Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 7



File:Agnes Mary Christabel Latham.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Agnes Mary Christabel Latham.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Stephaniebagnall ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused, no encyclopedic use. Also unclear if this is *actually* in the public domain in both the US and UK. F ASTILY  01:55, 7 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:PikesPeaksign.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:PikesPeaksign.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Michael Greiner ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

per Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:30, 7 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:Newley in 2016.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Newley in 2016.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by 020pietro ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

professional/promotional studio photo, dubious self-work claim  F ASTILY   07:06, 7 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:Noor Album Cover.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Noor Album Cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Enaya Afzal ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails MOS:FILM and WP:NFCC. Trend SPLEND ✉ 09:46, 7 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:Pro.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Pro.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mprabaharan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Also:


 * File:Meghamalai1.JPG

Low resolution & quality. Not very educative. +Questionable authorship. XXN, 15:19, 7 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:BillyWrightStamp@.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:BillyWrightStamp@.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Silverfish4 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a scan of a commemorative Royal Mail stamp. The image was posted on Flickr with a free license, however, the copyright for the stamp itself would still be held by the Royal Mail so this file would be non-free, Whpq (talk) 15:26, 7 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:Michael Joy, Pastry Live 2012.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Michael Joy, Pastry Live 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Snow46 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-notable person, article speedily deleted and then an AFC - declined, per User_talk:Snow46. Therefore this picture is out of project scope. XXN, 15:55, 7 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:Sheri Foster, actress.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Sheri Foster, actress.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jasperketone ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Questionable authorship. Flickrwash. This image exists also on web in higher resolutions https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc0NzQzMjk5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTQxMDY0Mg%40%40._V1_UY1200_CR130,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0288046/filmotype?ref_=m_nm_flmg&h=1200&w=630&tbnid=bNJhBeTrj2BnXM&tbnh=310&tbnw=163&usg=__3Hc3l-ifJ1H0GhMyMY9X4qM-Ikw=&docid=oL9AQE6pASSucM&itg=1#h=1200&imgrc=bNJhBeTrj2BnXM:&tbnh=310&tbnw=163&w=630 XXN, 16:07, 7 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:Wei-Yin Chen on February 29, 2016.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Wei-Yin Chen on February 29, 2016.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by 佾珜 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Is "© All rights reserved" on flickr. XXN, 16:17, 7 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:Natalie Pricer.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Natalie Pricer.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by UnicornKittyNarwhal ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Author is unclear (Subject is listed as Author). Instagram photo - copyright status unclear. 32.218.39.3 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the intent of the author section and have fixed this, and in regards to the copyright issues I have permission from both the subject and author to use the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:348F:C20:59D6:95B0:C9F8:2AA4 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saying you have the author's permission is insufficient for showing that this image can legitimately be used on Wikipedia. Please read WP:IUP. 32.218.40.102 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tag these correctly and don't clog up FFU. The di-no permission template has been applied per the above comment. Otherwise, just tag it db-f9 and move on. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 12 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:Damaris Hayman.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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Damaris Hayman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Beryl reid fan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: I am converting a replaceable fair use request to this ffd. The file needs to be deleted for the following reasons: (where I am referencing the uploader's arguments, I am referring to this) In summary; the uploader has provided no valid basis on which to retain the file. She is alive, and this image is not noted by any secondary sources as being notable in any respect. Foundation policy stands. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is unequivocally clear that we do not accept non-free images of living people in almost every case. Such cases, in practice, are vanishingly small. Here on en.wikipedia they are restricted to those individuals who are incarcerated for life, provably known to be recluses, or fugitives from the law. Damaris Hayman is none of these things.
 * The uploader has argued extensively in favor of keeping this file on the grounds that getting a free image is nigh on impossible. This is a false basis, as our policy does not permit such images of living people except as noted above.
 * The uploader has argued her look is important to her role, but has failed to identify how this image is critical to that understanding. There are no apparent secondary sources attesting to her look, much less this particular image, as being important. the uploader cites a blog located here as proof, but as per WP:USERGENERATED (reliable sources guideline) the use of blogs as a source is generally unacceptable. The uploader tries to make the claim that her fame rests on this appearance, and thus WP:NFC #1 applies, yet no secondary sources point to this appearance being notable.
 * The uploader has described the role this image depicts as being memorable according to this secondary source. This is false basis for keeping the image as the source does not in any way address her appearance in the role, just her acting in the role as the source notes her "engaging performance" not, say, her "engaging appearance".
 * I agree with the uploader that text alone does not provide an adequate visual identification of the actress. That is not a reason to permit non-free content. If it were, there would be no bar to uploading any non-free image of any living individual. Thus, this argument for inclusion is false.
 * The uploader has made a claim that the actress has not been active since 1995, and thus obtaining a free image is difficult. This is false. The actress was active as of last year. See . Secondly, WP:NFCC does not have an allowance for a living individual who is not currently acting, even if she were not active.
 * Delete - a free image of a living actress could be made. -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFCC. I nominated the file for speedy deletion as replaceable fair use, but it was contested and an administrator felt it was better to further discuss this at FFD. As Hammersoft posted above, the primary reason for the uploader wanting to use the file seems to be that she is no longer professionally active as an actress and therefore a freely licensed equivalent image is unlikely to be found/created to show her as such. There was some significant discussion about this type of thing at WT:NFCC and it appears that non-free use may be allowed in such cases when the physical appearance of the person in question was something which received coverage in reliable sources and is one of the reasons they are Wikipedia notable. I just do not see that as being the cases with Hymans since there's no sourced comment within the article which addresses her appearance and there's no reason to believe that it was something discussed at the time. For sure, an argument could be made that actor's physical appearance may be one of the reasons for their popularity and sucess. This, however, seems to be a common trait for many in the acting profession, and it does not seem to be anything that is significant or at least contexutally significant enough to justify non-free use per WP:NFCC. The image is being used as the primary means of identifying Hymans, but in the aforementioned WT:NFCC discussion it was stated that she has appeared at Dr. Who fan events in recent years. This page shows she was a guest at one such event in July 2014 and another one in August 2014. If that's the case, then it's quite possible that someone in attendance did take her picture, which means that it is possible for a freely licensed equivalent to be created. It's also possible that she will do more of these conventions, which means more opportunities for photos to be taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's nothing reliably sourced in the article Damaris Hayman that requires the use of copyrighted material to understand. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - the uploader here - just reiterating my arguments and answering a couple of points. I respect your decision and realise it is probably to delete, but I have the right to argue the case ...No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question. Free images are not available as the actress worked in the copyrighted media of film, TV and theatre, and no free images can be traced. Although the actress is alive, according to the BFI, she has not been active since 1995. - (the ref. Hammersoft makes to a 2016 appearance has an IMDB source - generally unacceptable? It is in any case a one off reprisal of her Doctor Who role) and therefore, "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." (WP:NFC) N.B. the photo is a still promoting her role in the classic Doctor Who serial, The Daemons, a part she is known for, with her performance described on BBC Online as "very memorable." A large part of any actor's performance is conveyed through the way they look, and the photo shows her distinctive memorably eccentric look in the role. Her acting in the role and her appearance, costume, hairstyle etc are insepperable. this image is critical to that understanding because it is a contemporary image of her promoting herself in the part. I believe omitting this photo would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of Damaris Hayman. It is also autographed, which is of added interest for graphologists. I would suggest that although the subject is alive, is it reasonable to expect a free photo to be available? It might be a good idea to obtain one, but is it practical? The, in this case, 87 year old actress, would have to be tracked down, presumably in England, and a photo requested. Are volunteer editors expected to pay with their own money for this kind of private detective work, when the actors have been out of the business for decades, and are no longer easily contactable through agents and the like? Track down a photo from a Doctor Who convention yes, but who practically, is going to do that? it remains in the realm of ideas and isn't practical. You will just dismiss the file and will anyone have the time or funds to track one down?...  Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, unless you can find secondary sources that point to her look being significant, what she looks like is irrelevant. That it is autographed is completely meaningless. We don't add non-free images here solely because they are autographed. There's no exception in WP:NFCC for autographed images. Your claims about her being alive but unavailable have been fundamentally countered. She's appeared in public quite a bit in the last few years. With all respect, you're not offering any valid reason for us to to waive WP:NFCC in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well get rid of the damn thing then! Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Sorry to be rude, but it was way past my bedtime. I find the whole thing depressing. I think we are fundamentally at cross purposes over this and although I stand by what I say, I'm not willing to give any further energy to it. I care too much for my own mental health. Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:34, 8 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:Emma Nathanson.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  04:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Emma Nathanson.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by UnicornKittyNarwhal ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:N, is unused, and is likely to remain unused because it has no encyclopedic value. 32.218.39.3 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - Notability is not a reason for deleting an image. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but being unencyclopedic is. Delete. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 11 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.