Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12[edit]

File:Shels logo sml.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: remove from Shelbourne Ladies F.C.. — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in the infoboxes of Shelbourne F.C. and Shelbourne Ladies F.C.. File does have a non-free use rationale, but it broadly worded and states that "It is asserted that the use of this image in articles pertaining to or in reference to Shelbourne F.C. (SFC) qualifies as fair use for the following reasons." Not sure if that means it's intended only for "Shelbourne F.C." or any article which references "Shelbourne F.C.", so perhaps the rationale should be tweaked per WP:NFCC#10c. In addition, usage in the "Ladies F.C." should not be allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since women's teams, youth teams, academy teams, etc. are generally considered to be "child entities" of the main team and using the logo (even when the other teams do not have there own unique logos) has been considered inappropriate in similar past WP:NFCR discussions such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg to name just a few. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 12 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:Bebo Norman - Britney.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art used in Britney (Bebo Norman song). Isn't this too simple to be protected by copyright since it's basically just some text on a grayish background? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously not copyrightable. Does the source link work for you? I get a message that I need some Apple software in order to access the source page. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also having the same problem you are having. The source link redirects to a page for downloading iTunes. You can access the album's iTunes page without iTunes, but not the single's page for some reason. Anyway, I found the image here, but not sure if that's helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firefox displays a message saying that I need to use a different program to open this link, and then asks me to select a program. If I choose to open the link in the proposed program (Rhythmbox), then the program starts, but there does not seem to be an obvious way to access the link from there. The other page seems to be a Wikipedia mirror, so the page does not constitute evidence that this is the cover art used for the song. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have iTunes installed on another computer (which I cannot access at the moment) so I may be able to view the source page. I'll try and check it later. Would this webpage be acceptable in lieu of iTunes?-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! That works for me. Since I have now been able to verify that the cover art is correct, I have uploaded it to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 13 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:Lutz Bachmann posing as Hitler.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A free photo of Lutz Bachmann is currently used. Therefore, this image may be replaceable. Also, an image of him looking like Hitler can be easily imagined without this image. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This particular photo is the object of discussion in the article, and played a major role in the events which led to his resignation as Pegida leader. Basically, this particular photo is what he is mainly known for, at least internationally, and it received vast amounts of international media coverage. It is not replaceable by a random photo. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz, the image was proven to be a forgery, and the guy was reinstated a few weeks after resignation. George Ho (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely irrelevant. The picture was the subject of a major controversy and extensive coverage and commentary in third party reliable sources, a controversy for which the subject is mainly known. The article in which he claims it was a forgery (months after it went viral) says that "all the media in the world reported it" (the picture) and describes it as "the now infamous photo"[1]. That is sufficient reason to retain the image to illustrate the section on the controversy, whether it is (partially, to a limited extent) "forged" or not, and it can clearly not be replaced with a random photo. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly simple really, the image violates WP:NFCC. A free alternative is already available on the individuals article, so there is no reason to retain it. Wikipedia states very clearly: 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. In the case of the original use of the image, it was used to depict the subject due to lack of free alternatives. It is not contextually significant, as omitting the image will not detrimentally affect the readers knowledge of the article, or who he is, and the image can be found in other venues such as Google. Furthermore, the very image can be adequately covered with text alone, and does not require the usage of a non-free image. Secondly, it could be seen as infringing on WP:LIBEL due to the inflammatory nature of the image. Readers might formulate the wrong conclusions, especially after it was discovered the image was altered. --Ritsaiph (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the image needs to be retained per WP:NFCC, which states very clearly 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. The other, random photo of him is not an "equivalent" and no free equivalent is available, or could be created. It was the particular image that was the object of extensive media coverage worldwide, which is discussed in the article, and which is the article subject's main claim to fame. Actually, we should even consider moving the article to an article on this specific photo (Lutz Bachmann photo controversy or something like that), as it is questionable whether he merits a biographical article; it's this particular photo which went viral and which is notable. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the image can be illustrated through text, as I already stated and is already mentioned in the article with text. This means that it does not fully satisfy WP:NFCC. Secondly, as Donenne pointed out, the subject is notable for founding the PEGIDA movement. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. When the photo is the main topic for which the subject is known globally, as noted by many sources, it would significantly reduce the quality of the article if the now-notorious photo in question was not included, and text alone is not an "equivalent" and does not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per arugmnets raised by Ritsaiph. The image can be described through text, as it already has been stated in the article:

In mid-January 2015, Bachmann was hit with criticism after a now-discredited picture surfaced showing him with a mustache and hair style similar to Adolf Hitler.

And in response to Tadeusz Nowak, the individual is more notable for his role in establishing the PEGIDA movement rather than his haircut picture. Donenne (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further inspection, it appears that Tadeusz clearly has a vested agenda and POV in preserving this particular image. The image description is German neo-Nazi leader Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler. Photo was self-taken by Bachmann himself. and the former image name was File:German neo-Nazi Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler.jpeg [2]. It is blatantly obvious Tadeusz cares not for an objective Encyclopaedia, and had merely added the inflammatory content due to external (i.e ideological) motives. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:49, 20 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:Waterloo Watch Out.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is Danish. As there is another infobox image of the Swedish release of the Swedish-language version, I don't think this image is necessary. And I don't think replacing it with English-language release from Sweden would help differentiate from the other image. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 12 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:1 waterloo anni.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th Anniversary edition is not necessary. There is already another infobox image. George Ho (talk) 08:47, 12 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:Dalton Maldonado.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press usage of this photo credits it to "Facebook" or "(C) Dalton Maldonado / Facebook". No evidence that is the "own work" of uploader User:Tanner Banks. McGeddon (talk) 13:27, 12 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.

University of Cincinnati seal[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 File:Uc-seal.png in University of Cincinnati, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seal seems to violate WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §17 on a lot of pages. We don't need the seal in articles about the university's departments, only in the main University of Cincinnati article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except University of Cincinnati per Stefan2. I hid "File:Uc-seal.png" which was being used in User:Jeffermj/sandbox and User:KenHirsh/sandbox and then left notes about what I did on each user's talk page. Moreover, I can't see any real difference between the two files other than that one is an svg and the other is a png. Both are not needed so one of them should be should be deleted. FWIW, university departments/divisions often have their own logos, so perhaps those may be used instead as replacements for the seals. For example, University of Cincinnati Clermont College uses this on their Twitter and Facebook accounts while McMicken College of Arts and Sciences uses this on their Twitter and Facebook accounts, etc., etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 13 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:USMA band logo cropped and finished.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 25#File:USMA band logo cropped and finished.jpg . — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed by unfree, but it seems that the picture may have been created by the West Point Band, which might mean that the picture is a 'work of the United States Government' (that is, {{PD-USGov}}). If it is in the public domain, then it seems that the old revision which was deleted per WP:F7 should be undeleted as we do not need to reduce PD files. If, on the other hand, the file is unfree, then the file should be removed from User:LavaBaron/BandSand per WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 12 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:Pope John Paul I.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 ⚡ 04:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 free images of him on the article already. I don't think the claim that this non-free image is irreplaceable holds up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be existing images, none are all that viable for use as identification purposes for the infobox, but it is not for mere inclusion in the article body itself, but rather in the infobox should no appropriate alternative be found. Lord Sidious 82 (talk)

There's an entire category of them at Commons: [3]. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but I don't see how these free images are not adequate to identify the article subject.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 13 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:Beatification tapestry - Blessed Manuel Gonzalez Garcia.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stated purpose - "visual identification of the object of the article" - is already achieved by a free image in the infobox. No clear purpose or reason why this image is not replaceable by free media. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't appropriate categories to place images such as this but the image pertains to a certain section of the article and in the absence of appropriate images helps to provide sustenance to the article itself. There are not a whole lot of good images to use for this article and are scarce in the free media range since it might not be appropriate or relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Sidious 82 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 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:Neerparavai Audio Cover.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 12 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:A Charlie Brown Christmas trade ad.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used in A Charlie Brown Christmas#Animation, I hope that this image is useful in showing readers how the special was advertised. If the image fails to help readers understand the special, so be it. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 12 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:NationalDemocraticParty1896Ticket.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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:National Democratic Ticket- Palmer & Buckner (4360107258).jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 12 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:Charlie Brown Xmas tree.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: remove from laugh track. — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot of Charlie Brown and Linus looking at a very small pine tree is used in two articles: A Charlie Brown Christmas and Laugh track. Omission of it doesn't affect readers' understanding of ~~the special and~~ "laugh track". George Ho (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am now unsure because there is "Tree" section, but the tree is not the main topic of the article. --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The tree might actually deserve an article by itself, enough sourcing there and at Aluminum Christmas tree.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clarify–image use justified only for the Charlie Brown special.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Laugh track. In that article, this file is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. I have no opinion about this file's inclusion in A Charlie Brown Christmas. Steel1943 (talk) 07:46, 13 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:Turtle Squad.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: Speedy delete _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not look like it has any possible encyclopedic use. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation from [4] _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:59, 12 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.