Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.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. I've spent a lot of time considering the points made in this discussion. What started off as a probable NFCC#1 (replaceable image) reasoned claim has moved over to an NFCC#8 (contextual significance) based discussion. The move came as a free image of Snowden became available so any claim of using this image to identify Snowden would automatically fail (not this was ever claimed to be the rationale for using the image), but it does negate some of the keep statements made in this discussion. The same applies to the discussion that took place at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/June as this was about using the image as an identifier of Snowden only.

So it seems to fall into the following situation. Snowden's identity was first made public in The Guardian, does an image of him in a large (half page) banner on the front page add contextual significance to the article or can the same context adequately be conveyed in words alone? In my opinion the image doesn't add contextual significance. The significance of the Guardian's involvement is being the publication in which his identity is first revealed and Snowden's explanation of why he wants his identity revealed. Correctly, for an image where fair use is claimed, it has been uploaded as a low resolution image. But because of this low resolution only the words "I can't allow the US government to destroy privacy and basic liberties" are easily readable. That statement isn't about who he is and why he wanted to be identified but about his motives for doing what he has done and the image does not add significance to the text of the article. The mismatch between the article text and the information conveyed by the image leads me to conclude that this image fails NFCC#8. NtheP (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use does not comply with non-free use criteria: It was uploaded for use in a biography infobox. Newspaper front pages can only be used in the newspaper article to describe the look; no use of non-free images of living people is permitted on WP Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not added for use in the infobox specifically. It was added to illustrate the publication of Snowden's whistle-blowing reports and identity revelation in The Guardian, which are heavily discussed in the article and should fall under fair use. It's incidental that his face appears on the newspaper page. It is currently in the infobox as the lead image, because there were no other images in the article — but perhaps it would be more acceptable in the "Media disclosures" section? — Pretzels^Hii! 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was already a discussion on the talk page about this, but to bring the discussion here: It would probably be better to move the image down, as the infobox is usually used for the portrait of the subject. As for the fair use side of it, I believe this did a good job of explaining why it works under fair use. Usually under the non-free content policy for images we would have to delete the image considering that a free replacement is almost always available, but since Snowden is in hiding the only images we'll be able to get are the non-free ones published by magazines. While it's inappropriate to put this in the biography infobox as a portrait, maybe down in "Media disclosures" as Pretzel suggested above would be good placement. In either case, the image should be kept since it doesn't violate fair use and it illustrates how he was revealed in the news. --RAN1 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a link to a diff of a version of the article that used the image, please? If you're going to remove an in-use image in an IFD (which is fine if it clearly fails the fair use policy), please at least provide a link so that others can review how it was used and judge for themselves. --B (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now included a link above in the OP. I'm quite aware of the provisions, and would say the problems are twofold: the article is about the person and not the event, and also that the use in the person's info box tends to emphasise it is there to depict the person, and so I've never seen it agreed upon as being acceptable use. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that the Guardian article itself is the subject of commentary in Snowden's biography and therefore could be kept as a fair-use image for visual identification. -A1candidate (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to sneak around just to get an image up? If you cropped his face out that image would not be allowed. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A1candidate. Surfer43 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if moved down per RAN1. Specifically, using a magazine cover in the biography infobox as a portrait for the person does not seem to fall under WP:NFCI. If the image is to be used, it should be in the article body to illustrate The Guardian story breaking. --hydrox (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. M aurice Carbonaro 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Kelvin McKenzie article currently has no pictures of the man himself, and two pictures of newspaper front pages. Perhaps this is pertinent to the discussion? Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that there is no image of the subject is irrelevant, as the person is not deceased and there is no free image of him. Our rules state abundantly clearly that non-free images cannot be used in this way. Even this one, used in this way, is rather borderline because it might qualify to be deleted as a derivative image of the Guardian's copyrighted image of Snowden. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our non-free rules do not state that non-free images can never be used for living people. That refers to the requirement that a non-free image cannot be used if we could find or create a free replacement. For 99% of living people, creating a new free photo would be easy enough. However, for recluses, incarcerated people, and other extreme cases, a non-free photo has been used for a few living people (for example, the non-free File:JD Salinger.jpg was used on J. D. Salinger for years before his death, as the community decided Salinger's reclusiveness would have made it impossible to take any other photo of him). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 01:50, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I admit the argument for keeping it can be made using it where it is now. But when I nominated it, the use was doubly problematic as stated. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular cover of the Guardian and Snowden's image appearing on it, in my opinion, qualifies it for fair use, since both Snowden and Guardian are linked to the event. The image is being used not just to identify Snowden relating to the incident on the biographical article but also the role of Guardian in the event that made this person prominent. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the image is replaceable with text to illustrate he was on the cover (i.e. simply say he was on the cover of the Guardian), replaceable to illustrate Snowden himself. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as currently used in the article, the image is not used to identify the person. (Happily, free images of the subject now exist.) The image is now used in the "Media disclosures" section to illustrate the disclosure of Snowden's identity. The fact that his face is shown is incidental in much the same way that the reproduction of the non-free "prism" logo is incidental. If any non-free, low-res newspaper cover would be acceptable in this situation, then this one should as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:04, 23 July 2013 (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:Pkvelectionposter2004.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has a FUR, used to illustrate electoral propaganda in the concerned constituency. Relevant for the article, and only used in that article. --Soman (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does an article about an electoral constituency (a geographical division) require an image which shows how canvassing is done there? This image is not exactly needed to understand how many districts are covered in the area or which parties have been voted so far. The image does not even help understand the progress/decline of society in this constituency. How does this image serve NFCC#8? On the other hand it does advertise one single politician and we dont do advertisements here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:43, 17 June 2013 (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:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, and also promotes a non-notable fringe theory. No utility. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fringe garbage. -- Kheider (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the article. Gaba ^(talk) 11:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, baseless fringe nonsense, created to support the 'article' of the same nature. (so, per User:Gaba_p, really...) Begoon ^talk 12:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; please get this bullshit out of here. Same goes to the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure fringe OR. "Garbage" sums it up accurately. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the associated article has been deleted -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly demonstrated pseudoscience. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2013 (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:Nendoroid Hatsune Miku 2.0 Product Image.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These images need two licences: a non-free licence for the toy and a free licence from the photographer. Normally, these are indicated using {{Photo of art}}. In this case, we are missing the photographer's licence. Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (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:Jolla-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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Jolla logo.svg. No longer needed. Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2013 (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:Do-re-mi-portuguese.ogg

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Portuguese recording of "Do-Re-Mi" used in The Sound of Music under a claim of use. This use unquestionably fails WP:NFCC#8. B (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2013 (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:UThuKha.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second non-free image used to identify an individual on his article, when one will suffice. No commentary or unique rationale for the inclusion of an extra image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (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:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image violates WP:NFCC, items #1, #3 and #8 because:

It lacks contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) as the article does discuss it
Text alone is more than sufficient to say what this image shows (WP:NFCC#1).
Another screenshot in the article, in very close proximity, does a more than adequate job of illustrating what the article discusses. (WP:NFCC#3)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The image shows that not only desktop has been removed, but also all explorer.exe-related shell routines. Nikos 1993 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said the article already has another image that shows this. (NFCC#3) Text alone can say this. (#1) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I addition, this screenshot is that of a beta software, which is by definition deficient. There is no evidence this issue is not resolved in the final version. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blue background with the text "Windows Server(TM) Code Name [...]" is obviously below the threshold of originality. A terminal emulator containing the text "C:\Windows\System32>notepad" is also below the threshold of originality. Notepad is also very simple and probably not copyrightable as an artwork either. I think that the only question is whether the "Save As" message box is copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Is rectangle copyright-protectable? No. It is not original enough. How about two, three or four? Still, no. But you can probably break most of the copyright-protected computer screenshots into thousands of rectangles and glyphs, which by themselves are not copyright-protected, but their combination, the resulting screenshot, is copyright-protected. We are not facing a blue desktop alone or a DOS command prompt alone here. Furthermore, I disagree that Notepad is below the threshold of originality. Two screenshots of Notepad are already deleted from Wikimedia Commons. (Two bad I don't have a habit of memorizing the name of deleted images.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, you would have to look at the background, the terminal, Notepad and the "Save As" dialogue box as separate works as their arrangement on the screenshot was decided by the person who took the screenshot. However, I just realised that the person who took the screenshot wasn't the uploader, so you've got a point there.

I would guess that a plain Notepad screenshot like File:W8Notepad.png isn't copyrightable thanks to Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. but I might be wrong, especially considering the Notepad icon in the top-left corner. Something like this looks more simple and I'd be surprised if that one wouldn't be PD-ineligible. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Maybe that's true. But I don't feel safe enough to leave the fair-use angle and go with a free license. Do you? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For File:W8Notepad.png, it's certainly safer to assume that it's copyrightable, since it satisfies WP:NFCC anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or combine or something. Far be it for me to defend a fair use image, but this seems to be a VERY significant point of information for the reader. Speaking as someone who is in the IT industry, my jaw dropped when I looked at this image in the article. (As soon as I finish typing this, I'm going to get one of our junior guys to set up a Server Core test box to see if our stuff works on it.) I wouldn't especially mind combining the screenshot of the command prompt with the screenshot of Notepad's file dialog, but I think it's a pretty significant thing to show to the reader. Speaking as a reader, my understanding was very much significantly enhanced by seeing the picture. --B (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. There is a catch: if we are to go with combine option, we can't combine the screenshots of two different release stages. Now, if you have access to a Server Core box, maybe you can update this screenshot, delete the other, call it combine and call it a day, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have replaced File:Windows 2008 Server Core.png with a screenshot from Windows Server 2008 R2 Core Edition that shows Notepad with its file dialog. This one can be deleted now. --B (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. Excellent work. Only I hope there was a folder with Unicode characters in the shot. I should have remembered to ask in my original message. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, please refresh the file. I created a folder and a file called 维基百科 (the word for Wikipedia in Chinese). The command prompt just shows both of them as "????". Notepad shows the folder name and file name in the file dialog, but does not seem to correctly read the Unicode text. Is this what you are looking for? --B (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi. Thanks a bunch! Now, I guess if this file is deleted, no one really feels losing it. It was the best compromise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2013 (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:Sheridan photo.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, very low quality, orphaned to File:John T. Sheridan.jpg on Commons Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 14 June 2013 (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.