Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10

File:Bogor FC logo.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. G5. As a general rule, we're going to delete anything a blocked/banned user does - even if it's good - because to do otherwise validates their ban evasion. Also worth noting, only one of these images (Bogor FC logo.jpg) even has a proper source. Anyone who is an editor in good standing is free to find a proper source for these images and re-upload them. B (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

originally tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G5 by Hhkohh as created by a banned user, EBR Taurus. FASTILY 01:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked about some of these at WT:NFC#Non-free uploads by socks of blocked/banned users. It was pointed out in that discusison that WP:BANREVERT also applies to files. A non-free file, however, is in most cases not really an orignal creation of the uploader, but rather something already existing online somewhere that was simply uploaded to Wikipedia. The files themselves do seem to be OK per WP:NFCCP except for possible sourcing issues, which is something which can often be sorted out without lots of difficulty. For example, "File:Bogor FC logo.jpg" is basically the same as what is shown at here and is the same as what is shown here, while "File:Persija Barat.jpg" looks similar to what's shown here. These files all look like official team logos (or former logos); so, the question then is whether these still need to be deleled if they can be properly sourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as CSD tagger. G5 applies here. Sockpuppet is uploading the original version Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2018 (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:Shopkick logo.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, superior versions available: Category:Shopkick FASTILY 01:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2018 (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:Associated Press photo of Kryczka with Ahearne and Staravoitov.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: deleted F7 I'm not sure what the reason was that this wasn't speedy deleted to begin with. It's an obvious case of F7. There is no fair use defense EVER for using a press agency photo for commentary on the thing it depicts. Quite simply, if this were valid fair use, then nobody ever would pay Getty, AP, etc, any money - they would just claim fair use. So either Wikipedia has just discovered a novel strategy to avoid paying Getty/AP/etc the royalties they are due when you use their images ... or something is wrong with claiming that this image is fair use. And even if it weren't an obvious F7 case, the argument for fair use is so absurdly bad anyway - it's a decorative image that adds nothing to the user's understanding of the article. --B (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion under F7 by Whpq with the reason "from Associated Press". FASTILY 04:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this photo with my interpretation of fair use that...

it is not to depict a person or persons in the photo, rather it is to illustrate the event in question, which is the Summit Series
it gives credit in the photo's caption to Associated Press for the photo
there is no free replacement available, since it was taken in 1972 and all people in the photo are now deceased

The photo is currently used in the Summit Series article, and in the Joe Kryczka article where it discusses his role in negotiating the agreement to play the Series. Flibirigit (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Flibirigit makes a strong case for its fair use. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (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:Picture of protesters using a sleeping dragon, 2007-03-08, Carnegie Mellon University.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. WP:NFCC#1 is clearly the case - this article is about the "sleeping dragon" technique in general, not about this particular protest. Presumably, at some point in the future, some protestors will use this and we could take a picture of it. This is not even a borderline case. B (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful photo, but the article is about the general activist tactic rather than this single specific performance of it in 2007. As such this copyrighted press photo doesn't meet "no free equivalent" - another photo could be taken or may already exist. (File:Mother and Son Enjoy a Lock On Together (14038965171).jpg may suffice?) Lord Belbury (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as uploader. @Lord Belbury: File:Mother and Son Enjoy a Lock On Together (14038965171).jpg does not claim to illustrate a sleeping dragon (manoeuver). — Jeff G. ツ 17:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The suggested replacement image isn't explicitly using the term sleeping dragon but it is essentially the same thing. In any case, this tactic has been used in protests for years and is not specific to the Carnegie Mellon protest. As such, a free replacement could conceivably made even if one discounts the replacement image suggested. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to the closing Admin: If you delete, please revert this edit to put back the external link. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 12:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (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:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.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: Closed as no action is requested.. You will have to ask the Chinese Wikipedia whether they permit images used under a claim of fair use. From looking at zh:Wikipedia:合理使用, it looks like they do, but there is nothing we can do here. It has to be uploaded there. B (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to see if this image can be hosted on Chinese Wikipedia article or on Commons to illustrate a new translation of the English Wikipedia article Drowning Girl newly created by student translator User:Zhuijiao Zhang. I see it is hosted on the Russian Wikipedia article so wondering about license. Stinglehammer (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're asking whether this file can be moved to Commons, then I would say no simply because of c:COM:FAIR. If you're asking whether this can be downloaded and then re-uploaded to Chinese Wikipedia, then that depends on whether Chinese Wikipedia allows non-free content to be uploaded and used. According to meta:Non-free content, some Chinese language Wikipedias do allow non-free content to be uploaded, whereas others do not. I'm not sure which one applies to you, but you can try asking at their respective equivalents to WP:MCQ (check the "Languages" section in your browsers left sidebar links to other language Wikipedias which have pages like MCQ). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a chance, without an explicit copyright release from https://lichtensteinfoundation.org via c:COM:OTRS As their Image Database says The contents of this website are for personal and/or educational use only. The texts, graphics and designs contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Estate of Roy Lichtenstein. Ru-wiki does allow non-free images, but they have to be uploaded by an admin. (... What a great idea...) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (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.