Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17

File:-9 dream.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not add anything instructive to the article, fails WP:NFCC#8 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - usage is purely decorative -- Whpq (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC#8. Non-free screenshots typically need to the subject of some sourced critical commentary to provide the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. Omitting this from the article wouldn't be detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no specific connection whatsoever with the article, let alone any third-party commentary to suggest its significance to the subject. (I appreciate FfD is not the forum for this, but ... this user has been adding similarly inappropriate non-free images to WP Beatles articles for months now. Won't engage in any discussion on this issue, and blanks their talk page.) JG66 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2019 (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:Edgewater Beach Hotel 1923.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for deletion as failing WP:NFCC#1 by Marchjuly with the reason "There are quite a number of public domain images of the hotel being used in this article which makes a the need for a non-free image questionable per WP:FREER. The image in question isn' being ued for primary identification purposes and isn't itself the subject of any sourced critical commentary, so the context for non-free use is not clear; moreover, the fact that it is being used in an image gallery also is not really allowed per WP:NFG because such types of non-free usage tends to be mainly decorative. The claim that the image is a historical photo is also questionable per WP:ITSHISTORIC; the hotel may be a historic building, but doesn't make this particular photo historic unless the photo itself was or is referred to as such in reliable sources." FASTILY 05:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I first tagged the file for speedy deletion it was being used as shown here. Even though location of the file in the article was subsequently changed and it's no longer being used in an image gallery, I still don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and perhaps WP:NFCC#1. Bascially, the file is being used in comparison with a later image of the hotel taken in 2006. There's really no sourced critical commentary related specifically to the non-free image and pretty much any photo taken from around the same time showing the hotel and the surrounding area is probably going to be just as good for comparison purposes. It seems obvious (at least to me) that how a neighborhood appeared in 1923 is going to be quite different from how it appeared in 2006, especially in a major city such as Chicago. So, unless the file is now old enough to be {{PD-US}} (assuming the date is correct) or there is actually some sourced critical commentary which makes the before/after comparison using this particular non-free photo, this type of non-free use seems to be a bit of image WP:OR and not really meeting NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why doesn't this image classify under the PD rules that the main image falls under.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless those who want it kept bother to dig up a more accurate source with enough information to conclude PD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 17 February 2019 (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.

Non-free screenshots in Five Nights at Freddy's

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free screenshots in the article about the video game franchise Five Nights at Freddy's. For articles about media/entertainment franchises such as this, a non-free logo is generally considered OK for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the article, but the use of other non-free content tends to be much harder to justify since much of the article content often comes from other stand-alone articles about the individual parts of the franchise; for example, an article about a movie or book franchise may include some general descriptive content about the overall franchise itself and then some short summaries of the individual movies or books that make up the franchise, with this latter content usually covered in more detail in stand-alone articles about the individual movies and books.

This article is basically similar in structure: the first part discusses elements common to all of the games in the series and then there is content by the individual games and other related media. Thirteen non-free gameplay screenshots, etc. are not needed in an article such as this, especially when quite a number of them are being used in individual articles about the games themselves and there are link or hatnotes to these individual articles. One or maybe two might be justifiable in the Five Nights at Freddy's#Gameplay, but not eight. Which screenshots (if any) should be kept can be discussed below, but some of them appear redundant per WP:NFCC#3a (how many dark office screenshots or check screenshots are needed). In addition, many of these also fail WP:NFCC#10c for the franchise article and could be removed for that reason alone per WP:NFCCE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are far too many images to call Wikipedia "free". As for the image that I uploaded years ago, I have more experience in editing, and in retrospect, I do not think that it has much of encyclopedic value. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 18:03, 17 February 2019 (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:Dana Plato 1979.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used for primary identification purposes in Dana Plato. Plato is dead so a non-free image of her can be used as long as there are no free equivalents which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:FREER. The question is whether the free images File:Dana Plato in 1983.jpg, File:Dana Plato on the set of television show 'Diff'rent Strokes' 1983-03-09 (retouched).jpg or File:Dana Plato on the set of television show Diff'rent Strokes 1983-03-09o11.jpg which are crops from File:Nancy Reagan on the set of television show "Diff'rent Strokes" with Conrad Bain, Gary Coleman, Todd Bridges, Dana Plato, and Mary Jo Cattlett 1983-03-09.jpg are acceptable as free equivalents. The quality of the crop images is not as good as the non-free, but freer equivalents of poorer quality are preferred as long as they are sufficient to identify the person in question, which in this case I think the larger crops do well enough for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Delete, Comment Basically repeating what I mentioned before when it was tagged for deletion earlier. Understand non-free reason for file uploaded in 2011, however to suggest the image "File:Dana Plato in 1983.jpg" to change it with is definitely not a good replacement for the Infobox. File:Dana Plato in 1983.jpg has been tagged "This image (or all images in this category/page) is very small, unfixably too light/dark, or may not adequately illustrate the subject of the picture." Thus this other image should not even be considered for the Infobox if this image is deleted. I have no problems if it is determined this file should be deleted, however a better image needs to be uploaded than the current alternate versions noted. Leave the article without an image until a suitable one is uploaded, would be a better alternative. Rivertown (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, two crops were made from the original Nancy Reagan/Cast image per a request made at c:COM:GL/P after the speedy deletion of the non-free image was declined. These crops show more of Plato and seem to be suitable replacements for the non-free image currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a cursory Ebay search shows a significant number of pre-1989 publicity photos of this individual apparently published in the US without a copyright notice. The nonfree image should therefore be presumed replaceable. Even if it is too difficult to verify that any of these images if definitively free, it would be better to use an image which is very likely free, with an appropriate use rationale, than an image which is certainly non-free. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (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:EA Sports.svg

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: I realize that there was already a discussion about the copyrightability of the image and that the subject is too debatable to make any changes to the license. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this file for discussion because I am wondering whether the EA Sports logo could be considered copyrightable under the law of the US, where it originated. I think that the logo may be in the public domain because I find it to be rather simple, and here is my rationale: 1. The EA Sports logo contains the logo of EA and SPORTS, and while the EA logo is determined to be simple, SPORTS is clearly simple enough to be free, and 2. The rest of the logo is essentially a circle with an outline containing silver gradients and the inside having a small shadow gradient at the bottom. Essentially it is a circle with words and (not too meticulous) gradients. While the non-free rationale for the file is appropriate, I am thinking that it may be more appropriate to classify it as being in the public domain (and thus eligible to appear on Wikimedia Commons). ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 23:34, 17 February 2019 (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:Cessna SkyCourier model, EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional model. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cessna SkyCourier model, EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0441).jpg Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both come from commons where they will be deleted as they are considered non-free as the model is copyrighted (as opposed to an utilitarian, functional aircraft), so a picture can't be free. The alternative is to upload them here. The first is used as the source for the modified second picture, with the background clipped.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is just as non-free here as it is on Commons -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (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:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.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: Relicense as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional model. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cessna SkyCourier model, EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0441).jpg Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covert to fair use as the aircraft is yet to be delivered. The image is just as nonfree here as it is on Commons, but a non-free rationale is reasonable for use as visual identification. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (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.