Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8

File:Flag of Lesotho (bordered).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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lesotho (bordered).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tom from 8L (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Insufficient license tag (PD-self), no fair use rationale. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (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:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).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: no consensus. Ultimately, there is no policy-guided argument that supports deletion of this image, nor is there a content-related guideline which backs the removal of this image on the basis of religious beliefs. ✗plicit 13:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

An IP editor has made an edit to the article containing this picture, removing it (as a pending change). Their rationale was "Tajjusharia don't wanted to take photo video it's haram so don't put his photo here" I rejected the pending change on the basis that WP:NOTCENSORED and that consensus should be built. The article concerned is Akhtar Raza Khan.

Since they feel strongly about it I am making a neutral nomination of the file for deletion, in order that the community may build consensus to retain or to remove the picture.

As a picture it's a pretty poor picture, and it is sourced from http://muslimmirror.com/eng/renowned-barelvi-cleric-mufti-akhtar-raza-khan-passes-away/ under a claim of fair use

There may be a greater issue here of sensitivity to Islamic issues, something I an unsure of the community consensus about. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to uploading/overwriting a better image. Timtrent, here are some headlines from muslimmirror.com: Call for investigation into Bill Gates ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘medical malpractice’ which claims that "Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines." (if anyone is curious, read Reuters instead) Another headline: Probable mention of a Covid-19 like pandemic in the Quran. I don't want to source any pictures from this loony bin. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz An interesting source for sure. I understand and respect your views on the headlines and quality of the vehicle. I'm not entirely sure that they are grist to the mill for this discussion since we are not discussing Wikipedia:Reliable sources, just whether a file should be deleted or retained. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, that's what is provided as the source for the file. I don't trust the source. At all. For anything. [1] is the image they use for Bill Gates. (you might not see the problem if you browse the web on a BlackBerry) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz We differ in our thinking, which is fine. I see it as the place the image came from, no more and no less (except insofar as it must be the image of the correct perosn). You seem to be wishing that source to be RS. I'm truly not sure why it is important to you, but I recognise that you see it as important. Note, please that I am not arguing to keep nor delete the file. I have nominated it neutrally because I believe it to be the righting to do after the latest deletion. I am following the discussion with interest, but not a vested interest FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Djm-leighpark, actually in cases like these I don't require a source to be a reliable source, although a reliable or primary source is preferable when possible. I also have a problem with comic book characters from Fandom, as there is generally no way to tell if images have been altered or aren't official. For historical photos, I can generally live with for example a well-written blog as a source. But what we have here is not a reliable source, it is actually an unreliable source. So we must ask: is this actually that person, or just someone who looks similar? Has the image been mirrored? Have they messed with the colors? (seems like it..) Has it been modified on other ways? But I'll shut up now, I've made my point. Maybe I'll look around for a better image later. (edit: I've tried. Couldn't find something reliable within a reasonable amount of time. It's a bad sign when the only images to be found come from a fake news website and an unverified YouTube channel that looks unprofessional.) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per my best understanding of policies, including fair use, and lack of censorship; and assumption source is reliable (ie: not an image of someone else). The removal of said image has been the subject of good faith but ultimately vandalism over a period of time; and I have restored said image a number of times myself. I possibly consider MOS:Images#Offensive images guideline is an appropriate startpoint; and I can acknowledge some may have good faith concerns the image is offensive, an invasion of privacy, and inappropriate (broadly construed) to them; perhaps in the same way most Wikipedians would generally find use of a naked person as the main image inappropriate and offensive by most Wikipedians whilst a few might consider it censorship. I recall noting other instances where photography is considered inappropriate: e.g.[2]. A change to guidelines or a conclusive indication my interpretion has lead to me to !vote incorrectly would mean I would reconsider my !vote. This is also dependent on the reliability of the source, which is a difference matter. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Alexis Jazz's points I've revisited looking at the image on the basis of quality and other matters. My initial impression was "adequate". But I would prefer a better replacement. My understanding is broadly based that the conditions of a "Fair Use" image require the image to be of minimum resolution consistent with adequate display at thumbnail size. I have supplied bio and logo "Fair use" images for maybe a dozen or so articles at this point (often strugging to get the image res. down) including e.g. William Hemingway Mills, Donald Burgess McNeill, and Frederick Attock. While File:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg seems to be of lesser quality in some respects I find it overall adequate. Looking at the original given source given by immediate impression was the WP image had content top and bottom beyond that rendered at Muslim Mirror; however inspection reveals the underlying image is uncropped. Looking at that original source uncropped image my amateur eye wonders it has been subject to photoshopping at a minimum onto a blue background. If this came from another source perhaps as a small part of another image, this still remains within acceptability to me. What troubles me a little is the moustache part of the beard appears to be uneven .. if that was the result of photoshppping use of the image might be unacceptable in my opinion. I also note while the image have been repeatedly taken down or disputed I recall from memory (without exhaustive search) that no question has been raised disputing the image as an inaccurate depiction of the subject. On balance, but note on balance, my keep !vote remains at this point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark, I've taken another look and found some more. bn:চিত্র:আখতার রেজা খান.jpeg links a 2013 image from Flickr as the source. It's in this Flickr album which contains more questionable photoshop work. It is also shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErGVP4TV4DQ which is from a verified YouTube channel. (verified doesn't mean reliable, but it's something) There are also other images in the video, but I don't know if it's all the same person. (looks the same, but I don't understand a word of it so I'm hesitant to draw conclusions) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexis Jazz: Well found for the Flickr image and perhaps especially the youtube video (though I would like input from a translator). The Flickr image appears to have a date of 2013. The EXIF details shows photoshopped, the extent to which is open to debate but all images to an extent are non-perfect and may be tweaked, the question is how much. The youtube is interesting and per the youtube video title (biography) it is in my opinion highly probable (not certain), other images in the video are about the subject (and if so a "better" candidate image that could be snipped under fair use). This requires appropriate confirmation by someone of good standing with a knowledge of the language. In the interim I remain on keep; but would respect a consensus on a replacement image if several candidates were available. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timtrent: You've started what I regard as the inappropriate content fork so please take responsibility for sorting it. Per my earlier comments are you not considering inputs from other groups e.g. Aborigines. I think there may also be input from indigenous Native America Indians for example(vague personal recollection). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djm-leighpark I am looking at a very narrow spectrum for this. I have set in motion all I am going to set in motion, certinly for the present. If you or others wish to broaden it that is entirely within your and their power. This was triggered by an Islamic objection.
    Content forks are a very different matter, as I am sure you know. They are to do with, well, content. If you wish to berate me please go ahead and use my talk page to do so, or report me to some relevant forum if that make you feel better. If I agreed with you then we would both be incorrect.
    This is a discussion about a particular file and should be, as far as is possible, confined to it. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The source Muslim Mirror has not credited the image to anybody. It seems that they have also used it without holding copyright. There seems to be serious copyright issue with this image. ScholarM (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect Muslim Mirror appears to be a secondary source and under fair use the relevant policy has been passed and copyright appears not to be an issue. Muslim Mirror's use of the image simply appears to add evidence to its authenticity. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2021 (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:Lady Dimitrescu concept art.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) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Dimitrescu concept art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Uploading picture account (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ignoring the oversized image, this doesn't really meet NFCC#3a, as it is not substantially different from the existing image of Lady D. already used as the infobox image, and fails NFCC#8 as is not discussed in the article Masem (t) 12:43, 8 May 2021 (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:Ethan Winters.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) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethan Winters.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Uploading picture account (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#8 as there's no discussion of the image in the article in question. Masem (t) 12:45, 8 May 2021 (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:James Oliver Huberty.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 2021 May 20. ✗plicit 13:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Oliver Huberty.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:Downtown toronto 2004.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) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Downtown toronto 2004.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tinkermegirl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image. Only contribution by uploader, many years ago. Would be difficult to confirm ownership and licensing for move to commons.

Note: Was previously proposed for deletion in May 2020 by User:Fastily with reasoning "unused, low-res, no obvious use" which was removed by User:Spinningspark with reasoning "Decline. Files once used in articles should be kept to preserve integrity of article history." Was also proposed for deletion by me this month and declined due to the previous nomination.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why would this be difficult to confirm licensing for a move to Commons? Is there some evidence of this being a copyright violation or otherwise improperly licensed? The image looks to be shot from the top of the CN tower based on the height and angle to the buildings (in particular Roy Thompson Hall). The image resolution is consistent with point and shoot digital cameras of that time period. It's pretty clearly a snapshot out a window with visible reflection in the top right of the image. It's low resolution, but if there is a desire to keep the photo to maintain article history, there's no harm in keeping it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen years later, it is difficult to tell an image from an uploader from one found on the internet. I try to assume good faith, but prefer not have more confidence that it is the uploader's work - multiple images from the same camera, a claim in the description or original caption of authorship, or a still-active user who might add such a claim. Having never been to Toronto, I am not familiar with the geography of the CN tower and it merely appeared to be from a great height, something that was unlikely without the geographic knowledge. Spinningspark deprodded thousands of images last Spring and started a referendum that we should never delete any image that was ever used in an article which was closed without consensus. I assume good intentions and bring these double-prods to FFD and tag Spinningspark so that they can see my reasoning and respond if they choose. I don't have strong feelings about this image, but would prefer that it ends up being deleted or moved and am happy to perform the move if that is the outcome.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand being suspicious of the image if you think this is aerial photography, but as somebody who is familiar with Toronto and its downtown, I am very confident that this is an image shot from the CN Tower. I would even venture a guess that this photo was taken from the revolving restaurant. I've only dined there once, and it was a long time ago, but my recollection is that the back wall of the restaurant was built as series of panels. The reflection from the window glass in the upper right corner of the photo shows what appears to be a series of rectangles that would correspond the interior wall of the restaurant. It looks like a personal snapshot, and not some sort of copy of a professional photo. There were no minimum number of edits before uploading images in 2006 when this photo was uploaded, so this being the only contribution isn't that unusual. I acknowledge that vetting of source and licensing for images in 2006 was significantly looser, but this image doesn't really set off red flags for me. The image is unused, and not particularly good, but I am sympathetic to the stance of keeping images that have been used in historical versions of articles. Is there a way to determine if this truly was used in an article? The uploader has no other contributions so if it was used, it would have been added to an article by some other editor, or perhaps by the original uploader after logging out. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No good way to see where files have been used historically. The best way is the link in the orphan image template that shows the next few edits by the uploader(s) after the image was uploaded. I just went through the month of edits to Toronto and Talk:Toronto after the upload and the image was not added to either during that time. At the time, there was already a similar image (File:Torontoatnight.jpg) on the page.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for poking around in the article history. Given that my reason for keeping was the assertion that the image was used historically does not appear to be actually the case, then I will advocate delete as the image is low resolution and low quality and not worthwhile transferring to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_May_8&oldid=1038273301"