Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

File:Defensor Siblings.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2020 (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.

Gottlieb architecture

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 -FASTILY 08:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two images are used in the article about Lois Gottlieb, the architect of the building in the photos. Non-free photos that illustrate an archtect's style could be appropriate for for an article about the architect, but it would need to be accompanied by significant sourced commentary about the photo and how it illustrates the style. There is no such commentry in the article to support these two images so they fails WP:NFCC#8. The non-free usage rationale for each image also fails to explain why these images are not replaceable with freely licensed images. Although the Mark Gottlieb House is a private residence, there is no explanation as to why a free image cannot be taken of the exterior. With respect to the interior, this article indicates the house has been opened to public viewing and I suspect it happens annually. There is also no explanation as to why there is no other more publicly accessible building by Gottlieb that could be photographed to illustrate her style. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoesitgo1 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine to disagree, but for your opinion to hold any sort of weight, you will need to explain why you disagree based on policy -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2020 (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:The Capture - BBC series.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) 05:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image stated to be used to " visually aid the reader in understanding the character of the show."but lacks any significant sourced commentary about the image or how it relates to the leaf character of the TV series. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It did before another user uploaded a new version (without updating the source). That user also removed the caption that went along with the image. Have now restored it. - X201 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An image caption is not significant sourced commentary -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be a suitable commentary given that the image shows the two main protagonists and the control room where the conspiracy against the Emery character is perpetrated, along with the CCTV theme of the show? - X201 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material would need to be part of the main article text and also be attributed to reliable sources and it should be covering the points that you identified ("two main protagonists and the control room where the conspiracy against the Emery character is perpetrated, along with the CCTV theme of the show"). -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoesitgo1 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A naked opinion without any analysis of how policy is met is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2020 (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:New Zealand General electorates - North Island.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) 05:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works by the government of New Zealand are copyrighted. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand#Government works. Wikiacc (¶) 21:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as copyright violations as noted by the nominator and the source site having an explicit copyright notice. Conversion to fair use would not be an option as freely loicensed maps could be drawn. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: "Crown copyright" is a distinct legal category from general purpose copyright in NZ. The images have been accurately credited and sourced on the image pages. "Content from Crown publications and web pages can be copied, accessed, viewed, reproduced and printed for non-commercial purposes. You should credit the owner (eg Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment or IPONZ) and source (eg ISBN, ISSN, ISMN or web page address)." Sb101FV (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Crown Copyright is insufficiently free for use on Wikipedia. It restricts use to non-commercial use. -- Whpq (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not non-commercial use? I've copied them, unaltered, with correct attribution, without trying to make money off them, as the IPONZ indicates is permissible? Sb101FV (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb101FV: See WP:NONCOM. Wikiacc (¶) 02:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Two of the nominated files were not tagged with FFD templates. I have just added them to the files, and this discussion should be extended accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as the government license is incompatible / not free. Schwede 66 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's important Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violations are strictly against policy. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2020 (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:Jessica Mauboy - Something's Got a Hold on Me.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wanted to PROD the cover art, even as an acceptable image and "virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys", but I figure others would contest it. My concerns about the cover art of one of later renditions of "Something's Got a Hold on Me" relate to the cover art's compliance with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS.

Reading the sub-section of the song article (and re-reading it numerous times), as I have learned, the rendition went to a different approach for especially broader, more mainstream appeal. However, the subsection is more about the rendition itself and how it was marketed and distributed in the first-run. I don't see how the cover art, even as part of the distribution and visual identification associated with the specific recording, would improve the understanding of the song, which was originally recorded by Etta James in 1962, who also co-wrote it with two other songwriters.

Even when a cover art helps readers recognize the product, I'm not confident about the cover art's ability to be significant and improvement to the article and understanding the song, which was, again, originally done by James as the more I read the whole article. I don't see how displaying the Mauboy cover art would change or affect the understanding. Alternatively, there are freer images of the singer Jessica Mauboy, including ones from 2012 and 2013. Whilst not a good substitute or replacement for the cover art, any image of the singer would help readers adequately and visually identify the singer without needing the cover art for merely visual identification and recognition unless someone disagrees.

BTW, since Etta James's and Jessica Mauboy's versions sound different from other, why not upload very short audio samples of those two? Would the samples be too significant to be deleted, or would the readers be fine without needing those samples for better understanding? George Ho (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it conveys meaning Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2020 (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.