Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28

File:Wayneknight779.jpeg

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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason provided by Cloudbound was listed as a publicity shot by NBC Universal but no source link is provided to accompany licensing. The file was sent to WP:PUF, but since that is now closed, the file should be sent to WP:FFD instead. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 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:Waynegotham.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason provided by Cloudbound was Screenshot from a film, tagged as user's own work. The file was sent to WP:PUF, but since that is now closed, the file should be sent to WP:FFD instead. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 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:Kindle Voyage.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product design, and screen content is not necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 28 April 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:Aadupuliyattam Album Cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCCP#8. Charles Turing (talk) 12:37, 28 April 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:Persisam Putra Samarinda logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 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:Persisam.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 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:Petula Clark holding Harry Belafonte's arm (1968).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep Huon (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows Petula Clark holding an arm of Harry Belafonte. The uploader claims its presence increases significance of the critical commentary, which would be the section. However, the section does not mention this imagery very much. Also, it neither helps a viewer understand the singer herself nor will be beneficial to the article. I removed it, but then the uploader reinserts it back. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arm-holding scene was historic and controversial, and I've added more coverage. DS (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that DragonflySixtyseven has added more detail to the article, including that this was "the first instance on American television of physical contact between a black man and a white woman", it is clear to me that the fair use claim succeeds as this is a notably historic photo.-gadfium 20:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can claim fair use now that the article prose has been revised to explain the significance of the photo, as it is a historic event. I would prefer that the caption in the article be expanded somewhat so it is also clear, something like "Clark holding Belafonte's arm, the first such interacial hand holding to appear on US television, April 1968." Dave (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sourced critical discussion of it. Because the point is not that she held his hand, but that she was seen on TV holding his hand, the discussion is directly relevant to the image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 8 May 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:Advertisement for Petula Clark's first American television special.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: Change license to {{PD-US-no notice}} ★ Bigr Tex 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image free or non-free? If free, it should be moved to Commons. If non-free, how does it comply with NFCC? George Ho (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine details and licence: I think {{PD-US-no notice}} applies it being an ad placed by Channel 4 in the TV Guide lacking a copyright symbol or statement, even if the publication itself was copyright. ww2censor (talk) 11:28, 30 April 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:CommonwealthChallenge.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is not an article about the event for which the logo is used. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have misunderstood both WP:NFCC#8 and the article. Furthermore, your argument is merely semantic. #8 states "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic," and the topic is the very rivalry which the "event" of the logo is the "main event" of. We could change the title from Virginia-Virginia Tech rivalry to the Commonwealth Clash, and the title would work just as well for the article as-is and unchanged (which is why your argument is one of mere semantics). The Commonwealth Challenge is actually the former formal name of the very rivalry itself, not an unrelated "event." Omnibus (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCCP#8 and WP:NFCCP#3a. See Red River Rivalry for similar example - they've had many logos, we only display the current one because displaying more than that would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Also, that logo is displayed in an infobox at the top of the article for 'identification' purposes, where most of the fair use logos on the site appear. Since File:Commonwealth Clash Virginia VT rivalry.jpg is the current logo, it is the one that should be used on the page. ★ Bigr Tex 00:08, 23 May 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:Commonwealth Clash Virginia VT rivalry.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: Moving to top of article and changing rationale to match Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is not an article about the event for which the logo is used. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have misunderstood both WP:NFCC#8 and the article. Furthermore, your argument is merely semantic. #8 states "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic," and the topic is the very rivalry which the "event" of the logo is the "main event" of. We could change the title from Virginia-Virginia Tech rivalry to the Commonwealth Clash, and the title would work just as well for the article as-is and unchanged (which is why your argument is one of mere semantics). The Commonwealth Clash is merely the formal name of the very rivalry itself, not an unrelated "event." Omnibus (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Infobox/Top of article Currently fails WP:NFCCP#3a, and as it is used in the article, I tend to agree that it fails WP:NFCCP#8. If the above image (File:CommonwealthChallenge.png is removed, 3a is fixed. As Omnibus explains this is the current logo for the event, if it were moved to the top of the article for 'identification' it would satisfy my concerns about #8. ★ Bigr Tex 00:26, 23 May 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:Uc Davis Pepper Spray Incident.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 + WP:NFCC#8. There's no need for a picture of someone spraying people to understand that someone was spraying people. This can adequately be described using text. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The picture should stay. -methods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methods (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The picture has quite a lot of significance. A segment from the picture became a widespread meme [1]. It also shows quite how close the person was, with the spray going right into the faces, this means it passes WP:NFCC#8. The claim that it fails WP:NFCC#1 is not justified and the proposed replacement commons:File:Occupy UC Davis news coverage RT 1.jpg is also a non free file, being a screenshot from a Russia Today broadcast. That file has an incorrect CC licence tag and is nominated for deletion on commons. --Salix alba (talk): 07:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am frankly dumbfounded that anybody would attempt to delete a photo depicting the actual event that is the subject of the article. By the nominator's logic, there's no "need" for ANY photograph anywhere, because, well, ANYthing can "adequately be described using text". (Did I get that right?) Cgingold (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - This attempt to cleanse Wikipedia of a clear visual depiction of this particular event is all the more disturbing in light of the recent revelations in the Sacramento Bee of the efforts by UC Davis's chancellor to "scrub" references to the incident from the internet. How do we know for certain that this isn't part of that effort? Cgingold (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for "scrub" [2] --h2g2bob (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stefan2 is a longtime image patroller who nominates many, many images for deletion. I can assure you that his nomination is not part of UC Davis's PR campaign. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep For the reasons others say. No free alternative that I can find. Fair use claims seem appropriate: we have an entire page discussing this incident! --h2g2bob (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stefan2 has a pattern of misapplying or misunderstanding WP:NFCC#8 with regard to a variety of images as of late. Omnibus (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell, the only reason removal of this photo is being discussed is because the niversity of California at Davis wants to censor the records, obliterating as far as possible evidence that this event occurred. It did occur; and the photo is part of the record that it did. It would be a travesty to remove it. --peter_english (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the photo is not used to illustrate the point that someone is spraying on people; it's used to identify a historical event (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion; UC Davis pepper-spray incident) that can not be repeated so no free alternatives can be created. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails my understanding of WP:NFCCP#1 (I count 8 cameras in the background of this image. There are plenty of pictures of this event. It would be reasonable for an enterprising individual to locate someone willing to release one of those (five and a half years after the event, and likely after most commercial opportunities have expired) under a Wikipedia-compatible license.) and WP:NFCCP#8 (the article discusses the incident, not the photograph). ★ Bigr Tex 01:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per criteria 1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." No free equivalent is currently available, and the delete vote above describes attempts to contact the eight owners of those cameras and request that they release their photographs under a free-content license as "enterprising", but I suspect that they would disagree with that assessment. As for criteria 8, Salix alba and Finnusertop 's rationales seem reasonable to me. I don't think that Stefan2 is part of the PR effort though. ;) generic_hipster 22:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per criteria 1: Pass WP:NFCCP#1 and WP:NFCCP#8 because this is the main meme image.The phrase : "Pike pepper-spraying demonstrators spread around the world as a viral video and the photograph became an internet meme." Refer to that particular image only. Using an other image from that protest would make the meme remark meaningless.VictorVodrickVonBotterlat (talk) 23:16, 7 June 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:Wikipedia user image (User - Methods).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified person, no foreseeable use.

INeverCry recently moved this to a new file name so that the file name suggests that this is a picture of the uploader. If this is the case (I'm not able to verify the information), then we'd normally only keep the image as long as it is in use, which it currently isn't. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's me in 2001. You can delete it if you must. -methods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methods (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 April 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.