out permission requests and then discuss the results? We can always delete this image later if something better turns up. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennis Brown and Sandstein. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would like this to be kept if the guy is proven independently notable. However, per WP:BIO1E or WP:BDP, that would not be possible. Also, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply, yet we are using this image just because... it's available to use and easier to obtain. We can't keep the image just because the deceased attacker himself was involved in the event and just because his short biography in one section is substantial enough to allow good room for one image. Also, NFCC strongly encourages content to be free to write and share and use. Whether any image of this perpetrator offends a reader is subjective, but this image isn't graphic or anything. However, if NFCC#8 isn't enough, maybe NFCC#2 as I read that the image may have commercial interests from copyright owners. Or maybe NFCC#1 as free text is adequate, while a non-free image is unnecessary and would distract readers from understanding the event and prompt them into treating the article as partially an obituary or a biography. Of course, a free image of this person is possible, even if it's not yet found. However, this is no exception to images of perpetrators that have been deleted. George Ho (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Usually the purpose for images like this is to give a better idea as to who the perpetrator that committed an action like this was in the first place. Even though no one besides the perpetrator has died from the attack (yet), it still holds significance in it being a clear cut political attack. While there's always the concern of emotional edits on reactions based off of political beliefs, just showing a picture of the attacker in question shouldn't be a reason for deleting an image altogether. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with George Ho. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 14:53, 19 June 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:Action for Children old 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 as G7 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the outdated organizational logo (non-free). The current logo, which should be displayed in the article instead of this one, is shadowing this file on Commons (see commons:File:Action for Children logo.png), so the only action needed here is the deletion of this local file. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections as uploader. I've just renamed this file as File:Action for Children old logo.png and changed the relevant links in this listing so that the Commons file is not obscured while we wait for this to be deleted. The local file redirect created from my move will also need deleting. Cloudbound (talk) 18:38, 15 June 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:Radha Madhavam performance of Krishna Praba.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 ⚡ 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content (screen capture) FASTILY 19:25, 15 June 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:Ailee performing on Fantastic Duo 2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not official YouTube account, possible license washing. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:06, 15 June 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.