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 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.
Non-encyclopedic image uploaded for use in repeatedly deleted article.
jonny-
mt 04:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as this crude "logo" is for a non-existent radio station and intended for use only in an oft-deleted vanity article. -
Dravecky (
talk) 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is being used to illustrate the newspaper itself, and not the stories on it as required by
WP:NFCC.
ViperSnake151 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, i can't ever see having this be useful considering that we generally don't allow articles on middle schools (and even then, we probably would use a photo of the building rather than the water tower)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
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 debate was:
- Delete - From the below debate: The image appears to fail NFCC#1 (No free equivalent) as there are free images of Flea in the article (and him touring with Cobain can be conveyed with text alone) and possibly NFCC#2 (Respect for commercial opportunities) given the images source. NFCC#8 (Significance) also seems to not be met -
Peripitus(Talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Non-free image being used for the article of a living person (
Flea). Image seems to be serving a primarily decorative purpose. A copyrighted image of Cobain is not necessary to show that Flea toured with him.
Kellyhi! 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I thought the same thing when this was up for FAC. I tagged it for deletion then too, I think.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
A more thorough explanation since this is looking to be a borderline case: this photo shows nothing that is crucial to the article that words cannot show. It doesn't matter that this is the only image from the early 90s of him. (And if his image was so important, as claimed below, surely there would be more photos!) Readers can understand perfectly well that they toured together without seeing a photo. If you want to show that the two were friends, find a source that says that and don't insist on having a nonfree image to convey something that seems to be original research based on the photo.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image is among the only photographs I can find of Flea from the early 90s that actually shows his face fully. Furthermore, it features Cobain so it definitely integrates into the prose. There's nothing here that violates Fair Use.
NSR77TC 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per NSR77. —Giggy 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I knew this wasn't right. Also, Flea sold over ten million records in the 90s. I doubt its that hard to find a pic of his face. --
Endlessdan 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. What you're basically saying is that any image of him is fine, except for this one. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't—not to be rude—understand that logic.
NSR77TC 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Hopefully I'm not putting words in Dan's mouth, but my interpretation is, given Flea's widespread public exposure in the '90s, it should not be excessively difficult to locate a free image of him from that time frame, if in fact such an image is needed for reader understanding of the topic.
Kellyhi! 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, per my comment on the possibly unfree images nomination - it has a perfectly fine rationale with reasoning that provides acceptable reasoning for using the image. It's highly unlikely to find a free image from that time period, considering free culture and the internet were nowhere near as pervasive back then - if a free image was available I'm sure it would have been uploaded by now. The image is encyclopedic; it's a photo of two members of bands that were incredibly influential (especially in the period of time that it was taken) and it depicts not just the way Flea looked at the time (which believe it or not is important in itself - it's not about "hey this is a cool picture!!", as the way people dress and style themselves reflects the image of themselves they want to present to people; and if that's not relevant in a biography, I don't know what is), but the fact that he's hanging out with possibly one of the most influential people in alt rock - it's really rare to find pictures of any two iconic and influential musicians just hanging out together and shows that they weren't just touring together, they were friends (or at least reasonably acquainted) which is a ~notable~ fact (as I said, they both made a big effect on the alt music scene in the 90s). naerii 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I notice the image description lacks a source (which would be grounds for deletion all by itself), but it can be found here
[1]. If the copyright holder is indeed "
Sony Pictures Classics", in what relation does that company stand to the two artists pictured? They don't seem to be using it to market these singers as their product, so it's not obviously a promotional image. Being commercially owned it may well be failing NFCC#2.
Fut.Perf.☼ 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
You can't make assumptions that the image is or is not a promotional shot simply because of the copyright holder. To be fair, you have no proof or backup to support such a claim.
NSR77TC 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, Sony Picture Classics (and its representative, Mongrel Media) are quite clearly using the image to promote not the two singers, but a movie which one of the singers happens to be referring to through a cartoon on the T-shirt he's wearing, and which is one of Sony Picture's products
[2]. Our use of it is unrelated to the movie, so it's not within the implicit press-kit permission intended by the owners.
Fut.Perf.☼ 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
In light of its copyright status, and of Calliopejen's excellent argument above, delete.
Fut.Perf.☼ 07:51, 31 August 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (does not appear to be the band we have an article, which was active in the mid-90s and did not have a violin)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
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 debate was:
- Delete - Adding to the reader's understanding is not the issue here. Per the nomination and the requirements of
WP:NFCC#8 a non-free image has to add significantly to reader's understanding. Usually this is via sourced commentary in the article about the image. Non-free images are not kept where they are decorative -
Peripitus(Talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
In the context of a near identical image already used in the article, this image doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding.
PhilKnight (
talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (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.
Not used, tagged as PD, but the linked site only says "SFGOV Copyright 2000-08", no mention of public domain.
Sherool(talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, low quality, uploader asumes it's PD since it's supposedly from the UK government but I believe they retain "crown copyright".
Sherool(talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The
WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline.
BigrTex 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, corresponding article was
deleted as non-notable (also not PD, at best it's a screensho of GPL licensed software).
Sherool(talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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.
Non-encyclopedic image uploaded for use in repeatedly deleted article.
jonny-
mt 04:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as this crude "logo" is for a non-existent radio station and intended for use only in an oft-deleted vanity article. -
Dravecky (
talk) 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is being used to illustrate the newspaper itself, and not the stories on it as required by
WP:NFCC.
ViperSnake151 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, i can't ever see having this be useful considering that we generally don't allow articles on middle schools (and even then, we probably would use a photo of the building rather than the water tower)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
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 debate was:
- Delete - From the below debate: The image appears to fail NFCC#1 (No free equivalent) as there are free images of Flea in the article (and him touring with Cobain can be conveyed with text alone) and possibly NFCC#2 (Respect for commercial opportunities) given the images source. NFCC#8 (Significance) also seems to not be met -
Peripitus(Talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Non-free image being used for the article of a living person (
Flea). Image seems to be serving a primarily decorative purpose. A copyrighted image of Cobain is not necessary to show that Flea toured with him.
Kellyhi! 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I thought the same thing when this was up for FAC. I tagged it for deletion then too, I think.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
A more thorough explanation since this is looking to be a borderline case: this photo shows nothing that is crucial to the article that words cannot show. It doesn't matter that this is the only image from the early 90s of him. (And if his image was so important, as claimed below, surely there would be more photos!) Readers can understand perfectly well that they toured together without seeing a photo. If you want to show that the two were friends, find a source that says that and don't insist on having a nonfree image to convey something that seems to be original research based on the photo.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image is among the only photographs I can find of Flea from the early 90s that actually shows his face fully. Furthermore, it features Cobain so it definitely integrates into the prose. There's nothing here that violates Fair Use.
NSR77TC 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per NSR77. —Giggy 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I knew this wasn't right. Also, Flea sold over ten million records in the 90s. I doubt its that hard to find a pic of his face. --
Endlessdan 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. What you're basically saying is that any image of him is fine, except for this one. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't—not to be rude—understand that logic.
NSR77TC 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Hopefully I'm not putting words in Dan's mouth, but my interpretation is, given Flea's widespread public exposure in the '90s, it should not be excessively difficult to locate a free image of him from that time frame, if in fact such an image is needed for reader understanding of the topic.
Kellyhi! 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, per my comment on the possibly unfree images nomination - it has a perfectly fine rationale with reasoning that provides acceptable reasoning for using the image. It's highly unlikely to find a free image from that time period, considering free culture and the internet were nowhere near as pervasive back then - if a free image was available I'm sure it would have been uploaded by now. The image is encyclopedic; it's a photo of two members of bands that were incredibly influential (especially in the period of time that it was taken) and it depicts not just the way Flea looked at the time (which believe it or not is important in itself - it's not about "hey this is a cool picture!!", as the way people dress and style themselves reflects the image of themselves they want to present to people; and if that's not relevant in a biography, I don't know what is), but the fact that he's hanging out with possibly one of the most influential people in alt rock - it's really rare to find pictures of any two iconic and influential musicians just hanging out together and shows that they weren't just touring together, they were friends (or at least reasonably acquainted) which is a ~notable~ fact (as I said, they both made a big effect on the alt music scene in the 90s). naerii 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I notice the image description lacks a source (which would be grounds for deletion all by itself), but it can be found here
[1]. If the copyright holder is indeed "
Sony Pictures Classics", in what relation does that company stand to the two artists pictured? They don't seem to be using it to market these singers as their product, so it's not obviously a promotional image. Being commercially owned it may well be failing NFCC#2.
Fut.Perf.☼ 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
You can't make assumptions that the image is or is not a promotional shot simply because of the copyright holder. To be fair, you have no proof or backup to support such a claim.
NSR77TC 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, Sony Picture Classics (and its representative, Mongrel Media) are quite clearly using the image to promote not the two singers, but a movie which one of the singers happens to be referring to through a cartoon on the T-shirt he's wearing, and which is one of Sony Picture's products
[2]. Our use of it is unrelated to the movie, so it's not within the implicit press-kit permission intended by the owners.
Fut.Perf.☼ 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
In light of its copyright status, and of Calliopejen's excellent argument above, delete.
Fut.Perf.☼ 07:51, 31 August 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (does not appear to be the band we have an article, which was active in the mid-90s and did not have a violin)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 17:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
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 debate was:
- Delete - Adding to the reader's understanding is not the issue here. Per the nomination and the requirements of
WP:NFCC#8 a non-free image has to add significantly to reader's understanding. Usually this is via sourced commentary in the article about the image. Non-free images are not kept where they are decorative -
Peripitus(Talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
In the context of a near identical image already used in the article, this image doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding.
PhilKnight (
talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (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.
Not used, tagged as PD, but the linked site only says "SFGOV Copyright 2000-08", no mention of public domain.
Sherool(talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, low quality, uploader asumes it's PD since it's supposedly from the UK government but I believe they retain "crown copyright".
Sherool(talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The
WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline.
BigrTex 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, corresponding article was
deleted as non-notable (also not PD, at best it's a screensho of GPL licensed software).
Sherool(talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
