Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 23

April 23

File:Bon Jovi- I'll Be There For You.ogg

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. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How the 30-second sample is contextually significant to the whole song I'll Be There for You (Bon Jovi song) may vary, but only the specific portion is heard. The main matter is whether deleting it can harm or severely affect readers' understanding of the whole song. The whole recording can be heard elsewhere, especially on internet. Furthermore, the band name and the song title are already searchable as long as the Wikipedia article is used to guide the reader, making the sample unnecessary. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The song is described as a "glam metal power ballad" in the article, but that is as far as the context goes. The link to the video is in the infobox, so the audio sample is redundant at this stage in the article's development. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (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:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.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: no consensus. Default to keep. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require a non-free recent image that fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. 112.204.202.125 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we don't. This image fails neither criteria. Furthermore, the nominator advances no argument that it does so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 23 April 2023 (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:LONCAPALayers.gif

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. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused text-only file. No other obvious use. Can be converted to wikitable if needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2023 (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:Grave of Piang Ngaih Don.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file is the grave of Piang Ngaih Don (Article: Murder of Piang Ngaih Don), who was tortured by her employer. While the depicted object may not look like a permanent grave (it could be a temporary memorial), if it is indeed permanent, then WP:NFCC#1 is violated, as images could have been taken by others. Given by its simplicity with only words, the resultant image would be too simple from any FOP restrictions. Moreover, the key point is the maltreatment and torture suffered by Piang Ngaih Don, which could not be expressed by the file. The file's omission would not be detrimental to the Article's understanding. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8 and (possibly) WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either a permanent grave or a non-permanent grave. In either case, we need to delete the file:

If this is permanent (or the cross otherwise still exists), we would need to delete per WP:FREER. Even if there were FOP restrictions, we still require the photograph to be as free as possible; we cannot simply take a photograph from a commercial news agency when individuals would be able to create photographs of this permanent structure that are themselves licensed under CC.
Even this is non-permanent (and no longer in existence), we still lack contextual significance; the photographed object itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article (the article merely notes the existence of the cross in her memory); the use is presently decorative.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (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:UT Air Flight 471.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. Whpq (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file shows the wreckage and debris of UTair Flight 471. As described in the article, the accident is caused by structural failure during a hard landing, so the image is actually redundant to this point. Moreover, the file's existence doesn't help to explain some key factors of the accident central to the article, most significantly the poor communication between ground services and the pilots (detailed in UTair Flight 471#Investigation). Its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding, and in fact radio communication and CVR/FDR quotes could be better in serving this purpose. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless there's some policy on this, whether or not an image is already described by the article is redundant when it is the only one to illustrate said article. It's the only image of the wreckage we have, so we shouldn't delete unless there's a superior image. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aaron Liu: See WP:NFC#CS (transposed in WP:NFCC#8). While it is clear that the debris after the accident is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, the debris only shows that "this is what the plane looks like after it crashed", which by the article's title and content it is evident without using the fair-use image. Unless the image depicting the crash itself has sufficient contextual significance by providing more information that cannot be conveyed by text (such as File:Uacrash.jpg, depicting how United Airlines Flight 232 crash-landed while being misinterpreted by mass media), an image like this per se does not qualify WP:NFCC#8.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2023 (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:Dark Side of the Moon.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: Not actionable. If c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg results in keep, then we can talk about moving this to Commons. -FASTILY 02:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion on Wikimedia Commons, this album cover is in the public domain in the United States due to a failure to adhere to copyright formalities at the time of the artwork's first publication. I attempted to insert a file from Commons to replace this file hosted under a claim of fair use on The Dark Side of the Moon and subsequently tagged this file as orphaned fair use, but the replacement was contested by Tkbrett with a claim that the Commons image did not properly justify its license (the talk page of the Commons file contains a link to that very same Commons discussion linked above). As such, I am bringing the file here for deletion, as there is no need to keep the file locally under a claim of fair use when Commons has found that it is in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not transfer to Commons - Whether it's copyrighted in the US is one matter. The bigger issue is its eligibility for British copyright. The sweat of the brow is the minimum requirement for a work to be copyrighted in the UK per c:COM:TOO UK. The whole cover art itself is a British work and should be treated as such, and it's already original enough to the British eyes. Oh, and Commons copies of this cover art should be re-deleted for the same reasons I made. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The album itself was released in the United States two weeks before the album was released in the U.K.; unless there was publication of the album cover prior to that (and to the publication of the cover art in the February 24, 1973 United States edition of Billboard), the art would appear to be a U.S. work both under Commons policy ([t]he "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published. ... In cases where a work is simultaneously published in multiple countries, the "country of origin" is the country which grants the shortest term of copyright protection) and under the URAA. That it was created by U.K. citizens is immaterial to the question of the location of its publication. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the album cover art still qualifies as a British work under the current UK law. Sections 153 and 154 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 can protect such works by British living persons, regardless of first published location, and Hardie is, as you implied, the British person who mainly authored the cover art. If that's not enough, Section 155 can treat such publications of the same work as simultaneous. The UK release came within no more than 30 days after the first US release, but the law still counts the publication(s) as "simultaneous". George Ho (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the U.K. copyright law matter here? If the work was first published in the United States (or simultaneously), then that work is not eligible for URAA restoration, even if a valid copyright exists in the United Kingdom. It's free in America, which is the country in which the work appears to have been first published. Even under the (warranted) assumption that this were non-free in the U.K., that wouldn't matter for Commons unless the publications of the cover art in the U.S. and in the U.K. were non-simultaneous with the U.K. publication being first. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under c:COM:Licensing, the work must be in the public domain in both the US and the source country. Even when the album was first released in the US, I don't think the US itself was the source country in the first place, was it? Of course, per c:COM:PD, a country of origin and location of the first publication are both criteria, but that's a general rule of thumb rather than absolute (i.e. allowing no exceptions). Oh, and the policy uses "generally", meaning that "country of origin", if the same work was released very shortly before or after the release date, doesn't always mean that the original location of work is where the work was first published in. Even that policy page mentions Berne Convention, which defines "country of origin" and would apply.

Looking at the list of parties, the UK was one of the signatories of the Convention. But then, even after ratification, the UK didn't implement most of the Convention until its 1988 Act. Furthermore, the US didn't become a party of the Convention until 1988 or 1989. The Convention might... not be easy to apply. However, if the Convention applies, then the fifth Article of the Convention must also apply. Of course, the Article mentions the country whose legislation grants shortest term of protection in case of simultaneous releases. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put this another way, the US wasn't part of the "Union" defined by the Article at the time of the album's initial release(s). The UK was instead, and confidently, the Third Article (authorship) of the Convention may also apply. Unsure about the Sixth Article (dealing with publications outside the Union). George Ho (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Berne Convention isn't enough, how about Universal Copyright Convention? At the time of release, both the US and the UK were signatories of the UCC Geneva. And the UCC Switzerland didn't take effect until 1974, one year after the album's release. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that the album's release was the first publication of the design is false; it was used in pre-release advertising. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explicitly noted that the image was used in pre-release advertising, such as in the February 24, 1973 edition Billboard I mentioned above. Are you saying that the pre-release advertising in the U.K. pre-dated the pre-release advertising in the U.S. by more than one month? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG version now nominated on Commons for deletion. George Ho (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the DR being opened, I agree that we should not transfer to Commons for the time being until that DR is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:22, 26 April 2023 (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:Thomas h. Jordan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image description states "fair use." Archived snapshot of source webpage does not seem to indicate a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2023 (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.