Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26

File:Paul Wellstone campaigns.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 ⚡ 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing an important man taking part in an important protest. Nevertheless, there's nothing visually special about the way he took part in the protest that is captured on this photo. The image add no visual relevant information to the text of any of the three articles it's used in.
Short Version: This image fails NFCC#8 in every article it's used.
Removing it from some articles will surely be suggested as a truce strategy, but there's simply no article where it adds relevant visual information. An image of an irreplaceable event is not an irreplaceable image. An image of an historic significant event is not an historic significant image. Also, please don't mention the fact that the subject is dead. There are free images of him. damiens.rf 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of many images I'd love to keep from a purely editorial standpoint, because on that basis it does add something to two of those articles, but unless there's some historic importance to this particular image that can be discussed in the accompanying text it fails. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (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:Charcoal bag.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted product packaging being used to illustrate the article paper bag. Could be replaced by free image per WP:NFCC#1. Kelly ^hi! 02:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the file cannot be replaced by your suggestion. Please make constructive input and offer realistic help. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - we can cover the subject of Paper bag without the aid of non-free content. --damiens.rf 14:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per damiens.rf - plenty of free images of paper bags could be used to illustrate the article. this one is not adding anything important. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is there something unique about a charcoal bag in any event that we need to show a picture of one? Fails from a pure editorial standpoint in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to keep photos of items. Wikipedia is not a super market--46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (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:Juice cans.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted product packaging used to illustrate opening methods of beverage cans. This could be accomplished via free images, see for instance File:Drinking can ring-pull tab.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the file cannot be replaced by your suggestion. Please make constructive input and offer realistic help. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - we can cover the subject of Beverage can without the aid of non-free content. --damiens.rf 14:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete a photo limited to the top of the can would be free and serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Rlsheehan, just get out a camera and go to the grocery store - it's not hard to get a free image here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jen's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reason to keep this image is to found "Canpedia"--46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2011 (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:Infobox takes up half of article width.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 G7 by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan not-useful image incorporation portions of copyrighted software and uncredited portions of text. damiens.rf 14:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that was still there. As I said in the description, it was "To demonstrate a Wikipedia error that I and some others have with the infobox taking up half the article's width." Found out I had zoomed in on Wikipedia before to make things easier for me to read, and that's why all the infoboxes started to look like that. Problem solved. Delete away. Dream Focus 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely useless--46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (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:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.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. This was a bit of a difficult decision for me, because I don't like deciding hugely long discussions with other long-term community members in them. But someone has to do it, so I have. I will explain my reaosning for the keep below:

I consider this discussion mostly separate from the previous one, because this one is primarily dealing with WP:NFCC#2, while the last one dealt with WP:NFCC#8. Because the last one was only a month ago, I'm going to defer to its precedent that WP:NFCC#8 was satisfied, although based on everything else I've read here, I would have decided that anyway.
The subject of whether this photo was the subject of critical commentary is a gray area in our policy, a matter of semantics (see below), so I have had to rely on my own interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
There is no question that the set of press photos and videos is the subject of critical commentary, but from what I can see, this individual photo is not. As such, by this definition alone (apart from WP:NFCC#3, we would be allowed to have a montage of such photos - however, NFCC#3 stipulates we can't do that where only one will suffice. This is that one.
I am not a judge or a lawyer, I am just a regular Wikipedian with a college degree in a non-law study. So I can't make a court decision about whether US fair use law 17 U.S.C. § 107, bullet point 4 is legally applicable. However, I can make a Wikipedia based decision on WP:NFCC#2, which seems to be based on that law (as could any other eligible administrator). I find that the likelihood of Wikipedia's use of this image harming the commercial opportunity of Getty is unlikely. The image has been out for some months now, and any profit that Getty would obtain by selling newspapers/magazines because of this photo, which Wikipedia would harm, is at most negligible.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous FfD here

fails WP:NFCC2 (probably could be speedied as copyright violation). getty images licenses this image - no reason we can use it for free instead of paying for it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, when you list non-free images for deletion it's a good idea to a) look to see if there was a previous FfD and b) read the actual perp walk article, which has several paragraphs discussing the controversy this image created in France, where publishing it is technically illegal. Therefore, as agreed in the earlier discussion, it's acceptable on FUC 8 grounds. Nor is it reasonably likely that a free image could be created or that an existing image would be released. This isn't the first time you've shot from the hip like this, I seem to recall. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the previous deletion discussion before nominating. It did not address on NFCC2. I agree that this image adds to the article, but it must meet all of the NFCCs. It passes 8 (IMO) but fails 2, therefore it must be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect for commercial opportunities" pretty much means it has to be reduced in resolution from the original to the point that another media outlet snarfing our copy would have one that was pretty much useless for their purpoes. In practice that has meant 300px and a lower dpi (well, the copy I grabbed was 23 dpi to begin with). If you compare with the original, you'll see I did in fact downsample it.

Where did this interpretation come from? WP:NFC#UUI #12 is pretty clear on this, defining as unacceptable fair use "[a] commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work.". Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getty licenses low-res images for web use. That this is slightly lower-res than the one licensed by the daily mail is immaterial - other news orgs license it at this resolution (see, e.g., NPR, NY Mag). Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, we can reduce it further. I have it displayed at 200px ... don't see why that can't be done. In fact, it would squeeze the accompanying text less.

I also don't see why an uploader should be asked to anticipate the resolutions a commercial image provider might license the photo in ... theoretically that could go all the way down to thumbnail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you know that Getty licenses it at this resolution? I just looked at the images. It does not follow that because a news organization displays an image at a particular size that it necessarily licensed it at that size ... when I was a journalist we routinely reduced wire-service images for our purposes. Unless you can find and post actual evidence that Getty offers this image for license at something lower than 468px, I will be unconvinced. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#2. This is standard procedure here for wire service photos. Kelly ^hi! 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh-uh. See WP:NFC#UUI, supra, at #8: "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Which no one denies it is in this case. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#2 alone and per NFCC#8 alone. The 2 articles where the image is being used discuss the reactions to the publishing of "images Dominique Strauss perp walk". As covered by the articles, this reactions were related to the general idea of publishing photos and videos of public (or non-public) people on perp walk. No special specific visually detail about this perp walk, either catptured by this one photo or any other of the same event, is relevant for the reactions discussed in the article. Only the act of publishing ANY perp walk images is what was disaproved/discussed. Our use is just a way to embellish our metion of the event, and we (like everybody else doing that) would have to pay for such use. --damiens.rf 13:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're hairsplitting and being too literal-minded. One of the grafs in perp walk specifically discusses the French broadcasting authority warning those stations that rebroadcast the video that it was illegal and they could be sued.

Tell me how "When one of the world's most powerful men is turned over to press photos, coming out of a police station handcuffed, hands behind his back, he is already being subjected to a sentence which is specific to him" isn't a reaction to this specific image. Likewise, "The images we saw are brutal indeed ..." and the French journalist who tweeted about how seeing the perp walk struck all the other French journalists speechless? There's plenty of specific reaction. If you want to prove that it's a reaction to such images generally, could you please find other instances from reliable French sources that show a general concern over such images, removed from the context of the discussion of a specific image? Because otherwise you haven't got an argument. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last FfD discussed the file in detail and the unanimous verdict was to keep. The only things that has changed since are the circumstances of the case; that DSK is viewed more sympathetically, or at least is vilified less than in the past, and that the perp walk has come in for more negative criticism. But that latter is part of the subject of the perp walk article anyway and in any case neither circumstance should be allowed to colour our view of the image, which is indeed distressing but is in the articles not to titillate the reader's prurience but to inform the reader, perhaps a generation hence in the future, of the nature of the image which caused such consternation and debate, not only in France but around the world. Really I believe images of Strauss-Kahn doing the perp walk have become something of an icon, symbolising that in at least one nation in the free world "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all" really is a fact. On those grounds alone I think an example of such an image should unquestionably be included and that Wikipedia and our children will be the poorer without it. The only real thing new introduced here is the technical question of WP:NFCC2 which I'm not competent to judge regarding image resolution and the like but on a common-sense view dismiss as self-evidently not a commercial competitor to Getty's image and a matter that can be adjusted if there is insistent demand to further downgarde the image so that it isn't a competitor. FightingMac (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems that nothing has changed since the last deletion discussion and that Daniel has fully and adequately rebutted any justification to remove it. The philosophical underpinnings of citing NFCC#2 are kind of unclear to me. There has to be some sort of situation where press agency photos can be used. Otherwise, our NFCC would simply say "thou shalt not use press agency photos." This is obviously one of those cases where agency photos can be used. After all, if these photos did not exist, the whole section on French reactions to the DSK perp walk wouldn't even have been written. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2011 (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:InsiderPagesLogo20060928.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 without prejudice for recreation, as license was {{PD-textlogo}} (i.e., free usage is legitimate) Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete logo, but please do not delete article. IP Support (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to keep and also, no reason to keep article.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (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.