Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 2



File:Young Stunna - Carniriv 2013.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 ⚡  03:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Young Stunna - Carniriv 2013.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Rexchuqa ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused, dark, no encyclopedic use  F ASTILY   05:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete Not only that, there is no description, or author info, so we don't know what this is a picture of. A di-no source would have dealt with this too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2017 (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:Smooth Island - Norfolk John Wise - Property Title.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: relisted on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Smooth Island - Norfolk John Wise - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 3 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - George Herbert Bailey - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 4 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - James Quested - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - Samuel Nicholas Wellard - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - Henry Charles Vimpany - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - Captain Thomas de Hoghton - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - Edward James Pillinger - Property Title.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 1 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth Island - Arthur Charles Vince - Property Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 5 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 6 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Smooth island (Colour version of survey) (slightly cropped).png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Survey report Page 2 of 6.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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:Everytown final logo.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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Everytown final logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lightbreather ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Flow 234 (Nina)  talk  10:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be counted as public domain due to simplicity and needs no FUR. However the information template should probably say it is US, so that it can be migrated to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2017 (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:Examiner p4 23-1-15.pdf

 * 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 ⚡  03:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Examiner p4 23-1-15.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jkokavec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Merc 1-jun-16.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jkokavec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Merc 20-1-07 p9.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jkokavec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Sun tas 17-11-13 p7.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jkokavec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Sun tas 23-5-10 p4.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jkokavec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These full-text copies of newspaper articles are being used in a gallery on this article's page. The uploader asserts that they are used to support the statement that "Smooth island has featured in recent local newspapers", but it is certainly not the only way of doing so, violating WP:NFCC 2 and 9 if not others - citations will do just fine. Please also see my talk page and the article's talk page. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Regarding WP:NFCC 2: Please demonstrate that there is a commercial role for these articles. If a customer wanted to purchase this content, how would they purchase it there is no website, no way to order old editions, the only place to find the old editions is a large (free) public library, which progressively collects the newspaper over time. The publisher (Mercury) themselves hasn't even bothered to digitise the old editions of the paper because there is no money to be made from it. I am presenting the only digitised copies of these articles available online, they cannot be found elsewhere. What would customers be willing to pay to access just these articles? There is no market for this content. Common sense indicates that the postig of these newspaper clippings online does not comprimise a market opportunity for them. They cannot be purchased online (nor in hard copy) and even if you could, nobody would actually buy it.
 * As for point 9, your claim is bizarre. The images are not in a gallery, they have captions and are referred to in the text of Smooth Island (Tasmania) and History of Smooth Island (Tasmania). I don't know what you're talking about, but again, whatever it is appears trifling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all - As said, use the newspapers as sources rather than mere images if they contain essential info. Not only the images are ineffective on helping readers understand the topic (i.e. the island), but also the articles may have commercial interests and should not be used visually. George Ho (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all. This is a frivilous tag. George and Train seem determined to Cherry-Pick whatever isolated piece of information supports your biased position, that the images should be deleted. I am not only claiming "Smooth island has featured in recent local newspapers". I have highlighted the reporting of a missing fisherman in which Smooth Island represented one of the missing man's last known locations. There are specific details of the rationale for sale (and purchase) within the articles. In addition - if given more than 24 hours without the need to waste time addressing your trifling licence issues (which have killed the joy of wikipedia for many) - I will actually discuss the way the articles presented these issues (relating to the design and layout of the articles within the graphics/text of the scanned images), ie, the attitude towards island owners as indicated through choice of image beside the text, the image size, and other text and graphical characterics. Despite these images being low resolution photographs, I scanned them in a way that would be able to accurately facilitate the analysis I plan to make as soon as these constant deletion threats ease off.Jkokavec (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...I'll select essential news articles to add more content and/or inline references. George Ho (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you George, I would genuinely appreciate any effort you can make to constructively build and enhance the content offered in this topic.Jkokavec (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... I added just four out of five newspaper articles as inline references. I couldn't add anything else from those articles as I don't want to add extra weight and violate WP:NOT. BTW, I don't know much about Tasmania. As said, you can ask one of participants of WikiProject Australia. George Ho (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you're upset about not using the fully-scanned newspaper articles. However, if NFCC is not well convincing, how about WP:copyrights and WP:non-U.S. copyrights, which apply (implicity) to fully-scanned newspaper articles? They say not to infringe them. --George Ho (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your inline refs but you've completely missed the point of having the articles there. The central question is not what, but how the island is reported in the media. Again, your description would need to describe how the article's visual layout (photos, graphics and text placement etc) conveys the attitude certain reporters/news outlets have towards Smooth Island/its owners (and the other islands in the area). If you can demonstrate that you can achieve this goal just as accurately and efficiently using just a text description of the visual layout of the article (rather than use text to refer to a scanned image displayed directly adjacent the text) then we can move on to discussing all the other highly contentious aspects of your claim.Jkokavec (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added some content and left out other unnecessary details. I wrote that the island was sold for $900,000 in 2013. --George Ho (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just moved some content to the "History" section. George Ho (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can tell that you made an effort and I appreciate that, but again, the price isn't important. It is the reporters and public's attitude to the sale and to island owners which is the basis for needing the images - the analysis of the visual appearance of the articles conveys the attitude of the reporting in each case. This is the fair use rationale. Would you like me to update the fair use rationale at eaxh image file? Would this satisfy you so we can put this to rest?Jkokavec (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to insert more content without original research (discouraged by WP:OR policy... but allowed in Wikiversity ;)&thinsp;), especially when using articles as primary sources. You can go ahead and change the rationale if you want. However, we're discussing non-free content, and articles are not exempt from copyright law. Even such usage exceeds fair use limits in the US. Also, the Foundation strongly encourages free content, including text. If you try to crop the images... well, I predict that the execution would be poor quality and confusing. --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Eg:
 * Delete the paper articles can just be used as references, and the content summarized in the text of the Smooth Island (Tasmania) article. So their use does not satisfy the requirement of adding to the meaning of the article. Also the first pdf I looked at only has half a sentence about the selling price for Smooth Island, and that could be very easily stated in the article with a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  ^ This is an inadequate assessment If you are going to express such a strong objection, the least you can do is to be bothered to actually look at all of the files in question.
 * Article describing a search for a missing fishermen (search area included Smooth Island),
 * Contentious article by reporter Phillipa Duncan, suggesting prospective owners of Smooth Island would be "recluses and eccentrics"
 * Interview with owners of Smooth Island. Jkokavec (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but the contents of those newspaper stories should be rewritten in your own words, and references made to the newspaper. People can look up the newspaper themselves.  There does not need to be a copy stored on Wikipedia's image collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:TEXTASIMAGES. Relevant content from the actual articles themselves can be summarized, added to the article, and supported by citations to the articles. Any analysis of the visual appearance of the articles would need to be supported by citations to reliable sources for it to not be considered WP:OR. In other words, the visual appearance of the articles themselves would need to be subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources for the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 to be met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides the version I've uploaded, there are no online versions of these articles available. It is not possible to purchase online versions. This is rare content, most readers will not be able to access the originals even if they were willing to pay for it. If I do not upload these versions, it would not be possible to verify my sources, except by physically going to a major public library in Australia and accessing microfilm archives, as I did. Please explain how it is not in the interest of the Wikipedia project to enable readers to independently WP:VERIFY it's content.Jkokavec (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been to a library to look at The Examiner myself (but I was disappointed that the quality of their copy was not any better than the online version on Trove) At least they had a copy. I suspect that any Smooth Island enthusiast could read the article here on Wikipedia and get all the facts. If they wanted to dig deeper, say they were a historian, they would be willing to head to a library to get a copy. Our issue here is not whether it is good for a reader, but that it does not comply with the WP:fair use criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in WP:fair use criteria which suggests this use of these images is not fair use. I have been through each of the 10 points in the WP:fair use criteria and nothing seems to prohibit the use of these articles in this way. Am I missing something, or is the delete-camp lacking a concrete, objective and specific basis to contend that these files are non-compliant with WP:fair use criteria. You are making a mountain out of a WP:MOLEHILL and WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail here. A compromise is required, please suggest one.Jkokavec (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is 8 "Contextual significance" in that they add little to the article, and what is expressed in the file can easily be written in the text. Since there are so many it is also a problem with 3a Minimal usage: Minimal number of items. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll remove 2 images which can just be cited in-line. I'll refer to another article which suggests preconceptions and attitudes towards reporting of the socioeconomic and personality traits of island owners (placing the newspaper clip beside this info, in this case). I'll elaborate more on the current owners, including the newspaper clip with the interview of the current owners for contextual relevance. I'll elaborate more on the missing person search, including the image for contextual relevance. Removing 2 images will offset 3a Minimal usage, and providing contextual relevance will offset criteria 8. How does this sound? Jkokavec (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can upload the newspaper articles to your personal website or webpage if you want to preserve the content. George Ho (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC); oh... 03:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doing that creates a violation of WP:COPYVIOCITE, so please don't. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:55, 4 June 2017 (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:ZabeelPalaceinside.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  03:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:ZabeelPalaceinside.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Asdfghkl12 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Poor quality image. Screenshot as indicated by metadata. Uploader has a history of questionable images. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC) It is not copyrighted Asdfghkl12 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To which picture were you referring, Asdfghkl12? George Ho (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume they are referring to the above image of the interior of Zabeel Palace. Sorry for confusion; I cut and pasted their comments verbatim from the talk page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... no worries then. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, how did you make this image? It also appears distorted by stretching horizontally. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's from YouTube, I deleted the image from the page. Asdfghkl12 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case you have to prove that the YouTube video was free, and credit that video and its creator. Since this is unlikely I recommend Delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2017 (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:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg

 * 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: relisted on. czar 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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.