Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

April 21

File:Domains of Gropa dinasty.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Uploader has a history of copyright violations. This map has labels that are cut off indicating this is a crop from some other larger map. Whpq (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too suspicious to retain. Vanishingly unlikely that User:Dardania0 made the map from whole cloth; she could have shaded in the area using a public-domain map as a base, in which case she should have included that in the image description. And if the shading is really the editor's original work, then that's original research by a private person and we can't use that (on content rather than copyright grounds, but still, either way the map's no use to us and will just be floating around orphaned). But that aside, the editor's talk page is not an encouraging sight... I'm just not sufficiently confident in the editor's assertion that it's her own work. Herostratus (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2021 (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.

File:General Dynmamics 1960.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's described as OK for fair use at General Dynamics on grounds of being a "Corporate Logo", but it is NOT a logo. It's just a poster that General Dynamics had made that has their name on it. And it's pretty obvious that General Dynamics would never have used such a fanciful picture as an actual logo. It's also used at the article of the poster designer (Erik Nitsche) where it's just used as an example of something he did and not as a logo at all. Herostratus (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So it's fair use. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 12:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it indeed could be. But in order to be fair use, we'd have to 1) use the image to illustrate an important point(s) about that exact image in particular, and 2) change the image description. Both are possible, but I'm not up to doing the work. It would be hard to do the first for this image. Here are some Nitsche images that would suit better -- for instance, the one of the submarine coming of the shell has "It was an indelible logo in its day. Set against a gradated gray background, the shell was a virtual cornucopia of progress. The submarine was not seen as a killing machine, but rather the offspring of progress poised to help the world". This, as image caption, would go a ways to satisfying the "significant content" requirement? (Not an expert on this stuff.)

To further buttress this, there are a number of points that, while they do not exactly speak to the Nautilus image in particular, would kind of find it useful -- that's not one of our fair-use criteria, but it doesn't hurt at the margins I guess. Stuff like "Nitsche's designs paved the way towards Modernism and away from overtly literal advertising campaigns" and "Defense industry contractor General Dynamics wished to be seen as an agent of peace... Nitsche used abstract symbols to express the concept of using military technology for peaceful ends..." and then it talks about the Atoms for Peace thing which the Nautilus poster was for, and possibly the image could go in that article also, if it could meet fair use requirement there (probably not) and ditto in the General Dynamics article if we want a little section on their 1955-1960 image makeover generally, same caveat.

One problem is that these images are pretty good and have commercial value, in fact I think the MoMA gift shop sells postcards and whatnot with Nitsche's designs, and there's potential for a book using Nitsche's images and whatnot. We don't want people being like "Well, I could buy this postcard here at the gift shop, but then I could download it from Wikipedia and print it myself for free". I don't know to factor all this in.

But mostly that doesn't apply to this imasge. It's not part of the Atoms for Peace thing, and most of all AFAIK there's no commentary anywhere on this exact image in particulular that I know of right off. Herostratus (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its use in the Erik Nitsche article does not have a non-free usage rationale and fails WP:NFCC#10c as it stands. There is no sourced commentary about the image nor is there any about the designer's art style that this would illustrate that could satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and so the lack of NFUR cannot be rectified by simply adding one. As for its usage in the General Dynamics article, the licensing claim that this is a logo is obviously not correct as it is a poster. The NFUR is just the standard boilerplate text used for logos and is completely inapplicable as this is not a logo. The poster is not used for identification in the infobox (nor would it be appropriate for role), and the poster is not the subject of significant source commentary, failing WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2021 (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.

File:Carl Douglas - Kung Fu Fighting.ogg

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 ⚡ 09:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Disco and Kung Fu Fighting must be evaluated for compliance with NFCC, especially #8 ("contextual significance"). I'm not convinced that the sample is needed in the genre article. Unsure about usage in the song article. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The stated purpose for the disco article "The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus". The disco article has no discussion about any of that whatsoever. Fails WP:NFCC#8 for disco. As for its usage in the song article, there is no actual stated purpose beyond it being educational use. The article does have sourced commentary about composition. In particular, "'huhs' and the 'hahs' and the chopping sounds" would benefit from a sample. However, this sample has none of that. Fails WP:NFCC#8 for the song article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced commentary you mention cites a Metro article, which is considered unreliable per WP:RSP#Metro. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That would affect the potential for some other file's use, and this one is still non-compliant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2021 (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.

File:YvonneEllimanIfICantHaveYou.ogg

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 ⚡ 09:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Disco and Yvonne Elliman must be evaluated for compliance with NFCC, especially #8 ("contextual significance"). I'm not convinced that the sample is needed in those articles. Unsure whether it belongs in the song article If I Can't Have You (Bee Gees song). George Ho (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2021 (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.

File:BlondieHeartOfGlass.ogg

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 ⚡ 09:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Disco and Heart of Glass (song) must be evaluated for compliance with NFCC, especially #8 ("contextual significance"). I'm not convinced that the sample is needed in the genre article. Unsure about usage in the song article. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2021 (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.