Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

File:Morristownlatin.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, rotated image, unencyclopedic, long absent user Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2020 (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:Admiral Aurangzeb Chowdhury, Bangladesh Navy.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by আফতাবুজ্জামান with the reason "non-free copyrighted, not own work, not PD". FASTILY 05:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The first two images are claimed to be PD because they are copyright exempt in the country of origin. There is no proper explanation provided as to why they are exempt. They are from the Bangladesh navy and Bangladesh police. Presumably, the exemption is based on being government works. c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bangladesh indicates Bangladesh government works are copyrighted. The third image is from a copyrighted web news web site. It claimed to be under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license but there is no CC license anywhere on the source site. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including below one. Bangladesh government works are copyrighted and as user:whpq already said, there is no CC license anywhere on the source site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2020 (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:Air Chief Marshal Masihuzzaman Serniabat.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by আফতাবুজ্জামান with the reason "non free copyrighted file". FASTILY 05:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Image is claimed to be PD because it is copyright exempt in the country of origin. There is no proper explanation provided as to why it is exempt. It is from the Bandaldesh air force. Presumably, the exemption is based on being government work. c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bangladesh indicates Bangladesh government works are copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2020 (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:Katherine Liddy.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mugshot (scanned?) of possibly notable individual, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uploader hasn't edited in years and does not have email enabled so we can't place a query regarding the photo's origin. From what we can see, this looks dodgy enough that it should go. Schwede 66 18:57, 7 February 2020 (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:Jupiter.SouthStation.agr.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. Per nomination. If the museum come back with an acceptable licence the image can be restored. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing contextual significance in the article it is used in FASTILY 05:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Used decoratively. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The model is discussed in the article. Also I have contacted the Museum of Science requisiting their permission to use the image under CC-BY license. I would risk that any action be delayed at least a week until I receive a response. I will inform this discussion when I receive a response either way.--agr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2020 (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:Docrankin1921selfport.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused, superior version available: File:Docrankinselfportrait3.png FASTILY 05:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2020 (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:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logo being used in a decorative manner in CKQQ-FM#History which fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Non-free logos can sometimes be used, but the long standing consensus is that the logos themselves, not the former station, needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary for such non-free use to be justified. This was originally prodded for deletion, but deprodded here with the claim that the logo might actually be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. That is something which might be good to discuss since this appears to be borderline per both c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO Canada. Canada's TOO in particular seems to be close to that followed by the US, but still have parts that reflect the much lower TOO followed by the UK and this would not be PD in the UK. Perhaps {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be an option here; if, however, the file needs to remain licensed as WP:NFC#non-free content, then I don't think it meets WP:NFCCP as currently used and should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wrong venue
(1) Non-free fair use is a perfectly valid rationale for English Wikipedia, and we should not be trying to steamroll logos to the Commons;
(2) the nom, while the nomination is in good-faith, provides no links to supposed consensus so we can properly interpret as to whether the consensus was overly broad as to apply in this case (note: the logos were converted from a separate gallery section to in-text references that provide contextually significant and concise history as to the station's history); and,
(3) it's not the proper venue because, frankly, this should be discussed at the village pump in order to obtain new, updated, and more specific and narrow consensus to remove all former logos of North American and, indeed, the world's radio stations in a series of mass, batch deletions. Cherry-picking these isn't the right approach, and I think Bearcat's input is warranted here, given that this is his area of specialty and he update, maintain, and create a lot of radio station articles (and I mean a lot). Doug Mehus T·C 21:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "wrong venue" part because this is actually the community page venue where all files, including non-free files, are discussed. If you'd like you can post a {{Please see}} at the WP:VP or even at WT:NFCC since that's the relevant talk page for the policy, but this is the venue where files are discussed. This logo was initially in an image gallery and then moved into the body of the article, but that still doesn't make them automatically compliant with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Also, please be careful with WP:CANVASS by trying to add pings to others in this discussion in your comments. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, One, it's not canvassing when one pings an editor without having any idea as to how that editor would respond. Bearcat may support deletion, support keeping, agree or disagree as to the wrong venue, or any other possibility; his input is invaluable, frankly, given the amount of editing he does to North American radio station articles. You've not specifically cited how the established consensus applies to former radio station logos; you're attempting to apply WP:NFCC#8 broadly; moreover, if local consensus exists elsewhere (i.e., to North American radio stations) to keep the former logos, that's perfectly reasonable.
In any case, unless you intend to mass-nominate every radio station article's former logos in one, batch nomination, I think this is the wrong venue to pick on one radio station.
Finally, I should note that I'm not opposed to reasonable alternatives to deletion, which include resizing the image to an image quality and resolution that is more in-line with the non-free fair use requirements, smaller dimensions, and/or disk size. I'm also not opposed to moving this logo to the Commons. The fact that you even suggest it's "borderline" suggests it would probably survive a migration (it is just stylized text and colour), and it's incumbent on us to consider all possible WP:ATD, including the possibility/likelihood deletion isn't even required given my comments in the preceding paragraphs. Doug Mehus T·C 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that in my nomination of this file doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4; the last one in particular deals with the use of former non-free logos in articles as specifically says "The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." NFCC#8 and NFC#cite_note-4 are part of WP:NFCC, which is a community-wide policy established over the years through consensus that cannot be overridden by a local consensus as explained in WP:CONLEVEL.There have been numerous discussions about this type of logo use not only here at FFD, but also at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC which have reflected what's written in NFC#cite_note-4 (I will see if I can dig up some links) and these have taken place at various times over the years. Moreover, the fact that the non-free use of the logo(s) hasn't been assessed up until now, it not really a good justification per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED for assuming that their non-free use complies with relevant policy. If this file can be converted to {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which might be possible, then the file's use would no longer be subjected to the non-free content use policy.
As for the unless you intend to mass-nominate every radio station article's former logos in one argument you seem to be making, that's trying to argue WP:DELETEALL and WP:OTHERIMAGE is not really relevant to this particular discussion. For sure, there may be other examples where non-free content is probably not being used in accordance with relevant policy, but that's not a justification in favor of their non-free use. It simply means that the non-free use if such files have yet to be assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, Nevertheless, whether it gets migrated to the Commons, you're forgetting several important key things, namely that consensus can change and it may be time to obtain new consensus to clarify the policy; that that policy is a "broad strokes" policy which does not say that former logos as non-free licensing cannot exist in certain segments of articles (which is why I think we should refine that consensus); and, further, you ignore the fact that the radio station owner has licensed this non-free content to any entity which is writing about them. Thus, there's no reasonable prospect of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., being sued for copyright infringement because these logos are, appropriately, identifying the radio station in question in compliance with the license terms from the rights owner. Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, Moreover, the fact that WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED, which is an essay, not a policy, actually suggests we have time on our side to establish, and apply, a new consensus with respect to all non-free fair use-licensed former radio station logos at the village pump or similar. If the community decides these are unhelpful, then you, or anyone else, is free to re-nominate them in one or more mass batch nominations such that our radio station articles would then consist of only the current logo. Time is our friend in this case, as is the fact that Wikipedia notionally has no deadlines. Doug Mehus T·C 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a non-free image it clearly fails our stated policy on non-free content as outlined in the nomination statement. We don't keep non-compliant content based on speculation that consensus on policy may change. As for TOO, it is borderline but I err on the side of caution given that its removal from the article does not really impair a reader's understanding o the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, with respect, "err on the side of caution" is a very weak argument for deletion considering it's existed for ten years without any problem, and both commercial and non-commercial website are permitted (by a non-exclusive license arrangement from Jim Pattison Broadcast Group's public relations department) to use the logos for the purposes of writing news articles or blog posts, criticism, and review. There's no infringement here. Doug Mehus T·C 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a textbook failure of WP:NFCC#8 by the way of WP:NFC#cite note-4. Yes, consensus can change but this is the present consensus. If someone wants to change the policy (and I don't see that happening, because the current NFC policy is exceptionally well thought out in this area), they should start a VPP/RfC. There is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the venue of this nomination. Files, even multiple files, that have been in use in articles for years are habitually nominated because it takes human effort to spot NFC violations. I concur that as a TOO case it's on the margin, so I wouldn't tag it as PD-ineligible(-USonly). No, the use is probably not infringing in the legal sense, but our policies (both NFC and licensing requirements for free files) are purposely stricter than that and the cited permission doesn't cut it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ There is no sourced prose requiring this NFC at CKQQ-FM; as such it fails WP:NFCC#8. Might it qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}? I'm 50/50 on that, and would defer to consensus. Lastly, "Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 7 February 2020 (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:Lester Ellis Jr Head Shot.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 ⚡ 02:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image, questionable license as a headshot, absent user Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost certainly a copyright violation given that the same headshot on imdb is a larger resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2020 (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.