Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 25



File:TYJ 7.5inch Pastry.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 ⚡  03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:TYJ 7.5inch Pastry.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Alexchia ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photographing copyrighted 2D art (packaging) does not mean you own the copyright. See also &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 01:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Package labeling is often protected by copyright as explained in c:COM:PACKAGING, and this particular image does not appear to be an exception. The photo itself may be licensed as "PD-self" if taken by the uploader, but purchasing the product does not mean there's been a transfer of copyright for the labeling to the buyer. The packaging appears to be too complex to be ineligible for copyright and this is certainly not a case of de minimis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 27 March 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:Springhome-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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Springhome-logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Alexchia ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logo likely exceeds threshold of originality, author is probably not copyright holder. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Convert to non-free. I agree that the author is unlikely to be the copyright holder, but it may be possible to convert this to non-free use. The logo can be found at http://www.teeyihjia.com/ by clicking on the "Our Brands" tab, so it does appear to be an official logo. it would probably be better if a direct url for the image could be found to use as a source, so maybe someone could do that. Other than that, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC can be met by the Tee Yih Jia website, so all that is needed is for a non-free use rationale to be provided. Non-free use, however, should be limited to Spring Home, unless someone feel it should be used in another article and can properly justify it per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike !vote -- 05:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)]
 * File:TYJ-springhome-logo.jpg already exists, and is of the lower resolution called for in the NFCC. Therefore I nominated this one for deletion. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Struck previous !vote and changing to "delete" based upon the fact that a non-free version of this logo already exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 31 March 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:Treasury 001.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 ⚡  03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Treasury 001.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Justinclark ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Need OTRS permission, due to claim by other user on talk page to be the copyright owner, an not agreeing to the release. (t) Josve05a  (c) 09:38, 25 March 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:Sackville place carbomb 1973.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 ⚡  04:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Sackville place carbomb 1973.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jeanne boleyn ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image used just to decorate an infobox. The subject of the article can be perfectly understood without the aid of this photo. damiens.rf 16:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Normally, "image used to identify the subject" is considered a valid reason for a non-free image...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "image used to identify the subject" is about album covers in articles about an album, movie posters in articles about movies, or non-free photos of people in biographical articles (when a free replacement can't be achieved, usually because the person is already dead).
 * This picture is a journalistic documentation of a fact. While it adds some information to the discussion about the topic (interconnected terrorist acts in Dublin, Ireland, between 1972 and 1973), it's in any means essential for the understanding of the topic. It's being used as a decoration in the article. --damiens.rf 20:26, 27 March 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:Movies es5-20030823.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: no consensus. ℯ xplicit  01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Movies es5-20030823.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Benjamin Mako Hill ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The only content relevant to the subject being illustrated seems to be the names of the folders. There is no UI or other key features of the subject visible beyond what looks like a normal Windows desktop. The encyclopediac content is completely replaceable by an in-article list of folder-names (if the topic is features or files) or the phrase "looks like a Windows desktop" without actually seeing it. Although the article subject is the website, which includes this background and layout, I further dispute that seeing every iteration of a website (vs just its logo, or a *single* screenshot) adds substantial encyclopediac value.

I note that this file has already been deleted once where the "discussion" involved only the nominator and the closer, and then undeleted based on a discussion only between the uploader and nominator. I don't object to that process. But I think the file is non-replaceable (website dead) but still not fair-use (not substantial enough value). DMacks (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging User:Sven Manguard and User:Fastily who were involved in the previous XFD. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The article was deleted due to a misunderstanding. When I explained the situation, the deleting administrator restored the image. I was confident then that this qualified under WP:NFC/WP:NFCC and nothing about that situation has changed. This is a minimal static screenshot of an interactive application. The website/company is defunct. The image is non-replaceable. The omission of this image would be to the detriment of Wikipedia's readers.


 * The image is non-replaceable and of high value for any excellent encyclopedia article on the subject. ES5's desktop within a desktop interface is unusual, if not entirely unique. It also illustrates the brazen way that EarthStation 5 was simply linking to downloadable movies in a way that supports an important set of claims in the article about the website direct engagement in music piracy which is the primary source of most media reporting on the subject. As the rationale also explains, the fact that the website is also copied (without permission) from Microsoft, is additional visual evidence illustrating the transgressive approach to copyright taken by the firm.


 * I agree that it is not helpful to show, "every iteration of a website." Including this one image is not doing that and nobody is suggesting doing so. There are three images on the EarthStation 5 page. One is the splash screen for the website at the time of launch. A second image is a strict subset of that website that is just the logo. The only other image is this one. It is one of two extremely different screenshots of different parts of the website from different periods of time that serve distinct and clearly explained purposes. It the only screenshot shows the way that the website directly engaged in piracy.


 * Although the article itself is not in fantastic shape at the moment, improving the article on ES5 into a GA/FA has long been a goal of mine and I still hope to do this. I would love to create a comprehensive encyclopedia article before more material disappears. I can't imagine a FA version of the article without a single image illustrating the degree — and the way — that the site's administrators simply linked people to downloadable movies. The article can say that (and it does) but I believe that this image reflects an important piece of supporting evidence that an excellent encyclopedia article should include. — m a k o ๛  02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the previous deletion/revival was within policy and non-contentious, but merely to provide backstory for why an already-XFD'd image is back again. But I dispute that this image is sufficiently useful in this article. To "see the website engaged in piracy" we'd need more than a top-level index of simple letters of the alphabet (nothing about what is in them). The sentence "they provide direct links to pirated content" completely explains it. Saying "their website mimics the appearance of Microsoft's Windows desktop" is likewise sufficient (there's nothing substantially gained by also seeing it, which is a key requirement of NFCC). And a Web desktop is hardly unique, and not even new/novel in its time. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to use much imagination to understand that folders that appear to contain "Movies [A-Z]" suggests that they are providing links to movies. It's not perfect, but it's good visual evidence. Microsoft would never have licensed the graphics so the verisimilitude to XP is unique (at least as far as I know) even if web desktops are not and it is evidence of ES5 transgressive approach to copyright. I completely disagree that a sentence or two describing or two would do the same work as the picture in question and it seems clear to me that there substantial gain from seeing these pictures as per NFCC. The risk of having this image is tiny and the benefit seems clear to me. I'm a strong an advocate for keeping Wikipedia as limited to free culture as possible but this isn't where I'd start. I think we're just going to disagree on this one. — m a k o ๛  09:47, 31 March 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:Pearl Fest Theme Compilation.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 ⚡  03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Pearl Fest Theme Compilation.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Sharadbob ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The article already has one fair use image. I don't see the point of having another one. (t) Josve05a  (c) 11:27, 25 March 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:Around the golden calf. tryptich.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 ⚡  03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Around the golden calf. tryptich.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Klettur ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of copyrighted artworks (t) Josve05a  (c) 12:19, 25 March 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:JoeLargeBW.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 ⚡  10:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:JoeLargeBW.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by MrsCasanova ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

professional photo of notable individual, dubious self-work claim  F ASTILY   20:28, 25 March 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.