Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 3

June 3

File:WFXZAzteca24.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be above c:COM:TOO Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons Text and basic 2D shapes with no shading would fall below the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File was prodded for deletion by me as WP:DECORATIVE non-free cover art because I think its use in Jean-Claude Pressac fails WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFCC#8 by me here, but it was deprodded by Liz here stating: The article where this image is used is not a biography despite the page title, it's all about this book. The file seems illustrative, not decoration. The page should be retitled to focus on the book. I tried to follow up on that at User talk:Liz#File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg, but didn't receive a response. That's fine, but I still think this file's non-free use needs assessing because there are multiple NFCC issues associated with it.

I'm not so sure the main focus of the Pressac article is about the book as the deprod statement claimed; that, however, isn't really a discussion for FFD per se. If someone wants to move the article to "Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers" and try to justify the file's use in that article, then that's up to them. Doing so, however, doesn't resolve all the NFCC issues with the file's non-free use, at least not in my opinion.

This file actually appears to be a user-generated collage of multiple non-free images related to the book: the book's cover front and back, and some of the book's inner pages. This is a problem because even in an articles about books, generally on the front cover is allowed to be used for primary identification purposes. In this case, the same non-free use rationale and copyright license is being used to try and justify not only the cover but also the interior pages, and this seems to be wrong not only because of WP:NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#10c. If anything, the interior pages should've been uploaded as a separate file with a separate, specific non-free use rationale their use. The file does have two non-free use rationales for its use in the Pressac article and perhaps this was an attempt by the uploader to justify both parts of the file; however, one of the non-free use rationales appears just to be boilerplate text, and the other states For visual identification of one of the achievements of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article, which is pretty much never considered a valid justification for using book cover art in articles about book authors per WP:NFC#cite_note-3.

I personally don't see how this file's non-free use satisfies WP:NFCC given the way it's currently be used. Perhaps the cover itself could be kept if used in an stand-alone article about the book, one that's either newly created or by moving the Pressace article. Even in that case, though, i don't think inner page part of the file can be justified per WP:NFCC and they should either be cropped out and the file's non-free use rationale updated with a new source for the cover image. If the letter from 1943 shown on one of the inner pages is no longer eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:Germany or some other reason, then perhaps it should be reuploaded to Commons as a separate file. The other inner page written by Pressac, however, fails WP:FREER and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES since it seems easily replaceable by either a quote from the book supported by a citation or simply by summarizing the page supported by a citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aurora Rodrigues 1973.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is still living, so the image (evidently a mug shot) fails criteria (1) of WP:NFC#UUI. Muzilon (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is being used for identification of the subject of the article and doesn't contribution much to understanding the arrest as described in the file's rationale. hinnk (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1 includes, "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Aurora Rodrigues' notability is based on her post-retirement activism and writing about her experiences with the 20th-century dictatorship in Portugal. The photos are from when Estado Novo arrested her and are used prominently in her book on the events and in news coverage of her recent activism.[1][2][3] Does the exception in Criteria 1 only apply to performers? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You seem to be overlooking the most important part item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; the part that states "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance," Are you arguing that Rodrigues's Wikipedia notability is primarily related to her physcial appearance? That doesn't seem to be the case to me, which is why a free equivalent image seems more than capable of serving the same encylopedic purpose as any non-free one. In addition, the fact Rodrigues and others have also used this particular photo in various ways isn't itself a justification for non-free use; however, if the photo itself (not Rodrigues herself but this particular photo) has been the subject of critical commentary in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, then perhaps the photo could be used in the body of the article in the section where the reliably sourecd commentary about the photo is found. Articles discussing Rodrigues which use the photo for illustration purposes aren't enough for justification; there should be discussion specifically related to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there should be discussion specifically related to the photo", you mean discussion in WP:RS? No, not in any in-depth way. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of historical or otherwise encylopedically notable events or people are not historic simply because of their association with the event or the person; so, if you add content to the article about the photo that shows it was the subject of critical commentary either at the time it was taken of in the years since, then it could possibly argued that the non-free use of the file meets both WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. However, this seems to be photo taken at a radio interview Rodrigues gave in April 2024. If that's her and she's out and about appearing in public, then there seems to be no reason why someone can't take her photograph and upload it under a free license for primary identification purposes. Now, having posted that, there might be another possibility to consider. Assuming that the country of first publication is Portugual, if there's any reason why this photo might be now within the public domain per c:COM:Portugal, then it could be possibly be relicensed and moved to Wikimedia Commons. So, you might want to ask about that at c:COM:VPC. If this file can be relicensed and hosted by Commons, it would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus no longer considered to be replaceable non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the public domain in Portugal, but not the US. I appreciate the advice though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lycos Logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by version on Commons. Cloudbound (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BBC Today programme.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: As stated below by Marchjuly, this is not eligible for commons. Image is still unused however, so no prejudice to restoration if someone can find a valid, encyclopedic use for this image -Fastily 02:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons as a {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as PD-ineligible-USonly: Commons requires that the file be "PD-textlogo" in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and in the country of first publication (which is likely the UK). The reason this file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is because the UK's threshold of originality is pretty low as explained in c:COM:TOO UK; so, even if this is "PD-logo" per c:COM:TOO US, there's no point in moving the file to Commons if it's only going to end up deleted. If someone feels otherwise, then it probably would be a good idea to ask about the file at c:COM:VPC moving the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Yingying Zhang Govt Ex 100E cropped.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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. ✗plicit 00:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. This file is replaceable by this CCTV excerpt depicting Yingying Zhang, sourced from NBC News^[1] (which was, in turn, sourced from the FBI). CCTV footage generally does not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection and is thus in the public domain. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Trost, Rachael (June 19, 2017). "FBI Offers $10k Reward for Information in Kidnapping of University of Illinois Scholar Yingying Zhang". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 3, 2024.

Status quo, keep as-is. Per this excellent analysis by @Clindberg, there is no legal precedent for CCTV footage in the US automatically falling into the Public Domain. Also, the proposed replacement is grainy/low-quality to the extent where it's barely possible to discern the identity of the individual depicted. Fair use is appropriate here, no need to change anything. -Fastily 02:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[1] Trost, Rachael (June 19, 2017). "FBI Offers $10k Reward for Information in Kidnapping of University of Illinois Scholar Yingying Zhang". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 3, 2024.

[1]