Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30[edit]

File:Baker Street Gerry Rafferty.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. Whpq (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cover art belongs to the Italian single release (discogs, 45cat, ebay (1), ebay (2)). Furthermore, the cover art itself derives from that of the Scottish singer-songwriter Gerry Rafferty's parent album City to City. One editor disputed the speedy deletion proposal mainly because it looks more suitable than a free portion of the British single release, which lacked a picture sleeve (discogs, 45cat). However, I don't strictly prefer cover arts only because they look more attractive or more appealing or anything like that, which I've seen other editors doing. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2022 (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:Ksardari.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. Whpq (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 01:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2022 (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:Gulshan Avenue from Gulshan 1.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 ⚡ 13:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created (emphasis mine), that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The image is an architectural visualization, not a photo of reality. Anyone could create a similar image of how Gulshan looks, or might look if a new building were constructed. Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The photo was agreed by consensus at DRN. How is it not reality? It shows Gulshan Avenue from the end point of Gulshan 1. Some of the tallest buildings on the avenue are in the picture, including Navana Tower and MG One tower. Navana Tower is in the distance and appears blurred after the size of the file was reduced as per Wikipedia's non-free content policy.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: you seem to suggest that Gulshan doesn't look like this? Notwithstanding the color effects on the photo itself, why would you think these buildings are not reality? Have you seen the other images on Wikimedia Commons of the same avenue? Before this photo was agreed, Gulshan Avenue.jpg was contentiously debated. I think you are displaying WP:BIAS against improvements in the article and hence pushing for deletion.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AMomen88, Mehediabedin, Nightenbelle, and Solomon The Magnifico: Agreement was reached at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 224#Economy_of_Bangladesh to use File:Gulshan Avenue 2.jpg (option 3). That file has since been deleted because there was no permission to use it. I never saw the deleted image, so I can't say whether File:Gulshan Avenue from Gulshan 1.jpg bears any resemblance to it. It is, however, a copyrighted image. Wikipedia may not use a non-free image in this context because anyone can go to Gulshan Avenue, take a photograph, and license it appropriately. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a copyrighted image and hence it was uploaded exclusively for one article under the principles of non-free content. I did not upload the deleted image. I only uploaded this image exclusively for Economy of Bangladesh in order to maintain the consensus reached at DRN. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you misunderstood the rules for non-free content. Do you now understand why you may not use in this article any copyrighted image that isn't compatibly licensed? Agreement at DRN doesn't override copyright law. But at least the discussion there produced an agreed set of characteristics that any image you try to get consensus for should have.--Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the qualifications of this image. On the point on NFCC#1, it is NOT possible for anyone to take the picture of Gulshan Avenue from the angle shown in the picture. There is no freely available alternative. This picture was taken from either a rooftop or by a drone. Rooftops are private property so everyone does not have access to the angle of the photo. Hence, it should qualify for non-free content. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. (A) Supposing that you were correct, and this were a photo (it isn't) taken from a rooftop or by a drone. The fact that it might be difficult or expensive to access the vantage point doesn't mean a free equivalent could not be created. (B) This is not a photograph, but an architectural visualization (i.e. an art work) from an architectural firm's website. By definition, architectural visualizations do not depict reality (they would be pointless if they did, since someone could just take a photograph instead). They are biased by design, intended to sell a plan to clients, regulatory agencies, lenders, neighbours, future tenants, etc. To do this they depict an idealized view of the future. Anyone can create a free equivalent. (C) An image of Gulshan Avenue from this precise vantage point is not the only image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia has managed fine for nearly two decades with many different representative images in the lead of Economy of Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence proves you are WP:BIASed. The article Economy of Bangladesh was horribly outdated before I updated its stats, lead, and history sections. The table didn't even mention export items for the last one year. How unusual was that? Bangladesh-coverage on Wikipedia can definitely be improved. I see you are from the school of thought that wants to obstruct a general improvement of Bangladesh coverage. For whatever reason or bias, you think Bangladesh coverage is perfect (it isn't). Regarding the picture, I am actually going go to this part of Gulshan Avenue tomorrow and see whether are you are right or wrong. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is of exceptionally poor quality and does not reflect an accurate portrayal of Gulshan, the image is more of an artistic impression used by an architectural firm which present an inaccurate image. As User:Worldbruce has pointed out, numerous images have been used for representation purposes on the Economy of Bangladesh article, but Solomon The Magnifico has an odd attachment to insert an image of Gulshan, so much so to make fanciful allegations. I recommend the previous image of File:Panthapath.jpg is restored, the image is ascetically pleasing, of high quality and is an accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMomen88 (talk • contribs)

Delete - DRN is not FFD, so the fact that a dispute is resolved is not a ruling on whether the image complies with the non-free content criteria. The image is a clear failure of WP:NFCC#1. The claim that only an image from the specific vantage point with this specific angle is the only image that can possibly represent the Economy of Bangladesh is nonsensical. This also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the removal of such an image would not detract from any reader's understanding of the economy of Bangladesh. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2022 (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:Donald trump the son of man the christ book 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 ⚡ 13:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly unnecessary use of non-notable copyrighted image in a page already full of images. Dronebogus (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC criteria. Plenty of other images support the article, so free equivalents are available; the cover of a non-notable book that isn't even mentioned in the article is inappropriate use of a non-free image. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (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.