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 the first file. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:You're So Good to Me.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beatleswhobeachboys (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Beach Boys - Sloop John B.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Metstotop333 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Both files seem to be same cover-art uploaded by two different uploaders. "File:You're So Good to Me.jpg" is being used in You're So Good to Me and has a non-free use rationale for that particular usage. "File:Beach Boys - Sloop John B.jpg" was being used in Sloop John B, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c because it's non-free use rationale is also for "You're So Good to Me". Two non-free files are not needed per WP:NFCC#3a, but it's not clear which one should be kept. They both are jpegs, but "File:You're So Good to Me.jpg" seems to be a better quality image (though it probably should be tagged with ((non-free reduce))). Whichever version is kept can probably be added to both song articles as long as a non-free use rationale is provided for each use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same image. Look at the A-side / B-side placements.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The images look virtually identical to me. The main difference is that some text has been moved around. I don't think that WP:NFCC#3a permits using both of them in the same article. It may be acceptable to use them in different articles (as used to be the case before one of the images was removed from its article), but the FUR of course needs to be fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ilovetopaint: Thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that at all, but as Stefan2 points out, that's really probably not enough of difference to justify using both images in the same article. I've readded the "SloopJohn B" version back to Sloop John B and tweaked its rationale to reflect that use, just so that it's not deleted via WP:F5 before this discussion is finished. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: remove from The Beach Boys. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beachboys smile cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lukobe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Smile (The Beach Boys album) and The Beach Boys#50th year reunion celebration. Each usage has a non-free use rationale (nfur), but only the usage in the main infobox of the article about the album itself seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. Usage in the band's article seems mainly decorative and should be removed because the cover-art itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. The only mention of Frank Holmes, the artist who created the cover art, is in the caption, and even though the non-free use rationale for the band article goes into quite a bit of detail about why this cover is significant, none of what is written can be found in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added explanation of significance to the Beach Boys article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did add the word "same" and the wording "considered by some to be one of the one of the most legendary album covers in rock" as well as a source, but you added it to the image's caption. I don't think that's really enough to justify the usage of the image per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. The fact that someone says it is a "legendary cover" is not really a (detailed) discussion of the image itself, so the reader's understanding of that it's "legendary cover" is not siginitficantly improved by seeing the image and is omitting it is not detrimental to that understanding, especially since there is a wikilink to the album's stand alone page where reader's can see the image in the infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paperback Writer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SgtPetsounds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used in Baroque pop#Origins: early to mid-1960s. File has a non-free use rationale, but usage seems purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. The Beatles are discussed in the section, but the image itself isn't the subject of any sourced commentary and the claim in the non-free use rationale that "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The Beatle songs during this period such as 'For No One' and 'Eleanor Rigby' both used baroque instrumentation.[1][2] This pattern can be seen on later tracks such as 'Piggies', 'She's Leaving Home' and 'A Day In The Life'" and the sources cited could actually be added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Free alternatives of pictures of the Beatles are available. No need to use this copyrighted photo in that context. Anon 23:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: remove from Angus McBean. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:PleasePleaseMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Cardinal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Please Please Me (the stand-alone article for the album) and Angus McBean (the photographer who took the photo). Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but usage in the photographer's article fails WP:NFCC#8. There are only two brief mentions of the album throughout the article, and neither of these is the sourced commentary about the cover itself that is generally required according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: no consensus. — ξ^xplicit 05:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Beatles - Butcher Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingboyk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Yesterday and Today, The Beatles in 1966, and Robert Whitaker (photographer)#The "butcher cover". Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but I'm not too sure about file's use in the photographer's article. There's a lot written about the album in that particular section, but there are no inline citations provided so it's hard to know how much is original research and what reflects what reliable sources said. There are few external links about the cover, but the links are dead and according to the most recent archived versions ([1], [2]) they don't seem to be reliable sources per WP:UGC. So, I'm not sure if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and I think the image should be removed from the article based upon a strict interpretation of WP:NFC#cite note-2, but I am also interested in reading what others think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of its use in the Whitaker article. Given the state of the rest of the article, removing the image at the moment would be absurd (why remove an image from an extensive section that discusses the image itself?), and deleting the file just because it's perhaps used wrongly elsewhere would also be crazy. Discuss the Whitaker situation at its talk page, and if removing the text is a good idea, remove the image too. If its current use at the other pages is problematic too, this can always be orphaned and deleted as such. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Where the Shilling is used.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Penguin boy93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low-resolution JPG map; I've replaced it with File:African use of the shilling.png. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MattBlank.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mblank13 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused userphoto. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: remove from Venera 9. — ξ^xplicit 05:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venera9.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Comet Tuttle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I attempted a DFU tag but that was disputed, so listing here for further discussion.

This is a copyrighted image with copyright held by Roscosmos. While this picture is interesting, it is copyrighted, not used in the correct context for fair use, free alternatives are available without significantly impacting the article Venus. For example here is a category of public domain images of the Venus surface: commons:Category:Magellan radar images of Venus. For the article Venera 9 - I don't think a copyrighted image that the space-craft took counts as fair use.

WP:NFCC#1 Magellan radar images show the surface of Venus from a different angle. I don't think the angle and technology difference constitutes fair use.

WP:NFCC#4 Previous publication. The link for a previous publication is not the copyright owner! And it is not clear that the page has the copyright owner's permission. In fact it is unlikely.

WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - I don't think this image significantly increased the reader's understanding of either article. The article Venus does not even refer to the image or its content in the text of the article. Venera 9 has a short description in the text, but it is a brief mention that is not significantly improved by having an image (and the image is in a different place of the article from the text).

WP:NFCC#3 b) resolution is not lower than original (in fact seems to be up scaled from the lower res original of "This is the raw 6-bit telemetry, about 115 by 512 pixels" by the website it was borrowed from?)

Anon 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Point-by-point response:

WP:NFCC#1 - The Magellan radar and this Venera image do not show the same thing at all. The Venera image shows the texture and fine details of the surface. In contrast, Magellan shows large-scale surface features; radar imaging by its very nature cannot capture small details since the wavelength is too large. It's not a matter of angle and technology: they do not depict the same thing.

WP:NFCC#4 - See the image on this NASA page. I think it is safe to say that NASA has secured the appropriate permissions.

WP:NFCC#8 - In the case of Venus, the images from the Venera landers are the only images that show the texture of the Venusian surface. I think that their omission is definitely detrimental to the reader's understanding of the Venusian surface. I certainly feel that I know more about the Venusian surface having seen them, even considering the Magellan radar images, which, as noted above, do not depict the same thing. In the case of Venera 9, the omission of the image would certainly be detrimental to the understanding of the mission. Imagine if the Phoenix (spacecraft) article omitted all Phoenix images of the Martian surface-- would that be detrimental to understanding the mission? The situation is the same with Venera 9.

WP:NFCC#3 b - The image is of lower fidelity than the image on the NASA page without the telemetry breaks (and also has telemetry breaks). A2soup (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 - I don't agree that that analysis makes sense in this context. The Venus article at least makes no reference to the content of this image and the Magellan radio images show more detail of major features of Venus rather than a close up of rocks that are not commented on.

WP:NFCC#4 - that link is a processed image not the original and not identical to the image that we're discussing. It is a derivative work of the image. Regardless, NASA page says the image is used by permission of the artist Don P. Mitchell, and does display "All rights reserved". It does not imply that Don P. Mitchell obtained permission from the copyright holder of the original work, Soviet space program, now Roscosmos, which we're discussing. If you read the footnote in the artist page [3] it sounds like he in fact does not have the copyright holders permission but got help from some of the engineers who worked on the Venera program

Secondary point is that on the link above Don P. Mitchell states that even the image we're using is a derivative from the raw data, which involved processing and aligning the data. So if we do keep the image Don P. Mitchell should be credited in addition to the Soviet space program.

WP:NFCC#8 I am not disputing that these are amazing images, but they do not significantly improve the understanding of the mentioned articles, as I've explained above, which is what this criteria is about.

WP:NFCC#3 b like I said, what we're discussing is not the same image as the one on the NASA page. The original image is described as having scan lines of 128 pixels (which would be the height). This is clearly an upscale image and not lower res than the historical original.Anon 04:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If decisions were solely made based on WP:NFCC#8 I think that it would be a clear Keep for both Venera 9 and Venus

• Venera 9 - "was the first spacecraft to return an image from the surface of another planet" This the image has very significant historic value in the context of space exploration. Taking and transmitting visual images was one of the central purposes for the spacecraft. I think it is clear that deleting the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Any time a historical significance of an image is emphasized it is essential to include the image if it is available.
• Venus Below are points raised in the article, the image would clarify and expand the understanding of these points.

-- "Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light... Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen" Do the clouds block and or reflect the majority of the sunlight from the surface, so that there would not be enough light from things to be seen from the surface? Is it a constant virtual night on the surface? The picture answers the question - No. Similarly is the atmosphere so dense and thick that it would be impossible to see things through it on the surface? The picture answers the question - No. This question is not answered by the magellan radar images.

-- "Venus's surface is a dry desertscape interspersed with slab-like rocks and periodically refreshed by volcanism." This is a description of what the surface looks like, what is the size of these slab-like "rocks" relative to us? Small cubic centimeter size or large - cubic meter size? - It looks like allot of these rocks are significantly bigger then a cubic centimeter but not nearly as big as a cubic meter. This question is not answered by the magellan radar images.

-- "because of the high density of the atmosphere at the surface, they[the winds] exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface." Again the issue of the density of the atmosphere on the surface is raised and again it is answered in the image. The atmosphere is dense but can be seen through, the dust and small rocks in the atmosphere do not necessarily prevent objects from being seen.

• An understanding of the atmosphere on the surface of the planet is essential in an article regarding the planet, for a non science reader the image clarifies the terms used in the description. Omission the image would be detrimental to an understanding of this article. Rybkovich (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Venus, the picture appears to violate WP:NFCC#1 as we already have other pictures of Venus, including File:Maat Mons on Venus.jpg which shows the surface. In Venera 9, the picture appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 as there is no need to see any pictures created by the object in order to understand what the object did. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rybkovich's argument on WP:NFCC#8 said it all, so I will respond to your point about WP:NFCC#1 in the case of Venus. To say that a false color radar topography map and a photograph from the surface "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" is really absurd, and I think it must stem from the fact that since you have no sense of what the Venusian surface is like, all the images look the same to you. To give a more relatable example, here is a false color radar topography map of the Cape of Good Hope and here is a photograph from the surface of the Cape of Good Hope. Could they serve the same encyclopedic purpose? I think it is clear that they do not show the same thing at all, as is equivalently the case with the Magellan radar maps vs. Venera surface photographs. A2soup (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I removed the speedy delete tag, as this is clearly a historic image. The image is not replaceable. It is the first image from the surface of Venus. It shows a sight that no other free image shows. But even if subsequent free images released by another agency, this is still the first. There is no doubt that it was previously published. The resolution of the original is low enough that no further reduction in size or detail is needed. This image would be in the top 1% of non-free images that Wikipedia needs for encyclopedic use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just found this apparently public domain image on Commons. If the licensing on that image is correct, it would render the image under discussion here in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Pinging Graeme Bartlett and Rybkovich (others who voted keep)-- what do you think of this? Does the licensing on the other image look good to you? A2soup (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would not be any more public domain than the one under discussion. Just because NASA publishes it does not mean they own the copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but check out this deletion discussion, especially the note about OTRS permission at the end. A2soup (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the NSSDC email statements a good argument can be made in either direction but I think there is enough info for the NSSDC images to be considered as free public domain images for en.wiki purpose. NSSDC has stated that (see the discussion link above):

• "These images were obtained by the NSSDC during the Soviet era as a data exchange (such exchanges between different space agencies still occur) with the intent of making the data available to interested parties (science researchers, general public, professional press)."
• "These images are not proprietary (i.e., no special conditions were specified when the images were provided to NSSDC)."
• "All data that is not archived as proprietary data (data for which special conditions exist) at NSSDC is, by definition, in the public domain."

• "All of the images presented on NSSDC's Photo Gallery are in the public domain."

Unless we want to see the signed contracts between NSSDC and USSR, we can accept NSSDC's word that those images are in the public domain in the United States. So I think under WP:NFCC#1 only the NSSDC public domain images can go with the Venera 9 article. It would satisfy the purpose of including that image.

However I would argue that the public domain images do not satisfy the purpose in the Venus article. They are of low quality and do not address the issues that come up in the article, so they cannot be considered as an equivalent to the File:Venera9.png.

PS apparently the creator of File:Venera9.png states that he got his image date from Brown university that got them form Soviets. However I found an 80's Brown university article which uses the same image as posted by the NSSDC so it could be that Brown got its data not from the Soviets but from NSSDC. Or they got the same data at different times, but if the data was made public domain then the Brown data used for File:Venera9.png is in the public domain. Or.... here's the Brown article with more pics http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/542.pdf Rybkovich (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that deletion discussion on Commons is complete bollocks. That some NASA official thinks the image is copyright free because of some kind of exchange of information is ludicrous; intent to make material available to "interested parties" does not remove copyright. Theses images were taken by a Soviet lander, so without an explicit release by appropriate Russian officials, they are most certainly not public domain or otherwise free from copyright. That discussion is rather disheartening, as the "precautionary principle" is a fairly core concept on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on WP:NFCC#4 - I found the exact image we are discussing in a 1979 Soviet book, Pervye Panoramy Poverkhnosti Venery with Nauka's logo and AKAДEMИЯ HAYK CCCP (USSR Academy of Sciences) on its title page. I hope this puts to rest the idea that this image has never been published by (or with permission from) the copyright holder. Title page and image. A2soup (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to your own upload, is that you holding it? If so wow, how did you find it? Rybkovich (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress, living in DC is fun sometimes :) A2soup (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! Must be great to have a legit option of finding a book that was ever published anywhere. Rybkovich (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep image in Venus and replace it in Venera 9. I think it would be reasonable to resolve the issue by keeping the image at issue in the main article and replace it with File:Venera 9 - Venera 10 - venera9-10.jpg in the venera 9 article. Will that work? Rybkovich (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.