Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21

File:Rodger small.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.

Many of the keep arguments have been discounted for poor or lack of rationale, and there were also four from unregistered users, which are traditionally given less weight. In particular, "it does no harm" is neither a reason for keeping nor necessarily true, as in the past we have had cases where NFCC#2 has come into play on non-free images; most famously on JD Salinger. We also had an argument that "NFCC says to use non-free photos in one place... this is the one article that discussed the person depicted" and that the picture is "iconic". This is so confused as to policy that I am unable to take it into account either. Nor can I take into account "literally every photo of people on Wikipedia doesn't add anything" nor "people ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki [sic] page".

On the deletion side, we have a "per nom" which I give lower weight to, but the nominator, User:Stefan2, and User:Marchjuly have made the point that the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (which, remember, is a series of crimes, and not the person depicted in the image) and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. This point has been made successfully by the "delete" side and has not been successfully refuted; it therefore follows that deletion is the correct outcome.

As with all my deletion discussion closures, I have carefully considered my position and all the arguments before closing, and if you feel my closure does not follow deletion process, please list directly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive the requirement to consult with me prior to doing so.

Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, an image of a perpetrator does not help readers grasp the killings done by the perpetrator himself. In fact, a reader may understand the killings without this image and search this image outside Wikipedia. Other discussions similar to this resulted in "delete"; this image may share the same fate. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't make any harm at all. Also an image lets the reader fully grasp how the perpetrator looks like, for instance, what's his race like (being not fully white played a big role in his grievances). --87.110.93.102 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any harm from including the image, and I see possible benefits. The murderer Eliot Rodger said that women did not find him attractive, so I was vaguely curious what he looked like. Since he mentioned his own appearance, I think it is reasonable to include his photograph in an encyclopedia. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The second 'keep' brings up an interesting point, so additional comments to better evaluate consensus here would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 07:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally agree that illustrating/identifying the topic of a section is not a good claim of meeting WP:NFCC#8 seeing as the policy is about the article topic not the topic of a section. Now, I see that the aspect of Rodger's appearance is discussed in a sourced quotation by him and may improve the understanding of the motive part enough to meet NFCC#8. But I'd like a second opinion on this - and the NFUR would need to be changed if accepted since currently it refers to identifying the subject, not his appearance.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As suggested in comments above, the picture does no harm and the appearance of the perpetrator is a very important part of his story, because he was concerned about it and felt it was a major part of why he was rejected by others, especially women. This perceived rejection is what eventually drove him to commit the murders. 2001:14BB:110:2BFF:C1BA:B489:4DD2:E614 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)— 2001:14BB:110:2BFF:C1BA:B489:4DD2:E614 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "Does no harm" is not a valid reason to include non-free content. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-free pictures should normally only be used in an article about the person himself. The article 2014 Isla Vista killings is not an article about the person, and there is no need to see a picture of him to understand the shooting event. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.61.170 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — 24.59.61.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: I agree with what others not in favor of keeping this image have written above. As currenlty used, I don't see how this file meets WP:NFCC#8. Rogers is dead, but the article is not really a stand-alone biography about him, so a non-free photo (No. 10 of WP:NFCI) is not really needed for identification purposes. Moreover, the discussion about his appearence seems to be only in general terms and related to his feelings of lonliness and his apparent lack of success in getting girls/women to notice him. All of his feelings were his subjective reading of the situation, so there's no way to ascertain any of that from the screenshot. It's hard (at least for me) to even tell whether he was of mixed race from just looking at that image. If there was something really distinguishing about Rodger's appearance such as a horrible scar or some other kind of physical deformity and this was discussed in reliable sources, then seeing the image might be relevant to understand what caused Rodger to act as he did. That, however, does not seem to be the case here. To me this usage seems more decorative than not and, although it would probably be fine for a stand-alone article about Rodger's "Retirbution" video (if one existed), it does not seem really needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It doesn't add anything, but literally every photo of people on wikipedia doesn't add anything. People ought to know what police look like without viewing a wiki page, and why have a picture of some old King? --- Foia req (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add anything seems to be the very definition of decorative use which is something not allowed at all for a non-free image such as this per WP:NFCC. There's a difference between the way Wikipedia treats a freely licensed photo of some old king and a non-free photo of some old king. The former can be pretty much used anywhere on Wikipedia if it satisfies WP:IUP and there's a local consensus to use it; the latter, however, must comply with WP:NFCCP for each use, in addition to WP:IUP and there being a local consensus to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is from a video which was widely shared by journalists in discussing the events in the article. This is an iconic image that has been used to illustrate some of the most unusual aspects of this event. It is only used in one Wikipedia article, which is the rule. WP:NFCC does not say to only use non-free photos of people in articles about them, as some are suggesting. Instead, it says only use non-free photos in one place when discussing the person. Right now, this is the one article that discusses the person depicted. If for some reason this image needed to be in a biography about the person, then the section on this person could be spun off into its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that non-free content must be used in at least one article, but there's no rule that says a no-free file can be used in only one article. All that WP:NFCC#3 requires is that usage may be minimal, and there are cases where a non-free image is being properly used in multiple articles. The arguments against the file usage as I see them are that its current usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It's not enough that the article discusses Rogers since the the article itself is not only about Rogers. The section about him should discuss the non-free image itself to a such degree that not seeing the screenshot would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Finally, I disagree that this is an iconic image, and least in the context of Wikipedia (see No. 8 of WP:NFCI). The fact that the screenshot may have been used by various news organziations as part of their reports does not necessarily make it iconic for our purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (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:Planet nine artistic images.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 as G7 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure this "temporary image" does not become permanent: This image has been created for discussing which image to use on Planet Nine and has been posted on Talk:Planet Nine. The leftmost image is one that has been repeatedly deleted from Commons and Wikipedia because there is no evidence that it's freely licensed (it does not fall under the scope of {{PD-NASA}} or the IPAC image policy because its creation seems independent from them, see Commons discussion). The others may or may not qualify as derivative works of that one (Commons discussion). Thus, we cannot keep this image for long as it's likely a non-free derivative work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it can be deleted now. The discussion on the related images are completed. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2016 (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:WP Ring 2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image may violate WP:NFCC#8 as it isn't contributing much to understanding the subject of United States Military Academy. It also shadows a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. The ring seems to be a work of the United States Government, but we are missing a licence from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2016 (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:Voldemort in movie 1 (2).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion fails WP:NFCC#8. It shouldn't be two difficult to describe a head with an extra face on the back of it - for sure JKR managed to do it - and so this doesn't add anything significant to the article. BethNaught (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (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.

List of political parties in the Czech Republic

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: Keep. The images have been removed from the list articles and have (now) adequate non-free use rationales. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in Green Party (Czech Republic) and Severočeši.cz in addition to List of political parties in the Czech Republic. non-free use rationales have been provided for each usage, but WP:NFCC only seems satisfied for the stand-alone articles about each respective organization. Files are being used in a table of parlimentary parties in "List of political parties in the Czech Republic". Such usage is generally not-allowed per WP:NFTABLES (and WP:NFLISTS) because it tends to primary decorative and does not contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. The other images in the table are freely licensed from Commons so they are not subject to the NFCC. If these two are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection ({{PD-logo}}) or can be converted to a free license (for example, {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-USonly}} {{PD-Czech}} or {{PD-CzechGov}}, etc.), they can be used in the same manner as the freely locensed ones. If they stay non-free, however, then I suggest keep for the stand-alone articles and remove from the list article. For reference, I think the files can be linked to as was previously done in a previous version in the same article, but they should not be displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both files have been removed from List of political parties in the Czech Republic by another editor, who also removed the non-free use rationales for the article from the files' pages. So, the non-free concerns mentioned above have been addressed. Not sure though if this thread can just be deleted, or if it's best to wait until it's formally closed by an admin because there still is the question of whether these can be converted to PD. If the latter, then I suggest that whomever adds the {{oldffdfull}} to the files' talk pages specifically mention that the non-free usage of each file only is OK for their stand-alone articles, unless the consensus is to convert to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably play safe and consider the compass and leaf as potentially copyrightable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 19 March 2016 (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:Warming by the devils fire.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2016 (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:DVD cover of the movie Feel Like Going Home.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (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:KCSC-Warning.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFLISTS in Internet censorship and surveillance by country and I'm not sure that it is needed in Internet censorship in South Korea either. What does a page with text in Korean add to the average English Wikipedia user who can't read the text? Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (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:Sobachye.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All FURs are incomplete and thus invalid. The picture additionally seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in all articles for which there is a FUR. Additionally, the file seems to fail WP:NFCC#10c in a bunch of articles. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2016 (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:Karl Guthe Jansky radio telescope.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (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.