Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

File:Human Target 2010 (season 1) soundtrack.png

Unnecessary cover art, as the soundtrack of the TV show is NOT the main topic. Discussion before deletion would be proven as redundant itself, as soundtrack covers had been previously discussed. Should I further cite policy as a reason for deletion? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Happy Bottom Riding Club.JPG

The source for this image (top right) identifies its original source as "Courtesy Photo, Estate of Pancho Barnes". This means the copyright is maintained by the original imagetaker, who has, as a "courtesy", allowed the USAF to use the photo on its site - while retaining copyright. Therefore - unlike the images there marked "U.S. Air Force photo by X", it is not PD-USAF and, without further information, cannot be used as a free image on Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to non-free image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fairuse access to the site is restricted, being now part of an airbase. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pancho Barnes-1.jpg

The source for this image (second row, second from left) identifies its original source as "Courtesy Photo, Estate of Pancho Barnes". This means the copyright is maintained by the original imagetaker, who has, as a "courtesy", allowed the USAF to use the photo on its site - while retaining copyright. Therefore - unlike the images there marked "U.S. Air Force photo by X", it is not PD-USAF and, without further information, cannot be used as a free image on Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to non-free image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardenio.jpg

Previously listed at WP:NFCR#File:Cardenio.jpg. The original reason for deletion was

In The History of Cardenio. The NFUR indicates that the purpose is "To illustrate the point discussed in the article, that The Second Maiden's Tragedy, despite its disputed authorship, has been presented theatrically as Cardenio, attributed to William Shakespeare". This is a point that is entirely suitable for presentation in text form, so this image fails WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize that the image was only being used at The History of Cardenio and therefore should have been listed at FFD. The image was removed from The History of Cardenio but has been restored pending discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The advice you were given was wrong, unfortunately. Your listing at NFCR was quite valid – even though a simple tagging as {{rfud}} would have been even easier. For an NFCC violation as obvious as this one, a formal debate is hardly necessary, let alone this kind of procedural pushing around from one forum to another. I've therefore removed the image from the article again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fortunately for the project, your judgment is not the last word here. This is hardly an "obvious" case, and the discussion here is quite appropriate and germane. I have restored the image to the article, and I would counsel you not to remove the image again, as your status as an admin gives you no special weight in a community discussion, and you cannot override the will of the community once it has been decided. In my view, the image is clearly illustrative of the point made in the article, and therefore the image fulfills the requirements of NFCC and should be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case is really really basic. The FUR claims the image is being used to illustrate a statement of fact (namely, that people have staged the play under the name of Shakespeare). This statement is not in need of illustration, since – as RJaguar very rightly pointed out – it can be quite easily conveyed and adequately understood through text. As for any need to prove the factual correctness of the statement, we never use non-free media for such a purpose; what you need to support the statement instead is a reliable (textual) source. The only conceivable reason that could justify such an image would be if the article had a need to comment on the stylistic choices in staging this particular production of the play, but that is not the object of any discussion in the article. In fact, the individual production from which it was taken is only just mentioned in passing in the article, in an enumeration among other (seemingly more notable) productions. Since this is indeed an extremely obvious case, and must be obvious to any competent observer with half an ounce of experience with non-free content discussions, and since the image had already been validly removed from the article before it was listed here, I will remove it again now, under the rules of WP:NFCC and the relevant exemption of WP:3RR, and warn anybody against reinserting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to publicly advise Future Perfect at Sunrise, that having expressed his personal opinion about the status of this image, he is now, by definition, WP:INVOLVED in the dispute, and would be ill-advised to use his admin powers in connection with it. For this reason, he should cease edit-warring against a number of other editors in regard to the tags on the image, and in the removal of the image from the article History of Cardenio. To my knowledge, such edit warring is not immune from 3RR sanction (only BLP-related removal is), and his continuing to edit-war, with edit summaries that imply the he will use his admin powers, is inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Future Perfect at Sunrise is hereby advised to back off as an admin, and allow the Wikipedia community to decide the status of the image - and he is, of course, perfectly free to take part in that discussion as an editor. Any abuse of his admin status to "pull weight" and influence the discussion through intimidation would be a serious matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unexpectedly, given his past history, Future Perfect at Sunrise has chosen to ignore my advice and continues to edit war against multiple editors to enforce his personal opinions. I have no intention of allowing him to drag me into this dispute any further (despite appearances, the image is not mine, I merely cleaned it up at one point), but would ask any passing admin to review FPAS's behavior, and counsel him as necessary, as his arrogance seems to once again be getting the better of his usually pretty good judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is simply not necessary to have this non-free image in the article to support the statement that Cardenio has been identified in advertising as being the work of Shakespeare, and therefore it violates our rules about hosting non-free images. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Shakespeare.
Keep. The image is an excellent illustrative example of a textual point, which serves to also convey something of the thematic approach to the production. What purpose does deleting it serve, short of bureaucratic nitpicking? And shouldn't it be left in the article until a decision is made? Bertaut (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smashingpumpkins oceanialiveinnyccd.jpg

Invalid FUR--identical to DVD edition —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]