Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 30

April 30

File:Communal shower.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 ⚡ 01:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file lies in a grey area with regard to copyright. Technically, it has source and licensing information, but it is low resolution and most of the uploader’s uploads were deleted for copyright reasons.

Until recently, this file was used at Communal shower, where its use is currently disputed. Brianjd (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A low-resolution image without EXIF data, showing nude, identifiable people in a private place without an indication of permission, from someone whose other uploads were deleted for copyright violations seems ill-advised. hinnk (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the uploader claimed that this file was their own work (‘self-made’). Brianjd (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is because my use of "permission" was ambiguous, but I meant permission of the subjects to be photographed. I don't think enwiki has ever made its own policy version of COM:PHOTOCONSENT, but I think an equivalent standard should be applied in cases like this, where the subjects have a strong expectation of privacy. hinnk (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t replying to your comment; I was clarifying the part of the nomination where it saidit has source and licensing information. Your use of the termpermission seemed clear to me, but it still good that you clarified it. Brianjd (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this is encyclopedic. Even if it is, I see no evidence of permission in what is CLEARLY a private space where people would expect not to be photographed. Buffs (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was confined to copyright issues specific to this file.
Other users’ comments here, as well as Talk:Communal shower#Removing Naked Children, raised concerns about scope and ethics, which are not specific to this file. Those concerns apply equally (maybe even more so) to the other file whose use in that article is currently disputed, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg, which depicts young children. That file has already been kept at the non-trivial deletion discussion c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg#File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg 2. Also, that file continues to be used on several other projects. Brianjd (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the question was whether this was surreptitious photography or did the people know a photo was being taken. This appears to be the former, not the latter. It really only adds to what already appears to be a clear copyright issue. Buffs (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The Wikimedia project bans taking photos of identifiable people in private places without their consent. Nudist celebration? Sure. In a shower, where they are not expecting cameras? Absolutely not. Bremps... 23:53, 30 April 2025 (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:Screenshot Airplanes (song).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 ⚡ 01:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2025 (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:Gracie Abrams - That's So True.ogg

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 ⚡ 01:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rational is provided for the inclusion of this snippet - it is not discussed anywhere in the article, it is not subject to critical commentary and its ommission does not harm understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed as long as I follow WP:SAMPLE its fine to add samples. Next time I'll add a sample to a longer page, maybe one that talks about the music. But this information could be added in the future so maybe its fine? Anthony2106 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony2106: That guideline says:Each copyrighted music sample must be accompanied by a suitable fair use rationale, or it will be deleted. (It should say:Each non-free music sample ….) According to the deletion rationale, you did not follow that rule.

If this were merely a Wikipedia style issue, then arguments likethis information could be added in the future might work. But with non-free media, there is no such discretion. Brianjd (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2025 (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.