Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 05:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the necessity of a fair use documentary still here. If this is the product in its "finished form", a free equivalent can be made by buying the product and taking a picture of it. (It looks much the same as any cheap frozen mince, such as https://groceries.morrisons.com/products/morrisons-savers-beef-pork-mince-216380011) Lord Belbury (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – First of all, lean finely textured beef in its finished cannot be purchased by consumers, so buying the product itself is not possible. It is a food additive that manufacturers use mixed in with ground beef. The likelihood of a free equivalent image of the product being created is very slim to none. Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form. The only access consumers have to it is when it's already mixed in with ground beef, which makes it indistinguishable from the ground beef itself. The image is a screenshot of the actual product. Using an image of ground mince in its place would be misleading to Wikipedia's readers, because ground mince is not the lean finely textured beef food additive.

At Wikipedia:Non-free content § Acceptable use § Images regarding the acceptable use of non-free content it states, "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." For starters, see Pink slime § ABC News report. This is a screen shot from a television program that is quite clearly aligned with critical commentary and discussion about the topic. As such, it qualifies as an acceptable use of non-free content.

As of at least March 2013, the product's primary manufacturer won't let reporters in its plants at this time or even speak to the media. See this article, where it states:

Before all the coverage, BPI routinely let reporters inside its plant. Today, the Roth family and BPI employees generally won’t speak to members of the media, even by phone. In fact, most of the players in the “pink slime” story — including the scientist who coined the term, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver who “manufactured” pink slime on his show, ABC News, laid-off BPI employees, and BPI itself — are communicating almost exclusively through lawyers or representatives, if they are willing to address the topic at all.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. As stated above, consumers have no access to the product, so they won't be able to take a picture of it.

Furthermore, there has been significant discussion on the talk page about having an accurate image of the product in the article:

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misunderstanding that, I took the image to be the "finished form" of consumer beef that included the ingredient. The non-free use rationale could use some of this context. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Belbury: Well, if you'd like, you can withdraw the nomination, if you don't feel that the file should be deleted at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, consider this withdrawn. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:28, 26 September 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:Hoglin in nether.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 G5 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless useless image created by banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for WP:G5 sock, master banned prior to upload. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:36, 27 September 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:Purple shep.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 G5 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless useless image created by banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for WP:G5 sock, master banned prior to upload. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:36, 27 September 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:Lake over bridge.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 G5 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless useless image created by banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for WP:G5 sock, master banned prior to upload. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:36, 27 September 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:Boar with piglets.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 F9 by Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image with no legitimate release. Uploaded by banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as CSD under F9/copyvio and G5/banned user. Published in 2009. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 26 September 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:Stamp of Charles de Foucauld France.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 ⚡ 05:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 1959 French stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to identify the subject. The stamp's existence is described quite well in the prose but is not notable for this article in any way other than as decoration. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 26 September 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:Kilma Lattin.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed copyright release, ===Copyrighted Free Use for [[:File:Kilma Lattin.jpg]]=== {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link | [https://www.comm.ucsb.edu/news/announcement/849] }}, needs backup through the WP:OTRS process. Until then, https://www.policy.ucsb.edu/terms-of-use governs images copied from https://www.comm.ucsb.edu/news/announcement/849 . Speedy deletion was requested in the past but the relevant template has since been removed. This revision is probably has the most accurate license and fair-use rationale, but I don't think the second element of the fair use rationale, It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value., is valid. The only element present in this photo that would not be in a free photo is the statue of his Regional Emmy Award. I don't think that adds enough value to qualify for use in Kilma S. Lattin. Recommended solution: The uploader, HLMC98, should read and follow the instructions at WP:OTRS along with Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. If the image can be released under a fair use license, it should be moved to a different name then moved to the Wikimedia Commons. Absent a clearly authentic license, this image can only be used if it qualifies as a fair-use image under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Since the person is still alive and is presumably available to be photographed, it is unlikely that any non-free image of him as he looks today would qualify for use as a non-free image in the English Wikipedia. Non-free images are not allowed on the Wikimedia Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a straight up copyright violation. The source page is rather clear that the material is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Wikipedia file that was shadowing a completely different file on the Commons with the same name has been deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:15, 26 September 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:Hard to Imagine the Neighbourhood Ever Changing.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this file in detail -FASTILY 04:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This album cover is a reissue and is substantially the same as the original cover. The second cover is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and its user for the purposes of visual identification is redundant to the original cover. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find the image to be useful in differentiating between the primary editions of the album. Much like the Phil Collins' reissues from the 1980s, the covers feature only slight differences, but the releases the covers represent feature entirely different tracklists. --Me and my robot (talk) 17:34, 26 September 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:FechterWiki.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 ⚡ 05:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a screen grab from TV Sreejith K (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably can speedy delete as copyvio it's from a 2009 YouTube video, Goofy Gas Skit. It MIGHT have a fair use rationale on an article ABOUT that skit but not for the person pictured. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 26 September 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.