Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22

File:Vicky Knight.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image fails WP:NFCCP#1 as the actress is alive and her free image can be made available. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a means of identification, it is clearly replaceable. There is also the claim that it is to show her appearance in a film. Although there is sourced commentary about her role, there is nothing significant about her appearance that would meet WP:NFCC#8 -- Whpq (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fair use summary says it is for the primary identification, which would be replaceable since she is still alive, failing WP:NFCC#1 and there is no critical commentary of this screenshot, failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2019 (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:George dog.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. It seems like most people are not convinced that WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#2 are violated here, perhaps also because customarily this kind of usage has been held as being compliant with NFCC#8 and because the dog-human distinction drawn here is considered to be arbitrary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a number of failings with regard to the non-free content (NFC) criteria policy. The source for the image is a bare URL, but that links to dailymail.co.uk, the website of the Daily Mail; as the FDP says the file’s purpose is "to illustrate the article in question", that would presumably be the same market role as the Daily Mail's (WP:NFCC#2). Furthermore, having read and written George (dog), I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand (WP:NFCC#8). Lastly, the FDP claims this image under our "unique historic image" license—{{non-free historic image}}—but that tag requires that the image "must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With respect to WP:NFCC#2, the image of the dog almost certainly from the owners of the dog and not a photo by the Daily Mail. See [1], [2] where family members have printed photos of the dog visibile in the news photo. As well, how and why would the Daily Mail have a photo of the dog prior to the dog's heroic actions? As this is quite clearly a family photo and not the product of a commercial organisation, NFFC#2 is not an issue. As for WP:NFCC#8, the purpose in the NFUR can be cleaned up to indicate that the image is being used as the primary means of visual identification in the infobox and cannot be replaced with a free image as the subject is deceased. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources you provided show the same photo, but none of the three identify the copyright holder. Without knowing that, how are we to conclusively determine the "original market role of the original copyrighted material"? With regards to NFCC#8, you didn't speak to how the omission of this presumably copyrighted photo is detrimental to understanding anything written and sourced in the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to conclusively determine the copyright holder to see these are family photos and come to the conclusion that our usage does not replace teh original market value of the image. As for the contextual significance, the nonfree content guidelines provide examples of acceptable use including "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." In this case the deceased is a dog, but the same principle applies. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for the contextual significance, the nonfree content guidelines provide examples of acceptable use At Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use, before any examples are listed, that guideline says "the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria ["a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."] and provide rationales and licensing information." That policy requires, as I mentioned, that absence of the NFC be detrimental to understanding. Also as I said, "I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand."
In this case the deceased is a dog, but the same principle applies. Iff the NFC met #8, then we can apply WP:NFC#Images, the tenth example of which says, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person…" The image and article in question are about a dog, not a person. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've interpreted the guidelines and examples in a very literal manner which I disagree with. I'll just leave it at that. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image is used in the infobox to illustrate the animal that the article is about passing WP:NFCC#8 and this is a similar situation to the acceptable fair use for a deceased person in their article per WP:NFCI. Aspects (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#8 does not, whatsoever, say that using copyrighted material for illustration meets muster. Secondly, as I've said above to Whpq, WP:NFCI is applicable only when the WP:NFCC have already been met, and furthermore refer to "deceased persons". — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFCC#8 as it identifies the subject of the article as described in WP:NFC#CS. Use in the infobox, of an entity that is no longer available for photography, is a very standard NFC case. The only difference here is, of course, that it's a dog and not a person. The WP:NFCI are examples of acceptable NFC uses. It's very easy to see here why this use is comparable to images of deceased persons.
As for WP:NFCC#2, basically anything except for photos made by photo agencies passes for use like this. Our use – a free content collaborative encyclopedia – is transformative almost every way. Anyone with experience in files knows that we can never know with absolute certanly who owns the copyright and what they intend do to with it, so if there is doubt as to whether the relevant criteria are met, it has to be based on some actual substance. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said it meets NFCC#8, yet you didn't explain how the NFC is necessary to understand the article as written, nor how anything becomes less understandable without it—which is what NFCC#8 requires. Also, did you have any input on the failure to meet the requirements of {{non-free historic image}}? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more discussion on the WP:NFCC#2 point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is deceased and no free alternative exists. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That addresses neither the needs of WP:NFCC#8 and {{non-free historic image}}, though. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies WP:NFCC#1, though. The article says "A 30-centimetre (12 in)-tall Jack Russell Terrier with 'a heart condition'", and the sole link in that phrase is Jack Russell Terrier, whose main pictue denotes a JRT that does not look like George at all, i.e. contextual significance. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I … didn't mention #1? All ten NFCC must be met, not just one or a few, yes? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies 9/10 points, and my explanation above and Jheald's below denotes where is the contextual significance requested by NFCC. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very long established that showing what the subject of an article looks or looked like adds valuably and significantly to what the reader understands of the subject, so is a rationale for NFCC #8, and so such an image should be acceptable, if it does not conflict with any of the other NFCCs (in particular #1 and #2). The nominator appears to misunderstand NFCC #8, judging from their comment I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand. The test NFCC #8 lays down is what will add to the understanding of the topic as a whole, not what might be required to understand any particular piece of text or content in the article. Jheald (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald and Masem (talk · contribs) are participating in a discussion at WT:NFC#contradiction? that pertains to this FFD. I won't repeat what I'm commenting there, but am making this note for others' awareness. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 23 July 2019 (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:Sojourner-truth.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: relisted on 2019 July 30. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sojourner-truth.jpg (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:EuthanasiePropaganda.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded on Commons with better quality. This image does not seem to be copyrighted anyway per the page itself: "all publications of the Nazi Party 1933-45 are public domain in the USA." © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:19, 22 July 2019 (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:Kelly Miller.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain image uploaded at Commons. Requested to be kept here as not eligible (in 2015). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:28, 22 July 2019 (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:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg

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 2019 August 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg (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:Nuclear mp3rules.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

likely derivative of non-free content (screenshot of text), unused, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2019 (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:Distinguished Service Medal (Oregon National Guard).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (created by the state of Oregon, unclear if this is PD), also unused/no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2019 (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:Exceptional Service Medal (Oregon National Guard).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (created by the state of Oregon, unclear if this is PD), also unused/no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2019 (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:Faithful Service Ribbon (Oregon National Guard).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (created by the state of Oregon, unclear if this is PD) FASTILY 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2019 (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:Meritorious Service Medal (Oregon National Guard).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (created by the state of Oregon, unclear if this is PD), also unused/no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2019 (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.