Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 19



File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.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 ★ Bigr   Tex  16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Evrik ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This was nominated for speedy deletion, which I've declined as it has a fair-use rationale. The deletion reason given by was: "This is a living person, so there is potentially a free equivalent. Uploader first indicated he got the image from playboy.com. Now he says it's from www.hollywoodoutbreak.com. In either case the image is copyrighted". I agree with that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not disputing that the image is copyrighted, Sundayclose and I disagree on the application of FREER. Having searched, I can say that all images of Victoria Vetri appear to be from copyrighted sources. No free alternatives appear to be available. The image in question is referenced in the infobox used, as well as in the article. The subject can be conveyed with source text, but I believe that it cannot be properly conveyed without an image. The only derivate image I have found is this one,, but I am not sure of the copyright on that image. --evrik (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the point here is that Vetri is alive, so there's (theoretically) nothing to prevent someone from taking a picture of her and releasing it under a free licence. This image appears to fail criterion 1 of our policy, No free equivalent: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", as specifically clarified in the guideline: "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the alive/dead thing is not a hard and fast rule. While Vetri may be alive, her notability is as an actress and a model - she is now in her 80's. To understand why she is who she is, a photo of her at the height of per popularity is appropriate. --evrik (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I understand your decline because a fair-use rationale is provided. Is there another procedure for removing a copyrighted image (either speedily or otherwise)? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe this is the right way and the right place for this to be discussed. I won't comment further, and will leave it to others to determine the outcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in a suggestion for a "free" image that illustrates the popularity of the actress in her youth, and is relevant to the article. --evrik (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Under NFCC we do allow a non-free image of a living person to be used if and only if that non-free captures a visual state of the living person that is a significant factor of discussion of the article and it is impossible for a free image to capture that today. This is easily the case for a starlet of the 1960s who had a noted visual appeal that was documented then (and now), but her age today would not make that look apparent from a free image that could be captured now. I have not checked the actual mainspace article for how much her visual appear is documented, but the basic facts appear to support use here. --M asem (t) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comment. Tell me if my thinking fits with your comments. Missy Gold was a child actress for a few years starting at age six, appearing mostly in TV shows. She is now age 49, has not been in the public eye since childhood, and has moved into an entirely different career (successfully). Since we can no long capture an image of her as a child, I assume based on your comment that we could use a copyrighted image of her as a child to illustrate her childhood career, assuming there is no free image of her as a child? Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be along the same lines if and only if her visual appearance was important to her career. This might not be the case on a quick look at her article, but that's only based on its current state. Not every actor/actress from 30-40 years ago and now well out of their prime was necessary picked to act for their visual appearance. --M asem (t) 21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's say she was a child model, which certainly would meet the criterion for "visual appeal"? Sundayclose (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That alone would not be sufficient, just as a starlet of the 1950s or 1960s would be insufficient. We need critical discussion (sourced to talk about how their looks were important to their career, and not just assume they were in films because of their looks). --M asem (t) 22:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your insights here are very helpful on an issue that I don't know a lot about. So in the case of the image of Angela Dorian, do we need either reliable sources or a consensus that her looks were important to her career? Otherwise the "looks" issue seems rather arbitrary. I don't think we can sythensize a conclusion such as "She was a Playboy Playmate, therefore her looks were important to her career." Some playmates never achieve much after their appearance in Playboy. Sundayclose (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, even for a Playboy model, don't assume her looks were implicitly important to bypass the normal non-free allowance. A spotty check of google books suggests this should be possible. --M asem (t) 23:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think it's quite a reasonable argument that her looks were no more important than her acting talents in development of her notability, perhaps even less important. She was in numerous TV and film roles before her appearance in Playboy. Her career was abruptly halted as a result of her legal troubles and imprisonment, which certainly had nothing to do with her looks. We simply don't know how successful she would have been as an actress or some other career without the Playboy appearance and without the legal problems. In such a case the default decision should be not to violate copyright because of the seriousness of such a legal action. Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did a quick check of articles for Playboy Playmates (or sections of articles if an entire decade was included in one article) from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Of all the currently living playmates, NONE has a copyrighted image. Only one deceased Playmate had an image from Playboy. I checked very quickly so feel free to to double-check. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: If the argument is that her physical appearance is primary reason she is Wikipedia notable, then perhaps a non-free image could be used per WP:FREER (see item 1 of WP:NFC). There is, however, another problem with this particular non-free file besides WP:NFCC and that has to do with WP:NFC and item 9 of WP:NFC. Unless the Playboy cover image itself is tied into to her Wikipedia notability because the cover itself was the subject of commentary in reliable sources at the time (not just something mentioning she appeared on the cover, but actual discussion of the cover itself), I don't think it should be used. Another non-free file perhaps might be possible, but not this one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would actually disagree with the issue this being a magazine cover. UUI#9 was designed to stop people just saying "oh, this person appeared on (magazine cover, like Time's Person of the Year) therefore that must be a usable non-free for that!" If the argument here was "Dorian was a Playboy cover model, thus we should us that." that would fail UUI#9. Iff the justification is that the Playboy cover a good representative image of Dorian over any other possible non-free (recognizing no other elements on that cover have copyrightability beyond the photo), then the issue around UUI#9 is not there. (In contrast, if we were starting with a press photo, it would be no go in any situation unless the press photo was the subject of discussion). --M asem (t) 22:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does sounds to me that the argument being made in favor of non-free use is more of a Dorian was a Playboy cover model, thus we should use that than it isn't. If the cover is particularly something considered to meet WP:NFC and was added to the body of the article, then maybe I could see an argument for that, but not really in the main infobox since she seems to have made some public appearances since she was paroled in 2018. Victoria Vetri was created in June 2005 and Image:AngelaDorianMay68.jpg was added at that time with this edit, but that file was deleted per WP:F7 in January 2007. You're an admin so perhaps you can tell whether that's the Playboy cover or another image. It doesn't look like any other images of her were added after that one was deleted until the one being discussed here was added a few days ago. There seem to be plenty of images of Vetri to be found per Google images. Not a single one of them (even if it needs to be licensed as non-free) works as well as this particular one? None of photos of her taken from around the same time are by chance PD-US-no notice or per Film stills (like many seem to be in c:Category:Film stills)? There was no possible other non-free image that could have been used as a "good representative image of Vetri" from June 2005 to June 2019? What about a more recent photo like this taken at a personal appearance in August 2018? Has any there been any attempt find or get something like that released under a free license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I absolutely agree that if the extent of the argument for use is "She was a Playboy model and thus her looks were implicitly important", no, that fail both NFCC#8 and UUI#9. The justification isn't there yet. It needs to be there for that case to be cleared, and can't be the implicit case. --M asem (t) 00:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep An image created of her now would serve no encyclopaedic purpose.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment She gained notoriety from her work with Playboy. Her 1967 modelling, led to her 1968 cover. The 1968 cover is the issue in question. Her subsequent film work and greater notoriety came from her modelling. The only reason her court trial is notable comes from her previous celebrity. The NSA image from above was because of her Playboy work. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's almost entirely your opinion. Your opinion is fine as an opinion, but we have no evidence that her physical appearance has had any greater impact on her notability than her talents as an actress or other influences. On Wikipedia we go by reliable sources, not the opinions of individual editors. As I said, she had numerous roles in films and TV prior to her appearance in Playboy. We have no evidence that her physical appearance was the greatest factor in landing those roles. Let's separate fact from opinion, and we can only go by the facts that are reliably sourced in the article. I have no doubt that physical appearance was one factor in the careers of many playmates from that era, but it's not a coincidence that none of the articles on living playmates have copyrighted images. It's because copyright infringement is a serious issue that requires unequivocal evidence that the fair use rationale is legitimate and not just based on a Wikipedia editor's opinion about how important physical appearance is in notability. I think it's a safe bet that if we add images owned by Playboy to all articles for playmates or other featured women from that era, we will be in serious legal jeopardy. Wikipedia has always been extremely cautious about non-free content because of the legal ramifications, and there's nothing special about this case that merits an extraordinary exception. Even more serious is the likelihood that if this image is allowed to remain, many more images from Playboy will be added. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * After reading the above comments I have moved the image from the infobox to the section discussing her career as a playboy model. To address Sundayclose's concerns, I added some more text relating her physical appearance to her career. --evrik (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making an edit that actually supports my argument. She stated that her appearance in Playboy actually hindered her career as an actress (which was well established prior to Playboy). And moving the image a few lines down does not address the core issue. There is no evidence from reliable sources that her physical appearance was the predominant fact in her notability, any more so than it was for other Playboy Playmates whose articles do not have a copyrighted image. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She was known for the pictorial, and it hurt her career. We can agree on this? --evrik (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She was not known for the pictorial any more than any other living playmate from that era, none of whom have copyrighted images in their articles. Your comment above, "She gained notoriety from her work with Playboy", is quite vague. If you mean that her physical appearance helped her career, we have no evidence of that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence is there, if you'll read it. --evrik (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, so vague a comment as to be meaningless. It's your opinion. Your saying "it's there" doesn't make it true. I could just as easily say, "It's not there". I've read it. No clear evidence beyond your opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me go over facts: She was an actress, she was a model, this was in the 60's when she was young. She posed for Playboy, more that once. Based on her first pictorial, she garnered the PM of the year, which is what the image features. This was based on her looks. The image is of her at that time. The pictorials affected her career. A picture of here today would not show what she looked like then. Based on her looks, her picture went to the moon. These are all facts, documented and in the article. --evrik (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me continue with the facts (or absence of facts). "The pictorials affected her career": What's the reliable source (not your opinion) that the pictorials affected her career more than anything else? "Based on her looks, her picture went to the moon." Yet again, so vague that it's meaningless. If "went to the moon" means her picture affected her career (before and after Playboy) significantly more than anything else, what's the reliable source for that, not just your opinion? If you are referring to one astronaut's prank, how does that remotely relate to a discussion about copyright violation and the legal impact on Wikipedia??? So once again, let's separate fact from opinion. Saying something over and over doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time you said it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all cited in the article. Now you're arguing against the cited facts. --evrik (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where specifically is it cited in the article that the pictorials affected her career more than anything else? Where specifically is it explained in the article that the astronaut's prank affected her career significantly more than anything else? Vague comments and endless repetition of opinions accomplish nothing. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are creating standards tat don't exist. If anything in the text does not appears be true, tag it as unsourced, otherwise we should stop this as the discussion is not progressing. --evrik (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about (nor have I ever talked about) what IS in the article. I'm talking about what is not in the article. And as I have repeatedly said (but you refuse to hear), the article does not have reliably sourced information that her physical appearance is more important than other factors in her notability. The only "standard" that pertains to this discussion is WP:NFCC, and the burden is on you to provide the evidence that the criteria of that standard have been met. So far all you have provided is your opinion about the relationship between her physical appearance and her notability. There is one thing with which I will agree with you. The discussion between you and me is not progressing because, instead of providing what is needed, you insist on repeating your opinions, making meaningless vague comments, and now, diverting the discussion away from WP:NFCC by demanding that we tag as unsourced that which does not exist in the article. I think you have beat this dead horse enough. Repeating the same thing over and over accomplishes nothing and eventually gets to the point of disruptive editing. Please wait for a consensus decision. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have written a lot, but I disagree. I have shown several times that everything is sourced. If you believe that there are things left unsourced, please take it to the article itself. I beleieve that I have made the point that the image is relevant. Perhaps, if you are unhappy with the quality of the narrative of the article, you could work to improve it? --evrik (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with the narrative of the article. You are once again trying to divert attention from the actual issue. This is entirely about the image and WP:NFCC, so it belongs here. Please stop being disruptive and wait for a consensus decision. If you have nothing new to say, this is the end of any discussion between you and me. Sundayclose (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. --evrik (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I am unconvinced that this meets NFCC #8, regardless of the NFCC #1 discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear why you don't think it meets #8. Would you please explain? --evrik (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a picture of Vetri on the cover of Playboy is critical to understanding the article on Victoria Vetri. The cover itself is not the subject of critical discussion - certainly her presence on the cover and its impact on her career is mentioned in the article in cited prose - but there's nothing that the image conveys that the prose does not, and what's discussed in the article is the existence of the cover, rather than any details of the cover. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, What you say is true, but the text does not convey here appearance. What could be added to the text to increase the relevance of the image? --evrik (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete There are two arguments for deletion here: one that per NFCC#1 no non-free image should be used in this article, and one that per NFCC#8 this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding. I'm not completely persuaded by the NFCC#1 argument, as I agree that a hypothetical non-free image may be more useful than a free image in this article. However, there is a long-standing consensus that cover images should not be used for the purposes of identification alone in articles not about the work itself (see Non-free content). For that reason, I do not believe there is a sufficient rationale for this image to meet NFCC#8, as the cover itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (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:TikTok 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: Convert to non-free. Deleted on Commons, so it can't be transferred there, but usage as-is in the TikTok article does comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policies. - F ASTILY   05:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * File:TikTok logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ntx61 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TikTok_Logo.svg might be copyrighted 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely below TOO in US. on enwiki we do not have to follow Chinese law. buidhe 23:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although it could be below TOO in the US (whilst crossing TOO in China), if the logo is definitely copyrighted even on enwiki, instead of deleting the file, it should be reverted back to non-free logo with rationale (see revision 953624703 for last non-free oldid), revert to 220x64 version (if necessary) then RevDel the previous versions. When I uploaded this locally to enwiki (after the files on Commons were taken down; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo TikTok.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tik Tok wordmark.png) I assumed the logo to be completely non-free and thus uploaded it initially with that nominal resolution, accompanied with non-free media information and use rationale. Ntx61 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Convert to non-free I have serious doubts that this is below TOO in the US. Since it's only being used in the infobox of the article on the entity, there's no harm in being cautious here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2020 (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.