Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 11



File:155mm Gun CALA 30 Mk2.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 ⚡  15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:155mm Gun CALA 30 Mk2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by DPdH ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image used to illustrate Cañón 155 mm. L 45 CALA 30. There is a free image already and I'm not sure why we need this one too. B (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I commented in the summary edit when I restored this pic in the article, none of the free images of this gun existing in "Commons" shows a full side view of the gun itself, allowing to have a good idea on how this specific gun looks like and its dimensions. As per my commentary when uploaded the image long time ago, this image could be disposed of when another "free" one showing the same information is added to "Commons"; still looking for such an image. Please do not delete this image, as is still fulfilling its purpose under "fair use". Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really believe that a free image exists, then this is criterion enough to delete this image as it fails WP:NFCCP which requires that no free image is available or could be created. A free image could be created by (for example) someone taking a photograph of an actual gun. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know whether a free image providing similar information (full lateral view) exists or is available to upload to "Commons", as so far I was unable to find any in the Internet. If someone takes a pic of a lateral view of this gun, with a similar or better level of detail, and releases it into the Public Domain, then that image could replace the current one. Until that happens, this "non-free" picture, used in only this article, fulfills its purpose. Moreover, the image is no longer available online except in Wikipedia; I just run a couple of online searches and neither the original image nor the source website can be found anymore.Hence should not be deleted, as fulfills its purpose and is no longer available so not affecting anyone's copyright. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just reinforced my point. You said, "If someone takes a pic of a lateral view of this gun, with a similar or better level of detail, and releases it into the Public Domain, then that image could replace the current one".  The very fact that someone could take such a picture to replace the current one disqualifies the use of a non-free image on the criterion that I cited above.  It is not necessary for someone to actually do so.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the point, then most non-free images wouldn't pass NFCCP#1 as in most cases at least a drawing could be created based on a picture of an object. Anyway, seems that this image can't be saved for the time being, if the criterion is so strict; hence information will be lost until someone creates such a "free" image (I'll keep searching anyway). Out of curiosity, where can I read about the rationale supporting the "...or could be created" part of the criterion? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Try US copyright legislation. Particularly the bits that cover 'fair use' of copyrighted material of which WP:NFCCP is Wikipedia's interpretation of the law.  AFAIAA, it has survived unchallenged thus far, though ultimately, the final arbiter of whether it is right or wrong is the courts.  Incidentally, a drawing of a copyright image would be a 'derivative image' and the copyright would still belong to the creator of the original image. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly complex legislation; specially related to the drawing. I assume that if it's not a direct copy of the image, then would not be a "derivative image". Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As the details change, the point at which it ceases to be a derivative image is a very grey area indeed. As ever, in the US, it would be the litigant with the deepest pockets who wins. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2015 (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:Xtina woohoo isngle cover.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 ⚡  15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Xtina woohoo isngle cover.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Theuhohreo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is deemed fair use as the artwork for a single. However, all sources in the article that link to single releases show iTunes links that use the parent album's artwork, despite this file's use on featured rapper Nicki Minaj's website. Use rationale says: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." As none of its single releases are attached to this image, this does not help the reader identify the work and thus fails WP:NFCC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the only article that uses the image is a about a single song, which the image is the artwork for the single cover. It therefore meets WP:NFCCP.  If you seriously believe that it does not, then there are one hell of a lot of images that need to be deleted also. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * But it's not the single artwork. If you follow this link to its single on iTunes, you'll see it uses the album artwork for Bionic, not this one. While the file is used on Nicki Minaj's website, no actual single release of this song uses that artwork. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, you have a fair observation and the image should be deleteed. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2015 (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:Billy Wilder.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 ⚡  15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Billy Wilder.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Gavatron ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have what purports to be a free image of Billy Wilder giving direction on the set of a movie at File:Brackett-Wilder-Harrison still.jpg that could replace this non-free one. Even if we didn't have a free image, this one is purely decorative. B (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is true that a crop of the free image could replace the non free one, there is a significant difference in the age of the two images, and the older one may not adequately portray the subject. I would argue that the older image would not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose", as required by WP:NFCCP.  The image was included in a second article (List of German-speaking Academy Award winners and nominees) but as there is no free-use rationale for that article it has been deleted (from the article). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (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.