Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 7



File:Crushed Campbell&

 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Crushed Campbell& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not convinced that the single sentence in the article Occasionally, he chose to depict cans with torn labels, peeling labels, crushed bodies, or opened lids (images right) is enough to establish contextual significance per WP:NFCCP #8, image use is mainly decorative. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And there are other images in the article already depicting same. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, no obvious contextual significance per NFCC#8. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (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:Handforth PC Zoom.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: Textbook WP:NFCC violation; no prejudice to restoration if the article(s) the file is used in are expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. Also, no evidence that this is PD in the UK where it was created; no prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a citation that explicitly proves otherwise. - F ASTILY   00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Handforth PC Zoom.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Bangalamania ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The stated purpose is to provide illustration of the meeting and key individuals involved. Free images can be used to identify the individuals involved. (WP:NFCC/WP:NFC#1) Neither article has sourced critical commentary about the still (or even refer to what is depicted in it). Readers can easily understand the subject of the articles (which is not the event depicted) without the image. (WP:NFCC) There is nothing meaningfully depicted in the image that could not be equally covered by a collage of free images. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no copyright in council minutes and there is no artistic or other creative copyright in this format which is effectively a public domain record of a public meeting. This particular image is just a frame from a zoom meeting of over an hour which is free available to view online and which has been extensively reproduced in the public interest.  The image is important for reader understanding as readers cannot be expected to understand what a zoom meeting looks like and this meeting is a significant aspect of the topic(s). Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . What seems to indicate that this file is in the public domain? Government works in the UK are copyrighted. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Commons Records of council meetings are in the public domain as edicts of government. Edge3 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Yes in the United States, this work was made in the United Kingdom and is copyrighted. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Under US law (which governs WMF), the 'edict of government' doctrine extends to foreign governments. See c:Template:PD-EdictGov. Edge3 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . This work is not an edict. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The recordings were created by public officials, during a public meeting in which they were acting as a legislative body. This meets the standard set by the US Supreme Court in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. Edge3 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Yes, but this is still not an edict, an edict being "A proclamation of law or other authoritative command." I fail to see how this meeting could be an edict, nor how the recording itself could be an edict even if the meeting itself were an edict, I would expect that the words spoken would be non-copyrightable, not the recording. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Edict of government" seems to have a very broad definition. Per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills. These materials are part of the 'whole work done by [legislators],' so they must be 'free for publication to all.' Therefore, we ask only whether the author of the work is a judge or a legislator. If so, then whatever work that judge or legislator produces in the course of his judicial or legislative duties is not copyrightable. Anything that happens during the meeting is considered an "edict". Since the council was meeting via Zoom, their use of audio and video technology was a necessary component of their work as legislators. In other words, they carried out their legislative duties through Zoom. Edge3 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt it is so broad as to include a parish council meeting where they are not necessarily legislating any sort of law (or more specifically a bylaw). To argue that this is an edict of government, we would need to argue that they are clearly legislating here, which looking at the video or transcript, this is more of an argument with people cursing at each other, they aren't legislating anything. And this isn't like Template:PD-USGov where everything produced by the federal government is in the public domain, only edicts of the government are in the public domain, and arguably, the camera recording is unrelated to edicts, like how if take a picture of public domain statue, I still own copyright over the picture, it is not released into the public domain, or if I record myself reading public domain laws, while the words I am saying are in the public domain, I still own copyright over the recording. From the point of view of the court, and what is specifically said in the case cited above, no one can 'own the law', having copyright over the recording of a zoom meeting where they clearly aren't legislating anything, citizens are not being restricted from access to laws.
 * Regardless of the above, Commons requires that files be in the public domain in the source country and the US, and this is certainly protected by crown copyright, so this cannot be moved to Commons anyway. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - The image is being used in two articles, but the image itself is not needed to understand the topic of either article. FAils WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The image is in the public domain, as per my comments above. Edge3 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (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:Answer of President Trump to the Trial Memorandum Of The United States House Of Representatives In The Second Impeachment Trial Of President Donald John Trump.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, per below. There is no indication that the file currently meets WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC - F ASTILY   08:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Answer of President Trump to the Trial Memorandum Of The United States House Of Representatives In The Second Impeachment Trial Of President Donald John Trump.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Phillip Samuel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete per WP:NFCC 3b and 8. The entire work is not necessary (3b), and readers can understand the article's subject without having the work present (8). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I think compressing it is irrelevant and should be deleted because this is a literary work, it is not an image or video. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per NFCC#8, and nom; the article will be perfectly fine without the document. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as an allowable use under WP:NFCC. The Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article includes extensive commentary of Trump's legal arguments, and a copy of the memorandum "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Without access to the memorandum, we would not know the full extent of the arguments that Trump is presenting at the trial. Additionally, the article includes a copy of the House memorandum. (See: File:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf). The legal briefs of both sides must be presented, otherwise it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Removing this file, but not the other, would provide WP:UNDUE weight to the House memorandum. Edge3 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This PDF is plain text and should treated as such. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. is unacceptable per WP:NFC, brief quotes are appropriate. This file as such does not meet WP:NFCC b. 's rationale above regards WP:NFCC, but all of the criteria must be met, and the argument about WP:NPOV is irrelevant to this discussion, this policy does not override WP:NFCC which is a legal policy and completly unrelated to NPOV. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the uploader, Phillip Samuel, was attempting to upload a smaller file size, which might help with the 3b concerns, but I'd have to check again. As for your second point, NPOV is not a mere policy. It is a fundamental principle that is enshrined in WP:Five pillars and Founding principles. Furthermore, WP:NPOV itself states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis added). Decisions at FFD (or any other place) do not occur in a vacuum; the consensus may have implications elsewhere on the wiki. In this case, a "delete" outcome on this thread would lead to an NPOV violation at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which is expressly forbidden by policy. Edge3 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with the file is its application of fair use, WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV. And compressing the file will not meet that concern either, the purpose of compressing the file is so that less of the work is used and so that it reduces the likelihood that it could be used for deliberate copyright infrigement, which is used for images and videos, but the work here is the text and the text is still viewable in its whole. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dylsss You stated 'WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV,' are you saying that WP:NFCC  does not override WP:NPOV? If you are concerned that the readable text can still be used for deliberate copyright infringement, and the current resolution will not adequately mitigate that problem, would compressing it to the point where the text is barely legible suffice? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Yes that is what I am implying, specifically wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires that projects hosting non-free content must have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) which is limited, and that it must be enforced by deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. This does not override local project's policies, by using local policies as a reason for keeping a file, we are ignoring our EDP, which is why arguments unrelated to WP:NFCC or its copyright should be disregarded in this discussion. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the EDP doesn't override local policies, then that means that local policies still apply. Not sure if that's what you're intending to conclude. In any case, NPOV is actually a global policy that's posted on meta (Founding principles), and it's a core policy on this project, therefore it's highly relevant to this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Founding principles is not a global policy, and as I've said, the EDP is required to be enforced, WP:NPOV is not related to enwiki's EDP WP:NFCC. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dylsss Ya didn't answer my second question Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Founding principles is not a global policy. I disagree. We don't put stuff on meta if the information is of purely local concern, therefore it's a policy with global reach. See also Neutral point of view, a global page. Plus, your interpretation doesn't square with the express language of WP:NPOV, which states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:NPOV refers to "other policies", making no exception for the EDP or "global" policies. Therefore, as long as we're on Wikipedia, we must respect NPOV. Plus, I don't think the WP:NFCC and WP:NPOV are mutually exclusive. Even foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy states "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events" (emphasis added). Our usage falls well within the NFCC and complies with NPOV. Edge3 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Global scope =! Global policy/guidelines. It's an informative page, it would be like calling a page in the Help: namespace a policy or guideline, some projects (but not all) have NPOV policies which is why there is a page on meta. Global policies are located at meta:Meta:Policies and guidelines under 'All Wikimedia projects'. As said at the top of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. NPOV being a local policy. I don't think it is necessary to get this technical, I am not saying we shouldn't respect NPOV, but that isn't the issue with the file and it does not address the issue with it, its fair use rationale, so it seems pointless to mention it. None of the keep arguments seem to address the issue of the text just being too much, because the file specifically contravenes WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. As I've said in my original delete !vote, WP:NFC says that Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. are unacceptable, which this file meets. It is important to note that files are not articles, we cannot keep files which meet some of WP:NFCC, all of the criteria have to be met. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy states, "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events". An impeachment of a US president is a historically significant event. Further, WP:NFCC uses the term "minimal extent of use" as: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." In this case, "a portion will [not] suffice" because it will violate WP:NPOV. Further, "a portion will [not] suffice" because readers of Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump will lack understanding of the topic at the same level as the arguments of the House of Representatives, the opposing side on that trial. Notice that "suffice" is a term that is not defined in our policy, so we may determine what "suffices" based on editorial judgment. Therefore, we are compliant with both our local and global policies. Edge3 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I support Edge3's statement. The WP article must describe at length Trump's legal arguments in defence of the historic article of impeachment against him to satisfy WP:NPOV. Trump's answer to the House's brief significantly increases readers' understanding (and harm in the case of omission), since readers get an in-depth understanding of the arguments and rebuttals Trump presents. Furthermore, like the WP article for the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the trial memoranda and responses of both sides must be included in the WP article. With the opposing logic, no legal documents should be uploaded and inserted at all for the WP articles for both impeachment trials. Removing the legal documents from Trump would provide undue weight to the Houe's arguments and provide a biased view of all arguments presented, violatingWP:NPOV, which is a foundational and non-negotiable principle on Wikipedia. I have been uploading smaller file sizes with lower resolution to comply with criteron 3b, but Trump's complete legal documents in defense of the article of impeachment do satisfy criteron 8 to purposefully illuminate Trump's arguments extremely relevant to this article as established in the other trial. Like Edge3 said, WP:NPOV is explicitly stated as non-negotiable and can neither be superseded by WP:NFC or any other policies, nor any result from this editor consensus. Accordingly, I move to keep the file. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a question of resolution, it's a question of quantity. As per NFCC#3b, an entire work is not used when a portion would suffice; at most, the first page should be displayed. The entire statement can be linked to if it is desirable. NFCC cannot be deviated from by a local consensus. Invoking WP:NPOV is a red herring; we can and should describe the arguments of both sides in the article, but that does not require having the document in question uploaded to Wikipedia. Without waiving this point, even if NPOV did require that, it yields to NFCC as a matter of law. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV applies because we're already publishing the document from the opposing side in its entirety (see File:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf), and WP:NPOV expressly states, This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. Edge3 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing why it's necessary to include the whole PDF, it would be better to just link it in the External Links section. I'm not convinced by the NPOV argument, as long as the actual prose in the article is balanced, that shouldn't be a concern. P-K3 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Francisco vitoria.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 ⚡  02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Francisco vitoria.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Sarvodaya ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Risk of copyright violation, the claim that this painting is public domain is unsafe. It is described as a "Modern portrait of Francisco de Vitoria." The style suggests that it may have been painted in the 20th century. It is clearly not contemporary with the subject, who died in 1546. The source page is archived here and has been moved here, and does not give any details of the painting. The image is widely used online but I have been unable to identify the artist or where the original painting is located. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.