Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

December 27[edit]

Nick Voss files[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationale for the article of the albums' artist, not the albums themselves. Fails WP:NFCC#8 if not used in the article about the individual album depicted in the files since usage in the article about the albums' artist does not illustrate contextual significance for the artist. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These files appear to be unused and are therefore in violation of WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but the related speedy deletion criterion (criterion F5) requires a 7-day wait before files that meet its requirements are deleted. I nominated these files in case the files are de-orphaned during that time. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2015 (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:Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use rationale states that the file is not replaceable (WP:NFCC#1), but it most likely is since the drawing can be replicated to illustrate the same information. Also, the drawing does not add to the context of the article on its current placement since if is in a section by itself (WP:NFCC#8). However, I also think that this file may be too old for copyright (making it free), but I am unsure since the image in the file seems to be from outside the United States, and I'm not sure if this image is only 44 years old or almost 125 years old per the description and which date would pertain to copyright laws. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concerns one by one:

Yes, the drawing could be replicated, but by whom? And how would that solve the copyright issue?
About adding to the context of the article, see the Infobox discussion at Template talk:Infobox locomotive. Most of these locomotive diagrams contain a vast amount of information about their respective locomotives, of which a large part will be impractical to include in the infobox itself. This particular file on the Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-2 is not a good example, actually, since much of the data which would usually be included in such a diagram is simply not known in respect of this rather old engine.
The image cannot be accurately dated, since the late author Frank Holland was a draughtsman on the South African Railways and it could have been made by him at any time during his career. I therefore used the publication year of his book as the copyright date. - André Kritzinger (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a drawing of an item and can be replaced by a different drawing of the same item. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. We don't know when the drawing was first published, only that it was published in 1971. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now, because it's a drawing and "somebody" can draw a new version, you're going to delete the file? Who will create this new drawing, and when? Me? Although I prefer creation over destruction, I have neither the skill nor the time. You? I'll not be holding my breath... - André Kritzinger (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says that we do not keep non-free images if someone can create a freely licensed replacement. Someone could create a freely licensed replacement of this image, and this image should therefore be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone could" is far removed from "someone would". Once "someone does", delete by all means. Until then, please keep. - André Kritzinger (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 is only about whether someone can replace a file, not whether someone would bother creating a replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as detailed by André Kritzinger, the diagram is unique, with no others currently available. The diagram was most likely created prior to 1964 making it an out-of-copyright work. Regardless it is a non-unique work and a copy of an earlier work of likely 1860. -- Firefishy (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefishy: Are you saying that this file should be kept because it is too old to be eligible for copyright? If so, do you know the source? If the source cannot be found, the age of the file cannot be proven. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943, copyright and the source are not the issues, and never were. I believe I stated both clearly enough at the outset, when I uploaded the file. What's become an issue is the silly notion that the image has to be deleted because someone, somewhere, someday, might get it into his or her head to draw a reproduction and upload it to Wikimedia. Meanwhile, I am working on, at present, 344 locomotive articles, most of which can do with an update with regards to certain specifications, either in the hopefully to be updated Template:Infobox locomotive or by means of dimensional drawings such as this one, or both. - André Kritzinger (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Andre Kritzinger: Right, the issue is that the non-free file nominated here clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. A non-free file has to meet all 10 criteria in WP:NFCC in order to remain on the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: The diagram is a technical drawing of 1860s steam locomotive. Frank Holland reproduced the technical drawing in his 1971 book. Because this diagram is not a unique work (reproduction or an earlier work) and the collection of reproduced drawings in his book does not in of itself garner copyright protection under the Feist ruling. So yes, I believe the drawing is now under public domain. -- Firefishy (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC#1 is very simple: if a freely licensed drawing can be created by someone, somewhere, someday, then a non-free image can't be used. Period.

This image was apparently published in a book in 1971. However, it is unknown if the image had been published before the publication of the book, or how the book publisher obtained a copy of the image. The copyright term for a drawing first published in 1971 in the United States usually lasts for 95 years from publication, regardless of when the drawing was first created, at least as long as the book contains a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Firefishy: This is what I suspect as well: I suspect that there is probably some proper "legal" way to declare this file free, given the age of the original file. However, taking what you just stated, if this is a replica of the 1860s work created in 1971, this image may be eligible for copyright due to being a creative rendition of the original image. (Note: I am not too familiar with court cases regarding copyrights, but am learning more and more as I participate in editing files here on Wikipedia.) Either way, if there is a way to declare this file "free" (even if it involves replacing the replica by uploading the original image, if possible or needed), that would resolve the concerns probably everyone who has advocated for this file's deletion has stated in this discussion, including my own concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image was created by Frank Holland, for use in his book. It was not copied from an earlier official document - if it had been, there would not have been so much missing information, such as weight, axle loadings, cylinder diameter and stroke, boiler pressure and much more which, if he had the information, Holland meticulously included in most of the other locomotive drawings in his book. His only sources to create the drawing were, to my knowledge, the only known picture of the engine, which had been scrapped in 1881, and a technical drawing, without any dimensions given. The drawing was therefore Holland's own original work and was not copied from earlier official documents, since no such earlier drawings are known to have existed. - André Kritzinger (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The copyright status of the drawing is at best murky. But, it doesn't matter. On the article itself, we have a two other images of the engine, both free. The dimensions of the engine are not copyrightable. So, extract the dimensions and note them in the article, if someone feels it important to do so. Otherwise, the drawing itself has already been replaced in purpose by the other images on the article. There's no need for this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NFCC #1 does not mean, as erroneously stated above, that the image itself is "unique", it means that it serves a crucial educational purpose that no one else can serve. The only thing this image provides over any others in the article are dimensions, and since those are simple uncopyrightable facts, they can be extracted as text and placed into the article as such if they are critical. Other than that, there is no need for this nonfree image when several free files already are used in the article. It therefore clearly fails NFCC #1 whether or not drawing a free one would be possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. This was Plan B. I went ahead and got brave with Plan A at Template:Infobox locomotive. - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2016 (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:Henry Frnka 1942.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Henry Frnka and Tulsa Golden Hurricane football#Frnka takes Tulsa bowling. Image has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for each, but only the usage in "Henry Frnka" seems appropriate. Usage in "Tulsa Golden Hurricane football", however, seems mainly decorative and is not needed for the reader's udnerstanding of the relevant section per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#10a. The use in Tulsa Golden Hurricane football fails WP:NFCC#8. Both FURs are too vague and seem to be incomplete and thus in violation of WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2015 (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:Virgin Charter.png[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Accompanying article has now been redirected. Cloudbound (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2015 (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:UEFA Cup old logo.png[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo in violation of WP:NFCC#8 in UEFA Europa League and AE Larissa FC, and in violation of WP:NFCC#10c in the second article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2015 (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:UEFA cup logo.png[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo in violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2015 (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:Europa league.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo in violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2015 (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.

Two files[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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two copies of the same file, one claimed to be free and the other claimed to be unfree. According to the file information page of the unfree file, this picture has never previously been published. If this is correct, then the file violates WP:NFCC#4, if the file is unfree. The uploader claims that the picture appears in a scrapbook, but doesn't know how the picture ended up there, so it is essentially a picture of unknown origin with unknown copyright status, and we can therefore not assume that the file is in the public domain without first obtaining more information about the file. If the picture was first published in 2015, then the copyright expires 120 years after the picture was taken (if the photographer is anonymous) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the photographer isn't anonymous). The uploader hasn't provided sufficient information to determine if the photographer is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2015 (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:GNTNTRBS of guntur.png[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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are three individual images in this montage. At the least, the uploader is not the copyright holder of the image in the bottom left since it is an aerial shot. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is from my personal Drone --Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh[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:Expressway.png[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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I edited it from a website" proves copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is from google images(fb) with no particular copy wright holder --Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh[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:Kanakadurgammavaaradhi.png[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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information states that the uploader "...edit[ed] it." Most likely copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited means Original Photo got barricades in it so i kept it by editing--Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh[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:Tanukucentre.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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"From a website" means a copyright has been infringed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that from Google Images I agree --Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh[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:Gunturntrbs.png[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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After noticing that this uploader uploaded other possible copyright infringements, I doubt this was taken by their personal drone. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how can i prove that it is my personal drone --Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh[reply]

Delete Fails c:COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.[1] --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2015 (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:Gabrielcropped.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (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:Winterland cover art.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to need two covers. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2015 (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:ROBERTO.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of an unidentified person who is apparently called Roberto. No foreseeable use. It currently says that the image is in use in Roberto Procaccini, but that article seems to try to use a different file on Commons with the same name. Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is of Roberto Freire, so I added it to his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Freire_%28psychiatrist%29 Sarsnic (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (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:Pilot House.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified subject. If drawn by the uploader, then it is probably out of scope. If not drawn by the uploader, then it is probably unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2015 (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:New-1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (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:Salman Gurung.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphotos. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Move to Wikimedia Commons if this is the case. 和DITOREtails 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unused userphotos are out of scope on both Commons and Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (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:Mike Bidlo in his studio, New York 1988.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC#1 and #2. Nice photo, but totally inadequate Fair Use rationale - Not replaceable with free media because "An illustration of a portrait of a person is less descriptive than an photograph of a person" and Respect for commercial opportunities "Photographer Lenore Seroka took this photograph for use in the text that is referenced above as the source". This is a copyright photo of an artist who is still alive. A free alternative could surely be obtained or created by the uploader who claims to be working on Bidlo's Article "with the artist's assistance" [2] and also to be "getting permission to use a copyrighted image of Mike Bidlo" [3]. As things stand, the Fair Use rationale is not compliant with policy and there is no evidence of permission to use this copyrighted image. Cactus.man ✍ 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the objections to the use of this photograph miss the point that the photograph is available for use. It is available for use as it was commissioned to illustrate a catalog of the artist's work. In uploading this image I had consulted with the artist on which of a number of images might be used; this was preferred. How shall I provide evidence of permission to use it? Shall I get it in writing from the publisher of the catalog. The prior image of a "Not Pollock" painting was not demonstrated as being fair use as I recall, yet it was posted for an extremely long time. Honestly, I do not understand how this could be objected to? L Brandon Krall— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.77.82 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The upload Wizard data field asked for reasons not to use an illustration... I was commenting on the difference between an illustration and a photograph... "An illustration of a portrait of a person is less descriptive than a photograph of a person" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBrandonKrall (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LBrandonKrall. The issue with WP:NFCC#1 is whether a free equivalent which would serve the same encyclopedic could possibly created. Bidlo is still alive and generally in such cases a non-free image is not allowed for identification purposes in biographies of living persons because somebody (including Bidlo himself) could create a freely licensed image and upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The image does not have to professionally taken; anyone can take of photo of Bidlo and use one of the free licenses listed at WP:ICT/FL. The copyright on photos is almost always are held by the photographer and this one looks professionally taken rather than a selfie. Unless the copyright was transferred to Bidlo by the photographer, I don't think it makes any difference as to whether he says it's OK to use the photo. I suggest taking a look at WP:PERMISSION to see what needs to be done in such a case. If by chance Bildo does hold the copyright, then please refer to WP:DONATEIMAGE to see what to do. Please understand that a "freely licensed" image means the copyright owner is agreeing to allow anyone, anywhere to download the image from Wikipedia and use it pretty much any way they want, even for commercial reasons, and the copyright holder does not get anything (except maybe an attribution) in return. Many photographers are reluctant to do this for obvious reasons which is why a "declaration of consent" is needed from the copyright holder for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This guy is still living, enough said. 和DITOR E tails 06:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LBrandonKrall (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 24.47.77.82 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC) here... Just off the phone with the photographer Lenore Seroka... I am taking the picture down now, until I can get fair use permission from her... An alternative fair use is being prepared for upload now... Stay tuned, etc.[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.