Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6[edit]

File:Clement Davies c1955.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: keep. Concern has been addressed. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article and amended use rationale for use in article Clement Davies where it passes WP:NFCC. Graemp (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the article Clement Davies can contain a non-free picture of this person unless a free one is known to exist. I see that you replaced another non-free picture with this one in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2015 (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:Jkk.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More or less identical to File:Babyidontcare.jpg, so violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2015 (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:Babyidontcare.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cover of the version by Jennifer Ellison, but it is used in the article about the version by Transvision Vamp. Per WP:NFCC#8, the image should only be used in the article about the Jennifer Ellison version, not in the article about the Transvision Vamp version. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2015 (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:Liljim folsom.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonfree image, perfectly satisfactory (in fact, superior) free image already in use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2015 (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:Clement Davies 1948.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Passes WP:NFCC#8. There is a critical discussion of him in the article. Graemp (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since United Kingdom general election, 1950 is not an article about the person, there needs to be critical discussion about the picture. It is irrelevant if the article contains critical discussion about the person. There is currently no critical discussion about the picture in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your stated reason to delete is only on grounds it fails WP:NFCC#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." Clearly the image has contextual significance. The article even has a standard project design which invites editors to incorporate an image, top right of the page. WP:NFCC#8 does not differentiate between type of article, such as biographical or non-biographical. Therefore your point about the article needing to discuss the image rather than the subject of the image is irrelevant. Graemp (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-free images ought not be used in table/gallery formats unless they are identifying the direct subject of an article. One caveat - the file description page is contradictory in places, and at one point states that the file is available under a Creative Commons license. While I doubt this is true, that would obviously change my !vote. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any contradiction. The file information page states that the file is non-free and that it is available under a Creative Commons licence, without specifying which one. Some CC licences are non-free, and the file might have been licensed under one of those. Besides, a CC-licensed file becomes non-free if it is unknown under which licence it has been licensed since the CC licences require you to mention the licence when using the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - All true, and the license linked below clearly indicates non-commercial use only, which is not compatible with releasing it freely through Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but not relevant, since it is being used under fair-use. Given that it is clearly true that the image is in fact being made available under a Creative Commons licence, one might expect User ESkog to follow through on "that would obviously change my !vote". Graemp (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very clearly passes WP:NFCC#8. It "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." CFCF 💌 📧 23:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a quote of the criterion without any explanation as to why you think it complies with the criterion. Why can't the same understanding be given by simply linking to the article of the person, as suggested in WP:NFC#UUI §6? The person has an article and it is easy to link to that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC#7. Currently not used in any articles. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Another editor deleted the file from the article which we were discussing. As a result, the file was wrongly deleted before we had concluded our discussions. This makes things awkward. I shall re-upload the image. User:ESkog voted "delete" but said their vote would change if the image was available under a Creative Commons licence. For the benefit of ESkog and any other editor, here is the link to the specific licence I referred to which was one click away from the link on the currently empty image description page. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw203659 Graemp (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote. You are only allowed one. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The license you've linked here indicates non-commercial use only, which we can't use here. It would have to be treated as any other non-free image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I incorrectly deleted the image as CSD:F5 when I meant to tag it for 7-day deletion as it is orphaned. I have fixed this mistake. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2015 (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:Nikica Jelavic.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 as F9 by ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Getty Images tag at the bottom gives this away as a copyrighted image with no permission to use. Egghead06 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2015 (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:File name.ext[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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. {{{Reason}}} Taylormulhallsearl (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2015 (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 Casual Vacancy.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: keep. This cover is likely copyrighted in its home country, and thus non-free. I have nominated the file on Commons for deletion. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book cover is hosted at Commons at the same name. They say it does not meet the threshold of originality. Do we agree, and if so should this image be deleted? BethNaught (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a British book, and the threshold of originality is very low in the United Kingdom, see c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The file is probably copyrighted in the United Kingdom, making it unsuitable for Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (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:Adolph von Morlot (English biography).pdf[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need wikicode in the form of a PDF file. Should be on a normal wikipage if useful for Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:RHaworth: Well, it could potentially be speedied under WP:CSD#F10, but I thought that it would be more helpful for the uploader if I used FFD instead where I can provide a simpler rationale for deletion, especially if someone wants to put this on a normal wikipage. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2015 (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:Nandinigoel.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, unused image of unknown aged person. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (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:Screenshot of Cutest Penguins userpage.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, personal, use beyond Wikipedia unlikely. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (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:Little India alcohol advisory.jpeg[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 nominated revisions. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sign, the past revisions exceed threshold of originality and the licensing is not self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (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:C.s.lewis3.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: keep. The full FUR provided by User:Sfan00 IMG will be restored and uploader will be warned for misusing the rollback feature. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#10a and WP:NFCC#10c. ~~The uploader~~Another user refueses to provide any source but just removes templates informing about the problem and the FUR lacks several mandatory components such as what extent of the work the uploader is using, how the picture is used and why the uploader thinks that there is no free replacement. Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Some text amended --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject of the image is dead and specified as such in the image description is sufficient evidence that there should be no free replacements. For images the extent need not be specified, because it is the entire image that is used to illustrate the subject of the image. These are all implied, and this not needed to be explicitly specified.CFCF 💌 📧 23:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale does not state that he is dead - it only states that there is no free replacement, without specifying why. The fair use rationale needs to specify why there is no free replacement, it is not sufficient to simply quote the criteron without telling why it is thought to be satisfied. WP:NFCC#1 states that 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.' The fact that he is dead proves that no free content can be created, but it does not prove that no free equivalent which already has been created is available somewhere.

All mandatory information - such as the extent used - needs to be specified for all non-free files, and there are no exemptions from this. All criteria need to be explicitly stated. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you then not instead of sending this file for deletion take a quick look to find out that he is dead. This bureaucratic procedure is a waste of everyone's time. Why not limit it to wasting your own? CFCF 💌 📧 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct information needs to be stated on the file information page - and you refused to do this. The fact that he is dead only proves that new pictures can't be created, but it doesn't prove that there aren't any pictures which already exist. Did you check the other language editions of Wikipedia? They contain a picture of a statue in Belfast which is covered by c:Template:FoP-UK. Why can't that image be used instead?

The information currently presented is also insufficient for identifying whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 or not. For example, is this one of those pictures which fall under WP:NFC#UUI §7? I also note that the so-called 'source' is from 2014 whereas our copy seems to have been uploaded in 2006 (and later modified). This means that the 'source' isn't the source at all but that Wikipedia might be the source for that page. It is also possible that the link to Wordpress violates WP:LINKVIO. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt was made to add {{Non-free use rationale biog}} to address in good faith some of the concerns, but the original uploader reverted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails NFCC#10 for failing to provide a full and valid fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not a valid alternative to discussion and consensus regarding image size, appropriate tags, etc. St Anselm (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2015 (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:08klemperer.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 at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 15#File:08klemperer.jpg. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in violation of WP:NFCC#3b - already low resolution image. Decreasing resolution will adversely affect performance in infoboxes. CFCF 💌 📧 23:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article only uses 300 × 400 pixels, so why does the file information page need 375 × 500 pixels? The additional pixels are not used anywhere, and 100,000 pixels is often assumed to be sufficient for non-free files – the file contains many more pixels than that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thought the normal procedure was to upload to lower resolution image. I have tagged the file accordingly. St Anselm (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC#2, interfering with commercial value of the image. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle and because, for a recently deceased person, the likelihood of a free image being available is much higher. In any event, a news media photo is particularly unacceptable when it is likely that a promotional (or at least noncommercial) photo might easily be found on the website (or an archived version) for one of the schools where he recently taught, and most likely on the jackets of one of his many books (or their publishers' website). Before appropriating a photo like this, we need to be sure that "freer" alternatives are unavailable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly within policy, claiming that there are "freer" alternative is a tautology as none of these are free-they are only fair use. CFCF 💌 📧 21:55, 7 October 2015 (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:Love Takes TimeEU.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant for song, when singer is from the United States herself. There are better single covers also. troublednbored (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous deletion rationale. Correct rationale is that the image is not used.CFCF 💌 📧 23:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator refers to Special:PermanentLink/681419948, a former revision of the article where the image was in use. That revision was the current revision of the article when the file was nominated for deletion. It is correct that the image currently violates WP:NFCC#7 as a non-free file which is not currently in use. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF and Stefan2: The EU image is reinserted to the article. I uploaded the US cassette single cover to replace the promo image. I guess the European image is no longer necessary as we have already the US commercial (not promo) cassette single. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2015 (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.