Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 7

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7

File:StayingAliveSoundtrack.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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Months after merging Staying Alive (soundtrack) into Staying Alive (1983 film), there were no efforts to prove that the soundtrack's notability is independent of the film's. Also, this image is becoming similar to the film poster and less significant. I'm not convinced that deleting this image would affect the reader's understanding of the "Soundtrack" section. Readers would already understand the tracklist without the image. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2013 (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:Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon.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. While the keep arguments successfully establish that the image is unlikely enough to be replaceable that it meets WP:NFCC#1, there are nine other criteria that have also to be met, and it falls over at number 2. The use of the image here is likely to interfere with the commercial use by Getty. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getty photo [1] which does not meet the requirement for photos from commercial sources that the image itself must be the subject of commentary. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 28#File:Lady-gaga-in-meat-dress.jpg for a similar case. January (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a scaled-down fair use image used to identify a dress which is the subject of the article. A free replacement is unlikely. How exactly does it help wikipedia by removing it or are you motivated by nothing but copyright paranoia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can only understand "how the removal helps Wikipedia" if you consider the big picture of the whole encyclopedia and our third pillar, instead of just an online article about a yellow dress. Your use of the term "copyright paranoia" may show you miss the point somewhere. --damiens.rf 10:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Images like this should just be tagged with {{db-f7}} and be speedily deleted, unless they are used in an article about the photo. The subject of the article is not the photo of the dress but the dress itself, and the image therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I see the concerns here, I think this is appropriately used. Unless someone wants to break into Reese Witherspoon's storage unit (I'M JOKING ABOUT THIS. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING SO), take a free-use photograph of the dress, and somehow not get caught by Security, I fail to see how you can replace this image with one which illustrates the subject of the article. Much of the point of these celebrity dress articles is about the effect made by the wearer in the dress, something that is not possible to explain with just a picture of the dress. Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The keep arguments seem to be focusing on WP:NFCC#1, but that's not the issue. The problem is that it's a photo agency (Getty) image, for which we have an additional requirement that it can only be used where the photo itself (emphasis mine) is the subject of sourced commentary. January (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Getty charges for the use of this photo. It's a clear violation of NFCC#2. That's true even though the photo is not replaceable, and the dress is the subject of the article. Despite all that, use of this photo is clearly against our policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Direct WP:NFCC#2 failure. Keep arguments are just saying the photo is useful to Wikipedia and that a free replacement is impossible. But passing WP:NFCC#1 does not exempt the image from WP:NFCC#2 (and from any other of the 10 criteria, by the way). --damiens.rf 10:18, 17 January 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:Jennifer-lopez-green-versace-dress.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source this was taken from failed to credit it properly, it is in fact a Reuters (and therefore a commercial agency) photo [2]. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 28#File:Lady-gaga-in-meat-dress.jpg for a similar case. January (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the dress appearance of the dress is one of the major factor that made that event notable. It's a visual issue that a description cannot do justice to sufficiently. That, plus a lack of a free alternative, as well as meeting all the rest of NFCC criteria, means the photo should not be deleted. - thewolfchild 17:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from press agencies can only be used if the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary (see WP:NFC#UUI#7) which is not the case here. January (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a whole article on it See Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez - thewolfchild 22:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs to be removed from Jennifer Lopez because it can be replaced by a free image (and it only needs to be on the article you mentioned) and removed from Latin American music in the United States because there is no rationale and can be replaced by a free image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... does that mean your vote is to
Keep? If so, it would helpful if you added it here. I have no problem with your comment by the way, there is a difference between removing from "some" pages, and deleting the image altogether. - thewolfchild 00:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fixed rationale and removed from Jennifer Lopez. The pictured subject (the dress) itself is the main topic. Omitting it is demeaning to the essence of the topic, and using an image of the Versace dress won't help readers find what they are looking for or truly identify the topic itself. @ТимофейЛееСуда: You can amend your comments and add your vote. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting, I was just making a comment. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press agency photo, for which the requirements are significantly stricter than for other non-free media because of WP:NFCC#2. It has to be the photo itself, not just the pictured subject (the dress) which is the subject of sourced commentary. This is an important distinction which the keep votes have not taken into consideration. Please see the Lady Gaga example I linked above, note that the Getty image was eventually replaced in Lady Gaga's meat dress with an image from a non-agency source. January (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#2: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."

- It's not. - thewolfchild 18:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found photos from Associated Press: photo 1 photo 2 photo 3 photo 5 photo 6. Nowhere is the main photo found. https://pictures.reuters.com/ is mainly inaccessible to non-business viewers. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has encyclopedic use. Unless Reuters specifically objects I cannot see why anybody would make a thing of this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not how we deal with non-free content here. If it fails our criteria, we remove it. It's not just about being "legal" or not being complained about. --damiens.rf 10:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Images like this should just be tagged with {{db-f7}} and be speedily deleted, unless they are used in an article about the photo. The subject of the article is not the photo of the dress but the dress itself, and the image therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue the same thing about all movie posters being used to illustrate a film article rather than an article about the film poster and album covers being used to illustrate albums rather than articles about the album covers themselves. It's pretty petty isn't it? If you don't see that photographs have certain value in an encyclopedic sense then you've probaaly lost track of what wikipedia is really supposed to be about. Rarely are photographs of anything taken which result in commentary on the photograph itself, it is almost always the product in a photograph which matters and why it is used. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC#UUI#7 only applies to press and photo agency images, it doesn’t affect posters or album covers. January (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As said elsewhere, much of the point of these celebrity dress articles is about the effect made by the wearer in the dress, something that is not possible to explain with just a picture of the dress. Bearing this in mind, I tried to take a picture of the Fashion Museum's version of the dress, but it did not come out in sufficiently good quality to use. Plus, it does not illustrate the effect made by the wearer in the dress, something that is not possible to illustrate except in a photograph of the actual wearer. Mabalu (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that's not the problem. The only reason I nominated this was that it fails WP:NFC#UUI#7 because it originated from a press agency. An image from a non-agency source would probably be fine. January (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What about a cropped screengrab from something such as this? The quality wouldn't be the same, but it would still show the moment and the effect. (Edited to add - Obviously a better quality video should be used for the screengrab...) Mabalu (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised not to capture a shot from illegitimate source. Here's the legitimate link: http://www.grammy.com/videos/42nd-annual-grammy-awards-best-rb-album. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK, Lady Gaga's meat dress uses a TV screenshot and it hasn't been challenged. January (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You barely see the dress in that legitmate link - I found another one on the site which might work, but it only shows the upper part, and you kind of need to see the whole thing for the full effect. Also tracked down my pic of the dress on display in the Fashion Museum and it is HIDEOUS. Absolutely unusable - murky, dark, foggy, just horrible and worthless. Mabalu (talk)

Delete The dress is currently on display at the Grammy Museum in LA. Someone should go take a good photo of it. That will be a suitable photo for the article, and we can always have an external link showing the dress actually on Jennifer Lopez. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this clearly violates NFCC#2 (and probably #1 as well). – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how NFCC#2 is "clearly violated". (and "probably" doesn't count, so we'll skip that argument) - ^theWOLFchild 23:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Quadell's comment in the deletion discussion above. The same applies to Reuters, they're a commercial news agency. January (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that still does not explain how having this image within the article, "replaces the original market role", according to him or you. - ^theWOLFchild 10:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC) (exclusionism and censorship are getting way outta hand here)[reply]

It has a market role because agencies normally charge for editorial use of their photos, and we're using the photo in the same manner that Reuters would normally charge for. January (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is from 14 years ago. WP certainly wasn't using it then. And no one is paying for it now. I really don't think nfcc#2 is an issue. I think we should just let this go. - ^theWOLFchild 15:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being from 14 years ago makes no difference, it's copyright of an agency who charge licensing fees to use their work. January (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't use images from photo agencies just because they're useful for us. It fails WP:NFCC#2 exactly because the agency has the commercial opportunity to charge the use of this photo by websites and printed publications. That opportunity becomes more valuable fro the fact that the photo is somehow rare/unique. --damiens.rf 10:40, 17 January 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:What.....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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:49, 7 September 2013 (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.