Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12

File:Book cover for "Lonely Planet Publications".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 ⚡ 03:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and obsoleted by File:Lonely Planet Australia travel guide 16th Edition.png Jpatokal (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (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:WikiSwat.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 ⚡ 03:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the puzzle globe in this image surely contravenes Wikipedia's trademark policy. John of Reading (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the image predates the policy by 3 years -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (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:Gimli glider.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now is replaced by a free image File:Gimli Glider.jpg (notice caps) that isn't quite as nice (doesn't show emergency slides) but appears to be taken in Gimli at the time of the event and is adequate. Dcoetzee 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The replacement photograph is by no means adequate precisely because it does not show the escape slides. Instead it shows an apparently normally landed plane, albeit with a crash barrier where the normal runway markings would be. We should stick with the photograph under discussion and seek to source a better version or have one released to us. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had failed also to note the collapsed nose wheel. These facts make the picture irreplaceable, unless a better one showing a similar status can be provided and cleared for use here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Free image does not "replace" the fair use one because it does not accurately show how the plane landed. The free image looks like it could be any 767 at any airport. Hellbus (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note also the collapsed landing gear in the original. Jpatokal (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the free image shows the aircraft much later in the recovery effort and doesn't adequately illustrate the accident details including the collapsed nose gear and escape slides. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we're comparing an apple with an orange here. The free use image cannot adequately illustrate the accident, only the subsequent recovery of the aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2012 (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:AmandaToddVideo.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from the standard Youtube license, it is absolutely not suitable for Creative Commons licensing, nor are still pictures from it allowable here. But I found their standard licence hard to find in the extreme and harder to interpret. If I am incorrect please do not hesitate to say so :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convert to fair use If it is not allowed under CC, we can do it with a FUR, since it is discussed in the article. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unique point the picture illustrates in the article. The full Youtube video is available to all. I do not agree that any fair use rationale would be acceptable for stills culled from a video that my understanding of the Youtube license shows to be a copyrighted item not freely licensed for either modification, which this picture is, or onward use. I am happy to be corrected by a licencing expert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same thing for any screenshot for anything, such as a screenshot of a commercial TV show you can get on HULU, or rent from Netflix, which is why we have fair use images on Wikipedia. I said fair use, and not free use, because fair use is for copyrighted images incompatible with free use strictures of Wikipedia. I have never said that this would be converted to a free license. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I return to my point that the image does not serve to illustrate anything unique. The video itself is freely available and indicated from the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Availability of source material is not a criterion on which fair use is based. You could easily go and watch stuff for free off network websites, but we have fair use screencap images from them. And we cannot host the entire video since that would no longer be fair use, since it would be the entire video, and not a fair use of the content. Being freely available or pay-for-viewing has nothing to do with fair use. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unique and non-replaceable image, should be converted to fair use. - Ahunt (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see my reply to 70.24.250.26. I do not believe it can be converted to fair use. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, convert to fair use. YouTube's license is basically "we can use it, but anyone else needs your permission", so her next of kin would now own the copyright. As such, CC is clearly invalid. However, Todd's YouTube video is the focus of her notability. With that in mind, I think a still from the video is unique and valuable enough to include. The larger question, I think, is if this is the right still/card to use? I didn't follow the news closely, but if I was to retain a still image, I would make it one of any message that was prominently discussed. Reso lute 21:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to fair use: I agree with 70.24.250.26, the license suites the image better. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tell me if I'm wrong, however, isn't having two fair use images in one article prohibitted per WP:NFC Policy (#3a) "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." ? The article is on Todd's suicide, not Todd - and is it redundant to have an image of Todd and an image of Todd in the video which is of discussion? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many articles have more than one fair-use image. The thing with FUIs is their relevance. Can you identify the individual clearly from the video screencap, since it is used to illustrate her call for help, it doesn't have to actually show her clearly, merely show what the video generally displays. The top image in the box is used to illustrate her. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but this article is about Amanda Todd's suicide not Amanda Todd. And, just because "many articles have more than one fair-use image" does not mean this one should. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert to non-free/fair use. The image has been extensively used outside of wikipedia and its use increases the readers understanding. Saying that readers can "click on the link" ignores readers using a non-online format. FFCC#3 does not prohibit use of multiple fair use images in an article but says that superfluous images are not allowed. This image is not superfluous because it shows the actual video posted by Todd. meshach (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to fair use. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's important. 78.133.67.71 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not relevant here. Copyright and licencing is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This case is famous for YouTube video. If there is no picture of the YouTube video, the article becomes incomplete. Tarikur (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - illustrative of the person's state of mind prior to the suicide, and thereby relevant. Convert to fair use if possible.Mzmadmike (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not everyone has the time or inclination to watch a video and might, when they read the article, want to but I think the picture clearly indicates what the article is about. Veryscarymary (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. The picture shows a video making technique. The article is about a suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (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.