Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 15



File:Chryso Stamatopoulou2017.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 ⚡  07:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Chryso Stamatopoulou2017.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ypsus ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploader claims to be the copyright holder for this image. This same photo is used on the band website. WP:OTRS confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The EXIF data says that the photo was taken 10 September 2017 which is prior to its upload to Wikipedia. I am unable to find any archived versions of the source url so it's hard to tell when the file was uploaded to the band's website. The website, however, is not licensed under a free license compatible with either WP:COPY or c:COM:L so maybe the best thing to do in this case is to tag the file with Template:Di-no permission and give the uploader a chance to verify the license as explained in c:COM:OTRS. An explanation as to why the file is being tagged in addition to what's written in the template my be helpful as well. If the uploader is unable to verify their ownership of the file, it can be deleted after five days. Even if it's deleted, it can always be "undeleted" per WP:REFUND if the uploader verifies the licensing at a later date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 16 October 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:Alison King at Liz Dawn&

 * 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 F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Alison King at Liz Dawn& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Poeheese ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image of public living person, a free one could surely be taken. I had tagged it di-replaceable fair use on that basis, uploader disputes that a free one exists or could be created, so here we are. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and tagged as such. The image is from Getty failling WP:NFCC in addition to failing WP:NFCC.  The dispute rationale makes the subject out to be close to an unreachable hermit.  Obviously not true for an actor in a soap opera. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't read the entire dispute rational. Of course the actor is not an unreachable hermit. An actor in a soap opera can be RESTRICTED AS TO HOW THEIR IMAGE IS USED. This is what I said: "As this person has acted most predominantly in a soap opera, Coronation Street by ITV, their image is largely carefully controlled by the broadcaster, therefore free images of this person are probably impossible to come by or create. Given that the actress will have signed a contract to appear in the show by ITV, the broadcaster will essentially own the actor's image, and be in control of how their image is used, hence a free image of this actor is impossible to create. Actors who are employed for soap operas are often forbidden from taking other work, such as Christmas pantomimes, for this reason. The actress depicted in this photograph in fact resigned from the soap citing a desire to work on other projects, before recently rejoining after a one year absence. The need to quit from the show is more likely to have been the contractual obligations of being in the show rather than scheduling conflicts. This public figure has been active for over 20 years, and has been famous, with a large fanbase, for over a decade (since they joined the ITV show), so if a free image has not been created yet, it seems exceptionally unlikely that one will become available. For this reason, the image is irreplaceable, there is no free equivalent." Poeheese (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Does she step out in public?  Yes.  Can somebody take a picture of her when she is walking down a street?  Yes.  Ergo, a free image is possible. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to track her down and take her picture like a stalker? Feel free but I'm pretty sure that's invading her privacy.Poeheese (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Marchjuly stated below, there is no stalking required.  If she is in a public place,  then somebody had the opportunity to take a free photo.   --Whpq (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: if the file is from Getty, then we simply cannot accept it per WP:NFCC and it should be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7. Even if it wasn't from Getty, I don't think we would considered this one of the exceptions to WP:NFCC per item 1 of WP:NFC. Nobody has to stalk her to take a photo, but at the same time a photo is not required for every article on Wikipedia. She's still alive and she still ventures out in public, so it seems possible that somebody somewhere may be able to create a free image of her to serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:IUP as long as its taken in a public place. Times might be changing, but I believe well-known individuals such as actors should have a reasonable expection that their photos might be taken by fans when they are out in public. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 15 October 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:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.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: at. ℯ xplicit  02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Sperxios ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There seem to be plenty of public domain images of this event, see c:Category:Dekemvriana. There doesn't seem to be any particular need for non-free photos. See WP:NFCC. Also, this file fails WP:NFCC in Dekemvriana. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that there are no other photos or films, free or non-free, depicting the exact moments when the shootings started. They are either hours (not any in the category you linked though) or days later, during the 2 months after the shootings.  This photo is also important for the uniforms of the soldiers laying down the pavement, in combination with other photos depicting the central square in Athens hours before the events(WP:NFCC).  In a nutshell, if there is a defining moment for the modern Greek state, that was it, given the fact that the events unfolded drove directly to the civil-war, 2 years later, and indirectly to the the Junta, 20 years later.  Also WP:NFCC has happened numerous times in Greece.  Finally, I don't understand why you say it fails WP:NFCC? Sperxios (talk) 07:08, 16 October 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.