Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 26

May 26

File:Jordan and others.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:28, 26 May 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:Kirche in der Krim.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Derivative work. Image could be in public domain due to age. Sreejith K (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query Source? Publishing date? Without more info, it's REALLY hard to tell. Buffs (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the artist Ludwig Mestler died in 1959 so I suggest this is still in copyright but can be restored in 2030. ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 30 May 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:Listowel-ErinGoBrath.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. ✗plicit 14:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Derivative of what? A 19th-century 3D plaster relief on the front of a building? Which, even if it didn't meet PD-old, would be Commons-eligible under COM:FOP Ireland (as a three dimensional artwork in a public place)? Guliolopez (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be PD. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 27 May 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:Listowel-MaidOfErin.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. ✗plicit 14:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Derivative of what? A 19th-century 3D plaster relief on the front of a building? Which, even if it didn't meet PD-old, would be Commons-eligible under COM:FOP Ireland (as a three dimensional artwork in a public place)? Guliolopez (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as above. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 27 May 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:Tamil Genocide acts, Mullivaikkal Massacre, Displacement.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: keep. (non-admin closure) WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Non-free use rationale, US State Department has stated in the report that said images does not belong to them and as not share the source. The author has not established that these images are linked to the Genocidal acts of Sri Lanka Army which did the Tamil genocide. US State Department report as no mention of Genocidal acts. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This file was first nominated for speedy deletion by the above user ÆthelflædofMercia, despite when a clear fair use rationale was given. The image is critically important for illustrating the article on the Tamil Genocide, particularly in the context of the Mullivaikkal massacre in 2009. The image is in low resolution, used in a limited and encyclopedic context and cannot be replaced with freely licensed alternatives, as there is no similar or related media alternatives that are available.

Notably, the same user again nominated the file under a different deletion criterion as the first attempt of deleting it failed, raising concerns about potential WP:IDHT behavior and now spamming notices to do anything to remove anything related to Tamil genocide on Wikipedia, Its like the user's sole intention is to remove the file no matter what, doesn't matter what rationale is given.

The authenticity and context of the image are established and supported by extensive reliable sources in the article itself, including documentation from the U.S. State Department report confirming it was taken in Mullivaikkal during the events of 2009. The image is directly relevant to the content discussed in the article, and its inclusion meets Wikipedia's fair use criteria:

Purpose: Used for commentary and critical historical documentation in an encyclopedic entry.

Minimality: Low-resolution image used to illustrate a specific event.

Contextual integrity: Supported by extensive sources and tied directly to verified historical incidents.

Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event. --Yarohj (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yarohj, had repeatedly (two times [1]) uploaded this collection of images in higher resolution in WikiCommons on a US Government owned media license. I pointed out that the US State Department has stated in its report that these are not owned by them and another image has been removed for copyright issues. Thereafter these were deleted. Therefore, I reported it under the same criteria. Infact, it appears that Yarohj is engaged in Wikipedia:Advocacy, I mean Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event.. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, as said all you have done is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to anything related to Tamil Genocide, repeated nominations of deletion notices does not matter if admin declines it repeatedly, keep spamming random guidelines/notices to get what you want, that's all you have been doing, you have again now nominated another image related Tamil Genocide, this time, its a book cover, which also has clear non-free use rationale and uploaded many years ago, its seems that you don't understand or care about fair-use policy or the rationale behind its WP:NFC use. Yarohj (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj, this image uploaded by you under incorrect copyright tags were deleted several times when I nominated these. Can you please explain why my reporting these violations are considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yarohj. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a free alternative can be created because these specific images aren't the only possible representation of the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, plenty of Sri Lankan works depicting the horrific event are still copyrighted per c:COM:Sri Lanka. Works by identified Sri Lankans are still copyrighted if they're still living to this date, especially ones from 1950s to 2000s. Hard to find freer anonymous works, actually. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's hard to find one doesn't mean that there is no realistic possibility - rules in the US are similar. We don't have free reign to upload non-free images of everything just because we don't have a free one at the current second. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A hypothetical free alternative doesn’t override valid non-free use under WP:NFCC. As @George Ho noted, nearly all relevant works remain copyrighted. It’s not just about what's available “at the current second”, it’s been over 15 years, and no free equivalent has been available and it cannot be newly created, this is history and as stated above, the use of it is important for the article’s encyclopedic discussion, that's why Wikipedia even allows non-free media, to serve for encyclopedic purpose and also have to note, that many comparable historical topics use non-free media too where no suitable free alternatives exist. Yarohj (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj, in this case the issue remains that there has been no clear ownership of these images established. The rational presented in the image is not clear. Hence, we can't just upload non-free images without properly establishing its ownership. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing who the author/owner is doesn't change the basics. We know these are likely copyrighted or are US State Department works. We just don't know by whom. The question is whether Fair Use applies. We can apply fair use even if we aren't 100% sure who the owner is. As images of atrocities cannot be replaced, Fair Use is generally applicable when describing the event(s). In contrast, if we were talking about a building that is somewhere or a public figure, those CAN be replaced with a free alternative. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific fulfillment of any NFCC use, so it still fails it. This image is purely for illustrative purposes. You can understand genocide just fine without it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per fair use policy Oz346 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per fair use policy.There is no free alternative.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the US state department report is in public domain and assigns no copyrights to the images, fair use for purely educational purpose is justified.---Petextrodon (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, if you read the US state department doesn't claim copy rights and attributes it to anonymous source. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 12:23, 30 May 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:Lose My Breath (Screenshot).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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of the group in music video less likely to contextually signify (the music video itself or) the song in question. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This image doesn't really illustrate what happens in the video, i.e. Destiny's Child having a dance-off in an alleyway. The image looks more like a promotional photo for the video rather than an accurate depiction of the video's plot. A better one is needed. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article does have significant commentary, I don't think this image shows any of what is described. I'd be ok if it actually showcased some of that...but not this one. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ResolutionsPerMinute and Buffs: I added two screenshots depicting the synopsis overall, I hope. I wasn't sure whether two groups facing each other would be enough, so I added the third group image. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really change my !vote on this image. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change your vote on this JPEG image, actually. I am undecided on whether one or two PNG screenshots that I uploaded suffice. (I'm trying to not list one of the screenshots I uploaded on FFD, to put this another way.) George Ho (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: Both images you added look fine, but if I had to pick just one, it would be the "warmup" image. My opinion on the original file still stands. Thanks! ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see either way on this one. So, with that in mind, I'd say keep both as you are attempting to illustrate the contrast. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 28 May 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.