Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21

File:MJ Morning Show (logo).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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-free image uploaded to illustrate an unsourced and now-deleted article about a radio program, and thus unused. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 21 October 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:Sharon-alone-profile.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low-res crop of File:Bush sharon.jpg. No encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:55, 21 October 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:USPresidentialSeal transparent 100px.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res version of File:USPresidentialSeal.jpg. No encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:56, 21 October 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:AireTalkLogo.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:16, 21 October 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:Africa music.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Africa Music ZP 8th notes staff.svg FASTILY 05:16, 21 October 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:Charles norwood.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:33, 21 October 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:Alan kurdi smiling playground.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. The rough consensus is that the image of Alan Kurdi is sufficiently significant in providing context to the article that fair use is justified. Deryck C. 11:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface this with the following might seem cold in lieu of the circumstances. However, this image is not really needed. The main image, also under fair use, is the most important one. The one showing the child dead. The photo of the child while he was still alive does not add any additional encyclopedic value to the article in my opinion. Therefore, it is unnecessary failing our strict non-free use policy. Specifically, WP:NFCCP #3a (minimum number of items to convey the same information) and #8 (its absence will not be detrimental to the understanding of the article). Majora (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows face of the late Alan Kurdi in a neutral context. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is about his death, not his life. Don't really know why you need a smiling picture unless you think that somehow offsets the picture of his body. It really doesn't. Fair use is all about the absolute minimum number of copyrighted images that can convey the same information. Not about neutrality. Fair use photos in the name of neutrality need to have some context to them in order to fit with our fair use policy. This one doesn't seem to do that. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward support - I am torn. I added this image to show the kid's bright, optimistic life as other articles have done on events involving a sole person. Kurdi's death is unfortunate, and the infobox (corpse) image illustrates this. I previewed removing the image in the article, and I have two possibilities. On one hand, even with the image removed, readers would still understand the whole article about the kid's death despite short biography. On the other hand, the removal would obstruct readers from understanding how the kid's death tragically ended his bright, optimistic life, though WP:NOTMEMORIAL should apply in case of low-profile or non-notable people. George Ho (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what is written by George Ho. The death of that child is a tragedy. Not for how he died, but because he had no reason to die. This is not about a public figure murdered for his political stance, or about a personalities killed by organized crime because they are put in contrast to it. It's about a child who would live a bright, optimistic life, and instead he died because it had to flee from something that was beyond his comprehension or possibility of intervention. That picture, along with that on the beach helps to understand this. Yaniv 01 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:Tower of the Sun - 太陽の塔.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 02:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experts on Japanese copyright law have opined that this is considered an artistic work for the purposes of Japanese law and thus ineligible for Japanese FOP. However, US FOP establishes the distinction between buildings and artwork as follows: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." So if it qualifies as a building under US law, then {{FoP-USonly}} applies. What we need to figure out here is: Are there any overriding provisions in US law that would nonetheless make this an artwork? Because intuitively it looks awfully like a sculpture, and it's only a building on account of its habitability, but I don't see anything in US law that says otherwise. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, while a building is covered by FoP, artistic bits on it can be copyrighted. Kind of like a mural or painting in a building is not covered by the building's FoP. This photo may be considered an artwork thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, though this is the whole building so it's kind of a different case (you can hardly call a sculpture in front of a building "a building"); there are buildings in the US and other building-only FOP countries which are quite artistic like Walt Disney Concert Hall but are uncontroversially accepted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what is written on the park-sponsored label. I quote: "The tower of the sun encapsulates the exhibition hall."

Here's what inside of it. If you think this is enough to qualify for US FOP, then just go ahead. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:58, 21 October 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:Streets of Rage 2 action.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: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 02:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since the image is not used in Streets of Rage 2, but rather used from Streets of Rage 2 to illustrate a subtopic. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I did content creation, let alone any fair-use stuff. But I don't see that it violates the policy (NFC8) , as I've just read it currently, though. It has contextual significance, for the reasons stated in the rationale; (and there are other reasons for having it, again stated in the rationale). And (more to the point?) "beat 'em up" is just not a subtopic of "Streets of Rage" bridies (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: See WP:NFC#UUI. In that section, it has the following example of what does not constitute as permitted fair use: "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses." Use of this file, in the context of this example, can be worded like this, possibly: "An image of a beat 'em up game, cropped from a copyrighted game, to illustrate an article on beat 'em up." If this image was in Streets of Rage 2 only, this concern would not apply since it would then be illustrating the gameplay of the game itself. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that example/analogy is applicable here (just skimming the other examples, nothing else jumps out as being an example of what's going on here). There would be no need to use a copyrighted picture of a rose, because someone can go out and take a photo of a rose and release it under a free license (a better analogy would be an extinct species of rose, one of which no free picture exists, and when no one could be persuaded to release one; in which case a fair use pic might well be permitted, no?). We can't go out and take a photo of a fictional action/incident that occurs within a fictional universe. The article is about a video game genre, and the pic is one frame from one game within that genre (the reasons for choosing this particular one should be in the various bits of the rationale), which is why I think you've got the "subtopic" assertion the wrong way round. The best (only, really) argument I've seen for removing (actually replacing) these kinds of pics in these (genre, etc.) articles is that some truly free game might exist that could instead be used. There has been some back-and-forth over these (on other articles; the first-person shooter article springs to mind) and, as of when I actually edited and followed meta discussion much, the prevailing view was that the non-free pictures should be used (or, where both are used, given prominence). The arguments were that the free games were just crap, and couldn't illustrate why the genre was important/successful/interesting and/or that they were high-powered modern graphics attempting to masquerade as vintage, and that it plainly wasn't an accurate illustration. Etc. There is a godawful example in the relevant Beat 'em up article - File:Zeno Clash - Fight.jpg - and, notwithstanding what I say below, I don't think the article could/should stand on equivalent images alone, if at all. On the other hand, if someone did have an image of a free game that was genuinely comparable to the Streets of Rage image; I'd probably just be a fence-sitter on whether to remove it. bridies (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to keep the image. The picture of the child lifeless in the sea was perhaps the standout image of human-generated misery of twenty-fifteen. Almost every person seeing the image would be deeply saddened by this tragedy. However, I am a subject of a country called the United Kingdom, which after centuries of generosity towards the displaced and the unfortunate has now split into two groups; those who want to close borders and leave "foreigners" to their suffering, and those who recognise the need to help with love and generosity. At the moment, the right wing press and its allies in Parliament are assuredly the dominant force. The picture of the child in the playground shows those who want to separate, divide and divorce, both politically, ecomically and socially that here was a boy who could be their own, whom they might see in a local park playing with his parents or friends, and not just some foreign unfortunate whom they can tut over and question why his parents saw fit to make this desperate tragic journey. If some enlightenment dawns on just one of the people viewing this, its inclusion is worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banish.brexit (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 October 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:Double Dragon.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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since the image is not used in Double Dragon (video game), but rather used from Double Dragon to illustrate a subtopic. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 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 Visit to the Seaside - S.webm

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. The arguments are clearly stronger on the side of deletion here. While Commons is a repository of media content unto itself, Wikipedia is purely an encyclopedia, and files must be of use to our encyclopedic articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It is an important historical movie, so the encyclopedia value is obvious. It is in the public domain in USA, but not in UK, that's why it is here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST: Wikipedia is not a collection of unused media files. Maybe there is an article that you could put it in? -FASTILY 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation of this policy. Historical media with encyclopedic value should obviously be accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia." It doesn't get anymore straightforward than that -FASTILY 00:24, 27 October 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:Green in Japanese.gif

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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 21:16, 21 October 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:NYE Countdown 006.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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:35, 21 October 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.