Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 11



File:USA Network logo 1999.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:USA Network logo 1999.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by AdamDeanHall ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * This was nominated for deletion by, but this user forgot to provide any rationale for deletion. Above, it says that the nominator uploaded the file, but this isn't correct; it was uploaded by . My opinion is that this should be deleted for violation of WP:NFCC as this is a former logo. This was also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/File:USA Network logo 1999.png, which is improper as a file is not an article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed; logo was only of use for a few years, unlike the PD first logo which is just fine for illustrating the network's look in the past.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:49, 13 September 2014 (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.

File:Tsukasa Shinobu.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Tsukasa Shinobu.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Megamethamphetamine ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC. Also fails WP:NFCC as the person is alive (and no longer in prison). Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2014 (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.

File:Tsukasa Shinobu, the head of the 6th Yamaguchi-gumi.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Tsukasa Shinobu, the head of the 6th Yamaguchi-gumi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Megamethamphetamine ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid WP:NFCC assessment: this person is no longer in prison. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (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.

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.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: Although the start of deletion discussion is malformed, there is policy-backed consensus is to delete. The only keep responses deal with the malformed nature of the discussion, whereas the deletion responses showed that the image does not met all points of WP:NFCC. Although not named specifically, the points of WP:NFCC (no free images) and WP:NFCC (contextual significance) were shown not to be met. These two points were not shown to be met by any of the keep rationales and it is the burden of those who want to keep to show how it meets all points of WP:NFCC. As such, it doesn't In addition to this discussion, the discussion at WP:NFCR shows that although the images may be in the public record, that does not mean them to be in the public domain. The image must be treated as non-free and as it violates WP:NFCC points, it cannot be kept.

That all being said, based on the deletion discussion and discussion at NFCR, it is my personal opinion that the file could meet all of the points of NFCC if there was contextual significance within the article that supports the requirement of the photo needing to be seen for that part of the article to be understood. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Cwobeel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free file, which is a WP:MUG Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging    that commented on this issue during a CSD. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who started the NFCC with my limited understanding of copyright on Wikipedia. I've seen (and patrolled pages) where the image was removed because it was a non free image and that was that. But there's some special cases here where the image is non-free and there are free equivalents, I think this is the case here. I believe that the proponents of the 'historical' argument are not valid because this is a BLP and in general, copyright and BLP are very strict. Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is already a discussion underway here: Non-free content review. Is there any reason to open up yet another discussion?- MrX 19:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This will render a verdict, where NFCC just does a 'review' of a content. Like RfC for conduct, no resolutions just comments. Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the discussion at NFCR. However, that discussion will only address the copyright status and not the BLP issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)\
 * WP:FFD isn't for discussing the BLP issues. The talk page is.  And the talk page consensus is that, per WP:MUG, we are using it in appropriate context.--v/r - TP 19:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You still haven't come up with a valid reason to delete. --Neil N  talk to me 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete rationale makes no sense as it doesn't say how the photo violates WP:NFCC. Article is about indictment and contains commentary on picture. --Neil N  talk to me 19:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Nom doesn't make any deletion argument. Non free files are allowed if they meet WP:NFCC.  WP:MUGs are allowed in context.  What is the deletion rationale?--v/r - TP 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per TParis. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - The basis for this deletion nomination is flawed in that it conflates two unrelated matters. The image does not harm Perry in the slightest, and doesn't violate copyright law by even the strictest interpretation of the fair use doctrine. It is not being used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. - MrX 21:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not needed. There are plenty of free images of Perry.  There is nothing special about the image that would require its use to present some special purpose.  IMO it's only purpose is political both for and against Perry.  Detractors are clearly using it as a way to demean him.  He, on the other hand, is using it to raise money.  WP should not play a part in political posturing.  Arzel (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy keep. There is no there there. Mugshots are government documents which are in the public record. X4n6 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. "To illustrate", standing alone, is never a sufficient rationale for use of a non-free image, nor is the mere inclusion of discussion regarding the image. There is no commentary in the article regard the image, only statements that it has been used on t-shirts and that it has "gone viral" -- and for both of those statements, it is evident that the illustration fails the policy requirement that its use "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", whether "article topic" is read narrowly to refer to the indictment itself or more broadly to refer the the statements about the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2014 (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.

How in the world did you arrive to a delete decision based on the comments above? Care to explain? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you followed the other thread or not, but OTRS came back and said the photo was copyrighted, and not released to public domain, which may have had some impact on the decision. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a comment, from the NFCR thread, there is a possible use of this file in considering it as a "smugshot", so the deletion just because it was determined to be non-free (which I do agree with based on the NFCR discussion) is probably not right. The strength of whether the NFCC argue is there doesn't seem to be taken into discussion here. --M ASEM (t) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Eschenbach daughter.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Eschenbach daughter.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by EdwardTattsyrup ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The article for which this was uploaded has been found to be a hoax - see WP:Articles for deletion/Gottfried Eschenbach. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Given that this Essenbach apparently did not exist, his estate cannot have released the photo. I don't know where the photo comes from, but it is almost certainly not what it purports to be. Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2014 (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.