Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

File:The End TXF.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used educationally, just as decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NFUR states this scene is iconic and this is expanded upon in the reception section. However, the current article has no such additional information nor could I find any in the history from about the time this image was uploaded and added to the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2019 (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:Pilot x-files.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a stated purpose of "infobox" is clearly not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2019 (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:Fallen Angel 1x09.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no commentary about the scene nor could I find anything about the make-up which is claimed in the NFUR. Fails WPNFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2019 (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:Fire 1x11.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no commentary about the scene nor could I find anything about the make-up which is claimed in the NFUR. Fails WPNFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2019 (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:Youngatheart.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is one sentence in the article about the hand. Not really significant enough to meet WP:NFCC#8 as it is a general statement, and there is no discussion of the makeup as claimed in the NFUR. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2019 (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:C Cut003.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stated purpose does not require an image in order for the reader to understand it. As such, this fails WP:NFCC#1 as the text is sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2019 (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:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.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 commenters pretty convincingly undermined the fair use claim, and with all respect to WP:IAR, copyright policy is one of the last Wikipedia rules that we should be ignoring. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My PRODding on the screenshot with brief reasoning was contested, so I decided to take this here. I don't believe that the screenshot of Married... with Children character Steve Rhoades (portrayed by David Garrison) boring the whole courtroom in "I'll See You in Court" improves readers' understanding of the episode. Also, I believe that, even without the screenshot, readers would already understand the whole episode's plot and the controversy preventing the episode from being aired in the US.

WP:NFCC#8 requires that removing an acceptable non-free image would affect or detriment readers' understanding of a topic (and probably its article quality?). MOS:TVIMAGE says that a screenshot "may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." However, the scene is briefly mentioned in the Plot section. Furthermore, (almost?) none of the reliable sources (including books and articles) discussing the scene itself has been found. I tried finding reliable sources discussing the use of "Perry Mason" theme in that scene without avail. Showing the scene might help readers merely identify the episode, but not one source has identified the scene as the iconic part of the episode. Regardless of broadcasting and content controversy, without adequate critical commentary of any specific, I think not one non-free screenshot of any scene is iconic well enough to be displayed to readers. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC); edited, 03:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The image is not claimed to be used for identification, but rather to illustrate a key part of the episode. However, there is no significant sourced commentary about the image or claimed key point. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that this is one of the very rare cases where WP:IAR actually applies. While I acknowledge the legitimacy of the policy argument here, I believe that there is a general trend on Wikipedia towards gearing articles towards editors rather than readers, and while this one picture is certainly not going to make or break the project, it benefits the project to have a visual depiction of a "lost episode" that summarizes the general idea of the plot (I was unable to think of a particular scene that would be considered "iconic" or overall be obviously better than any other scene). The picture would therefore generally improve the project and is not an egregious violation of the project's perspective on non-free content (it's not easily replaceable, it's not part of an excessive amount of non-free content on the page, it's not high quality etc.). I respect and understand the other perspectives, I simply disagree and wish to record my disagreement. Canadian Paul 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned that deleting the image would affect everyone's understanding of the episodes, there's one other image found at Allmovie. However, I'm still unsure whether a screenshot of four characters as main plaintiffs of the case would help much and whether omitting the image affects what readers and editors would already understand via mere CC-BY-SA text content. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the screenshot of the characters watching the tape in the Bundy living room. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The case begins with Steve presenting a lengthy opening statement, during which the stenographer and the judge fall asleep." is perfectly conveyed by words alone and there is no need for the reader to see it to understand what happened. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:09, 13 October 2019 (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:McClintock & wife Anne at their 155th celebration in their garden.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. RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from Hugh McClintock does not specify the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and was just "to be used in this Wikipedia entry". Given the above for File:McClintock. Line drawn portrait by Raymond Piper.jpg, I am concerned that Hugh McClintock may not be the copyright holder. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nosebagbear, you marked this as OTRS permission; does that permission statement address the issue presented herein?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JJMC89 is an OTRS agent and has confirmed that the permission does not contain an acceptable license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:11, 13 October 2019 (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:Jay Alani Profile Pic.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: If you are the uploader, please follow the procedure at WP:DCP and get in touch with OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 06:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is asserting they are the author and copyright holder of this publicity photo. EXIF shows the author is "Priyesh Vishwakarma|" and the image is being used for publicyty, see here for an example. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priyesh is the guy who edited this photo so I guess during Lightroom export it picked up that info. Please suggest should I have to ask him for another picture having EXIF of my name or should I change the information for this picture? Loopiterr (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopiterr: You can have the editor clear this up with an email to WP:OTRS to verify the copyright holder. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Thanks for advising. I'll ask him to mail. Just a query should I ask him to mail at info-en-q[at]wikimedia.org or info-en-o[at]wikimedia.org? And is there anything specific that has to be written in the mail?. --Loopiterr (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2019 (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:GOC WDP3A 15534R at Chennai Egmore.jpeg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is stating that they are the copyright holder and has acknowledged previous publication via Instagram. The image is watermarked with a copyright notice and no indication of a free license from the source account. Verification of license is needed. Whpq (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (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.