< December 17	December 19 >

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. B (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of free media of this band. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously replaceable since the Smashing Pumpkins article already has a free image. -- Whpq (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the presence of an abundance of free imagery of the band, this is not a necessary use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. As other have pointed out above there are quite a number of free images of the band members already used in the article, so a non-free one is not needed for identification purposes. Moreover, this particular image itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary in either the band's article or the album's article which means there's no context for non-free use being provided as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2018 (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. B (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed for use as visual identification, this is a photo of a band playing at the music festival. File:Good Things 2018 logo.png is the actual logo. This usage fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the main structure of this page- Soundwave (Australian music festival), what do I have to change it to to allow the image to stay? Boofhead185 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. This particular image itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not being provided, and it's primary encyclopedic purpose just seems to be to show a shot of one of the participating acts performing on stage. A non-free image is not need for that purpose per WP:FREER since it reasonable to expect that a freely licensed equivalent image can be either created or found to serve the same purpose as this non-free. This probably could've been tagged for speedy deletion using ((rfu)) per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion originally began at WP:MCQ#File:USS Coronado 1993 Change of Command.jpg, but I'm moving it here to try and get some more input. There's no source provided other than "US Navy Image", so there's really no way to determine if this is ((PD-USGov-Military-Navy)). Another editor (Asclepias) found the photo here attributed to a Doug Musolf and published in the Coronado Eagle and Journal on April 8, 1993. Uploader was asked ot clarify the source of the image and his response can be seen here. If the photographer can be verified to be a "employee" of the US Navy, then the licensing is probably OK; otherwise, I don't think the file can be licensed as such and it should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it can be clearly shown to have been released under a free license by the photographer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like I said in the discussion you link above, I just don't care anymore. I don't think there is anyone who cares 1/10th of a percent about keeping this as much as you care about deleting it. If you look on my user page and my talk page you will see I have retired because I am sick and tired of crap like this. Go ahead and delete everything I've ever uploaded. I just don't care. Eric Cable ! Talk 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked an administrator named Explicit about this at User talk:Explicit#G7? whether the file could be deleted as you requested per WP:G7 and he suggested starting this FFD discussion instead. However, since you've basically made another request for the file to be deleted, then perhaps an administrator can now delete it per G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the G7 template. Eric Cable ! Talk 02:22, 19 December 2018 (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 as F8 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File is being used in two articles: Adolf Eichmann and Joel Brand. There's no real justification for the file's non-free use in the brand article per WP:NFCC#8. The image itself is not really the subject of any sourced critical commentary, so there's no real context for non-free use being provided. Moreover, the sentence in the article about Eichmann appearing resplendent in his SS uniform does not really need an image be seen (particularly this image) to be understood by the reader per WP:FREER. A link to the Eichman article seems more than sufficient here per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest remove from the Brand article.

The use in the Eichman article does appear to be OK; however, there is a possible free equivalent of this file which can be used per WP:FREER available on Commons as File:WP Adolf Eichmann 1942.jpg. The Commons file has be nominated for deletion three times (most recently in October 2018) and has been kept each time; it's not as clean an image as a non-free, but it seem sufficient for primary identification purposes, which might make the non-free no longer needed per WP:NFCC#1. The Commons version is certainly more than sufficient for use in the Brand article even the non-free is kept for use in the Eichman article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This image was nominated for deletion in 2012 and was kept. The rationale for using it in Joel Brand#First meeting with Eichmann is obvious. File:WP Adolf Eichmann 1942.jpg, which you suggest using instead, is absurdly low quality; it looks as though we've added a soft focus to hide his spots! I thought this extremism about Holocaust images had stopped. It would be appreciated if, instead of spending time trying to get rid of it, people would help to find out whether it's free so we can transfer it to Commons. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better for you to try and argue how the non-free use in the Brand article satisfies all ten WP:NFCCP, particularly WP:NFCC#8, instead of trying to argue that there is some bias against Holocust images. The previous discussion was Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 9#File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg was a WP:PUF discussion that had to do with whether the file was a "free" file and as a result of that discussion the file's licensing was converted to non-free. That previous discussion had nothing to do with whether the file's non-free uses complied with WP:NFCC, but one editor did mention that the file as non-free should be removed from all articles except the Eichmann one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that if the same effort went into saving images, rather than trying to have them deleted, we'd have a much better project and a nicer one to work in. It's disturbing that this is done so often to Holocaust images. Who, in the real world, do you imagine might complain about a fair-use image of Adolf Eichmann? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not suggesting that the file has to be deleted outright, I just don't agree with your assessment that it's non-free use in the Bland article complies with WP:NFCC. "FFD" used to stand for "Files for deletion", but that was changed to "Files for discussion" after WP:PUF and WP:NFCR were phased out and merged together into the old FFD. So, when discussing non-free content, one possible outcome is to remove the file from some articles, but keep in others. I mentioned the Commons file only because it might be considered a possible free equivalent to this file even though it's not of the same quality. If that's the consensus established, then keeping a non-free can no longer be justified per NFCC#1. As for arguing WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NEVERSUE, you're probably right; however, that again isn't really a justification for using the file in the Brand article. Finally, the fact that I brought this to FFD has nothing to do with it being a "Holocaust image"; so, I'd really appreciate it if you stop trying to imply that it does or stop trying to lump me in with some others who might have done such a thing in the past. The file was flagged for a WP:NFCC#9 violation for being used on an article talk page; so, while looking at that I also took a look at the other uses of the file in the Brand and Eichmann articles. I noticed the similarity with the Commons image because I checked c:Category:Adolf Eichmann to see if there was a free equivalent which might have been uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SlimVirgin. --Yann (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image on Commons isn't free, and I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Delete per NFCC#1. The arguments that people have made in defense of the Commons image at previous deletion discussions suggest that the Commons summary of German freedom of panorama is incomplete and misleading. Or maybe it's not, and the image's defenders are just blowing bubbles. Either way, I don't see a good argument for using a non-free image when a free alternative is available. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I've uploaded this one to Commons (File:Adolf Eichmann, 1942.jpg) because we host lots of other SS-associated images there, and they've been kept when challenged. I'm not seeing any good reason to handle this one differently, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. If you want to nominate it for deletion, now's the time to do it. If it's non-free, we need this fair-use one; if it's free, then obviously not. (The one you mentioned in your comment is too low-quality to be usable.) But I don't want to see it deleted here because it's on Commons, then months later see it deleted from Commons so that I have to upload it again as fair use. It would be good to get it sorted out. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, SarahSV. I don't like the blurry image on Commons, but it's free. The relevant policy speaks of "no free equivalent [being] available", not of "no attractive free equivalent [being] available". Consequently, I can't imagine any valid rationale for keeping a non-free image on Wikipedia when a free equivalent is available on Commons. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, it's not a question of whether File:WP Adolf Eichmann 1942 (extracted file).jpg is attractive enough; it's that it looks as though it's in soft focus. It's almost offensive. So please forget that one. We ought to be using File:Adolf Eichmann, 1942.jpg. I don't care at this point whether we use it as free or fair-use, but we definitely shouldn't be blowing up the image from a tiny insert at a bus stop, and if the image is non-free, then it's non-free even if we find it on an otherwise free bus-stop image, so I don't know what that Commons decision was about. Anyway, please focus on File:Adolf Eichmann, 1942.jpg instead, and if you think it's non-free, please nominate it for deletion. If it can stay on Commons, then we can delete this fair-use one. Ideally we should sort this out now, because it has been going on since at least 2007 with various versions of the same image. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your whole argument is that the Commons image isn't pretty enough to use. Either grow a spine and declare that the image on Wikipedia is in the public domain, or we have to follow the non-free content policy and delete the non-free image. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I have grown that spine and uploaded File:Adolf Eichmann, 1942.jpg to Commons. Please look at the essay-length description and justification, and the examples I included of other SS images on Commons, all kept when challenged. So I think this fair-use one can be deleted, except that you said you wanted to delete the Commons one. So I'm asking you please to nominate the Commons image I uploaded if you want to, so that we can have a discussion on Commons now, and not next year or the year after, etc. As I said, this has been going on since at least 2007. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice that I struck out that comment (and explained why). Having read the prior deletion discussions, I don't believe there's any possibility that the bus-stop Eichmann image might be deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with image whatsoever.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same photo been uploaded to Commons as File:Adolf Eichmann, 1942.jpg. Since it's a Commons file, any concerns about its licensing would need ot be discussed there. However, if the consensus is that the Commons file's licensing is OK, then there's no justification at all for this non-free in any articles, including the Eichmann one, per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've added ((Now Commons)) to the file page. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 19 December 2018 (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: keep. Normally, when we say that the article is "about the event" and not "about the photo", we are talking about a situation where someone has taken a photo of something special, say, a particular battle, and we are wanting to use their photo in our article about the battle. Of course, we cannot do this, and if we could, nobody would ever pay royalties for any press photo ever. But in this case, the "event" in question is the "event" of posing for the photo. That's not a separate "event" where we are looking for a free stock photo - the event is inseparable from the photo itself. The entire article is commentary about the photo itself and so it meets the exception in WP:NFCI #8. B (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this image may violate WP:NFCC#2? Just asking. The image has "gone viral", so it is famous and many people want to view it, put it in memes, etc. Peter Gust (the photographer) ought to be able to capitalize on that:"Yeah you can use my photo in your article, but pay me X dollars" or whatever. I mean the Grumpy Cat gal made millions. NFCC#2 is met by obscure images with no significant monetarization realistically likely, and this photo does not meet that criteria?

OTOH hand the photo is important for presenting this subject. It's not just an illustration for decoration, it is key to the article, if this matters. It is also low-quality. Not an expert, you guys decide, and however we treat other popular images like this we should do I guess. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image when I created the article about it, Baraboo Nazi salute photo. Like Herostratus, I have no experience with WP:NFCC#2, so I too will leave this decision to editors with expertise in NFCC#2's usual application. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We use nonfree images of specific photographs even when they're much more prominent (and actually notable, not just flash-in-the-pan Internet sensations) when they're the subjects of articles, e.g. V-J Day in Times Square and Fire Escape Collapse, because one can't understand the subject without an image. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the article is not really about the photograph. It's about the event. The article is just named wrong. If you read the article, it is about the event; it doesn't focus primarily the artistic aspects of the photo, details of the camera equipment used, what photography prizes it won, biographical details of the photographer, and so on, such is is found in articles about photographs (and paintings, statues, etc.) which are about the artistic/famous work itself.

I'll start a discussion to rename the article to "Baraboo Nazi salute incident" if this will help, but this will take some time to go thru (if it does). See Talk:Baraboo Nazi salute photo#Requested move 23 December 2018.

Consider the article Hindenburg disaster for instance. There is a famous photograph associated with the event. (There probably could even be an article about that photograph. But the articled Hindenburg disaster isn't about the photograph, the photo is used to illustrate the event.) That particular photograph is in the public domain, but it it wasn't... well on the one hand, it provides useful data -- "Oh, I can see how close they were to the ground, this helps me to understand how there were survivors etc." But if it was under copyright, and the copyright holder was making a living off selling licenses of the photo to Led Zeppelin T-shirt makers and so forth, and possibly not too happy about people putting up copies without paying... how would we approach this? Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name of the article isn't actually important here. Even if, hypothetically, the article is renamed, this specific photo was the nexus and instigator of the "incident," with specific reliably sourced commentary about the photograph itself. (If the article was merged or deleted, then it's a different story of course.) Also, nominator misses something with the Grumpy Cat analogy: the main corporate entities who'd want to use this photograph are newspapers / news websites, which like Wikipedia have a public comment fair use exception. Not for-fun works that want to make a Grumpy Cat mug or have Grumpy Cat as a funny illustration. The photographer isn't getting paid here, and has hit no jackpot. If they tried, they're potentially courting a lawsuit from the families of the minor subjects involved, who'd want a cut too regardless of what the contract with the school district said. SnowFire (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event was the photograph, this was not a photographer taking a picture of something they found, but a group of people performing to capture a photograph. Thereby it is needed in the article to understand it, passing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The photo itself is intrinsic to what is being discussed in the article. It would be a disservice to the reader to provide only commentary on the image, laced by definition with writers' interpretations, and not the image itself, which the reader may view to gain objective information about what transpired at the photo shoot and was captured in the photo. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2018 (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 as G3 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of the image is questioned. It holds itself out as an authentic cover, but it is sourced to a Swiss fan site about Swift (see https://www.taylorswiftswitzerland.com/album-eras/reputation/the-songs/). Further, it appears that the image originated on Flickr [1]. Thus, without provenance of it actually being a cover design used on a released single, it does not belong in the article, and retention on Wikipedia is not justified. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred's reasons above. Eric Cable ! Talk 18:42, 18 December 2018 (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.

December 18

File:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg

File:The Offspring @ Good Things 2018 Sydney.jpg

File:USS Coronado 1993 Change of Command.jpg

File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg

File:2018 Baraboo High boys junior prom group.jpg

File:Ready-for-it-big-machine-records-2017.jpg