Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 7

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⚡ 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Think Think and Ah Tsai, Presidential cats.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MerlinVtwelve (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Tsai Ing-wen with Think Think and Ah Tsai.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MerlinVtwelve (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The files are images of the cats Think Think and Ah Tsai, in which they are both living cats. As a result, both files violate WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I can see, these images meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCC. In particular, regarding WP:NFCC#1, no free equivalent of these images are available, or could ever be created in future, that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. N.B. These cats are protected by armed military personnel in the Presidential residence, 24 hours a day, and are not accessible to the public. No one can photograph these cats except the President of Taiwan, or someone who has been authorised by her. Your interpretation appears to be a subjective opinion, and not viewing the images in the content of the one article in which they are being used. Whether the cats are living or dead does not seem to be relevant in this case. merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence that these cats make no public appearances? -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide evidence, including a source, which demonstrates that at least one of the cats, Think Think, does not like being photographed. Please refer to this link which describes how he is "trying to break free from Tsai’s arms" and "reluctant to appear in front of the camera". At the same link, there is a video of Think Think trying to break free during the official photography session, presumably at the residence of the President. N.B. In general, cats are unlike dogs, it is not really feasible for the owner to take them into public places as they tend to be uncooperative and disobedient. Regarding WP:NFCC#1, which states "no free equivalent is available, or could be created", I would suggest that it is very unlikely that, within the expected lifespan of the cats – approximately another 5 years or so – that someone could visit Tsai Ing-wen at her official residence with a camera, and take a photograph of both cats within the short time frame of such meetings. The chances of such a person visiting the President, being able to photograph both cats, and then making the photo available to Wikimedia, is unlikely, I would suggest. I note that the phrasing of WP:NFCC#1 does not include the word "impossible", but the chances of acquiring such a photo would be vanishingly small. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We have both the social media photo of the cats as well as the infobox photo. Having both contravenes WP:NFCC#3a. Assuming WP:NFCC#1 can be satisfied (the cats don't make public appearances), File:Tsai Ing-wen with Think Think and Ah Tsai.jpg shoul dbe moved to the infobox as it can be used there and is illustrative of the use of the cats in the election campaign. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adding to my comment below, I would also point out that this article also engages in discussion of Taiwanese society, geopolitics, gender politics etc. – so it is broader than just the two cats, which after all, were just two ordinary stray cats before being adopted by the leader of Taiwan. Much of the article content is about people and society – both in Taiwan and elsewhere. Hence, the use of these three images which reflects the content in a way which broadens understanding to the lay reader who may not even be able to point to Taiwan on a map. It will be extremely difficult to find alternatives, and the cats are well into middle age already. Although in response to the question above regarding proof – no, I cannot provide a cited source that says that Tsai Ing-wen does not ever walk out of her fortified official residence past armed guards into the street carrying two, potentially struggling, fully grown cats. There are evidently many experts here on image usage, however, I don't really get why deleting these images is being considered. merlinVtwelve (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding the main photo, there is another aspect which might not be evident to non-Asian readers of the article. Namely, that the two cats, Think Think (Grey) & Ah Tsai (Ginger), are engaged in a tussle which is posed in a way which reflects the Chinese philosophical tradition of Yin and Yang (陰陽) – with the Grey and Ginger colours of the cats displaying "dark-bright", "negative-positive" characteristics outlined in the concept of Dualism. As I have noted in my other comment about WP:NFCC#1, its phrasing does not include the word "impossible". However, this photograph was taken when the cats were both at a young age – little more than kittens – and it would be almost impossible to replicate this photograph in the foreseeable future, with two less active middle-aged cats. The concept of Yin & Yang is not directly discussed in the article, but it is an important part of Ancient Chinese Philosophy, which is woven into the fabric of Taiwanese society – which is a large part what this article is about. In short, this photograph of the President's cats, in a Yin & Yang pose, is absolutely unique and cannot be replicated. 21:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I presume, as the uploader of the image, I am permitted a "keep" vote, and will summarise my comments above as follows. Over the years, I have not previously uploaded very many images, and do not have any experience with this process of them being nominated for deletion. Although a picture of two cats seems like a fairly straightforward requirement – this example is unique and virtually impossible to replicate as per WP:NFCC#1, for a number of reasons including those which I will outline as follows:

1. The article is about two cats, not just one – as is the case, for example, with many other comparable political felines such as Peter (chief mouser), Sybil (cat) or Freya (cat). For this reason, it is important both cats are shown in the same photo, rather than separately. Political commentary always discusses the Presidents 'cats' - plural - and the felines are highly controversial; having led to the leader being both revered by her followers and insulted by her political enemies, particularly in Mainland China.
2. The two cats are clearly shown under identical lighting conditions, which is an aid to any encyclopaedic discussion regarding relative differences regarding the colour and type of fur, and any vetinary observations etc., which might arise when the article is being expanded by WP editors for many decades from now. (Do we know how long into the future Wikipedia will exist? ... perhaps even centuries.)
3. To re-capture, or re-stage, the photo would be a difficult task, to say the least. The interlocked grapple on display tends to be a young cat behaviour. These two cats are now middle-aged, and the chance of anyone being able to capture it again is extremely unlikely, perhaps even impossible. Thus the photo easily meets the requirements of WP:NFCC#1
4. As I have noted above, the 'interlocked' grappling pose of the two cats resembles the traditional Yin & Yang symbol in Taiwanese culture which is based on ancient Chinese history (picture of Yin & Yang symbol included for comparison) – not only in the "dark-bright", "negative-positive" colours of the cats' fur, but also in their respective genders (Think Think is female, while Ah Tsai is male). The 'complementary opposites' of the two cats reflect the concept of Dualism, and aspects of Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwanese society and its Chinese traditions. Examples of such duality includes: • She is the first female leader / previously they were all men • First single leader / previously all married • First leader with mixed race parents / previous leaders all single-race • First pro LGTB and gay marriage leader / Previously were all anti • Democracy / Communism • Freedom / Totalianarism ; etc., etc.
5. The photo appears to have been taken by Tsai Ing-wen fairly early in the cats' lives, when she was an ordinary citizen, and not yet President; making it historically important.
6. The picture can be seen as an element of WP:UNUSUAL and WP:HUMOR; even though the article as a whole incorporates some very serious elements – the geo-politics of Taiwan vs China are affecting the entire world. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just received a message from User:Masem on my Talk page that I cannot post images on this page that are under discussion. I did place the cat image next to the Yin & Yang symbol so that editors can compare directly but it was deleted. Hopefully the point will still be clear in my comments above. The Yin Yang is still there. As I have stated above, I am a newcomer to this image deletion project, and was not aware of this rule, which is a rather odd one, given that images are a visual medium. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the second image on the page (separately to discussion of the Yin & Yang cat image), which is an image of Tsai Ing-wen posing with individual cats, from her election campaign, it is unsuitable as a main image for the infobox (as suggested by an editor above) because the two cats are photographed at different times, under different lighting conditions, which does not support Encyclopedic discussion in the article regarding the colour of the cats – namely Grey for Think Think, and Ginger for Ah Tsai (e.g Light Grey or Dark Grey? Reddish Ginger or Yellowish Ginger?) These questions can only be answered in the current "Yin & Yang" infobox photo with both cats photographed at the same time, under the same lighting conditions. Rather, this photo supports Encyclopedic discussion within the article regarding Tsai's use of cat imagery in her election 2016 campaign. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this yingyang is irrelevant unless the image is so iconic that it can be used as the yingyang position of the cats is the subject of significant sourced commentary. As for not being the perfect photo to capture the colours, it is also not relevant unless the colour of the cats are so unusual that we must have an image with perfect lighting to show if the colour, and that would need to be established with significant sourced commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, at WikiProject Cats, sometimes known as WP:MEOW, fur is considered a very important aspect of any cat. I don't know why you think the fur is unimportant? This seems very subjective, and I presume you're not a member of WP:MEOW. Do you have sources that support your assertion that the fur of Think Think and Ah Tsai is not unusual? Ah Tsai in particular is a very attractive ginger colour, which is not common. Perhaps the article needs some sources from Chinese language publications in Taiwan about the fur colour, as most English language sources are about the politics. Although some of my points above are a bit light-hearted, I have included some very solid reasons why this photo should be retained. The responses I'm receiving so far from other editors seems to be rather subjective. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet NFCC. The ying-and-ying dichotomy is irrelevant since it's not part of the fair use rationale; UNUSUAL and HUMOR are not policy; it's basically trivia. Main issue I see is NFCC#8. They're cats, there's basically no explanation of how it's critical we need these photos, especially since there's already textual descriptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken about UNUSUAL and HUMOR, and the Yin Yang as well (these were included in a light-hearted spirit). However, I have provided many other reasons why this image cannot be replicated in future as per WP:NFCC#1. Regarding NFCC#8, textual descriptions of cats' fur is not adequate – as any of the many editors at WP:MEOW would attest. There is no precise, independent, text-based, colour grading system for feline fur, that I am aware of. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears that others don't understand WP:NFCCP#1 the same way that I do. Both image rationales clearly state that they violate WP:NFCCP#1:

From File:Tsai Ing-wen with Think Think and Ah Tsai.jpg, "Only president has access to the cats, therefore, only she can release pictures of them,"

From File:Think Think and Ah Tsai, Presidential cats.jpg, "It would be impossible for anyone except the President to obtain a picture of the cats."

So, now we are all in agreement that there is someone who can obtain a picture of the cats and release it. Has anyone even attempted to ask? The president (or their staff) might even have a picture of the cats as kittens that they would be willing to release if that was important and you asked nicely. "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute"  ★  Bigr Tex 03:25, 15 July 2020 (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: No policy backed reasons to keep, consensus is in favor of deletion -FASTILY 01:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp Issue Taiwan 2016 Presidential Inauguration.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MerlinVtwelve (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a Taiwanese stamp depicting the cats Think Think and Ah Tsai, attempting to raise the cats' significance. However, mere text are enough to describe their significance. As a result, the file violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image meets all criteria for WP:NFCC. The use of the stamp image is not attempting to raise the cats' significance, as they are highly significant already, being the cats of the President of Taiwan. Regarding specifically WP:NFCC#8, the use of the stamp significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article topic – namely, two cats that formed part of a political campaign. merlinVtwelve (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Image fails NFCC #8, with no context in the article referring to the stamp. I don't see what relevance the image, which appears to include an unnamed cat, has to the subject Think Think and Ah Tsai. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The stamp is not the subject of any sort of sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whpq thanks for pointing this out, it is a long time since I looked at this article. I have updated the content, so that the stamp is now the subject of sourced commentary. I would also point out that this article, while ostensibly about two cats, also engages in discussion of Taiwanese society, geopolitics, gender politics, etc., etc., and this is why the stamp is included. As the source says (recently added) the stamp design draws attention to issues about equality. merlinVtwelve (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary is about the stamps, but none of it connects it to the cats. I really don't see this meeting the significance test for inclusion as non-free content. -- 15:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

These stamps were issued specifically for the inauguration of a female president who is described as "Cat Woman" by her supporters, and has adopted both cats and dogs. The stamps in the article allude to Tsai Ing-wen's racial background, which is also very different to previous politicians, being not just the first female leader, but also one who is not completely Hakka Chinese, and is partially descended from Taiwanese indigenous peoples. Therefore, the stamps support Encyclopedic discussion of issues that have been an undercurrent of Taiwanese society for many years. In a way, the cats are holding a mirror up to society and generating discussion. The stamps have been deliberately designed to reflect this. Perhaps this is not evident to casual readers, so the article may benefit from further development to make this clearer. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my reply to the comment above, I have done some additional research on the stamp, and how it relates to the cats (and dogs also discussed in article). Due to the pixelated design, I did not previously realise that Tsai Ing-wen's face is on the stamp (top row, second from right) along with the cat on the stamp, which is ginger in colour, the same as Ah Tsai. N.B. Have adjusted the article to include sourced discussion of the stamp design/content. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the added content was irrelevant to the topic as is this stamp. I remain significantly unconvinced by your arguments for keeping. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2020 (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. No evidence of puplication by the copyright holder has been provided. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no evidence that this file "has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" as required by WP:NFCC#4. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an image that Interpol released to the press in an effort to identify the subject. The source link (as well as any other news story about this case) confirms this. The original photo was posted online by Neil himself, according to Interpol. This isn't a leaked photo. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If a reliable source says that Neil hiself posted it online, I'd still want a ruling for (a) whether he posted it online publicly or only for certain people to access, and (b) whether that matters for counting as "published or publicly displayed". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that when articles are nominated for deletion a second time, there's a box listing the previous nomination(s); I honestly don't know whether that SOP is used here, but in the interests of thoroughness and full disclosure, here is the previous discussion for the same image. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:22, 7 July 2020 (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 as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marques Brownlee in 2019.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Unknown0124 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May violate copyright, was requested for speedy deletion, don't want to take any risks. Unknown0124 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is asserted to be public domain because " it was never copyrighted, and never had a copyright nptice [sic]". The image is from findagrave. There is insufficient information to make the determination that this image is public domain. Whpq (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2020 (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.