Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 June 11

< June 10	June 12 >

June 11

File:BlueVeilPoster.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is used in the article space of The Blue Veil (1951 film). The article already has a poster in the infobox, thereby failing WP:NFCC#3a. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As indicated in the article's cite 5, "'The Top Box Office Hits of 1951', Variety, January 2, 1952", The Blue Veil was one of the year's major films and won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama. It also received two key nominations, Academy Award for Best Actress as well as Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. A number of articles about important films, such as Wings, have more than one poster appended (to be specific, this file is not that of a poster, but of a lobby card). This lobby card may also be used as an additional illustration for articles delineating Jane Wyman, Richard Carlson or other film topics. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the film was nominated for awards does not mean that it needs two advertising images and nothing in WP:NFCC suggest this. The two posters used in Wings are both in the public domain, so they have no bearing on the two fair use advertising images in this article. Lobby card shows that they are similar to posters and are both used for for advertising the film. Nothing mentioned shows how this image passes either WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8. The image could not be used in either Jane Wyman or Richard Carlson, since both of those images have public domain images to show what the actors look like. Aspects (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are the poster and the lobby card covered by a copyright renewal of the film, or did they need separate renewals? If they needed separate renewals, then maybe it would be a good idea to look for such renewals. Also, might they be {{PD-US-no notice}}? I can't see any copyright notices, but I can't read all of the fine print. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Veil (1951 film) is 64 years old. If the film itself is not yet in public domain, its publicity literature and photographs are likely to be. Since a number of names are prominently displayed on the lobby card, those individuals whose biographical entries have no other illustration, such as Norman Krasna, Raymond Hakim or Curtis Bernhardt, could have their articles enhanced by the addition of this evocative card which, unless it remains with The Blue Veil article or is used elsewhere, faces deletion. As for WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, the poster in the article only depicts faces, while the lobby card focuses on the heroine's self-sacrifice in her giving up personal happiness and an offer of marriage from her beloved (Richard Carlson (actor), depicted on the lobby card in a tender moment with Jane Wyman), so that she may continue caring for the children who need her. The lobby card photo helps readers to visualize and understand that moment. If more-detailed text under the lobby card is needed to delineate that plot point, such text can be easily appended. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decorative use and does not materially expand readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2015 (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:Luis Garcia's controversial denied goal against Kerala Blasters from Kerala Blasters vs Ateltico de Kolkata match on Nov 21 2014.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed, and the article apparently discusses something which frequently happens, so the image is replaceable by photos of different ghost goals. Stefan2 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2015 (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:Royalgoldsmithstn.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a book cover being used in the the Rundell and Bridge article. This fails non-free content criteria 8 as there is no contextual significance for the book cover. The book is merely a source for referencing the article. The uploader as attempted to shoehorn the image in by adding a mention of the book into the article, and by adding text to the image caption. However, none of these really discuss the book itself as the object of significant commentary related to the main article. See File talk:Royalgoldsmithstn.jpg for some previous discussion. Bringing this here for a fuller discussion as there is no resolution from the discussion on the file talk page. Whpq (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The questions that must be asked are: what roles does the image play on the article page and do they constitute fair use? The image reproduces the front cover of the principal, if not the only book in print on the topic. Besides illustrating the book source of much of the information furnished in the article (with the book being given a full bibliographical entry), the image reproduces an important instance of the work of the firm which is the subject of the article. Relevance of the image cannot therefore be doubted but is that synonymous with contextual significance? I hope in this instance it is deemed that it is.Sedicesimo (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2015 (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:John Gormley JG Talk.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: No consensus defaulting to keep as the images are freely licensed - Peripitus (Talk) 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Un-encyclopedic, WP:NOTHOSTING, orphaned Kharkiv07 (T) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why these are up for deletion as it is not copyrighted.I designed them myself. The whole purpose of them is a logo/banner for my userpage/sub-userpages and not used as advertising. I have recently been working on a new design for my userpage creating a few sub-userpages for things such as Userboxes ect. These are just banners for that page see User:JohnGormleyJG/Userboxes. I just like the way it looks on my sub-pages I feel it is very personal. That is why I appeal for them not to be deleted. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia user pages are given some leeway in how they are used to support the building of an encyclopedia. It's quite clear that these images are intended to be added to the creator's user pages, and represent graphic headings or clickable images or somesuch that are all related to activity around the building of Wikipedia. As such, they do not fall afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Whpq (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you; from WP:NOTHOST: Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia. From WP:NOTGALLERY: Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons.. I understand user-pages have leeway when it comes to content, but when do we preserve files specifically for userpages? Kharkiv07 (T) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I noticed a lot of users with pictures of themselves on their userpage. That is fine because the whole purpose of a userpage is personal for the user. It tells fellow editors about them. The only reason I designed these pictures (remember non-copyrighted) is as a banner for my userpages. I feel it is a nice little touch to my userpage, and I appeal for them not to be deleted as I love the way they are on my userpage and that is all it is used for my userepage. These are in no way whatsoever affecting Wikipedia as am encyclopedia as they are used in no other articles. So please don't delete them. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kharkiv07:Please reread the words you quoted above, and specifically look for "project pages". User pages are part of the overall Wikipedia project. Asking that these be uploaded to Commons instead is silly as there is no reasonable expectation that anybody else will be using images that have this edtor's user name in them. AS for when do we preserve files specifcally for user pages, since pretty much always. See Wikipedia:Image use policy, and specifically "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK." -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the unused ones per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Commons would probably allow the ones which are in use per c:COM:PS#File in use on Commons only, and I'm not aware of any difference in policy between Wikipedia and Commons. Therefore, keep the ones which are in use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the logical, policy based decision. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be using the unused ones, just have not gotten the time yet. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- AGF use of unused images; also per Whpq. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Commons might be a better place to keep such images (considering that there are others doing it there). Perhaps re-upload there JohnGormleyJG? On a separate note, I think these images could be created using wikicode, up to a certain extent... Reh man 14:47, 26 June 2015 (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.