Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2014 August 6: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:16, 14 August 2014 editTLSuda (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,472 edits →File:Keopuolani by David Parker.jpg: close← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:17, 14 August 2014 edit undoTLSuda (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,472 edits →Angel's Friends: closeNext edit →
Line 99:		Line 99:

	==== ] ====		==== ] ====
			<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this section. ''

			The result of the discussion was: Consensus to delete second image. ''''']'''''</span> (]) 10:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)<!--Template:Ffd top-->]
	:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx" id="File:File:AngelsFriendDVD.jpg">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span>		:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx" id="File:File:AngelsFriendDVD.jpg">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span>
	:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx" id="File:File:AngelsFriendscomic.jpg">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span>		:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx" id="File:File:AngelsFriendscomic.jpg">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span>
Line 105:		Line 108:
	Per ]: only one cover is needed. One of them should be deleted. --] (]) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)		Per ]: only one cover is needed. One of them should be deleted. --] (]) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Personally, I'd keep ]. --<span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">''']'''<sup>]</sup></span> 07:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)		:Personally, I'd keep ]. --<span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">''']'''<sup>]</sup></span> 07:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ffd bottom--></div>

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 10:17, 14 August 2014

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

File:Peppy Hare.png

The decision in the previous FFD was to keep it in an article which no longer exists, and this is currently only used in the article where the previous FFD concluded that it shouldn't be used. The file should therefore be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Ugh, you again. You know, I'd like to vote to keep the file where it is, because on the list of Star Fox characters, we have a picture of all of the main characters: Fox, Falco, Slippy, and Krystal, but Peppy isn't in that image. Peppy was one of the four main characters in Star Fox 64, so above any of the other supporting characters, I think he needs an image on this article. But what does my opinion matter? You, STEFAN2, are probably going to get your way no matter what. You, STEFAN2, the bane of my time here on Misplaced Pages right now, are going to win, and you are going to keep pressing this issue no matter what until this image of Peppy Hare is deleted. And you know what? If you win? SO WHAT. You win, and the image gets deleted. It's just an image, right? Right? Dogman15 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NFLISTS, the article should only contain a group picture, and the article already contains a group picture. The image was previously removed from the article in the other FFD, but kept on Misplaced Pages because it was then used in another article, which has since been redirected. The image has since been re-added to the article from which it was removed after the previous FFD, but it still violates WP:NFLISTS in that article and still shouldn't be there. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Dogman15 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.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. The uploader makes the claim on the deleted Talk:Tom Carstairs article that he is, himself, Tom Carstairs (any administrator can confirm) but makes the claim on the image to have taken the photo themselves. The standard procedure in cases such as this is to delete the image and for permission from the photographer to be sent to Misplaced Pages via the OTRS system. I'm a little disappointed the copyright status wasn't looked into more closely before the discussion got going. There is a new discussion strictly about the copyright issues surrounding this image at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 6. Nick (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphan, and not encyclopedic. Should have been deleted together with the article Tom Carstairs in 2006 due to lack of notability... 94.216.196.57 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting in that it was flagged for the European Google Memory Hole, however. 50.0.94.25 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The Right to be forgotten debacle now means it has encyclopaedic and news value (being linked from the Guardian website, for instance). If this had been FFD'd a week ago, it would have been a "delete by all means", but now... - BrainiacBlink (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep - and transfer to Wikimedia Commons. This photo became notable due to the Google affair. The Yeti 14:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete, as the implied lack of consent may run afoul of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo was taken at a concert. That Commons guideline specifically names concerts an example of a public place, and that therefore consent is not usually required. Is there some detail I'm missing that would make this subject have an expectation of privacy in this situation or somehow else be consent-required? DMacks (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete Google has approved over 300 thousand page take-downs. That number will be into the millions soon enough. Only about 50 are on Misplaced Pages but that number will soar. The press mentions are one-event news of the moment and not really about the image but the larger issue. -- GreenC 15:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep at least for now. This specific image is now notable (even if the person in it is not notable and even if the image itself is unused) per Streisand effect and being specifically identified in third-party reporting of Jimbo. Even if it's only the first of many, it's currently being named in the general press specifically as an example of the UK ruling. If we wind up having many such, we could re-visit in the future. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So is this exact picture subject to discussion in British newspapers? Could someone give me a link to a newspaper article which discusses this image? The EU court ruling about the right to be forgotten has been extensively discussed in the Swedish press, but I haven't seen any references to specific pages or images. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
for one, although admittedly it's largely just republishing content from the WMF's page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's linked from here.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Get real. The right to be forgotten may be a pain to execute for us web people; and its odd to be directed at the search indexes, not at the content providers, but it is laughable minor compared to the DMCA and other takedown notices. If you want to defend free speech, fight where it People have been trying to take down content with various measures, and this one has a much clearer and reasonable scope. Fight the DMCA first, for example. And Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. Or the upcoming internet censorship in Austria (which isn't even discussed in the article yet). All of these are much worse than removing such images (that should have been removed a long time ago) from Google search... Fight where it is due, not where it is hip. --94.216.196.57 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

if it will be kept, for what purpose the photo could be used? -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- For example, it could be used to illustrate the article Right to be forgotten, since the British press has discussed this image in articles about that right. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep and consider moving to Commons. Although I would find it amusing to annoy the Daily Telegraph by breaking their links, we're all here to support freedom of information on the internet. What else are we editing Misplaced Pages for? The IP above is right to say we should be fighting the DMCA and other similar acts, but that doesn't preclude keeping this image.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep per above comment by Stefan2. Absolutely has value now as a specifically notable image. And as DMack says above; this can be revisited later after the dust settles. Meanwhile, I believe this orphan will be adopted. Fylbecatulous talk 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep I placed the pic in Right to be forgotten. We should likely move it to Commons and put it in the Category:Right to be forgotten. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep, as it's currently in use, and there are no real problems. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep as its now in use. Also, leave a copy locally, as deleting the local copy will create all kinds of confusion as a result of the censorship story. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Addendum to my comment — keep local per Monty's reasoning; deleting locally would indeed cause confusion for people not familiar with Commons. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: 19:34, 6 August 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg (image used only by a deleted page) Snowolf 19:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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:Keopuolani by David Parker.jpg

The result of the discussion was: As it stands right this moment, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. However, as User:Nyttend points out, there very likely could be a section that discusses that specific image. If this section is added, I will happily restore the image to anyone who asks. We need to have the text in place to meet WP:NFCC#8 before we have the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the article's infobox, "There is no authentic contemporary image of Keōpūolani." There is therefore no image of Keōpūolani which satisfies WP:NFCC#8, as all depictions merely are guesses of what she looked like. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Doesn't really forbid non-contemporary images. We have images of Jesus Christ despite nobody having an authentic contemporary image of him. A non-contemporary image can significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject as well if contemporary images are absent. This portrait is widely used in recent years to depict the faceless historical figure, see ..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any unfree images in Jesus Christ, so your example doesn't hold. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My example was used to show how a non-contemporary image is useful and can significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject as well if contemporary images are absent or nonexistent. Which is your argument here by pointing to WP:NFCC#8. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep, vaguely on the same grounds as those by which File:The Falling Man.jpg appears at The Falling Man — not because we use it to illustrate Keopuolani's appearance, but to illustrate this specific depiction. If this is an official image, and the only standard depiction of the woman, we can reasonably include a section in the article discussing this specific image, potentially how it came to be the official/standard depiction of her, etc. For such a purpose, the image is highly relevant and nonreplaceable (even a photo of her wouldn't work, since it would be a different image), and such a section (if we could put it together) would be useful because it would help to demonstrate the development of artwork and a popular conception of her appearance, comparable to the "Portraiture" section in the William Shakespeare article. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are comparing this article with The Falling Man. The article The Falling Man is an article about a specific photograph, and that photograph is shown in the article. The article Keōpūolani is not an article about a specific painting of the woman, but about the woman herself. As the image does not actually show what she looked like (but a painter's interpretation of her), any other painting, such as one made by a Misplaced Pages contributor, would serve the same purpose, as neither actually would show what she looks like. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  - As I already said, if this specific image is commonly used to depict her, we may well be able to create a section in the article that discusses this specific image. The AP photo is used in The Falling Man to depict the image that's the subject of the article, and if you had observed my "vaguely", you might have understood that I'm not attempting to make a direct comparison. If I understand rightly, this specific image is quite relevant to the popular conception of Keōpūolani, and we may be able to put together a chunk of text discussing it. Did you happen to look at the Shakespeare article? And to respond to your other response, if a single nonfree image had extremely widespread use in depicting Jesus, we likewise would be justifying in using that image and throwing in a big chunk of text to discuss the image itself. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Myrtle Beach International Airport logo.jpg

Per WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The article for Myrtle Beach International Airport has been updated and now includes referenced information on the website and logo being redesigned in 2012. The image of the airport's former logo is now located adjacent to that new information. -- Zyxw (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Peter Colwell Bawden, OC.png

Missing evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Sayaahvid.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8: seemingly random picture without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:CleBBW.png

Invalid FUR: it says "This is a logo for Cleveland Browns." However, the article states "The logo of the Browns Backers Worldwide." Also violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Image shows two low-rez sprites to demonstrate the appearance of a mythological animal in a game. It makes it easier to picture how the creature looks and shows a more modern representation of the creature the article is about. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tony-croatto-cantando.jpg

Free pictures of this man are available. damiens.rf 16:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Andross.jpg

Per WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Article does not describe this major character's appearance, it just states his role in the game. Simply adding an image helps to clear up confusion. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Article does not describe this major character's appearance, and we don't use non-free material to illustrate topics not relevant enough to be discussed in an article. --damiens.rf 17:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Angel's Friends

The result of the discussion was: Consensus to delete second image. TLSuda (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:AngelsFriendDVD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:AngelsFriendscomic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Per WP:NFCC#3a: only one cover is needed. One of them should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd keep File:AngelsFriendDVD.jpg. --Chiya 07:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Untitled Video Snapshot.jpg

CV. Per NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since this image is not necessary to demonstrate the concept of nudity, and there is no need to actually see his naked body to understand that nudity is sometimes controversial, this image should be deleted as a copyrighted work that is not the subject of critical commentary. Eastcoaster (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep The image is not meant to "demonstrate the concept of nudity", it is being used to idenify the music video for the song, and since the music video is controversial and the article discusses the controversy it passes WP:NFCC#8. If it was being used to "demonstrate the concept of nudity" in Nudity, then it could be replaced by a free image. It is hard to take this discussion seriously when it says the image is not the subject of critical commentary when the music video for the song is at least one third of the article and has fourteen sources in that section. Aspects (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete The actual image is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary, and it won't ever be because it's a screenshot that is not discussed by any reliable secondary sources. It's not enough to discuss the vid in general; the actual image must be the subject of sourced critical commentary or it fails NFCC#8. There is also an issue with NFCC#3a, because there is already a non-free image of the artist used in the infobox. Britishinvader (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cooke in studio.jpg

CV. Per NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." ~~Since this image is not necessary to demonstrate the concept of nudity, and there is no need to actually see his naked body to understand that nudity is sometimes controversial,~~ this image should be deleted as a copyrighted work that is not the subject of critical commentary. Eastcoaster (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy keep Sam Cooke is not naked in the picture. Please be more careful when nominating images. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I copy-pasted the rationale from the previous one, but the image's issue with NFCC#8 remains. Eastcoaster (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that this file is currently being used at Ain't That Good News (album), which also has File:Cooke samAintthatGoodNews.jpg, which raises issues with NFCC#3, as we do not need two non-free files to demonstrate what Sam Cooke looks like. Eastcoaster (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete This has a FUR for Sam Cooke, but is not actually used in that article. The image fails WP:NFCC#1 in Sam Cooke. The image also has a FUR for Ain't That Good News (album), where the image is used. You do not need to see what he looks like in that article (WP:NFCC#8), and if you still want to see what he looks like, you could use a free image (WP:NFCC#1) or simply take a look at the album cover in the infobox. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg

Per WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg

Per WP:NFCC#3a: not needed as we already have File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:

Archived files for deletion discussions