Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16

File:Netposter1995.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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image fails WP:NFCC#8, when used on The Net (1995 film). d'oh! _talk 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the promotional poster for the film would be detrimental for the article? Errr...no. Might as well remove every single promotional film poster. Quentin X (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is overwhelming precedent to display "cover art" for media like this, may it be books, films, or albums. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik; it is very common to place the theatrical poster of a movie on its article. This is arguably the same as placing the cover of a book on the article regarding that book, or placing the video game box art of a video game on the article regarding that video game. Theatrical posters provide a visual as to the "identity" of the movie (as they are advertised using the poster), and as such, successfully identify the subject, which is the purpose of fair-use images when it comes to books, games, movies, etc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly in keeping with WP:NFCC, and frankly a trout slap for the nominator as this seems to be a bit of a WP:POINTy nomination after he tried to resize the image to be larger in the infobox,[1] was reverted,[2] and now is trying to remove it[3]? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT doesn't apply here since I am not trying to make a point. I resize the image to use it as a example on my request here. I agree with the revert as there is still no WP:Consensus on the image size, even after the example was used. But I am worried that the image is not inline with WP:NFCC#8 which is why we are here. d'oh! _talk 17:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So while simultaneously arguing that all images in Film infoboxes (which are always posters or home video covers) should be bigger, you are arguing that their use violates WP:NFCC#8 because you feel having such images is not necessary to give the film context? That would seem to be making this image an example case to then go through and delete every film poster and DVD cover under the same argument? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)r[reply]
    - No, I didn't say all images in film infoboxes violates WP:NFCC#8, I said I am worried only about this one. Since I didn't see all other articles I have no idea if those images violates WP:NFCC#8. Also just because this image might violate WP:NFCC#8 doesn't mean every other film poster and DVD cover violates WP:NFCC#8. d'oh! _talk 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid I'm just not following your argument then. How does this specific image fail WP:NFCC#8 versus any other film poster and DVD cover? What makes it unique versus any other one that it is somehow a violation where any other one is not? What exactly makes it a violation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NFCC point 8 says "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", the article doesn't talk about the poster or anything on it, as such it presence doesn't increase readers' understanding of the topic and it omission doesn't harm the readers' understanding, so it fails #8 of WP:NFCC. On other articles this may not be the case, but on this article I believe this is the case. d'oh! _talk 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Gezzza, WP:NFCI says that the following is appropriate, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Basically, if you had a film article that was only an infobox and two sentences, then cover art would not be appropriate. However, it's better to provide critical commentary in that stub of an article so the cover art does not have to be wiped out. That is not the case with The Net, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: WP:NFCI specifically allows cover art of items like albums, films, etc. in infoboxes in the context of critical commentary of the item, which The Net (1995 film) has (granted, the article needs to be expanded with more info on the production, critical reaction, & impact of the film, but it does have enough content already to be considered start-class). The nom seems to be under the mistaken understanding that NFCI requires critical commentary of the poster itself; it doesn't...it requires critical commentary of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my deletion request as per Erik and IllaZilla comments. d'oh! _talk 02:23, 17 July 2010 (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:Colton Harris-Moore.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'Delete' - replaceable fair use - Peripitus (Talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been recent opportunities to take a free photograph of this individual. Was tagged as such, however given this is a borderline case, I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) There have been many recent opportunities to photograph him, and there will be many more. When he departs Miami, when he arrives in Seattle, when he appears in court there, possible bail, ongoing trial, and then sentencing hearings. All of these can be opportunities to photograph him. (2) Many people have photographed him since he was apprehended in the Bahamas; [4] [5] [6][7] [8][9] [10]. There's even a photo gallery. Here, there's a video of him through the streets of Nassau and it's blatantly obvious from the video that plenty of people are around. This was just Nassau. Photo after photo after photo after photo. (3) WP:NFCC #1 says that if an image is replaceable, we can't use it. To quote, "or could be created". I guess all those photographers were doing something impossible then if this is not replaceable? It's blatantly apparent that it is possible. (4) He isn't going to be sentenced to life. Here's two different estimates of his ultimate sentence [11][12]. His notoriety is not based on his current appearance, but on his actions. Obtaining a free license image of him when he gets out of prison will be possible and applicable here. (5) The Foundation takes a very dim view of using non-free content for living people. Read #3 of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy; "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". We do not retain non-free content hoping for the day when free content is available. (6) The question isn't whether it's available now, but whether it can reasonably be created. I've shown above multiple photos by multiple photographers. What more proof do you need? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is probably more of a comment than a vote, since it really doesn't matter what I think because Hammersoft is going to oppose it anyway and will apparently never allow fair use in the article (see Talk:Colton Harris-Moore#Photo for the discussion on this). Anyway, while the technical copyright on the image does appear to belong to Colton Harris-Moore, fair use should still apply to the image since it clearly depicts the subject in the act of fleeing from the police. While no specific or obvious crime is depicted in the photo, the act of fleeing and hiding from authorities is itself a crime, and worthy of portraying here. Furthermore, an image of the subject taking afterwards isn't a suitable substitute -- virtually every "opportunity" to take a free image afterwards has resulted in photos of the subject attempting to hide from the camera, with his head down, so those replacements are not suitable in depicting the subject's appearance. A photo taken several years later will also not be relevant to this article anymore, since the subject will have aged several years and may not even be, or desire to be, in the public eye anymore (the use of earlier images in cases like this is allowable under Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines). Furthermore, since the subject is incarcerated, photo opportunities of the subject are going to be very limited, most likely available to members of the press and media (who will copyright their images, so they won't be free). Cameras are typically not allowed in courtrooms, so taking a photo in a courtroom will find the photographer in contempt of court. The likelihood of your average wikipedian taking a better photo than this is more than likely to be astronomical.

It should also be pointed out that the image in question is being used by numerous other media agencies, including the FBI in their wanted poster. If a branch of the federal government doesn't respect Harris-Moore's "copyright" on the image, explain to me why Wikipedia should? WTF? (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominen attack on me aside, the image as you note does not depict a specific crime nor any act of fleeing. Guessing as to whether cameras will be allowed in the court room is just that; a guess. The argument regarding an image several years later being non-useful is in my opinion empty. As I noted, his appearance is not what has made him notorious. Many, many actor's biographies here do not have non-free images of them in younger acting years, yet there appearance is more important to their fame than Colton's. Betty White began acting in 1939. The earliest photo we have of her is 1992. Harrison Ford started 1966; earliest we have 2007. Burt Reynolds started 1959; earliest we have is 1991. And on and on and on and on. If Colton's appearance is so crucial to understanding the biography of him, what is it about his appearance that is significant and supportable via secondary sources that we have to have a non-free image to depict it? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely stating that I believe my opinion does not matter because I don't think you'll allow fair-use in an article was not intended as an attack on you. WTF? (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPA: "This page in a nutshell: Comment on the content, not on the contributor." You've maintained a pattern of attack me and continued it here by asserting your derogatory opinion of me as a prelude to your argument to keep this image. It is unnecessary. I'm not interested in further meta debating with you about the nature of personal attacks. You know what you're doing. Attacking people does not add weight to your arguments. Rather, the opposite. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information The image in question was just posted with an article on Harris-Moore today by CNN – [13]. If you look at the image there, it is attributed to Getty Images, an online provider of stock photography. Their website shows that they offer both "rights-managed" and "royalty-free" images. Though it's unclear from the CNN article whether the image is "royalty-free" or not, it seems to me like, if it is, we should be able to use it with no problems. WTF? (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where on that link that the image is attributed to Getty Images. Even if it were, it's improper. They do not hold copyright to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the upper right corner of the image hosted by CNN. WTF? (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting it. It's still inaccurate though. They are not the source or rights holder. Even if they were, royalty-free does not mean its license is compatible with Wikipedia. So no, we can't use it with no problems if it is royalty free. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing complicated here. In the absence of clear and conclusive evidence that this image of a BLP subject has a free license compatible with Wikipedia requirements, the image should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1. Subject is no longer a fugitive and has been photographed by others, so until/unless circumstances change a free image can be created even if one hasn't been created yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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:Acharya sri Mahashramanji.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 20:46, 16 July 2010 (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.