Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 January 16

January 16

File:April 2011 debut issue cover of Treats!.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: kept. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a piece of non-free media in the article to identify the subject (note: image is NSFW). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This debate was held a long time ago [[1]]. Note that TonyTheTiger, Chillum and Jab843 supported the image. KoshVorlon wanted it deleted. Neither Masem Martijn Hoekstra nor 0x0077BE expressly supported or opposed although Masem seemed to oppose the image. The Gnome was indifferent between this image and another being kept. The image continues to be a perfectly valid fair use, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have not looked at the article in some time and it appears to have significantly change. I do think it has encyclopedic value in that it was the debut issue, I also think it helps demonstrate that this is not a strictly black and white magazine. Looking at the other picture alone one might think it is a b&w magazine.

I don't think the talk page discussion obviates this FfD, though the pinging of those involved does seem helpful to this discussion. Chillum 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given Kosh's concerns about NFCC #3 and Masem's argument I agree we should delete File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg. Chillum 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this but Delete File:March_2012_Issue_3_cover_of_Treats!.jpg. You typically only need one cover image for a notable magazine, so if multiple covers are used, we need to show NFC metrics for all images. Of the two cover images, the one listed here for #1 actually has commentary about the cover image, which would pass NFC. The #3 cover image does not beyond identifying that the model's appearance landed her some predominate work, but there's no discussion of the image itself. As the #1 cover readily fits NFC over #3, that should be the only image on the page. We don't need two images to show that the magazine demonstrates color and B&W art (that's what text does). --MASEM (t) 18:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that the article doesn't need more than one non free image to further the readers understanding of the subject. If the black and white image doesn't adequately represent the magazine, then surely the color picture does. I don't have a strong preference on which one to keep, but keep only one, and delete the other. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there is to be only one picture in the article it should be this one. It was the debut issue and it shows it is color while the other may confuse readers into thinking it is not. Chillum 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFC #3, 5 & 8 KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of listing off policies it fails, perhaps you can explain why it fails them. As it stands you seem to be ignoring points made here.

NFCC #3:Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. It has been said that this image demonstrates that it is a color magazine and that it is the debut issue. This makes it pass #3 in my opinion.

NFCC #5:Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. Again, this provides encyclopedic value by demonstrating the look of the magazine and showcasing its debut issue. You have not mentioned any content standards it does not meet.

NFCC #8:Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Again without an image you would have no idea what the look of the magazine is. The other image fails to demonstrate it is in color.

You have not addressed any of this. Your opinion will be given more consideration by the closer if you do. Chillum 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Chillum states, both images are necessary to depict the magazine as one that presents both black-and-white and color photography.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of magazines have black and white photos. I was more concerned with readers thinking it was a black and white magazine when it was color than I was in demonstrating the different types of photos. I think one photo is enough and that it should not be the black and white one to avoid misunderstanding. Chillum 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words backed up by sources are sufficient to show evidence that a work is published in both color and b/w. We don't use NFC as verification of facts; NFC is meant to supplement text, not replace it. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, this image is historical as the cover of the debut issue. Debut issue covers have uniformly been regarded as historical enough to pass NFCC in my experience.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per NFC, the debut issue - or if the magazine has a format change, the debut issue of the latest format - is an acceptable image for simple identification if there is absolutely no discussion of the cover format in the article (per NFCI#1). In this case, the #1 cover definitely would meet that on its own, but we have the added fact that there's discussion about that cover format, hence why I think we can keep this one. But that #3 cover then have absolutely no reason to be there - you have your cover for identification, and there's no discussion of the #3 cover's image (only that the model on it went to have more gigs because of being on the cover, which can be described with words). That's why this nomination is attempting to delete the wrong image - #1 is fine, but #3 has to go. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this but Delete the March 2012 cover as redundant, per MASEM's comments above. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a backdoor deletion nomination for an image that is not even listed here. That image is a perfectly valid FU and has entirely different reasons for its necessity that should be accorded a separate discussion if it is to be considered. Keep the March 2012 image until you are able to hold a separate nomination for it. People have stated that the March cover is redundant at treats! without addressing its second fair use at Emily Ratajkowski as the image that propelled her career. Only one valid FU is necessary and no one has stated an argument against its use at the latter page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there needs to be a separate request for deletion from the treats! entry of the March 2012 cover image. The March 2012 cover is relevant to the entry for Emily Ratajkowski since it's the image that reportedly propelled her career, but redundant for the magazine entry. However, this is a discussion that needs to be held separately. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a separate FFD would have to be started for that image, and it should be important to note that while it is used at Emily's article, it's even more of a failure of NFC, specifically NFCC#1 as it is a non-free image on the page about a living person -you don't need to show the image of a cover to say that that cover appearance led to additional career roles, so it's not valid there. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (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:File nameFile:Subrata Saha Shuvro.jpg.ext

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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't want my picture here for my privacy 58.97.142.7 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this file https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/19/20150116130728!Subrata_Saha_Shuvro.jpg and this one too https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/19/20141208070545!Subrata_Saha_Shuvro.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.142.7 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2015 (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:IUPUI Jaguars updated wordmark.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This file is an orphan. File:IUPUI Jags.png was uploaded to Commons as a PNG version. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 13:40, 16 January 2015 (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:James Peck.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: deleted as failing NFCC#2. For reference I have read the related OTRS ticket - Peripitus (Talk) 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See ticket:2015011610002223 - copyright owner disputes NFU. ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2015 (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:Intratec case logo.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, poor-quality shapshot of a logo from a gun case. Originally tagged as a copyright violation as unlicensed derivative, which was declined [2]. The Intratec article already has a much better quality corporate logo and this image is unused and not needed. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 19:14, 16 January 2015 (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.