Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

September 5

File:Leor Jewelery.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary copyrighted logo to illustrate an unsourced disambig page Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images may not be used on disambiguation pages per WP:NFCC#9. However, this seems to be an article about a name and not a disambiguation page for notable people with that name, so WP:NFCC#9 seems to be satisfied here. The file violates WP:NFCC#8 and should therefore be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BaudilioVegaB.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No own work, was deleted on Commons for having no license c:File:Baudilio_Vega_Berríos_Etch.jpg. No evidence of PD status. moogsi^(blah) 00:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Balasanger.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image that is tagged as non useful outside of Wikipedia and as far as I can tell is no use within Wikipedia. Appears more as a personal image than an image that seriously expects usage on the wiki. Cat-five t c ---- 07:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Amc solo logo.svg

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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Steven Sotloff

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: Consensus is to delete the first image. TLSuda (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hostage Steven Sotloff held by executioner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Steven Sotloff portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

See WP:NFCC#3a: we don't need two pictures of him. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed we don't need two. The first execution picture was discussed at Media for discussion and there is strong consensus not to use it and replace it with something more neutral. The second picture was then uploaded. It should be kept as the primary means of identification. -- GreenC 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cited policy says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This image is much different from the Twitter image, not equivalent. Since the article is largely about the subject's execution, this image is more appropriate for visual identification with this incident.~Technophant (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JackHensley.PNG Is used for 3 articles. What's the difference between that image and this one?~Technophant (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the execution image is kept there is no consensus to use a screen capture from an ISIS propaganda video due to WP:MUG and WP:BLP. I haven't looked at File:JackHensley.PNG before but it appears to be a Fair Use violation and likely MUG as well, though slightly less since it's not directly in someone's bio. -- GreenC 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Green Cardamom|] Mug and BLP both pertain to living persons and this person is presumed to be deceased.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP also applies to people who are recently deceased, where the death or events surrounding it are controversial. See WP:BDP. I think Sotloff's case definitely qualifies for this exception. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've change the license to "unique historic image" and included it in the page 2014 ISIL beheading incidents. I've looked at dozens of articles about his execution and this is the most commonly used image for this historical event. The original deletion justification is not longer applicable. ~Technophant (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the hostage picture. While it may be historic from a news standpoint, it fails NFC - we don't need a picture of him held hostage to understand he was held hostage. The profile picture is better justice for the person in their article, while no picture is needed on the hostage page. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must Keep The subject in this image has been deceased for quite a while, also, this is necessary because of the historical significance of the subject. Also, ISIS can't use any legal system to sue whoever posted this, theese pictures have been around for way longer than this. JhonsJoe (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Hostage Steven Sotloff held by executioner.jpg. It is unreasonable to make the same fair use claim – " for visual identification of the person in question" – for two different files. Reduce the size of File:Steven Sotloff portrait.jpg to comply with non-free content policies. Cnilep (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that File:Hostage Steven Sotloff held by executioner.jpg would be the image that more closely aligns with our policies as it represents a unique historical event. I have little/no problem with keeping that one. I don't like pulling random photos of dead guys and claiming them as fair use without making any effort whatsoever to acquire one under an appropriate license. Even if there doesn't exist one right now today, that doesn't mean that we can't reasonably expect to get one from his family, a friend, etc. But as long as we're content to just take one off of his twitter page and slap it in the infobox, there is no chance whatsoever of getting a free one. None. So I'd say strong delete of File:Steven Sotloff portrait.jpg and weak keep of File:Hostage Steven Sotloff held by executioner.jpg. --B (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Byzantine dromon reconstruction.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. The image violates WP:NFCC#1 because a free image could be created. This image was created based on research by a noted historian. Regardless of how it was created or who it was created by, it was indeed created based on information that is freely available. As such, a new free image could be created (even by a noted historian). Remember WP:NFCC#1 requires there to be a situation where both no free equivalent is available (which in this case is true) and no free equivalent could be created (it this case it could, although it may be difficult). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1: a drawing of a ship. Anyone else can make a different drawing of the same ship model. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and right on the image itself, we find "No, there is no exact representation of these ancient ships. Exact drawings through studies and research are conjectural.[1] Any self-made sketches based on these theories and diagrams would be derivative." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is never any need for non-free images of ancient ships. You will always have one of the following situations:

Contemporary images exist. Such images are in the public domain. Modern drawings therefore violate WP:NFCC#1.
Contemporary images do not exist. Any images are based on guesses or textual material. In this case, other people can create drawings based on similar guesses or the same textual material, and such drawings would serve the same purpose as other images. For this reason, all non-free images violate WP:NFCC#1 in this situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of these images would help. They are all PD (taken from books at Internet Archive). -- GreenC 16:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There is never any need for non-free images of ancient ships", sorry, but this statement is way too absolute to be accurate. If contemporary images do not exist, and most images of "dromons" to be found are fanciful reconstructions with little basis in the textual or archaeological evidence, then for reasons of accuracy and comprehensiveness we are almost obliged to include the only image of a reconstruction that actually comes from a respected naval historian and archaeologist. The image helps understanding of the ship and shows how modern scholars think it looked (i.e. it summarizes the current state of research), and it refutes the many fanciful or outdated depictions of the subject that are rather widespread in the web. "People" without a thorough grounding in medieval naval architecture and history are simply not qualified to draw up a free version of this. In so far as they follow Pryor's representation, they would simply copy his work, which as noted would be a derivative and little more. In so far as they try to interpret the evidence and create their "own" version of the ship without introducing mistakes or their own interpretations, which can be at variance with a scholarly view. Constantine ✍ 16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The views of Stefan2 (talk · contribs) are an extremist interpretation of the rules by the deletionist cabal. SV1XV (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure inflammatory personal attacks against the nominator will help Constantine's reasonable case for a Keep. -- GreenC 17:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, is this image workable so differences with Pryor could be explained in the caption. I'm not an expert but it looks pretty similar. -- GreenC 17:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom:, no, unfortunately not. This is a typical late medieval/Renaissance Mediterranean galley, an evolution of the dromon but as different from it as a modern car is to the Ford T. Still, you make my point: a layman is simply not qualified to make or judge such images, the image in question is a source in itself just as much as the book it is taken from is used, to inform the average reader about the subject. It is no different than a visual quote from it. Constantine ✍ 20:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good argument for Keep. That the caption discusses Pryor is significant, showing not just a prototypical but specific image/POV. If someone did copy Pryor's image it would likely be a copyvio or plagiarism. It might be possible for another scholar to do the same exercise, create an original image from reading the sources and release into the PD, but it would be a different interpretation/POV. -- GreenC 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear above, I'm firmly in the keep camp here, per Constantine above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No way in heck does this belong on all four pages where it is being used. User:Epipelagic/Sandbox/current1 is a user page. In Medieval ships, its use is essentially decorative - the article is a long list of ships and a lot of them have pictures. It's just clip art and there's no reason to use a non-free image there instead of a free image, even if its some other sort of ship. In droman and Byzantine navy, the caption does, at least, describe the image itself, as opposed to the image merely being used to show what a droman looks like ... so I'm more sympathetic to it being used in those two articles. Weak keep there, definitely remove from medieval ships. --B (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with me, I fully agree with your rationale. Constantine ✍ 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.