Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5[edit]

File:Random Flag.svg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the description of the file, it is possibly unencyclopedic. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons I suppose this could be used as a placeholder, generic flag icon or for describing flag components. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:11, 5 October 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.

File:Frogmendvd.jpg[edit]

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 F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.": This image now appears as a visible image in Frogman#Open circuit scuba, to illustrate that the 1951 movie The Frogmen was made with open-circuit air scuba where the men in reality would have used rebreathers, and what the movie's director's props department's attempt at combat frogmen's kit looked like. See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#An image deleted as unused when it was used. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image clearly fails #8 and is a clear violation of WP:NFC#UUI#3. (@Masem: @Kww: @Black Kite:, can you guys please comment here} Werieth (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued against WP:NFCC#8 here, above. WP:NFC#UUI#3 seems to forbid such things as "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses." (i.e. rather than to illustrate an article about that record album). But this section of the page Frogman is not only about scuba gear, but about movie makers including that movie's makers, getting equipment unauthentic in reconstructing events involving men using that sort of equipment, in this case about wartime frogman actions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about people who is trained in scuba diving or swimming underwater in a tactical capacity which includes combat. Such personnel are also known by the more formal names of combat diver, or combatant diver, or combat swimmer the article isnt about factual errors made by Hollywood. A example of what they confuse (re-breather vs scuba or whatever) which can be created freely would serve the same encyclopedic function, and perhaps serve a better purpose as it would display the two side by side enabling a better example. Given you have zero sourced commentary about the image, its all original research. (I know you cited examples of where OR is acceptable, those are cases of widely known general facts, this is a fairly specific issue that isn't covered by that rule). PS PLEASE use preview, 5 edits for one post, especially in a discussion is disruptive. Werieth (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: posters like this are usually inappropriate in the articles about the people who made the film. The article Frogman is even less related to the poster than the articles about the people who made the film. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And that part of article Frogman is also about movie makers' errors in depicting wartime frogmen actions. (And note that this image now displays and is not merely linked to.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your #8 claim, how is it detrimental to the understanding of what Frogmen are not to include this cover? NFC applies to the article as a whole, otherwise you could nitpick down to individual sentences, #8 applies to the whole article Werieth (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How would the application of this rule vary, if (1) this matter is in page Frogman like it is, and (2) if I had made a separate article Errors in books and films about frogmen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)": Here I am critically discussing one aspect of "that item" (i.e. the movie The Frogmen). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This generally requires a full standalone article to provide critical commentary. You have a one-line sentence. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the only use in discussing the term "frogmen", one does not need to see the DVD cover to understand the (currently unsourced claim) that the movie incorrectly used the wrong type of gear; text can explain this. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the DVD cover (which someone else uploaded, not me) shows the sort of kit more clearly. I felt that an image was due. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this is a case of just using an image because you can, and while it may aid the reader's understanding, the fact "The Frogmen used the wrong type of breathing apparatus" is still understood if there was no DVD cover present, meaning that the reader's understanding is not harmed by the removal of the image. That's how it fails NFCC#8. You of course still need to source this statement, but that's irrelevant to whether to keep the image. As as to note, we don't allow research based on an editor's evaluation of a photo. I don't doubt you're right that the cover (and film) shows the wrong apparatus, but you as a WP editor aren't a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two topics here:-
1. Is this image acceptable under "fair use"?
2. Before I changed its use in page Frogman from a link-to to a displayed image, it was reported as unused when it was used; does linking to an image with a link starting with a colon, count as a use of that image?
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but you as a WP editor aren't a reliable source": I have been into scuba diving since about 1965, including keeping track of developments in rebreathers; and I have seen the movie. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Werieth (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, delete it. It is not used in page The Frogmen any more. I'll get rid of the appearance in page Frogman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 5 October 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.

File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia and is not likely to be used on any pages in Wikipedia. Regarding the OTRS ticket,[1] we may need to confirm that each of the many copyright holders in the four page program provided a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (e.g., did Luna Ballroom, Mother's Pizza, etc. provide permission?). -- Jreferee (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. The Marketing Manager of the Canadian Soccer Association at Place Soccer Canada gave permission. The discussion made it seem like it'd be used only for the football photos and that was it. I'm indifferent on what happens. I don't have the capacity right now volunteer wise to work on the case (I already had 10 emails back and forth with the guy seeking permission originally, and again, my volunteer capacity is overloaded now) to seek further permission. I doubt they would give permission for all of those. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complex !vote Unless the file is either free enough to transfer to the commons or it is used in an article in a way that complies with either our NFCC criteria, in a way that complies with specific permission granted by the copyright-holder as stated in an OTRS ticket, or a mix of the two, it must be deleted. Otherwise, it comes down to encyclopedic use: Is its actual or proposed use going to enhance the understanding of the article in which it is used? If not, then remove it from that article and if it is no longer used as required above, delete it. As a side-note, consider offering this PDF file or, if the uploader can make one, a higher-quality version available to the copyright owner so they can host it on their web site if they so choose. If they do that, there will be no need for Wikipedia to host it, we can link to their copy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 5 October 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.

File:Khojaly Massacre.jpg[edit]

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: Consensus is to delete; please see LGA's remarks for a good summation. Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §6: the memorial has its own article, Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin, which contains a similar photo of the object. Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the section of the article Khojaly Massacre this memorial also is mentioned. This is my own photo and I want to share it there. --Interfase (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove use from Khojaly Massacre davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep file on-wiki for 7 days so its possible use as a replacement image on Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin can be discussed on Talk:Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin. At the end of the week, delete the one that is not being used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But I want to use the photo of this monument in the article Khojaly Massacre. How can I do it? What lisence should I use? --Interfase (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to copyright laws, non-free images can only be used under limited circumstances. In both Germany and the United States, a 2-dimentional photo of a 3-dimensional artwork is a "derivative work" and cannot be published without the consent of the copyright owner of the 3-dimensional artwork except under fair-use rules. Wikipedia has adopted WP:NFCC as its interpretation of what is and is not fair-use. What does this mean? It means that since there is already an image of a memorial on Khojaly Massacre and having two such images instead of one would not add significant understanding to the topic of the Khojaly Massacre, only one such image can stay. You are free to discuss which image should be on Khojaly Massacre on Talk:Kholjaly Massacre but it can't be both, unless the copyright owners of both pieces of art release their rights under a "free" license. By the way, the hosting of the image from the Netherlands is legally dubious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this be kept as freely licensed by virtue of the German provisions about Freedom of panorama? Sandstein 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the fair use rationale, this isn't a public place as defined at Commons:COM:FOP#Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons, firstly this is redundant to File:Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin.jpg and it's hosting on WP is contra to WP:NFCC#3a we cant have two non-free images of the same item. Secondly the use of any non-free image of the memorial on any page other than Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin is, as the nom points out, a breach of WP:NFC#UUI #6. LGA _talk^edits 08:23, 11 October 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.

File:''Jefferson Plaza Fountain'', Indianapolis, 1971, George Tsutakawa.jpg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images like this should have two copyright tags: one for the photo (which should be free) and one for the sculpture (which should be unfree). Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 5 October 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.

File:Subhasree Ganguly.jpg[edit]

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 F7 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP image should not be non free Tito☸Dutta 23:05, 5 October 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.