Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 18

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alex Peppe with Al Franken.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Peppe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused personal photo without evidence of permission. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:KeepYourHandsOff.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sweetteam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Available at a much higher resolution at File:"Keep these hands off" - NARA - 513550.jpg ALH (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2013 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creole girls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aaron charles (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused lower resolution version of File:CreoleGirlsPlaquemines1935.jpg. ALH (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (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.

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 The files were deleted by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) as unused non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 Unlimited Do What's Good For Me Single Cover - Canada.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wozza20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:2 Unlimited Do What's Good For Me Single Cover - Japan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wozza20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:2 Unlimited Do What's Good For Me Single Cover - US.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wozza20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Unnecessary cover arts from countries outside the Netherlands, home country of 2 Unlimited, the Belgian duo/band. One cover is already needed; there is a rerecorded version, "kids like You and Me". George Ho (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as excessive Werieth (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the non-free content policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

1. No Free Equivalent - There is no free equivalent available of the CD covers.

2. Respect For Commercial Opportunity - This does not hinder archived commercial opportunities.

3(a) Minimal Number Of Items - The one item does not convey the different releases in different territories.

3(b) Minimal Extent Of Use - These are different publications, not over use of one publication.

4. Previous Publication - These items are publicly displayed outside of Wikipedia.

5. Content - The cover art used do meet content standards required of Wikipedia.

6. Media Specific Policy - All items are tagged with sources as required.

7. One Article Minimum - These cover arts are used in the one page only.

8. Contextual Significance - The answer to this appears to be subjective.

9. Restrictions On Location - These cover arts are only used within the article.

10. Image Description Page - All required parameters are present.

I believe this indicates that the copies of cover art included are covered within the Wikipedia policies set out above with my answers. Wozza20 (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They fail NFCC#3a - we don't need to see undiscussed cover art from every region/area it was released it, so 4 images is far too many. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wozza20 removed images from the article except the Canadian one. George Ho (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2013 (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.

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 - fails NFCC#2 - they clearly seek to earn money from the use of images like other news organisations. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jang Sung-thaek.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Küñall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Was up for speedy deletion (CSD F7), but the nomination was contested on the talk page:

This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim. If the author is the KCNA, then it should be updated to reflect that, but the file should not be deleted. --Küñall (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI §7 and WP:NFCC#2. Images from news agencies, such as KCNA, are prohibited unless there is critical discussion about the photo. The article only discusses the person, not the photo of the person. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. However, maybe we could argue it's a 'free' image ("Re-use of any material on this home page without credit to Korea News Service (KNS) is prohibited." [1]) Commercial use is not prohibited, they only request attribution. Maybe we could use some sort of 'attribution' license based on that? Küñall (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KCNA's website is http://www.kcna.kp/ not http://www.kcna.co.jp/. The website you found apparently belongs to "Korea News Service (KNS) in Tokyo". --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on the deletion of this file. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The goal of NFCC#2 is respect for commercial opportunities. Given that KCNA primarily conducts its commercial activities in North Korea and practically no one in North Korea can access Wikipedia, I don't think there is an issue here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KCNA seems to sell pictures to news agencies outside Korea. In fact, many of the North Korean pictures in media outside North Korea come from KCNA. I suspect that KCNA earns quite a lot of money on such pictures. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that some agencies re-use their pictures does not mean they are getting any cent. I know some photographers, or just common people who have uploaded their pictures on Flickr or Twitter of certain events, and Reuters or AP have distributed their pictures as their own for some national newspapers. (I recall, for example, that last September, a mechanical failure provoked a fire in a bus near San Francisco de Mostazal, and people uploaded their pictures on Twitter. On the following day, their pictures appeared with no permission (or with changed credits) on the main pages of El Mercurio and Diario VI Región (where it had no credit at all)). Küñall (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that sometimes happens. In those cases, the photographers often sue the newspapers for copyright violation. In my country, the compensation to the photographers tends to be much greater if you forget to indicate the photographer's name (or if you indicate the wrong photographer's name). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2013 (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.

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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comparing telexfree and badminton tournament logos.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Frontiersanders (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I am concerned that the juxtaposition of these two very similar logos in this manner fails WP:SYNTH. The primary purpose of this image is stated thus "There is a section in this article about this logo being later used by another company, reported most of main Brazilian news portals. The imagine is here to show the similarities between Telexfree logo, and the Badminton tournament logo." That is the synthesised original research in a nutshell.

While it is abundantly clear that the logos have similarities it is up to us to report what is stated in WP:RS material, not to create that material ourselves. This is a good faith upload by a relatively inexperienced contributor, but I feel it is outside our rules, hence this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I didn't express myself clearly when I described the image. This was NOT original research in any matter: I copied this picture from a reliable reference already cited in the Telexfree article.^[1] It is also basically the same image shown in all other very reliable references.^[2][3][4][5] So, it wasn't me who came up with this juxtaposition of logos, but rather it was IG News Magazine,^[1] a major news reference in Brazil.

ps: what I wanted to say in the primary purpose should have been: "There a section in this article about this logo being later used by another company, *with this very same image used by the main Brazilian news portals to illustrate the information."--Frontiersanders (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could access the links to the references and check the images they use, I think you'd understand what I'm talking about. I read the WP:SYNTH, and I don't think it fits this description of synthesis. I didn't take image A from source 1, and image B from source 2, and compared them. On the contrary, I copied the image completely from source 1, which already made the juxtaposition. And source 2 had a similar image, with the same conclusion. In this case, five sources actually, with the similar image.--Frontiersanders (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This gets quite complicated. The first reference quoted has either created or reproduced the picture from elsewhere. It has performed the original research, thus we are not doing so, nor are we synthesising anything. Assuming the file is licenced correctly, something I have not checked, the judgment now is whether WIkipedia is entitled to display this picture which is a picture used to illustrate an external party's research, or whether we must not display it and may simply refer to it in citations.

This needs wiser heads than mine. I had considered withdrawing the nomination after Frontiersanders had explained everything so clearly above, but am not sure that would be valid either. For me this is an area that needs clarification. What I will do is to make my nomination neutral on the basis that my rationale is no longer appropriate, but leave the topic on the table for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 12:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to hear more about this. I'm no expert on wiki policies for sure. But my personal feeling is that since several "major" news portals used this very same image, they had probably done the checking if they had the license to publish the image. Such news portals usually follow strict policies towards those issues, I don't believe they'd risk it. But again, happy to hear someone else's thoughts.--Frontiersanders (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image has not been created by the user and the sources of the file are very clear identified. The user only uploaded the file to Wikipedia to give to the readers a summarized idea about what the Portuguese newspapers are reporting, so my understating is that the image should not be removed from the article nor from the Wikipedia database because it is only a good overview of the most important part of the articles mentioned in the sources. Best for all, BrazilianTale (✉) 12:55, 18 December 2013 (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.

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 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JaniceRand.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ejfetters (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Has been replaced with a free use image which has become available on Commons. Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newchurch dying guinea pig.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raye (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused image, Credibility of subject questioned in image comments, OTRS permission apparently exists though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OTRS permission is to release it. ours is to decide if it has value here. It has none because it is unused. It is also poorly composed Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 18 December 2013 (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.

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: Withdrawn - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regina Airport Terminal Building 1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masalai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Quality is not good, is this an upscaled JPG? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the quality of the image, it looks like a scan of a paper photo. This is also consistent with the description in the {{information}} template (and anything else would be unreasonable for a photo of that age). Copyright tag changed to {{PD-Canada}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Moreover, it is the only photo which exists of the building showing its setting. The building was demolished in 1960s to be replaced by a much larger one. Already, as railway travel steadily decreased in the province, vanishing altogether in the 1970s, the building was extremely important in the city and southern province. Masalai (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments - Withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2013 (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.