Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20

File:Edward Roderick Davies.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is relevant to have a photo of her father in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Odd that this one has been tagged but not this one. I've rectified this matter.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the relevancy of this photo, which includes Michelle Obama's now-deceased father, in the Obama family article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the father depicted is that of a public person and is dead and noone is selling the photograph.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Edward Roderick Davies now is its own wikibio and I withdraw the nomination for the historical photo of the family of origin of U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the current use of the file looks OK. Of course, it needs a {{subst:orfurrev}}, but that is a separate process. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2012 (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:Coming of Age.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox of an article that consists entirely of an in-universe plot renarration. Merely shows a generic headshot of one of the characters in a nondescript situation. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for helping to understand the article, purely decorative use; fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 20 June 2012 (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:Australian $1 note paper back.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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Banknotes of the Australian dollar: fails WP:NFG, see WT:NFC#Proposed modification to WP:NFC. Article Australian one-dollar note: there is already a different image (showing the obverse side of the note) which is sufficient to tell what this note looks like, so this extra image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the back side of the banknote on the page about the banknote is probably legitimate use (there is minimal but some discussion of it in the Australian one-dollar note article), so deletion is likely not appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding use on Banknotes of the Australian dollar: there is some discussion as to the best way to go forward here, as those supporting use of currency images largely !voted against the language of the proposal, largely without addressing why they thought such images should be used, because they were !voting against the proposal as a whole. So it's not clear how much should be inferred from this RfC, beyond a view on the language of the specific proposal being discussed.

As for the proposed removal from Australian one-dollar note: how from an image the front of the note are readers supposed to know what the back of the note looks like? The image of the back clearly adds something useful to reader's understanding of the subject of the article, a subject to which it is directly relevant, over and above what they get from the front of the note. (Keep) Jheald (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see how an image of the front of the note tells you anything about the back of the note. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only are two sides of the note required to sufficiently depict what a banknote looks like, but Australian one-dollar note now refers explicitly to design detail which is benefited substantially by this image (and the one of the obverse) and therefore meets WP:NFCC#3a. The merits of inclusion in the higher level article are a separate issue which I will leave to the more interested. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This request isn't really any different from requests to remove CD covers from articles containing scans of covers of multiple editions. The image is mentioned briefly in the text but is used in the infobox. If the image is needed for the section mentioning the reverse side of the note, then why is the note not used there but at a different location in the article? This looks more like an attempt to sneak in a decorative image in an infobox by adding some text to a section elsewhere in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually for music covers we do allow multiple edition scans -- if, as required by NFCC #8 and #3a, they are considered to add to reader understanding about the topic sufficiently to justify the (rather limited) copyright taking. For albums, one standard formulation has been that
  an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
  A similar argument is being made here, though for banknotes we're applying it to a front and a back cover, rather than two different front covers: the design of the back of the note is quite different to that of the front of the note, and showing it adds something of value to reader understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image can only be used once in the article - it was a trade off between moving it to the applicable section or using it in the infobox. I chose to leave it in the infobox as this clearly conforms to the consistent style for these sort of articles. In choosing between two competing principles, I erred on the side of consistent style and make no apologies for doing so. The irony in this debate is that the use of the Aboriginal artwork was done without consulting the artist. He became aware of it and protested, his protest was recognised by the mint and he was provided with compensation - this is believed to be the first time that copyright was acknowledged in Aboriginal paintings. AusTerrapin (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (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:Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale suggests that this is a unique item, but note this sentence in the article: "The price of this Gibson Les Paul ranges from $11,100 for one fitted with new old stock components to over $40,000 for a true vintage guitar signed by Jimmy Page himself." If you can buy a copy for anything between $11,100 and $40,000, it seems that multiple copies exist. It seems that this is replaceable. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (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:60f34 steven-tyler-jennifer-lopez-randy-jackson-american-idol590.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 F5 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable nonfree image of living persons. All recent or draft article uses of the file have been illustrations of performer in role, a paradigm NFCC failure for living persons. The American Idol article itself is adequately illustrated by free individual images of the judges; the case for including nonfree judging panel images in the judges' bios therefore fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2012 (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:Screenshot from Yavarum Nalam.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary as of now on the article Yavarum Nalam doesn't justify use of this non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (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:Katy awake gurls.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 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images only used in galleries. They fail WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The music video shows the pictures in question as a timeline. I see no problem with this as it is used exactly like the music video does.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely excessive, a huge violation of the third point in WP:NFCC, not to mention that there are three other screenshots in that article that are not part of this nomination... good lord... — ξ ^xplicit 00:47, 28 June 2012 (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:Luna Park steamboat Denver.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: withdrawn. — ξ ^xplicit 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image is sourced from here, which has a "© all rights reserved" Flickr copyright. Does the fact the underlying image is PD-pre-1923 mean that a photograph of the postcard/photo in question is also PD? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the postcard was published before 1923, then yes, the postcard is in the public domain. You can't take something out of the public domain by putting it on Flickr as "all rights reserved". Some countries could maybe provide copyright protection for scanning a postcard, but this is not something which Wikipedia or Commons care about. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alrighty then, that's that I thought but I wanted a second opinion. This can be considered withdrawn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 22 June 2012 (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.