Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21[edit]

Non-free sign board photos[edit]

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. ✗plicit 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two non-free files of business sign boards whose non-free uses fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in their respective articles. I'm combining the two file into a single discussion because they were uploaded by the same person and the reasons they need to be discussed are essentially the same. Even though the sign boards themseleves are probably not eligible for copyright protection on their own per c:COM:TOO United States, the photographs of the signs are probably still protected by copyright which means the files need to be treated as non-free and thus are subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If, however, it can be established that the photos themselves are either WP:PD for some reason, have be released by their copyright holders under a free license that Wikipedia accepts or copyright holder WP:CONSENT can be obtained, then their respective licenses can be changed accordingly and the files kept.

File:Gallery Nature Morte street sign NYC.jpg is being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Peter Nagy (artist)#Career as gallerist and the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 is lacking. The file seems to have been originally used in Gallery Nature Morte, but that article was converted to a redirect per Talk:Gallery Nature Morte#Name drops and the file was moved to the Nagy article as part of the post-redirect cleanup. However, the redirect completely changes the justification for the file's non-free use because now the file is no longer being used for primary identification purposes at the top of an "article dedicated to the entity in question" as claimed in its non-free use rationale. If the rationale could simply be revised to reflect the file's new non-free use, then that would be fine; however, there's no real justification for using this in the Nagy article. The sign board itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary and it basically just shows the name of the gallery which is something the reader is more than capable of understanding through text alone per WP:FREER. Omitting the file the article doesn't really detrimentally affect the reader's understanding of Nagy or the content about the gallery in that particular section; so, there's really no loss of encyclopedic information and there's no way to keep this file unless the photo itself can be converted to a free or PD license.

File:Max's Kansas City street signs.jpg has similar NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 issues. This file is being used in the main infobox of Max's Kansas City as it's rationale states, but there are still FREER issues in that this is basically nothing other than a photograph showing the club's name. The photo actually appears to be a crop of a much larger photo shown here, which actually might have more contextual relevance than simply a photo of the sign board and a partial storefront. The reader doesn't need to see a non-free photo of the sign board to know what the name of the club was per FREER and none of the other information provided by the photo really significantly improves the reader's understanding in any way; so, once again, omitting the file isn't going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding what's written in the article. If the club's sign board was unique or otherwise a copyright-protected creative work in some way, then perhaps it would be easier to justify its non-free use; that, however, isn't really the case with respect to this file. So, once I again, I don't see how this file can be kept if there's no way to convert its licensing to a free or PD license.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2021 (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:NSYNC in 1998.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this up for discussion based on some things pointed out in a more general discussion at WT:NFCC#Non-free photos of no longer existing bands. While there are some WP:NFCC#1 issues that need to be resolved, it was also pointed out by Whpq that there may be some WP:NFCC#2 issues with the file as well. All it takes is for one of the ten non-free content criteria to be found non-compliant for a non-free use to be considered non-free compliant, but NFCC#2 issues are particularly difficult to resolve per and such files can actually be speedily deleted immediately per WP:F7. This particular file is sourced to Billboard and it can be seen here. It was pointed out though that there's a good chance that this photo didn't originate with Billboard, but rather came from Getty Images and is attributed as "Steve Eichner/Getty Images". Getty Images are pretty much never allowed to be used for non-free content except as explained mutltiple times in WP:NFCI unless the image itself is the subject of critical commentary. That's also a requirement of WP:NFCC#8 per WP:NFC#CS, and there doesn't seem to be any such content anywhere to be found throughout the article. It's not enough to discuss the band or how it might've looked at the time; it's this actual image itself that needs to be subject of critical commentary. This file was uploaded in November 2018 and then added to the article with this this edit. It replaced the wordmark logo File:'N Sync Logo.svg appraently due to WikiProject guidance. That's fine except that a community-wide policy like WP:NFCC cannot be superseded by a WikiProject guideline per WP:CONLEVEL. So, unless the NFCC#2 issues are resolved (Getty has been known to claim copyright ownership over other peoples images), this file cannot be kept. Whether another non-free file can be uploaded to replace it has more to do with NFCC#1 than NFCC#2, but such a photo would still need to meet all ten WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#2. The image is credited to Getty by Billboard in the popup caption. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary, and Getty clearly is getting revenue from the licensing of this image as shown by its use in the Billboard article which is used to illustrate the band and is the exact same purpose used in the Wikipedia article. Although Getty has in instances falsly claimed ownership over photos, it does not seem likely in this case. Steve Eichner is a professional photographer with thousands of photos licensed through Getty. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2021 (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:Minóy cassette cover.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minóy cassette cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File was prodded for deletion for the following reason:

There are a couple of problems with this file. Even though Minóy is deceased and non-free images of deceased persons can be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as WP:FREER isn't an issue, this is actually a piece of cover art which is typically not allowed to be used in such a way per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. This would be OK to use for primary identification purposes at the top of a stand-alone article about the cassette in question (if one exists), but not generally for identifying the artist Minóy himself. If this could be somehow cropped so that it slowed only Minóy, then perhaps that would receive the cover art question per se; however, the part showing only Minóy has, at least in my opinion, very little encyclopedic value for primary identification purposes. So, there's no point in keeping it even as a crop. A Google search of images of Minóy shows a number of other possible images that might be OK to use instead of this as long as there are no FREER issues, but perhaps one of them is actually within the public domian or released under a free license that Wikimedia accepts which make using a non-free unnecessary.

The file was subsequently deprodded by the uploader with this edit; so, I'm bringing it here to FFD for further discussion. The uploader has stated that its possible that this file has been released under a CC 3.0 license and if it can be shown that it has been released under one of these CC licenses, then the file can be probably be relicensed and kept. It still would not be appropriate for primary identification purposes in the main infobox in my opinion, but it could be moved to the body of the article. If it can't be shown to have been released under an acceptable free license, then it needs to remain non-free and thus would be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a free license would require proof which is not currently in evidence. As an image for visual identification of the subject, this is image is not suitable. The photo was clearly taken as an art shot or the cover with motion blur making the subject's features indistinct. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whpq: Just want to point out that the uploader posted a link on their user talk page which does show the same photograph being used on the cover a book, but the also shows that the book has, unfortunately, been released under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license; so, it looks as if this still needs to be non-free absent anything else showing something different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2021 (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:Overwatch loot box.gif[edit]

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: relisted on 2021 October 10. FASTILY 09:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Easter Vigil in Altoona, PA.PNG[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Used here in 2014. Is this the same file as the deleted c:File:Easter Vigil in Altoona, PA.PNG? Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (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.