- 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 F9 by Sphilbrick ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I understand that the normal sequence of events, in the case of a file that deserves discussion, is to hold the discussion first, and then, if the consensus is for deletion, to do the deletion at the end of the discussion. I'm carrying out the sequence in reverse for what I believe are good reasons. The copyright holder has contacted Wikimedia requesting that this image be removed. ticket:2019042410002213 While it may be that our editorial argument supporting an exception to copyright policy will prevail, if that happens the image can be restored and I think it would be a better course of action to remove the image while this discussion takes place.
I do appreciate the awkwardness of carrying on a discussion about an image when the image is not viewable within Wikipedia, but that's not much of a problem as the image in question can be found here.
At the risk of sounding like I'm getting on a soapbox, I am fully supportive of the concept of fair use in some situations. In the case of a logo, or an album cover, the image is not replaceable by definition. In the case of the logo, it is the entire point that the logo is the unique expression of an image associated with the organization. Without fair use, we'd have almost no logos, because most organizations, understandably, want to retain intellectual control of their logo. (Obviously, a few do permit and acceptably free license). The fair use exception where we use a low enough resolution so that the image is unlikely to be useful to people who would choose to use it inappropriately, but with sufficient resolution that it serves as identification for the article, is a great example of a solution that fits the needs of both parties.
However, I've noticed that we sometimes try to stretch fair use to situations where we think it would be nice to have a photo but we don't happen to have a free one. In this particular case, a corporation has an substantial resources to the creation of an object and is arranged for high quality images. They, understandably, would like to retain control of how and when those images are displayed. This is not analogous to a company logo. It is quite plausible that a company would accept that that logo to be used in an article about the organization, while wanting control over images of its products. I don't think the argument that the product has not been released (presumably explaining why Wikipedia editors could not take a photo of an operation) qualifies as an argument that we can use their photo under fair use provisions. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did upload the picture. You were right to delete it if it was asked by the designer. But I insist on the fair use claim, also used to illustrate many proposed aircraft: if it's not possible to take a free picture of an in-development aircraft, a fair use picture is the only way to depict its configuration, and in this case it is fairly uncommon.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 14:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: Missing evidence of permission - FASTILY 04:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- File:William Ifor Jones Bethlehem Bach Choir.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Icondaemon ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a family photo in the possession of the uploader and scanned by the uploader. Per this note, the photographer is deceased. Does the copyright transfer with inheriting the photo? Whpq ( talk) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 G5 by Yamla ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EverettTheUrban ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image is being used decoratively with no substantial sourced coverage about the image to support its use. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 15:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- It provides an example of Lord Buckethead standing with other electoral candidates, sourced from the candidate's website. Leave it be.
EverettTheUrban (
talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Keep - Neither of these two images ought to be deleted. We retain other images of political figures on their respective articles, I see no difference here.
EverettTheUrban (
talk)
07:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, I consolidated your discussion input IAW WP:AFDFORMAT. Secondly, I would recommend you read the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the section What about article x? To indulge that, though, I would point to the first non-free content criterion that says, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since this character obviously appears publicly, there is the potential for a libre-licensed photo to be taken, and therefore these photos do not meet the non-free content criteria policy. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete ¶ Nothing about this copyrighted photo is needed to understand the accompanying prose ( WP:NFCC#8). The article already has NFC of this character ( WP:NFCC#3a). Furthermore, as it's apparent from this image we're discussing, this character appears in public, and File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg should probably be deleted as well ( WP:NFCC#1). — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- File:Leader, Mahatma Gandhi.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sarah.Angela97 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
wax statue from Madame Tussauds Amsterdam, derivative of non-free content. FASTILY 20:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 01:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- File:Alessandra biaggi headshot.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Msuthny ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally tagged for speedy deletion by Muboshgu with the reason "Nysenate.gov is not a work of the U.S. federal government" FASTILY 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Unsure of the exact classification, but is fair use due to it being a government website. Msuthny ( talk) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Msuthny, there is no fair use rationale for a living person in WP:NFCC. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - the PD licensing on the image page is incorrect as pointed out in the nomination. As the subject is a living person, WP:NFCC#1 precludes the use of this image under Wikipediia's non-free content guidelines. There is a licensing link at the bottom of the source page indicating Creative Commons, however the specific CC license linked there is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US and is insufficiently free for use on Wikipedia as it has restrictions on derivatives, and commercial usage. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: speedy delete per G7 by Fastily (non-admin closure) funplussmart ( talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- File:The IV Doc Logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whoisjohngalt ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Obsolete Whoisjohngalt ( talk) 21:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 01:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- File:TAITRA.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BrockF5 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Replace with File:TAITRA Official Trademark.svg at Wikimedia Commons as of Commons:Threshold of originality. Brock contact... 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.