Wiki.RIP

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
  Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTAL
CfD 0 6 61 39 106
TfD 0 0 0 16 16
MfD 0 0 0 0 1
FfD 0 4 17 8 29
AfD 0 0 0 36 36

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|''Full name of file '''excluding''' the "File:" prefix''}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|''File:NEW FILENAME''}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2020 April 14}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader= |reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext |Uploader= }} for each additional file. Also, add {{ffd|log=2020 April 14}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext |Second_file.ext |Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ffdc|File_name.ext|log=2020 April 14}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1927, not 1921.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

April 5

File:Star Trek Picard season 2 poster.jpg

[edit]

File:Star Trek Picard season 2 poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adamstom.97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This fails NFCC criteria #8. There's nothing in it at all that significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the poster that we have for the season at the moment, and it is justified pretty clearly in the image summary like any other poster (whether you deem this one to be different from others or not). The image itself will also be replaced with subsequent posters as they become available, and so this file is only going to become more applicable and useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Pretty standard use. Salavat (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Cover arts of Venus (Shocking Blue song)

[edit]

File:Venus - Shocking Blue.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Shocking blue venus Dutch vinyl.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I uploaded the cover art of the Dutch single as replacement of the other image in 2015. Then I replaced the JPEG version with the PNG recently. Somehow, I found out that the Dutch cover art was replaced with the French cover art (eBay), using better image quality as rationale. Fortunately, I was able to reinsert the Dutch cover art before it would have been tagged as orphaned. I have wondered whether using both cover arts is compliant with WP:NFCC, especially "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria, MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover.

If such use complies with neither, and if only one image should be used, then I think the Dutch cover art (the one with the reddish background) should be kept and the other ditched out. Also, the band is Dutch, and the record label where the song was recorded is Dutch. Moreover, even though the song was successful worldwide, especially in the Netherlands, France, and the US, the single had different, various artworks. Even the US single used neither artwork but a different one. Using the Dutch cover art illustrates how the single was manufactured, marketed and targeted at the time of release and how to represent the band well, hopefully, without offending the band (or anyone else). The cover also conveys a meaning of the song title (probably just for the fun of it?). I can't be certain whether having an alternative cover is necessary. Furthermore, showing the image of the band was already done by a free image of the band, used in the article, so I don't know why else, besides image readability and quality and reducing quantity, the French cover art should be used in lieu of the Dutch cover art and the free band photo. George Ho (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A second image, while not necessary, is certainly permissible, especially for an original rendition of a major hit song, particularly when there is valid rationale for using either. - JGabbard (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlazaMallbyLuigiNovi.JPG

[edit]

File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlazaMallbyLuigiNovi.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nightscream (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Despite the CC-BY license, this is a non-free file because it's a derivative work (depicting mainly the collage). Since it's used for purely decorative purposes in the article, it would fail NFCC criteria 8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not depict mainly the collage. It depicts mainly the lobby of the theater, of which the collage is a portion, so De minimis should apply.
It is not used purely for decorative purposes, as it is used to help illustrate one of the mall's major tenants, which is why it's placed next to the passage in the article body that describes that theater's addition to the mall. Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't a low-resolution image, and the drawing of Marilyn Monroe is front and center. De minimus absolutely does not apply. -FASTILY 04:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 3

File:Kit socks rsl20h.png

[edit]

File:Kit socks rsl20h.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this or commons:File:Kit socks rsl20h.png the official version of the kit? Because if it's the enwiki copy, it needs to be uploaded to Commons and the local copy deleted. If it's the Commons version, the local copy needs to be deleted. If both are, the local version needs to be renamed. Pinging LL2005 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kit socks houston20a.png

[edit]

File:Kit socks houston20a.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this or commons:File:Kit socks houston20a.png the official version of the kit? Because if it's the enwiki copy, it needs to be uploaded to Commons and the local copy deleted. If it's the Commons version, the local copy needs to be deleted. If both are, the local version needs to be renamed. Pinging LL2005 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kit right arm rsl20h.png

[edit]

File:Kit right arm rsl20h.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this or commons:File:Kit right arm rsl20h.png the official version of the kit? Because if it's the enwiki copy, it needs to be uploaded to Commons and the local copy deleted. If it's the Commons version, the local copy needs to be deleted. If both are, the local version needs to be renamed. Pinging LL2005 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kit left arm rsl20h.png

[edit]

File:Kit left arm rsl20h.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this or commons:File:Kit left arm rsl20h.png the official version of the kit? Because if it's the enwiki copy, it needs to be uploaded to Commons and the local copy deleted. If it's the Commons version, the local copy needs to be deleted. If both are, the local version needs to be renamed. Pinging LL2005 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kit left arm houston20a.png

[edit]

File:Kit left arm houston20a.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this or commons:File:Kit left arm houston20a.png the official version of the kit? Because if it's the enwiki copy, it needs to be uploaded to Commons and the local copy deleted. If it's the Commons version, the local copy needs to be deleted. If both are, the local version needs to be renamed. Pinging LL2005 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

March 21

File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg

[edit]

File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally PRODded the cover art of Jaki Graham's 1990s rendition of "Ain't Nobody", thinking that the image is non-free. The PROD was contested because having a separate lengthy section about a charted notable cover version of a song is an assumed justification to use a cover art and to help the cover art comply with NFCC. Then I realized that I did not consider the possibility about its eligibility or ineligible for US copyright protection, though the cover art is still eligible for copyright in the UK per c:COM:TOO UK, i.e. UK's originality bar is set very low. For that reason, Introspective's cover art (another example) is locally used in enwiki instead of Commons.

Back to the single cover art, if the cover art is found ineligible for US copyright, then "{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} should replace the non-free status tag. The cover art itself has just text-based logos all over: the song title, the singer's name, the shadow text, and plain purple background. A's are stretched around, but I can't be sure whether US law would consider it creative enough to make the cover art copyrightable. The cover art would sufficiently comply with WP:IUP#Image content and selection. However, if eligible for US copyright, then I wonder whether the cover art complies with WP:NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion. If unfree and then unable to comply with NFCC, then the image should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep The issue here is the license: if it is ineligible for copyright, then the license needs to be changed and if it is eligible for copyright, it should be kept in the article as passing WP:NFCC as identifying a notable cover version of the song with its own infobox and section, the same as Diana King's, LL Cool J's and Richard X and Liberty X's version have. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    I see your point about the notable cover versions of the song, originally written by a Rufus band member and recorded by Rufus and Chaka Khan. Personally, I can already grasp what individual sections about notable cover versions convey, even without needing single cover arts to convey the "virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information". I can also see the song as part of the history of the band Rufus and Chaka Khan and numerously covered by different artists whose versions, even when successful in charts, may not have made more impact than the original version. Generally, I'm torn about whether a visual identification of the Jaki Graham single release is necessary, even when allowed per guideline, for most readers. –George Ho (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

March 19

Should I Stay or Should I Go single covers

[edit]

File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Exciter106 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Should I Stay or Should I Go by The Clash 1991 rerelease.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded the cover art of the 1991 re-release as intended replacement of the 1982 US limited ed. sleeve (showing Ronald Reagan on the cover). However, my PROD tag on the US sleeve was contested, citing that original release is more preferable than reissues.

I'll explain why the 1991 reissue cover art should be the sole lead image for Should I Stay or Should I Go. First, the 1980s US releases of the single performed modestly, if not less than modest, on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Second, there were other concurrent releases outside the US, such as the band's home country, the United Kingdom. Third, I have not yet found one reliable source connecting Reagan and the song, which would have justified using the US ltd ed. sleeve more. (Vulture article mentions Reagan but not in the section about the song, which is ranked #19.) Fourth, the double A-sided release shows the other song "Straight to Hell" on the front cover and puts "Should I Stay or Should I Go" as part of the tracklist on the back cover; strangely, "Straight to Hell" is labelled the AA-side track, while the other is labelled A-side track. Neither image of that double A-sided release would adequately match the critical commentary contained within the article. The picture disc edition of the double A-sided release would not be suitable either; the song title above a picture of the band in one vinyl flip side would be harder to see in small size.

Fifth, the Levi's TV/radio(?) commercial helped the song receive greater attention from TV viewers and probably radio listeners, leading to the song's re-release and then success in 1991. I have worked on the article on the "Draft:" namespace primarily to emphasize and weigh more on the 1991 re-release. Sixth, I have used cover arts of the reissues of There She Goes (The La's song), Dreams (The Cranberries song), and Holding Back the Years, whose re-releases were much more successful than their initial single releases, though the more successful re-releases came one to two years after their own initial (less successful) releases. The greater example would be Etta James's recording of I Just Want to Make Love to You, which became a lot more successful in 1996 as the result of the Diet Coke commercial. I want to make it consistent with other articles that weighed more on more successful re-releases. If the examples aren't enough, how about It Must Have Been Love and Dolly Parton's version of I Will Always Love You? Well, each has sections about both original and re-releases (or re-recordings).

In short, if above is tl;dr for you, I will say that more weight should go for the 1991 re-release cover art mainly because it was much, much more successful in Europe (and New Zealand) than it performed modestly worldwide and the Levi's company, whose logo is shown on the cover, made the song more successful. Unless there's a reliable source proving explicit reference connecting the song to Reagan, I should favor the 1991 Levi's cover art and drop the 1982 Reagan one. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep both covers given that both were notable versions of the songs and each would have their own article. The first three reissue examples provided have re-releases that came out two years later than the original and the originals were not notable. The last two reissue examples are similar to this, in that they were farther apart in time and the originals were notable. I would not be opposed to the reissue having its own section and infobox and the last two reissue examples have. Aspects (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The releases of this song aren't "versions" but different single releases of the same recording. The 1991 re-release uses the same original 1982 studio recording. The US release in early 1980s was modest compared to the European/Oceania double A-side release. Also note that the quantity of the US picture sleeve must have been very limited since the US single release was branded as "Special Limited Edition". Alternatively, the 1983 US/Dutch single can be used as replacement of the Special Ltd Ed release, but the chart performances of the 1980s US releases were still modest at best. By the way, I've not seen you commented on "I Just Want to Make Love to You" yet. Well, I'm trying to find a better example to compare, but they aren't easy to find. Nevertheless, I can't use the original studio recordings and recorded live performances of other songs, like I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song), for comparison. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Bluesman cropped.jpg

[edit]

File:Bluesman cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrewa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep temporarily and move to commons, which already has several images of this performer in other styles, but not one of this particular style of playing. Why it was removed from the article in which it was formerly used is a mystery, but that's the best long-term solution for the image. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Did some digging and discovered that the permission email referenced on the file description page (local copy/OTRS) never references this file. Unless I'm missing something, this file is missing evidence of permission making it a textbook case of WP:CSD#F11 -FASTILY 23:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

March 16

File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png

[edit]

File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chris.sherlock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am taking this to FFD because the original person who tagged this seems to believe that it has no place in the article. However, I wrote an entire part about this photo in the article Sylvia Rose Ashby. Other sources have cited this photo as well. What I wrote in the article is this:

In a later interview with Australian Women's Weekly, she showed two small wooden, jointed mannequins – one showing "Mrs. Right" and the other "Mrs. Wrong". Mrs. Right, she explained, "is erect, relaxed; the left arm (holding her bag and papers) is slightly to the rear; the right arm is forward; the head is slightly tilted – she is the epitome of confidence." Mrs. Wrong, however, "is a bundle of nerves; head downcast, bag clutched to her – the epitome of apologetic timidity." Those who displayed a lack of appropriate deportment, she maintained, would cause suspicion and sometimes hostility, and the interviewee would be unresponsive to questioning, leading to poor survey results.

This is literally illustrating this point, it is quite hard to see what she means without the photo. Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep – I see that the image is discussed at length in the article Sylvia Rose Ashby and is essential in illustrating a part of Ashby's methodology. I think the image meets WP:NFCI #9 and all of WP:NFCCP. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete (having followed the link from ANI). I know this isn't what you want to hear, but to me this is an absolutely clear-cut deletion. Since it's only used to illustrate the pose of the two artists mannequins, rather than the person behind them, it would be trivially easy to beg, borrow or steal two mannequins and photograph them in the same pose. As such, it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 {no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose)—which is WMF-mandated policy—and consequently whether or not it meets the subsidiary WP:NFCI (which is a guideline and always trumped by the policy section above it) is irrelevant. ‑ Iridescent 15:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That’s not what it got tagged as. It was NFCC#8. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
      • A non-free use needs to comply with all ten of the WP:NFCCP and the use isn't considered policy compliant even if it only fails just one of the ten; so, it makes no real difference as to why a non-free file might have been originally tagged for deletion/review if another criterion is also subsequently determined not to be being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I still maintain that it complies with all ten of WP:NFCCP – there is no free equivalent image available of Ashby demonstrating her method. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
          • As do I, and I respectfully disagree with Iridescent. In this case it is not about the mannequins solely, but the fact she used them, her opinion that she could use them to judge women based on their deportment and the fact she used them in such a way for publicity. It also highlights the prevailing views of women at the time, even from a strong, independent business woman. When they say an image is worth a thousand words, then this is a prime example of such a thing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
            • They also say WP:WORTHATHOUSAND on WP:AAFFD. Marchjuly (talk) — 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: This post was made by me. I must have signed with five tildes by mistake. My apologies for any confusion that may have caused. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)]
              • Not sure who I’m responding to, but I did give a substantial argument for keeping the image, I didn’t just rest on the adage alone. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do see there being value in having Sylvia Rose Ashby in the background doing the demonstration and "essential in illustrating a part of Ashby's methodology." Having just two mannequins would not adequately replicate what is currently communicated in the picture and. Epachamo (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFCC 1, 3, and 8. The contextually significant part of the image is the mannequins, not Ashby in the background. This part of the image can be reproduced and freely licensed. Another (non-free) image is already being used to identify Ashby. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's not true. It is Ashby using the mannequins. She was literally demonstrating her usage of mannequins to make a point only she wanted to make. It's absolutely Ashby using the mannequins to make her point. Take Ashby out of the equation and there is no need to even mention them... so I'm not sure what "context" you are referring to! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't clear, the context is Ashby using mannequins to demonstrate her opinion to The Women's Weekly that women needing proper deportment. It's ridiculous to say that you can actually replace this with a picture of mannequins without Ashby in it, the image literally shows what she was saying, in a historical context. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral (leaning toward "(weak) delete") - As far as I see, a paragraph in Sylvia Rose Ashby#Formation of the Ashby Research Service (diff) describing the two mannequins seems to be cited by the source that also used the photo itself. I was close to voting for keep, but then I couldn't find other reliable sources in Google describing what Ashby was doing. I figure that other print sources covering this exists. As-is right now, I thought that Ashby's mannequin portrayals in the article appear overemphasized or over-detailed. "Contextual significance" is.... kinda murky to interpret at first; WP:NFC#CS clarified more, saying that undue weight and imbalance are discouraged. As said before, without other reliable sources proving the significance of the whole magazine interview, I would consider the paragraph too overly detailed. This sounds as if I would favor deletion, but then I see the image's potential. The picture was made decades ago, and seems to have been part of women's history. If more improvements proving significance associated with the photo have been made, then I would switch to "keep". George Ho (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m happy to improve this but I’m not clear how to do this. Did you need some commentary? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

March 10

File:Strange Tales 28.jpg

[edit]

File:Strange Tales 28.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:StrangeTales79.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tenebrae (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Strange135.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:StrangeTales 1 (1987).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Four comic covers used in Strange Tales in violation of WP:NFCC#3. Per WP:NFC#CS, "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion." None of the covers are used as the main image, but one must be selected for said use and the other three deleted to satisfy policy. ƏXPLICIT 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, File:Strange135.jpg is additionally being used in Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., and should be removed from those articles in accordance with WP:NFC#UUI#6, as it is being used in the main article Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (feature). ƏXPLICIT 01:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the case of a comic-book that has run since 1951 and gone through significant changes, the particular four covers here are necessary in order to give a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the changes this title experienced over decades of publication. Indeed, four is a minimal representation, as explained below.
First: These four cover illustrate the comic's origins as a 1950s "pre-Code" horror title; later in the decade, as one of early Marvel's signature Jack-Kirby-giant-monster books; later, in the following decade as the title that introduced the cornerstone character Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD, which in addition to other significance is the single continuing thread throughout the Marvel Studios movies; and two decades later, as a superhero title.
A variety of other covers could replace that last image, since the series introduced or popularized feature characters including Brother Voodoo and Warlock, among others. But a cover to illustrate that this horror / science-fiction / espionage series became a superhero title seems needed and justifiable under fair use. Comic books are a primarily visual medium, and the visual difference between a horror title, a science-fiction title, an espionage title and a superhero title are stark and significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Strange135.jpg in Strange Tales is the only instance where one of these covers is subject to sourced critical commentary: "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D." became the first Strange Tales feature to receive its own cover logo below the main title, beginning with #135. This directly comments on what the cover looks like, and would not be possible to imagine without actually seeing it. If the points made by Tenebrae truly were important, they would be explicitly made in the articles in question. That is also the requirement of the non-free content policy. Something like "according to scholar X, the visual differences between covers Y and Z testify to the changing visual style of the decades". – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March 9

File:The Greatest Showman Soundtrack (Alternative cover).jpg

[edit]

File:The Greatest Showman Soundtrack (Alternative cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bi-on-ic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have yet to find a reliable source discussing various artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack. The artwork itself fails to enhance readers' understanding of the soundtrack itself, especially when details about the artworks are not yet found. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Also, it spiritually does the same purpose as the other artwork, regardless of differences between the two images, like having cast names in one cover and lacking them in the other. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#3a. FWIW, I prefer the one with cast names on the front cover, so this (other) artwork has to go. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

More troubling is that I could not find an album using this "cover" on Amazon or official Warner Music store. I would suspect this image to be a fake unless I'm proven wrong. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Firstly, there are no 'various' artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack, it's only 2. The 'Reimagined' one is a whole nother album and has nothing to do with the soundtrack album. Secondly, about the alternative cover, it does have reliable sources including, O, The Oprah Magazine & Harpo Productions for Oprah's Favorite Things list, Smule & bsaber.com and not only the alternative cover does not fail the WP:NFCC#8, it also makes a contribution to the user's understanding of the materials from the soundtrack album, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone; it reflects the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie, and not having the cast names written on the cover is not a reason since there are a lot of album/single artworks that are textless including 25, Liberation, Hello, etc. And lastly the difference between the 1st & the alternative cover; the soundtrack album was promoted and on pre-order sale a couple of months prior to the film's premiere with this alternative cover. That's why the 2017 Oprah's Favorite Things list, published on February 2017, presented the album with this cover.[1] then alongside with the film's premiere on December the album was released in full with the other cover and thence to iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc. Bionic (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Greatest Showman". oprah.com. February 2, 2017.
Thanks for verifying the existence of the alternative cover and confirming that the cover is a pre-order artwork. However, I still stand by the rest of my rationale. IMHO, nevertheless, even confirming the pre-order cover's existence and "the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie", which the other (widely distributed) cover also does, neither would compel me to reconsider the nomination nor sufficiently explain why removing the alternative cover is harmful to the understand of the soundtrack. I must also say that, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an alternative album cover must be not "essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc". However, to me, the alternative cover, which has not been "widely distributed", fails to be essentially different from the (other) widely released artwork. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, when it comes to art, 'different' could be subjective. From my point of view, it is essentially different because in terms of visual art, the imaging is unlike in nature; one is photography and the other's painting. Bionic (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as the rationale for using this copyrighted material is "Key element of the episode" without explaining how it's crucial to understanding the accompanying prose and how readers' understanding of the article prose is diminished without having this image. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep rationale just needs to be updated to indicate the nature of the relationship of the image with the implants and the article. Intrinsically linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (vehemently) : it depicts a key aspect of the story: the "eye-recorder" thing Daveout (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - The National Anthem.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - The National Anthem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it is possible that an image of the princess on the bridge is more seminal than this in the context of the piece. However, this is also fundamental, but perhaps needs more explanation. Certainly no rationale for deletion, just a rationale for improved discussion around the significance. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Just by googling the title i was able to find pics that better represent the story\main character struggles Daveout (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:The Waldo Moment.jpg

[edit]

File:The Waldo Moment.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bilorv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I remember there had been a better image before but regardless, this is a case where the idea of an animated blue bear being a main candidate in a major election was the subject of discussion and that was before 2016 when we got Trump; this episode's drawn more attention since. I'm not sure if this image is the best but an image involving Waldo from this episode to show that does have fair game to be kept in this article. --Masem (t) 13:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    It's worth noting that this image is a promotional image released specifically to illustrate the episode. It depicts all the main characters, including Waldo. I replaced our previous image (something like this) with the new one before nominating it as a GA, as it lacked an appropriate fair use rationale. I also didn't like how the previous image obscured part of Waldo's face. Of course Waldo's animation and design is the part of the image that is discussed throughout the article so perhaps consensus would emerge for an image with Waldo more prominent, but my first choice is still the current image, where Waldo's face is still fully visible but we also see all of the main characters' roles in the episode from a single carefully chosen pose by each of them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep fulfils the role described in the fair use description. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Be Right Back.jpg

[edit]

File:Be Right Back.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bilorv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite the actors' performances gaining critical commentary, there is nothing immediately special about the head shots of the actors here to require a screenshot of them, it doesn't impart anything that free images of the actors would do. --Masem (t) 13:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't agree with this. Any image of the two actors separately does not show them playing a couple in the way that a screenshot of them does. Additionally, Domnhall Gleeson is not a robot but the screenshot used depicts one. Perhaps we can find Ash looking more obviously synthetic in another screenshot—we want to convey a resemblance to Frankenstein's monster or a ghost per the "Analysis". Another option that would be completely non-replaceable would be a screenshot depicting (as well as a character) one of the futuristic technologies shown in the episode like Martha's easel or laptop (though I cannot think of a good frame to use off the top of my head). — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pinging Kingsif, who determined in January 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It does, as best as a single screenshot can, establish and identify the episode in the infobox. This season of Black Mirror episodes do not have official posters, and the series as a rule does not have single episode title logos - it serves the function of these. The argument above to delete because free images of the actors exist only works if arguing that the image is there to show who the actors are, which it evidently is not. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep establishes that the main protagonist is indistinguishable from a regular human. Covered by the existing rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Which can be stated by text alone, and does not need an image (that is, that would fail NFCC#8's omission test). --Masem (t) 04:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it is important to show the characters that are being discussed in the article Daveout (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - Hated in the Nation.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - Hated in the Nation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete hard to defend this one. Nothing really added here from this image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - Men Against Fire.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - Men Against Fire.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The image is so non-descript as to have almost no context to satisfy NFCC#8 here. The claim on the rationale is that it shows the actor and body language but the actor's face is in darkness so can't identify, and there's zero expression to be read. There may be other images to be possible from this episode (eg what the soldiers think they see) but this is not NFCC#8 acceptable. --Masem (t) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I'll concede that I'm not do-or-die on this image, but I chose it because several professional reviewers found it to be the best screenshot to illustrate the episode—apparently I made a mistake. The reviews ([1][2][3]) each feature a slightly different image in which Stripe's pose is clearer, there is more light etc. I would prefer to use that image instead ([4]). It shows a pretty militaristic-coded setting, but if you feel that there's a better moment to illustrate the military context of the episode then that could be quite good. I'm also open to using an image of a "roach", because their design is discussed under "Casting and filming" and their meaning under "Analysis". In the case of a "roach" image, we don't have a free image of Malachi Kirby to use later down but perhaps we could obtain one. — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pinging The Rambling Man, who determined in August 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep rationale exists and is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - San Junipero.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - San Junipero.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This one has a storng rationale for keeping, and the discussion in the rationale is repeated in sources made in the episode. The specific scene may not be of discussion, but the selection of editors to find a single shot that reflects on actors, period pieces, etc. as to meet NFCC#8 is fine here. --Masem (t) 13:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep getting borderline pointy with these now. This is just fine in the context already given. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The rationale presented by the uploader seems reasonable to me Daveout (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror).jpg

[edit]

File:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bilorv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The rationals' claim that the character is "nervous" in this shot is questionable. Nor is that something that needs a visual element to show people and the image can be omitted without confusing the reader. --Masem (t) 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    The distinct English setting was noted by reviewers, as it differs from the other series three episodes produced after the show's move to a U.S. company. I liked this image as a very clear depiction of an English setting (at least in my eyes). It is Lawther's acting, not his physical body, that garnered critical commentary (as well as Hector—maybe we could show them interacting) and a single frame chosen well is enough to portray how a character is acted. Perhaps you can suggest a better frame here. — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pinging The Rambling Man, who determined in July 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep rational is just fine as described. Difficult to see why this is problematic for anyone else to identify. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: there are other scenes that could better represent the character's distress or the story in general. could have been a pic of him crying, holding a gun, using the computer, so on... this one lacks a stronger link with the plot to properly justify the rational. Daveout (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - Playtest (Black Mirror).jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - Playtest (Black Mirror).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly this episode engaged in use of CGI and if there was more discussion on how CGI was used to build out the episode, there could be an image used to show that (and I'm awre that Inside Black Mirror doesn't give a lot on this side). There may be other possible shots, too based on what's already sourced,but this one shot is not discussed at all, so is deleteable. --Masem (t) 13:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly a key moment in the episode which cannot be recreated and fulfils the rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg

[edit]

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. There are scenes that I think from this episode that would be more interesting (what someone's "censored" vision looks like, for example, or what the view from "inside" the egg looked like) but that would need to have sourced discussion too. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep some further critical description could be added to the article but the rationale is sound. This is a seminal moment of the episode. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep this one seems fair Daveout (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2

File:John Hart Actor.jpg

[edit]

File:John Hart Actor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vidal 1077 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Nthep with the reason "Image is not John Hart as the Lone Ranger but Fess Parker as Daniel Boone" FASTILY 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment if the only problems with the image are that the description/caption/name for the file is incorrect, then that can be easily remedied without deleting the file. The only reason this file should be deleted is if it fails WP:NFCCP. The main issue here would be WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). In other words, are there any free equivalent images of Hart that either already exist or that can possibly be created that would serve the purpose of primary identification in the main infobox instead of this non-free one. Hart died in 2009, so a new photo of him cannot be taken; however, that doesn't mean that it's not impossible for a "new" free equivalent image of him (perhaps one taken by a fan at some personal appearance that he made or an older image whose copyright was never renewed or for which there was no copyright notice) to be found. Wikipedia articles about actors don't necessrily need for the main infobox image to be one that shows that actor in their most famous role, but often such images can be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI when finding a free equivalent to use instead isn't deemed reasonable. It's not clear if that's the case here since the reason for nominating the file for deletion appears to something else. FWIW, File:Fess Parker as Daniel Boone.JPG is an image showing Fess Parker as the series Daniel Boone and John Hart did play a character called "Nat 'Hawkeye' Cutler" in series called Hawkeye and the Last of the Mohicans, who probably dressed a lot like the Daniel Boone; so, it seems possible that this could be a photo of Hart in costume unless it can be shown that this is actually a photo of Parker as Boone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't anything to do with FREER, it's a simple matter that the FUR is invalid as it misidentifies the subject of the image or at least fails to positively identify the subject thereby failing WP:NFCC#5. The provenance is dubious - the photo was lifted from Find-a-Grave where it was a user added image, the uploader to WP said it was from a magazine article without making any attempt to identify the original source. There has been confusion between Hart and Fess Parker before, especially because of the similar looks of the actors and the Hawkeye and Boone characters. My suspicion, and I admit the OR in this, is that I have seen Hart in Last of the Mohicans and nowhere do I recall him riding a horse - which can be seen in this image. There are other images out there e.g. [5] or [6] which make much better positive IDs of Hart and either (my preference would be the first or a cropped copy thereof) would make a better replacement. Nthep (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If they are concerns that the file fails to meet WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion) or WP:NFCC#10a, then those are valid reasons for deletion. Moreover, the image should actually be of Hart, and if there’s any doubts about that, then perhaps in would be better to just upload another image of Hart as a replacement for this one and then let this one be deleted per WP:F5. This FFD really only needs to run seven days and orphaned files are not deleted until seven days pass; so, there’s nothing gained timewise either way. The faster a verifiable image whose provenance is more easily verifiable can be found and uploaded, the better for Wikipedia in my opinion. I’m going to ping Hullaballoo Wolfowitz because he seems pretty adept at finding free images of actors like Hart that might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}; perhaps, he can find a free equivalent. If not, then I see no reason why a replacement non-free image cannot be uploaded to use instead of this one. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
How about a low-resolution version of an iconic image? Hart apparently handed out autographed copies of it, one of which can be seen here: http://www.lonerangerfanclub.com/johnhart.html ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

February 23

File:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.png

[edit]

File:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EditAvenger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file fails to meet fair use. Per WP:NFCC#3 and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover:

"...use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information..."

"Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included"

This alternative cover is identical to the main cover already used on the article for the album, other than a "difference in poses". There is no significant critical analysis on this alt cover that merits its inclusion. I suggest we provide a link to an external image, as is one in other album articles such as Bangerz. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 12:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To me, the images are different enough to warrant a keep, I personally don't understand why pictures that look similar are considered for deletion, as there's seriously no point to delete something like this if it's different, might be just me , though. ~aardwolf68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Aardwolf68: They're nearly identical and under fair-use, if it can be explained with text alone, it doesn't merit inclusion. Already in the infobox, I've added the caption "Standard cover. The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head." and further explanation of the alternative cover can be added to the article's body. If we'd want to keep this cover, we'd have to change the policies over at Template:Extra album cover. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and if changing up the rules so that more album covers can be labeled as the alternative ones instead of leaving them out because they're similar is the way to go, then so be it. I just believe thay articles shoild convey enough possible information for the viewer, and this album cover rule is kind of ridiculous ~aardwolf68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Deluxe editions, physical editions, etc. etc. There are a lot of similar covers and we don't include all of them because they only have minor differences and take up space. That's why the rule exists. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one, this alternate cover is only intended for official physical copies. Also, this image has already been removed from the infobox and replaced with text. If this can be done, the image probably shouldn't be included. Another thing is the file's questionable licensing. The description claims the source is Apple Music, but Music uses the standard cover art. I just fail to see why both covers should be included in the article - just the main one is fine. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 04:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    Note: Due to lack of replies, I've notified editors at Talk:Music to Be Murdered By. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 06:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in section "Background and recording". There is sourced critical discussion of the alternative cover. A reader can't really imagine what Eminem looks like doing this pose and how it relates to the 1958 Hitchcock cover, which should also be included (see the discussion below). Text alone simply does not suffice. We don't have to shoehorn this to the alternative covers in infoboxes issue, as this is clearly about sourced critical commentary in the relevant section. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    Per below, the paragraph is about critical commentary on the Hitchcock theme, not the alternative cover. The cover art is only mentioned in one sentence, and the alternative cover has been summarized in text with the sentence "The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Nice4What: I agree that the infobox sentence The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head alone probably wouldn't merit the images. But roughly half of the "Background" section paragraph is about the alternative cover: The album's title and alternative cover art share the same concept as the 1958 Jeff Alexander album Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By, described by Chris Willman of Variety as "the one and only album Hitchcock ever released". Eminem tweeted an image of the 1958 album cover featuring Hitchcock holding an axe and a gun to his head and stated that his album's alternative cover was "inspired by the master, Uncle Alfred!". And it is the nature of the statement, not its length, that is of primary concern here. It impedes the reader's understanding to refer to a specific image that Eminem tweeted, without showing what it was, and say that the alternative cover "shares its concept", without showing what it means. In context, that the alternative cover was "inspired by ... Uncle Alfred" clearly means not only Hitchcock's person and appearance but the specific Hitchcock cover. If this content is due in the article, it really needs these two images to grasped by the reader. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's just one of three covers, we don't need two non-free images to cover such content. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 04:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    We'll just have to agree to disagree. One cover is the primary means of identification, the other two are subjects of sourced critical discussion in a way that necessitates seeing them. Use is not excessive and the purposes don't overlap. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The commentary is primarily descriptive rather than critical. and all essential information is adequately conveyed by the text. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Regarding the "Minimal number of items" (#3a), I see that the physical edition's front cover is not inserted in the article. Then I see the standard (shovel and hat) cover and the alternative (axe and gun) cover used in the article. I don't see how various covers of the album "convey equivalent significant information". Sure, they show the artists holding different objects, and they identify the album. However, the various objects and the usage of them make the album covers substantially different enough from each other, at least to me.

    Furthermore, the #3a criterion may not outweigh the "contextual significance" criterion. Well, the physical edition's (hat-less) cover may have lacked "contextual significance" due to insufficient coverage of the hat-less cover itself. However, if the alternative (axe and gun) image of the image were to be deleted, then the understanding of the "Hitchcock" cover would be affected as well. Not just the Hitchcock image, the understanding of the album release would be affected as well. Readers would not grasp, without using the images, how the album cover originated and derived from the old when the old album is mentioned in the album. George Ho (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete (and don't worry, I struck my original vote). The 3 MTBMB covers are not very different from each other. The only differences are Em's poses and clothing. Because of the minimal differences, WP:NFCC#3 applies. But even if NFCC didn't apply, this infobox documentation, the infobox we use in the article, writes in verbatim different poses doesn't warrant using a new cover. And if the image can't be included in the infobox, it can't be used at all. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 05:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg

[edit]

File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koavf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As fair use is meant to be minimal (WP:NFCC#3), this copyrighted cover art does not pass the threshold for inclusion. It's included on the article for Eminem's album Music to Be Murdered By since one of the alternative covers of the album was inspired by this piece. However, the album as a whole is inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's work, noted through the inclusion of spoken samples by the director himself. A free image of Hitchcock could convey the same purpose of this cover art, and there isn't enough critical analysis at the time to merit the inclusion of this 1958 cover art on an article for a 2020 album. At the moment, the article only has two sentences about connecting this image to the album's explicit cover. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think one could argue that fair use here is minimal and is used for educational purposes and not commercially. A picture of Alfred Hitchcock without reference to this picture would not convey the same purpose of this cover art in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.238.252.111 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Alfred Hitchcock's influence goes beyond the replication of this 1958 album. There's not enough commentary in the article to merit inclusion. The alternative cover has also been proposed for deletion for going against Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover and WP:NFCC#3. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. There is considerable information that would be lost with the deletion of this image. Keep. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@XeroxKleenex: What information would be lost if it can be explained through text? That's one of the requirements for fair use. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. See my comment(s) in the discussion above. @Nice4What: there is now a paragraph worth of sourced critical commentary specifically about the alternative cover and how it relates to this one. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    No, I added that paragraph. It is not critical commentary about the alternative cover, it's critical commentary about the Hitchcock theme of the album. That's why I had replaced it with a free image of Hitchcock at one point. Fair use indicates that if a free alternative is sufficient, we must not use the non-free file (again, WP:NFCC#3). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 22:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether critical commentary for the Hitchcock image is sufficient is one thing, but then I realize that reliable source should confirm the similarities in order to avoid original research. Now there is sufficient commentary related to the Hitchcock image, so the "original research" is averted. You need proof that deleting the Hitchcock image is not "detrimental to that understanding". However, due to sources confirming the similarities and origin of image concept, I believe that deleting the Alfred image would force readers to either re-upload the image or seek elsewhere to compare the Alfred and Eminem images simultaneously. Also, I don't see how Alfred holding an axe and Eminem (or some guy) holding an axe and a gun "can convey equivalent significant information", i.e. are identical to or equivalent to each other. Alfred and Eminem are different people, and even holding an axe doesn't make the info equally similar especially in regards to origins. Moreover, the Alfred image is the past, and Eminem one more recent. The decades-gap is very substantial enough to differentiate two images from each other. George Ho (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    Commented at #File:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.png after forgetting or re-realizing similarities and differences between Alfred with axe and gun and Eminem with axe and gun. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February 22

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png

[edit]

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingsif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World#Music alongside freely licensed images (File:Emily Haines (Metric).jpg and File:Metric live at Washington, DC 2006.jpg) of Emily Haines, whose "clothing, performance and style" was the basis of the character Envy Adams. This file was initially tagged by JJMC89 with {{Di-fails NFCC}} for violating WP:NFCC#8, which was deleted by me after seven days. The uploader Kingsif and I discussed the merits (please give the discussion a read for context) of the inclusion of the image and ultimately reached an impasse. As such, I felt that it would be best to defer this case to the community to determine whether or not there is consensus to include this image in the article. ƏXPLICIT 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • delete The free image on the left on the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World page is good enough to illustrate the character of Envy Adams. Nonfree image in the middle is superfluous. Abzeronow (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no free image of the character. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The free image of Emily Haines seems to sufficiently illustrate the inspiration for the character. An image of the character is nice to have, but doesn't significantly increase understanding that Haines is the inspiration for the character. Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
My comment below also addresses this :) Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The image seems very clear-cut in not violating non-free image use policy, it has a very clear function of depicting something critical that is entirely visual in nature. It is one in a set of images that shows an inspiration-result relationship, the kind of visual representations that I have never seen a non-free file be challenged (let alone deleted) for before. As said above, there are images of Emily Haines, the real inspiration for the character Envy in both appearance and physicality. Just showing the free images of Haines (of which there are plenty on Commons) shows the subject of inspiration, but given that Envy is entirely based on her, we can and should make a direct comparison (not all inspiration-inspired things can, if the inspiration is not massive); as Envy is actually part of the film that the article is about, using the images is a useful visual comparative to illustrate how the character was influenced. In trying to keep this short, I'll summarize this block by saying that the images of Haines alone do not actually serve the comparative function that is the best analytical practice and, though showing some part of criticism, without an image of Envy it does not show the effect on the film that is the subject of the (relevant discussion and) article.
There is also a solid precedent for using both inspiration and inspired images in other articles; I still invoke the example on the Captain Marvel (2019 film) article (the first that came to mind, possibly because of the Brie Larson connection, but not the only one). A Good Article, that article uses two non-free images (in section Post-production) to show the appearance of Sam Jackson in a 1997 film and his appearance in CM, which was based on the former. In the same way, Envy in SP is based on Haines and if it is deemed necessary to use the non-free screenshot of CM, why would it not be for an image serving the same function here? Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral (might lean toward "week keep" or "weak delete") - The rationale to enforce WP:NFCC#1 seems very weak to me. Like the uploader said, a free image of Brie Larson would not illustrate the fictional character. However, WP:NFCC#8, part of the main rationale for deletion, which says that elimination of non-free multimedia content would detriment the understanding of the article subject, seems to be main concern. The character Envy Adams herself was briefly mentioned in the Plot section and then in the Music (sub)section. The rest of the paragraph mentioning Envy Adams and Emily Haines also mentions briefly the song "Black Sheep", which may or may not need a music sample of the song rather than a mere image. Then again, the brief description of the song would not sufficiently justify using the music clip.

    Back to the image of Envy Adams, right now I'm seeing two sentences describing Envy Adams's (fictional character) performance of the song: "The clothing, performance and style of Metric's lead singer, Emily Haines, is also the basis for the lead singer of The Clash at Demonhead, Envy Adams," and "On her stage performance of the song, Larson said at the UK premiere that she 'had no idea [her] body could move that way'." If I take the image out of the article, then the two free images of Haines would remain. However, once the non-free image is eliminated, a reader would be puzzled about the inclusion of Haines images alone and would question whether those images are needed to be included. Take out the Haines images, and then you'd see just one paragraph describing the versions of "Black Sheep" but also including brief description of visual performances that wouldn't justify using any image, be it a free or non-free image. A reader can click "Emily Haines" or go to c:Category:Emily Haines (Commons) to see her clothing for cognitive comparisons. If the Haines images are needed, then let's be sure that using the images helps the understanding of the context. Also, if the Haines images are needed, then the non-free image of Envy Adams would also be needed as well. On the contrary, if the Haines images are also taken out, the paragraph would be potentially understood without the images, but then the inclusion of one sentence about the inspiration and origin of Envy Adams and the inclusion of Larson's UK premiere quote make the paragraph more puzzling without the image(s).

    In conclusion, right now I'm suddenly torn. How the context of the paragraph is understood becomes subjective to a various reader. NFCC is intended to emphasize free content but then would allow acceptable non-free content. While the non-free image meets the "no free equivalent" and "minimal usage" criteria, meeting the "contextual significance" becomes trickier, even when just two sentences visually describing Larson's performance would seem to be the small amount. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @George Ho: The relevant paragraph has been edited since (I was going to try clean up the soundtrack article, and found sources with info appropriate here). Since you quote it, I thought I'd notify you. (And about the song re. music clip - again, a comparative of Haines vs Larson singing would have to be used, but then there's also "We Are Sex Bob-Omb" from the film which got noms and awards that would be a better candidate for clip inclusion for that reason. I was thinking of putting them on the soundtrack page instead). Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Switch to Keep – Now with improvements made, I can see substantial justification for using the non-free image. Whether one of the Haines images is sufficient enough is another story for another discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • To the first part, any uploader could just have easily got it from the film directly (but without a source link to post). To the second, it's not being used that way. The discussion is about how the character was made to visually reflect a real person, the image shows that. That's what images supporting critical discussions do. (I don't think I mentioned it before, but at least one of the scholarly sources used in the article, the kind of publication following the same non-free rules as WP, has images of Envy in the film and in the comics compared with an image of Haines. We're in good company.) Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who).jpg

[edit]

File:Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pedrohoneto (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails NFCC#8, an image of an actor in character does not increase the readers understanding especially when the statement used in the caption is unsourced. Neither is the image being used in the way described in the FUR i.e. it is NOT being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. Nthep (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Well, you are a bit late. You can see that the image is mainly for "facilitating critical commentary" now. The critical commentary IS sourced. You can add more individual critic reviews who praise Bradley, Capaldi and others (there are some) as sources any time. At the very least, this image can definitely be used in First Doctor. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 07:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep If the documentation is incorrect, fix it. The image provides a key factor in how the character was recast from the original actor, and the response to the recasting and the new actor's performance. -- /Alex/21 11:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The onus is on those wishing to use the image to ensure the FUR is correct. As originally uploaded the FUR appeared to be correct but since then this image has been overwritten with an entirely different image and used within the article for another purpose. As for usage how a photo of one actor is key in showing how a character was recast without any comparative image of the previous actor I'm not quite sure. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment I tried to correct FUR, please check it before replying. You may rename the file if you want. Also, may I introduce you to Template:Multiple images? It helps in adding a comparative image of the previous actor. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The description (first parameter within {{Non-free use rationale 2}}) still reads as "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the article dedicated to the entity in question." It's confusing as the other information field - which you have edited - has been used to duplicate all the preceding parameters for some pretty much unnecessary reason. The redefining of the image by overriding the original upload isn't solved by renaming the file. This isn't a dig at anyone as I see a lot of cases of this but it would be much better practice to upload the image you want as a separate file with it's own rationale rather than repurposing an existing file. This file was originally uploaded to be an identifying image in the infobox, there's a separate discussion to be had as to whether such images are needed, but if it does get repurposed then the rationale needs to be thoroughly checked to make sure that it is still valid.
If there is critical commentary about the recasting from William Hartnell's portrayal of the first incarnation of the Doctor to David Bradley's portrayal then {{multiple images}} may help assuming you can find a copyright free image of Hartnell as the Doctor as compiling a FUR for Hartnell in this article would, imo, be difficult. Personally I'm not convinced that this image and/or a comparative image of Hartnell would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" especially as the article topic is a specific episode not "portrayals of the first doctor". Nthep (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore the original image and rationale. If you want a comparative image of the character, create one. Don't bulldoze an existing good fair use image. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This is actually zero sourced commentary about the claim in the caption that critics praised his portrayal. Fails NFCC#8 without out as now the claim to keep is original research. A free image of Bradley out-of-make-up (which we have) could be used instead, even if sourcing could be added; the non-DW fan seeing the NFCC image here will not really gain that much understanding since they'd have no idea what the First Doctor was supposed to look like in the first place. --Masem (t) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
zero sourced: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc. The only criticism I've found is IndieWire's, which is about "the misuse of David Bradley’s considerable skills", they stated: "Bradley is an excellent actor, capable of far more nuance than he is permitted here." As you can see A LOT of them praise him (and other actors) and these sources are all in the article. Please read it. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Those need to be in the article, likely part of a short Reception paragraph, to support the image. I figured they existed, but the article does not have them at this time, so until that's satisified, the image fails NFCC. --Masem (t) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are currently two images in the history, and from some comments here it's a little unclear whether people are talking about the original file or the new single-head shot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no sourced critical commentary of any kind that would be served by displaying the current or the previous image. I don't think a frame like this helps the reader to understand that acting was so good that it received praise by critics. For costume or make-up, maybe, but not acting. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jo-Jo Eumerus: my original nomination is based on the current version of the file failing WP:NFCC#8 per several other editors comments above e.g. Finnusertop. Nthep (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

April 7

File:Sean Kennedy, The One Photoshoot.jpg

File:Sean Kennedy, The One Photoshoot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Harrypotter1331 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

originally nominated for dated deletion as failing WP:CSD#F7/WP:NFCC#1 by @Whpq with the reason: "living person" FASTILY 07:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - This nonfree image is of a living person (WP:NFCC#1); not used in any articles (WP:NFCC#7). Note the uploader has also been blocked for sock puppetry. - Whpq (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent nominations

April 8

File:DMA Design logo.svg

File:DMA Design logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FreeMediaKid! (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @IceWelder with the reason "I made and uploaded this SVG four years ago, but it is very poorly vectorized. The file should thus be deleted (the former version was transferred to File:DMA Design logo 1994.svg)." FASTILY 00:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Deadworld 10.jpg

File:Deadworld 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bosco685 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is already a non-free image on this page. Why is this here? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sinsy Nghipandua.jpg

File:Sinsy Nghipandua.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ViceAdmiral (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taken from FB per Metadata, highly unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sophia University logo.svg

File:Sophia University logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MEgaSham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this logo actually copyrighted? While it isn't "simple" as commons:File:Sophia University logo.svg if the university was founded in 1913 it is possible - but not certain - that the logo is also that old and thus {{PD-1923}}. Note that if this is the case, the file should be moved to Commons or deleted in favour of the copy there, not kept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 9

File:Beth Kaplan.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 15:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Beth Kaplan.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SophieLyonsWrites (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

{{PD-Canada}} clearly does not apply to this image. No evidence of a free license. ƏXPLICIT 04:26, 9 April 2020 (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.

April 10

File:Richard reid 1.jpg

File:Richard reid 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Canadaolympic989 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not the work of the federal government. It’s a county jail booking photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg

File:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rockysmile11 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The English-language alternative cover of a K-pop song "I Am the Best", taken from Apple.com, is currently labelled as "PD-ineligible-USonly". However, compared to the gallery from c:COM:TOO US, I can assume that the alternative cover art has sufficient artistic merit warranting US copyright protection. The text appears stylized, if not written, resembling the writing in a large, thick style of a chalk. Also, the background doesn't look plain, simple, or common. Rather, even with dark color(s), the background appears to have some kind of texture all over and does not appear smooth but rough. If the layout doesn't make the image original enough, then it may be ineligible for US copyright. If ineligible for US copyright, then it doesn't have to abide to WP:NFCC, does it? On the other hand, if deemed un-free and not complicit with NFCC, especially the "minimal number of items" (#3a) and "contextual significance" (#8), then this image (the alternative cover) should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Relicense to {{Non-free album cover}} - disagree that this satisfies the TOO for the USA. Logos need to be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted and the stylistic choice to use chalk, the positioning of the letters relative to everything else on the cover, and the handwriting are creative enough to be possibly copyrighted. I also disagree that this is generic handwriting, and unless if sufficient copyright explanation can be given as to why this is "below the threshold of originality" or meets the criteria for "fair use", I think it should be deleted. Aasim 09:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You favor relicensing, but you also favor deleting the image if the use is not "fair use". Why deletion? George Ho (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I am talking about if they meet the WP:NFCC. Sorry I posted that at 2 in the morning, but hope that clears up any misunderstanding. Aasim 18:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cover arts of Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

File:Cohen Hallelujah Australia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Doctorhawkes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Leonard Cohen Hallelujah.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trevorsem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I previously brought both images to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 17, which resulted in deleting the cover art of the Dutch single (misidentified as Australian) and keeping the Spain one. However, I begin to have doubts about whether the Spain single was commercially released in retail stores. I raised my concerns to an admin who deleted the Dutch one, who then undeleted it, so I'm retaking them both here for my newer concerns. I checked the images from 45cat and discogs, which display labels showing "promotional use only" and "not for sale" in Spanish language. Neither another discogs entry nor eil.com can show more images in detail.

Not only the scarcity of confirming existence of the Spain retail single release is concerning, I'm also concerned about this source being cited for the info about the chart performance of "Hallelujah" in Spain. I don't see the song's Spain performance mentioned anywhere on the page; user comments aren't reliable by Wikipedia standards, so they don't count. The song might or might not have been charted in Spain, but the other source Promusicae neither shows chart history prior to 2004 nor makes singles easier to find as they list singles/songs in just PDF charts. Also, searching for the song in Promusicae website is very time-consuming.

In short, in light of my newer findings and concerns, I decide to switch my favors from the Spain artwork to the Dutch one, even though the song performed well on the Dutch chart in 2016, the year of singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen's death. Alternatively, maybe neither cover art should be used since I could not find any source calling the original Cohen version a "single" but instead a "song" (Rolling Stone, one book, more to search). --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC); edited, 05:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Aspects -FASTILY 06:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment if the Dutch one is kept, it needs to be renamed, because it is not Australian, thus is incorrect and misleading -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:TodamericaRecord.jpg

File:TodamericaRecord.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infrogmation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1950, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I scanned this from a 78 record (pre-vinyl LPs) in my own collection in 2003. I'm not too familiar with Brazil copyright law, but looks likely to be copyright expired [12]-- Infrogmation (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - In response to the uploader's comment, the image would be still subject to URAA, which restored the US copyright, even when Brazilian copyright would expire next year. Furthermore, the article "Todamerica Records" is still a stub, and I couldn't find reliable sources either giving significant coverage or verifying notability of the record label itself. Maybe print sources do, but it's a long shot. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:KingRecordJapan.jpg

File:KingRecordJapan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infrogmation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1950, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The vinyl side label was copyrighted in 1996 in Japan, so the US copyright of this foreign work was restored by URAA. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:RexRecord.jpg

File:RexRecord.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infrogmation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1940, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Even without copyright notice, the foreign work is still copyrighted in the US per URAA until December 31, 2035, ninety-five years after first non-US publication, i.e. at least fifteen more years to go. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:FMovies Homepage Screenshot.jpg

File:FMovies Homepage Screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Manager27 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Most of this image is actually the poster for Avengers: Endgame, for which there isn't an applicable fair use claim in this article. If it showed lots of different movies, one could make a de minimis argument, I guess, but this is just the Avengers poster with some website structure around it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep the use of the Endgame poster seems incidental to me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • comment - that it's incidental (that it could be any giant movie poster) doesn't make it de minimis. The fair use justification for the copyrighted screenshot used in the article about the website does not include a fair use justification for the poster, which is very much a separate copyright, and using it outside of the avengers article fails NFCC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article mentions the streaming site containing pirated materials, and it's blocked in Australia, Sweden, and India. Those living in these countries and understanding English would be able to see the screenshot, but I'm unsure whether the website screenshot is necessary convey what the whole article says and what the website says, i.e. "contextual significance" (WP:NFCC#8). If the movie material is the issue, then maybe a replacement is needed. However, a premium edition of one of anti-malware software apps blocked the website for possibly containing trojan, so I'm unable to take the risk. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced that the screenshot of the homepage meets criteria #8 of the NFCC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only the website logo may be used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:HeartcatchPreCure.png

File:HeartcatchPreCure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SpinnerLaserz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See File talk:HeartcatchPreCure.png. The question is: If there is a non-free logo on X-TV Series. Can there also be one at List of X-TV Series episodes. I would say no, however Andy Dingley does not agree. What does the community think? Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep The logo is right in the file. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep That's a different article. Our scope for judging this should be at the article level, not the series.
This was tagged initially under WP:NFCC#8 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
HeartCatch is a season of PreCure SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe this meets NFCC #8; the box art does little to nothing to increase readers' understanding of the list of episodes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Take a look at each article of SpongeBob seasons, there are images of box arts. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if a consensus develops on the WP:NFCC#8 question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Mr Nutz-4 console versions.JPG

File:Mr Nutz-4 console versions.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carlwev (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is eight pieces of non-free media, which is not necessary. A single screen shot from the Genesis/SNES version to show gameplay is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Crop Since there's no critical discussion on the different versions (only mention of their ratings), the simplest solution would be to crop three of the versions out of the existing image and revdel the old version. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:New Jersey Devils logo.svg

File:New Jersey Devils logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opertinicy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free content criteria applied to a simple logo that may not meet the threshold of originality. Compare "public domain" image File:New_Jersey_Devils_1982.svg. One of both is incorrectly tagged. This led to a possibly completely unnecessary edit war at Devils–Rangers rivalry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There is also a File:New Jersey Devils old logo.svg version on Wikipedia, which also has the possibly wrong licensing. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I have nominated the linked Commons file for deletion, as I do not believe that the logo meets the PD-textlogo criteria. Ergo, this is a correctly tagged non-free file. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the Commons discussion isn't resolved yet (we need a better way to handle FFDs which depend on Commons deletion requests)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:USS YF-415.jpg

File:USS YF-415.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ArchonBoi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is claimed to be Public Domain as the work of the US Navy. However, the provided source for the image is not an officlal US Navy web site and the source credits for the image do not state it is a US Navy photograph. There is no evidence that this is a US Navy image. See also c:COM:Deletion requests/File:USS YF-415.jpg Whpq (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png

File:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Manifestation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I uploaded this image to produce a visual representation of the ICD-11, more specifically the ICD-11 MMS. This screenshot was made in the ICD-11 Browser. The file was tagged for speedy deletion by User:JJMC89 because of WP:IUP#FORMAT, a policy which states:

I would seriously beg to differ here. This screenshot is used to provide a visual example of the hierarchy of the ICD-11 MMS, similar to software articles that show a screenshot of the interface. I could've uploaded a screenshot of the entire screen, but that would make the text unreadable, defeating its purpose. Note how the image displays the gray colored nodes, and the maroon colored residual nodes, both which are important elements of the ICD-11 MMS system.

The policy's assertion that content inserted directly into Wikipedia articles is more easier to edit is not relevant here, because the ICD-11 MMS is not supposed to be altered by us.

Also, the ICD-11 Reference Guide says: "ICD is distributed free of charge for personal, research, governmental, and other non-commercial uses. Commercial users of the ICD are subject to royalties payable to the WHO."

Wikipedia is non-commercial, so having the ICD-11 or a portion of it on Wikipedia is fine. Therefore, I would argue that this image is fine and that its inclusion in the ICD-11 article is beneficial towards the reader's understanding of the subject. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is non-commercial, so having the ICD-11 or a portion of it on Wikipedia is fine." → That might very well be the case, but I would like to hear from someone who understands the copyright area really well. If images of the ICD-11 browser are acceptable, we would want a very crisp, sharp, clear image because the display size can be quite small, e.g., on desktops, and images of text require more work to begin with, so we want it to be very easy to read even at a small display size.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the restriction on commercial use means that the file is considered non-free on Wikipedia (which considers licenses to be sufficiently free only if they allow both derivative works and commercial use). However, per my comment below, a mock up that displayed the formatting without the disease data would not be copyrightable. If you create one, you can release it under a free license in place of this image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this image meets the non-free use criteria, specifically #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.". The layout and color scheme is a minor detail in the article, and removing the example does not hamper readers' ability to understand the ICD-11. However, it would be relatively easy to create a mock-up of the format, complete with the colors and the triangles, but using placeholder names instead of the disease information. Since the format that ICD-11 is using is not copyrightable, the mock-up could be released under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Thank you very much The Squirrel Conspiracy. I like your idea! And thank you for explaining the non-free content policy. I've probably read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and related articles/guidance a half dozen times over the last several years, but it's one of those concepts that takes repetition for me to fully understand it (that's just me, other folks probably understand it all much faster! ;-).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

April 11

File:Kalibak.jpg

File:Kalibak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bignole (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). Not substantially different from the depiction in the infobox of the same article, File:Kalibak.png. Any visual differences aren't discussed in sourced prose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:CousinKevinscreenshot1980.jpg

File:CousinKevinscreenshot1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kieronoldham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). There are five photos of individual victims and one collage of 22 victims - all non-free images - in the article already. This particular victim is barely discussed, as compared to three of the five with images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete the image, The Squirrel Conspiracy. Hand on heart I think now the article is being rapidly improved this image and the other one you tagged (which I did not upload) are now somewhat excess. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Godzik.jpg

File:Godzik.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MisterCake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). There are five photos of individual victims and one collage of 22 victims - all non-free images - in the article already. This particular victim is barely discussed, as compared to three of the five with images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Body 10 and Body 13.jpg

File:Body 10 and Body 13.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gourami Watcher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). There are two different collages of reconstructions in the article. Both depicted victims are also included in File:Gacy victims.jpg. There is no discussion about these two victims that would warrant a separate image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this image should remain. Not least because active efforts are underway to identify the remaining six decedents, and these two (more advanced) reconstructions were only released to the media in 2018. Definitely not a failure of the criteria of NFCC8. The removal of this image "would be detrimental" for that fact.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The full text of NFCC criteria 8 is "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." (bolding mine). So while you're correct that leaving the images would likely be in the public good, they are not vital to the understanding of the subject of the article, John Wayne Gacy. The best case scenario would be for the producers of the reconstructions to release the images under a free license, so that they can be more readily disseminated. However, unless that is done, we can't use those images in this article.
One thing to consider is that if you think that there are enough sources to justify an article on the victims of John Wayne Gacy, or on the unidentified victims specifically, then you could create an article on that topic, and this image would likely be justifiable for that article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm well aware of this, and the boundaries. It is just my opinion, which I am sure, is at least invited here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sinestro (circa 1969).png

File:Sinestro (circa 1969).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). Not substantially different from the other two non-free images of the character in the article. Any visual differences aren't discussed in sourced prose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:HellblazerCVR189.jpg

File:HellblazerCVR189.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neodammerung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). Not substantially different from the non-free depiction of the character in the article infobox. Any visual differences aren't discussed in sourced prose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:John Constantine (Matt Ryan).jpg

File:John Constantine (Matt Ryan).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CBRVA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 1 (no free replacement available) and 8 (contextual significance). An image of the actor could be used in this section without any significant loss to readers' understanding, and there are already a number of non-free depictions of the character in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:John Constantine (Keanu Reeves).jpg

File:John Constantine (Keanu Reeves).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neodammerung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 1 (no free replacement available) and 8 (contextual significance). An image of the actor could be used in this section without any significant loss to readers' understanding, and there are already a number of non-free depictions of the character in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Dr Fate Mattel Figure.jpg

File:Dr Fate Mattel Figure.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mickdansforth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). The toy is not significantly different from the non-free images of the character also present in the article, and is not the subject of cited critical discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:SAYUL in Kolkata.pdf

File:SAYUL in Kolkata.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SAYUL KOLKATA TEAM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No encyclopediac value, just a massive self-publication about themselves by a group that is working to get themselves included on wikipedia. Didn't strictly fit any speedy criteria. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously out of scope. Aasim 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

April 12

April 13

File:Cacodemon (Doom).png

File:Cacodemon (Doom).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dfdooger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file states that it is to be used as the primary means of identifying the subject at the beginning of the corresponding article. This is not the case. The article currently has another file as its primary identifying image, and though that image is not as dramatic as this one, it is in the public domain (which this one is not). I think this means we can't retain this one on Wikipedia. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. A loose necktie (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Zombie Dog (Resident Evil).jpg

File:Zombie Dog (Resident Evil).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dfdooger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is NOT cover art for a video game, it is art WITHIN that game, and for this reason I do not believe the non-free rationale holds. A loose necktie (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:T4F company-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: Withdrawn/Moot, didn't realize Salavat only removed the nrd tag after filling the FUR. -FASTILY 06:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:T4F company-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sdifenlin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally nominated for dated deletion by @JJMC89 under WP:CSD#F4 as missing source information. FASTILY 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment This should have just been declined. The editor that provided a source just didn't remove the template. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:10, 13 April 2020 (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:JMA7 Anglin shore leave with buddy.jpg

File:JMA7 Anglin shore leave with buddy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deletion. Old personal photo/s. assuming that they own the "vintage photos," these cannot be passed at Wikimedia Commons because "out of scope." Also orphaned and unusable in any Wikimedia sites or in any outside medium. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the following:

File:JMA5 John and Jean wed.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:JMA4 Lillian Rogene Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:JMA3 Civilian chair pose.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:JMA2 Farewell at Fox West Coast Theatres.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:JMA1 Friends at Fox West Coast Theatres.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwanglin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Joe Santagato.jpg

File:Joe Santagato.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hillelfrei (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Insufficient evidence of permission. The provided permission is a screenshot. The provide screenshot makes no mention of a license. Furthermore, Joe Santagato is the subject of the video which does not necessarily mean he is the copyright holder. This really needs to be done via WP:OTRS. Whpq (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:JusticeTrapsTheGuilty001.jpg

File:JusticeTrapsTheGuilty001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Etzedek24 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file already exists on Commons at higher resolution and with the same name and with the licence Template:PD-US-not renewed. If that is valid the local copy can be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Pierre Mornand.jpg

File:Pierre Mornand.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is a freely licenced image of the same subject on Commons, but it's under discussion for deletion. If the Commons file is kept and assuming its of the same subject the local file ought to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Siddhartha Shankar Ray.jpg

File:Siddhartha Shankar Ray.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Royroydeb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is a file on the same subject and same name on Commons. The Commons file is under discussion for deletion; if it's kept the local file can be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:The Weeknd - After Hours (Target edition).jpeg

File:The Weeknd - After Hours (Target edition).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DovahDuck (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails per both WP:NFCC#3a and #8. Additional image is not required to enhance the reader's understanding of the article in-question, After Hours (The Weeknd album), and its exclusion would not be detrimental of the reader's understanding. livelikemusic talk! 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:The Weeknd - After Hours (Remixes).jpg

File:The Weeknd - After Hours (Remixes).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DovahDuck (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails per both WP:NFCC#3a and #8. Additional image is not required to enhance the reader's understanding of the article in-question, After Hours (The Weeknd album), and its exclusion would not be detrimental of the reader's understanding. livelikemusic talk! 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kantatar10.jpg.w560h370.jpg

File:Kantatar10.jpg.w560h370.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jayantanth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The article has a poster, this non-free image does not follow minimal usage of NFCCP. Titodutta (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The screenshot is used in the plot section against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Kantatar100.jpg

File:Kantatar100.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jayantanth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The article has a poster (non-free), this non-free image does not follow minimal usage of NFCCP (and does not add much value as well). Titodutta (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The screenshot is used in the Cast section and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sjuangarita.jpg

File:Sjuangarita.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thief12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo is unused and it is taken from a website so we cant verify the license. MGA73 (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:User-Candlewicke DYK 2008 Meteor Awards, Mick Pyro, Some Surprise, The Cake Sale (album), The Cake Sale, Brian Crosby, Mulkerrin Brothers.jpg

File:User-Candlewicke DYK 2008 Meteor Awards, Mick Pyro, Some Surprise, The Cake Sale (album), The Cake Sale, Brian Crosby, Mulkerrin Brothers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CLWE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am nominating this *one* partiular image because it is currently orphaned and I can not see any encyclopedic use for it. I am bring it here because the uploader is absense since March 2017 and I can not ask him/her. There are currently over 100 simmilar type of images by this uploader ([13] and while have I obviously have not looked at all of them, those that I have looked at are orphaned as well. I am looking for some concensus to delete the similar images for deletion, but do not want to spend the time Prod-ing them if there is some valid reason for their existance. Perhaps someone with Main Page experince can way in. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 14

File:AEK Athletic Club.png

File:AEK Athletic Club.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GRanemos1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from AEK Women's Volleyball Club per WP:NFC#UUI #17. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Publicenemylogo.jpg

File:Publicenemylogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceedub88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems above TOO (not just the "simple geometric shapes" of intrinsic-PD). DMacks (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhockey10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8/3. The logo is not the subject of critical commentary. It is the Westcliff University Athletics logo, not the Westcliff University logo (File:WestcliffULogo.png). — JJMC89(T·C) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Blackwattle Bay Coal Bunker, Bridge Road Glebe, 1970s SCC Archives A-0034658.jpg

File:Blackwattle Bay Coal Bunker, Bridge Road Glebe, 1970s SCC Archives A-0034658.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TrimmerinWiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8/1. The article subject (Coastal coal-carrying trade of New South Wales) can easily be understood without this non-free image. The are plenty of free images (already in the article) to illustrate the topic. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


Footer

Today is April 14 2020. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 14 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===April 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. wiki.rip is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

E-mail: wiki@wiki.rip
WIKI OPPORTUNITIES
Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer
https://wiki.rip/wikipedia/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion
wiki.rip
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-34
503558
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XE35AM3NBLDGPRVBXGAQWCBEMCFXUCEO
<urn:uuid:1d380533-52b4-46d3-a5fb-97908f7b9108>
2020-08-06T15:23:09Z
173.234.25.196
text/html
sha1:53FY3KRNZW7OJ4VXOTDONQ2OVEFBUS5X
<urn:uuid:9f259b23-8a0e-426d-978e-42ba8df99f23>
https://wiki.rip/wikipedia/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion
response
<urn:uuid:20ce3f82-2f42-4b86-b950-3f7de2d7ac16>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-34
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-28.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/