Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 5

March 5

File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid non-free file rationale, since a free (albeit worse) image exists, File:Hackleburg_tornado_tower_cam.png. E_F⁵ 13:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is very little footage of the tornado striking Hackleburg when it was at EF5 (best seen by this video of its progress), and the cam image is arguably worse in quality as admitted by the submitter, and additionally was weaker when that cam image was taken (around EF3/LE EF4, i.e not representative of its true intensity). The NFF rationale is thus, IMO, valid. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarioProtIV, with that logic you could technically have an NFF for every town it hit. creation of a free image is not possible is not valid, as a free image does exist. What makes this NFF "detrimental to the understanding of the topic"? The tornado looks nearly the same in both images. — E_F⁵ 15:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a free image that’s not terrible in quality I’m for adding it. But why replace a good image? The video shows this and despite their being a still image at around 3:45, that image is under All Rights Reserved on Flickr meaning it’s not compatible (was why it got deleted on Commons). Same rationale as the 2011 Joplin tornado image. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. Non-free files aren't added because they are of better quality than a free image. The difference with Joplin is that no known free image exists, which is not the case here. — E_F⁵ 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should try to find a better free image then. I did some more digging and this seems to be the only other good image I can find about the tornado, was cited in a study of the tornado and the author later gave an interview about the image. I’d have to assume this falls under free use if it was widely shared like this. I’m asking here because this is like the third attempt I’ve done with finding alternative images for Hackleburg but all three have either been unusable copyright (ARR) or (in this case and a separate non-free I uploaded last year) removed in favorite of a free one. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No image can be considered free unless the author explicitly stated that the image is free-to-use. I've also looked, and have found nothing else. — E_F⁵ 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As much as I wish the rationale of "the free image is of a horrible quality" was a thing, it clearly isn't. Departure– (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Free images exist and are just as good of quality (that is to say "poor") as the nonfree. Buffs (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file on Commons has been nominated for deletion. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keepsince with the loss of the tower cam image if it goes under, this is the only other image that shows the tornado. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: repeat !vote Buffs (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:End Credits by EDEN-Official,December2015.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the license on this. Is Sufyanxtreme authorized to copyleft the album, or has it been mislabeled as an "own work" Jay Cubby 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add a FUR Clearly copyrighted material germane to the article in which it is used. Clearly uploaded under the wrong license. Fix and add FUR. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.