Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8

File:Utah Jazz wordmark logo 2016.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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a png image of the vector version that is currently available. It is also an attempt to use the primary logo, even though we can't. There is a slight difference between this file and the svg file, but regardless they are the same image. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that only Public Domain files can be used in the rivalry articles, which this one is not. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:45, 8 June 2017 (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:Stmartins04.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Better photos in Commons:Category:Church of St Martin, Worle. Kelly ^hi! 10:36, 8 June 2017 (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:William H. Hudnut III Birthday Party October 1978.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work but metadata indciates "When quoting or referring to materials in the collection, please cite the University of Indianapolis Digital Mayoral Archives. No reproductions or other uses without permission." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2017 (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:Alan kurdi smiling playground.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: no consensus. Seems like the delete case - being a bit reliant on re-litigating a previous discussion - doesn't carry the day as there are legit arguments in favour of keeping. I expect that this will go to FFD again, though Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific image not discussed in article to meet NFCC8. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 21#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shows face of the late Alan Kurdi in a neutral context, and this second nomination without additional grounds is an abuse of process. Here is a link to NFCC8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC requires this specific image to be the subject of critical commentary in the article. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The picture of Kurdi lying lifelessly on the beach does not show the person in a neutral context. Besides, there is a neutral portrait of Jeremy Mardis on his page as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is not a free one, "neutral context" does not matter. The NFCC do not use the word "neutral". Please find another argument, or !vote delete. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regrettably, per ViperSnake. Dura lex, sed lex. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous closing admin - leaning keep. I believe this nomination statement and Daniel Case's argument are mis-representing NFCC 8. NFCC 8 requires non-free media to provide significant context whose omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article. It does not require the article to discuss the specific image. I don't feel strongly about this image one way or another, but as closing admin of the previous discussion I should point out that NFCC 8 had already been argued out in the previous FFD. Therefore, I agree with George (who had participated in the previous RfD) that the nomination statement had not offered significant additional grounds for deletion. Deryck C. 09:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I don't see what context this image can provide. The article has maybe one sentence about his childhood, that he is "believed to have been born" around 2012. It says nothing about him having a happy childhood or not, and even if it did I do not see why the words would require a picture. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the previous FFD, I'd summarise that the picture provided significant context to the question "who was Alan Kurdi". Deryck C. 10:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ViperSnake. If I had seen the previous discussion I would have elected to delete then as well, it's a pretty clear WP:NFCC#8 failure in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 11:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said in previous FFD nom, even when an image is not specifically discussed, this image should balance readers' minds about the article and the subject. The infobox (corpse) image should not be the only image illustrating the topic in question. Indeed, the corpse image was discussed at Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi#Removing the photo for its disturbing content. Even when WP:NOTMEMORIAL might apply, other rules would outweigh more, like WP:NPOV and WP:Offensive material. The NFCC has been used to encourage free content. However, obtaining permission to freely use this image may not be easy, even by email. ~~As for the happy, living image,~~ if the corpse image is too inappropriate and replaceable, nominate it for FFD, so the happy image can be used instead. Otherwise, no sense on taking this image out and giving readers only the disturbing one. --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC); struck redundancy, 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since the "other stuff exists" argument has been discouraged, I guess I must focus on images of Kurdi instead. The topic is neither an album with a graphic artwork nor a film with a graphic poster. The topic is the death of a Syrian toddler. Showing the corpse image alone would spark more negative reactions as seen in the article talk page and lead to questions about consistency with other articles not displaying such disturbing, graphic content. However, to make the happy, cheerful image free to use, I have to ask one of the kid's surviving relatives, i.e. his aunt or father. I contacted the Kurdi Foundation about reaching them, so I'm awaiting its response. Meanwhile, even when it's not a biography, the article may still need an image. There's also WP:NOT#NEWS, yet the corpse image may have some encyclopedic value because the disturbing image itself is covered by reliable sources. Also, the article is written in an encyclopedic tone... I hope, despite the disturbing nature of the topic and how newsworthy the topic was at the start. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 00:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Update - I received an email from the kid's aunt, so I sent her a reply about this image. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, nearly one month later, I've not received a response from her or the kid's father or the foundation. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2017 (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:Victor Lustig.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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commons:File:Victor Lustig.jpg is marked as not copyrighted and is about the same topic. Copyright renewals are not my strong skill so checking here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested speedy deletion of the file hosted here, as the free equivalent on Commons seems to be legit. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:35, 8 June 2017 (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:Strade Bianche logo.svg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very similar Commons file of the same name was deemed uncopyrightable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 8 June 2017 (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.