Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 16

< March 15	March 17 >

March 16

File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:01, 16 March 2020 (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:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (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:Riora FC 2018.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (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:Riora FC.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (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:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of non-free album cover art in

WP:NFCC#3a since it's bascially the same image at File:Scottpilgrimthegame.jpg being used in the main infobox of the article to identify the game. This file was originally tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by JJMC89, but that tag was disputed at File talk:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg#Re. NFCC prod; so, I'm starting a discussion about the file's use here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:NFC#cite note-3 — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 22 March 2020 (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:The black hammer.gif

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. Consensus is to keep this image, but per the updates on 22 March 2020, use it in the article on the book and not in the article on Benson. There is only a FUR for the article on the book currently, so if it is re-added to the article on Benson, a FUR must be added for that article as well.

(non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Decorative use of non-free cover art in

WP:NBOOK and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a simple descriptive statement about the cover itself is added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: This is not merely a decorative image. This image is about the highly racist book with a foreword by Benson, and the image caption even says it as such. There is no need for a sole article on the book (though I would not object) but it is absolutely pertinent to the article. The image on the front of the book alone was criticized for being racist. I will need to locate the reference to this. This is also the first edition cover of this highly charged book. The cover alone illustrates the book, one of the few times that the cover of the book reflects it's contents.
Southern Poverty Law Center uses the book cover. The image itself was in the first edition of the book and definitely shows a black man's head cut off, dripping blood to a Soviet style sickle. A description of the cover really doesn't do it justice. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you posted about the cover is most likely true, but
  WP:SYNTH to try and somehow tie the two together. So, no I don't think that kind of thing justifies the file's use in the Benson article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - A citation has now been provided. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Please note that I have been actively adding to the Ezra Taft Benson article. I agree with Marchjuly's earlier concern that at the time, there was nothing about the book cover in the article itself. I have added relevant content appropriately sourced. Historian D. Michael Quinn is a well respected historian, and as reliable a source as can be found. He himself thought it noteworthy to include a description of the books cover in his book and thought it relevant, an excerpt of which was published in the periodical Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and can be found online on page 60 at: https://www.mormonchronicle.com/img/Ezra-Taft-Benson-and-Mormon-Political-Conflicts.pdf . It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement. The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself ("The Mormon Hierarchy: Extentions of Power", "Thunder From the Right", and "The Mormon Church & Blacks"). The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article. The Book would have been lost to history had Benson not written the foreword. Is the cover notable? Yes. Why is it notable? Because Ezra Taft Benson wrote the foreword, and endorsed the book. Even if he did not write the foreword, he endorsed the book, which is notable in and of itself. Imagine if today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsed a similar book today? Would that not be notable, even if he had zero input into the selection of the cover art? Epachamo (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of
  WP:NFC#UUI, etc. were clearly not an issue; in other words, we would only do so if relevant policy clearly justified us doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I don’t think you understand OR or SYNTH. I read the source material he has cited and the author literally directly speaks about the cover of the book. I strongly urge you to read his source material. It’s a valid secondary source. There is no synthesis or original research I can see, and the editor has not inferred anything. I think you need to be careful with assertions like this, you are rather over-egging the pudding. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the expanded version of the section, and I still don't think there's sufficient justification for using the file. The current version is better than before, but I don't think a sentence describing the book's cover is sufficient for justifying the non-free use of the file. Of the new sources that were added, I explained above why I don't think the SPLC really helps justify the file's use, and there's no link provided for the other source so there's no real way for me to check it. Since you apparently can access the source and read what it says perhaps you can clarify things more. If the source is the same as this provided above, then there's for sure lots of commentary about Benson being anti-Civil Rights and anti-communist in that excerpt, but the only comment specifically on the cover that I can find is "an overtly racist book which featured the decapitated head of an African-American on its cover" which again I don't really think is enough to justify the file's use in the article.
      As for OR and SYN, I posted While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN, in which I purposely used "we" not "you" because it is we who need to be careful of posting anything that
      doesn't specifically reflect what's stated in reliable sources but which might be based upon how we interpret what we have read. Now, if you want me to be more specific, I do think we need to be careful making statements like this It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement, The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself and The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article because those types of statements are our own interpretations or critical commentary on the situation that have little value to Wikipedia unless they are actually the interpretations/critical commentary found in reliable sources. Anyway, if my opinion is in the minority and the consensus turn out to be that file's use is justified, then that's fine and a consensus doesn't need to be unanimous; however, I've seen nothing posted in this discussion or in the changes made to the article (at least so far) that makes me think the file's use does comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - You are taking someone’s justification and prior knowledge and calling it synthesis. SYNTH doesn’t apply to talk page comments in debates. It merely applies to the article space. The source he provided baldly states it was racist and describes the image in stark terms. That is neither OR or SYNTH. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        My comments about OR and SYN had nothing to do with this discussion or any discussion on a talk page. They were related to article content. That was what I meant when I posted inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I thought that was understood since we appeared to be discussing adding content to the article about the image and Benson's connection to the image. OR and SYN only apply to article content; so, when someone brings them up who seems to have been editing for quite awhile, then it should be kind of understand that's the context the terms are being used. If that part of my post was confusing, however, then my apologies and let me rephrase it as "inferring such things in Wikipedia articles often runs afoul of OR and SYN". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still feel there is value in keeping the image, and the source connecting the image to Benson is strong, but will also acquiesce if I am in the minority. I'll add some users I respect and have worked with, many of whom have reverted my own edits. Users: John Foxe, Awilley, FyzixFighter, Doug Weller, TaivoLinguist, Bobamnertiopsis, Charlesdrakew, Geneva11, WQUlrich, Rollidan, Jgstokes, ChristensenMJ, White whirlwind, Rachel Helps (BYU) and ConnieBland, I invite your respected opinions on whether to keep this image in the Ezra Taft Benson article. Epachamo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Instead of just "
        WP:CANVASS. Moreover, from a purely technical perspective, your attempt to notify others might not have worked since you forgot to sign your post; "ping"-type notifications only apparently work when the "pinger" signs their post at the time of the "pinging". — Marchjuly (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Thank you, good advice, much appreciated. Canvassing is not my intent. I am not trying to 'sneak' this into the article, or violate NPOV. I have posted to the WT:NFCC, WP:NPOV/N and WP:OR/N notice boards. I noticed it was already in the LDS Project noticeboard. Epachamo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are not censored and if this is the cover its the cover.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8. While the book is discussed in the article, the is no critical commentary about how the cover itself is connected to Benson (who is not the author of the book or the cover artist), only a description of the cover. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

UPDATE: I have created the article
The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence and White Alternatives per suggestion above of Marchjuly. With this article in place, I recommend that we Keep the image, but I am fine if it is removed from the Ezra Taft Benson article. Hopefully this solution is acceptable to all parties. Epachamo (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Remove from
rationale is required for the book article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I updated the rationale on the image to have it point to the book article. I assume that is what you meant? Are you saying the Book Article itself also needs a rationale template added? Epachamo (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way you added a rationale for the article about the book you created is OK, but you unintentionally replaced the one for the Benson article. So, now the use in the Benson article also fails
WP:F5 because it will still be being used in the article about the book. If this is an acceptable outcome to you, then that's fine; however, if you or anyone else still feels the file can be used in both the Benson article and the book article, then a rationale needs to be re-added for the Benson article. FWIW, as I posted above, I think using a non-free book cover for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book in question; so, I think that usage does comply with policy and see no reason why it cannot be used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am fine with deletion from the Benson article at this point and keeping it just in the Book Article. Thanks for the mentorship Marchjuly navigating me through this process. Epachamo (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (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:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Dave Brown Rugby League 1979.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 ⚡ 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and the licenses on the file have been in question for almost 6 years and have not been verified and/or corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information template suggests that this is
Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2020 (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.