Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 16



File:Reasonable Person Model Diagram 2.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 ⚡  13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Reasonable Person Model Diagram 2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Avikbasu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No specific source given that verifies that Rachel Kaplan has given CC-ASA 3.0 copyright permission. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a personal or professional connection to the Kaplans? -- Beland (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It should be fairly easy to recreate a free equivalent of this diagram. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 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:QTV logo 2006.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 ⚡  13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:QTV logo 2006.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lmc106 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image fails guidelines on non-free content. It is currently being used in the gallery section of Q (TV network) to illustrate the history of the network's logos. However, according to Non-free content: "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." Its current use seems to be of décorative nature than educational nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFC and WP:NFC for the same reasons as I posted below at . That is, unless one of the following takes place: (1) the consensus is that the file is too simple for copyright protect and should be relicensed as either PD-logo or PD-ineligible-USonly or (2) some sourced critical commentary specific to the former logo itself is added ot the article. I think this is a little more complex than File:Quality Television 2007.png, but it still seems to be at least PD in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States; so, converting it to "PD-ineligible-USonly" seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 17 September 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:Quality Television 2007.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 ⚡  13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Quality Television 2007.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Marco Carlo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image fails guidelines on non-free content. It is currently being used in the gallery section of Q (TV network) to illustrate the history of the network's logos. However, according to Non-free content: "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." Its current use seems to be of décorative nature than educational nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFC and WP:NFC unless either of the following take place: (1) the consensus is that the file is too simple for copyright protect and should be relicensed as either PD-logo or PD-ineligible-USonly or (2) some sourced critical commentary specific to the former logo itself is added ot the article. I think this is at least PD in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States; so, converting it to "PD-ineligible-USonly" seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. You are correct that non-free image galleries like Q (TV network) are, in general, pretty much never allowed per WP:NFG; however, there are often better ways to resolve such issues that don't require starting a discussion here at WP:FFD. Such files can either be WP:BOLDly resolved (e.g. removed as a clear-cut WP:NFCCP violation or converted to another license (just make sure you clarify why in an edit summary in either case)) or can be WP:PRODded for deletion; they only really need to be discussed at FFD when the removal has been disputed or is otherwise contentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 17 September 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:Leslie Allen Williams.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: Likely non-free, no prejudice to restoration if someone is willing to create a fair use claim for it and expand the article to discuss this image at depth - F ASTILY   22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Leslie Allen Williams.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mint69 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Mugshot sourced from a newspaper website (Detroit Free Press), no license indicated. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This file possibly can be treated as non-free content. A file not having a copyright license isn't really something that needs to be discussed here at FFD. You can tag such files for speedy deletion per WP:F4. You can also provide an appropriate license yourself if you want or seek assistance at WP:MCQ if you're not sure. FFD is usually only for discussing file realted matters that are contentious or otherwise proving difficult to resolve. Anyway, at first glance, it seems possible that this file could be used in Leslie Allen Williams for primary indentification purposes under a Non-free biog-pic license and a Non-free use rationale biog non-free use rationale if there are no unresolvable WP:NFCCP issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 17 September 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:Arohn Kee.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: Keep. Noting for the record that the image is currently unused and will be eligible for F5 soon - F ASTILY   22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Arohn Kee.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mint69 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Claims fair use exemption, but that doesn't apply to images of living people, per WP:NFC BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The rationale is written rather poorly and needs to be updated. As for the file itself, the subject is imprisoned for life without possibility of parole. The opportunity to obtain a free license equivalent is therefore zero. Yes, the subject is alive. No, the image is not replaceable. This is a narrow situation in which we do allow non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'll defer to you, I hadn't been aware of the "imprisoned for life" exception. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's not really codified anywhere, but it comes up from time to time at WT:NFC. We've applied such exceptions very infrequently. There was an attempt to include a non-free image at Colton Harris Moore some years back while he was imprisoned, but that exception wasn't granted. It's really based on whether a free image could be obtained/made. Given that he's imprisoned for life without possibility of parole, that opportunity will never arise. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Fix FUR It has always been my interpretation that non-free photos of living people are permitted if there is no reasonable way to take photos of the person. It is usually possible to take a photo of a living person, but this person is currently in prison. The ways to take photos would be to commit a crime (so that you end up in the same prison) and hope that you can bring a camera to the prison, or seek employment there. Neither method sounds reasonable to me. However, the FUR is poorly written and doesn't explain this. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 21 September 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:BobbyMaxwell.png
<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: Speedy deleted as copyright violation per WP:CSD; image taken from the source indicated, not claimed as fair use, and clearly not the work of the State of California as attributed to being from "William S. Murphy / Los Angeles Times ". --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * File:BobbyMaxwell.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mint69 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The source attributes William S. Murphy-Los Angeles Times as the author and there is no evidence the image, apparently a press file, is State of California work as claimed by the uploader's license affixed. ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear copyvio. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The PD-CAGov tag does seem incorrect, and there also doesn't seem to be any justification for converting this to non-free. Maxwell (the subject of the photo) was a prime suspect and subsequently convicted of the cirme, but that conviction was then vacated many years later. Maxwell is deceased and thus a non-free image of him could possibly be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about him, but I don't think it quite meets that required standard for non-free use in Skid Row Stabber, unless there is something particular to the photo itself that was the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources at the time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 17 September 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.