Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 8

March 8

File:MetroCard.SVG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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. ✗plicit 13:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MetroCard.SVG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:FREER#Multiple_restrictions: non-free SVG image without an official source. Wcam (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deletion rationale is incorrect - a source for the vector image was already listed on the file page. I've updated it to an archived version. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:La Abuela Frontera dance video.ogv

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 2025 March 15. ✗plicit 23:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Abuela Frontera dance video.ogv (logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Laurie Simmons First Bathroom Woman Standing 1978.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurie Simmons First Bathroom Woman Standing 1978.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Laurie Simmons Tourism Parthenon 1984.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Laurie Simmons Jimmy the Camera 1987.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Laurie Simmons Lena (Pink) 2018.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These are non-free works by the artist Laurie Simmons used on that page. These do not meet {{Non-free 2D art}}, as the article's subject is the artist, not the paintings. The artist's stylistic periods are already extensively detailed in text, and these images do not add an additional significant amount of understanding of the person Laurie Simmons (WP:NFCC8). Consigned (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete multiple images of her artwork fail NFCC#3. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Traumnovelle Buffs (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response Regarding WP:NFCC a user has nominated for deletion all of the artwork images on a page about an artist whose notability rests wholly on their art. I do not find this appropriate as the public's interest centers around the subject's specific contributions to and impact on the field of art. Seeing the art is necessary for this—when it comes to conveying visual information, words are insufficient. WP:NFCC states that a main purpose of the criteria is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." I believe these images qualify.

Regarding WP:NFCC8, I have taken care to use low-resolution images per criterion 3b. As far as criterion 3a ("Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. "), it is unlikely that one image could "convey equivalent significant information" compared to multiple images for basically any artist of note. Most artist articles describe careers that span three, four, five or more decades, involving many—often divergent—bodies of work, media and styles. For example (as in this case), a single artist might at various points produce photography, sculpture, video, installation art and drawings. Artists' work also develops over time—often significantly—sometimes moving through completely different styles (e.g., abstraction versus realism). Many artists, including this artist, are equally known for very different bodies of work. It would be impossible to convey such contrasts, variations and evolutions within a single image. As a result, using a single image in an artist article can not only result in the omission of crucial information, but actually may distort understanding, misinforming readers. Inclusion of multiple artwork images is typical for encyclopedia entries of artists, both broadly and on Wikipedia specifically. Here are three examples of GA-rated artist pages, all of which include multiple fair-use images: Louise Nevelson, Rashid Johnson, and Jean-Michel Basquiat. If the deciding editor finds any merit to the nomination to delete, I propose deleting only File:Laurie Simmons Tourism Parthenon 1984.jpg as the new information it provides is comparatively less significant than the other three. -- User:Mianvar1 15:33 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Karen-Chekerdjian-Portrait-3.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC) This is a copyrighted work from Alain Sauma per metadata. Moumou82 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i presume the earlier uploaded file that was deleted and mentioned on the user's talk page is the exact same image. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the earlier uploaded file should not pertain to assessing the validity of this photo. Given that this person has contributed ~40 times over 3 years and not since 2018, I doubt we will get clarification from the uploader's side of the events. Expecting a reply to clarify doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could Alain Sauma not be the uploader? Buffs (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No: 05:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above permissions. Buffs (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Seagull Pit entry on Google Maps.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seagull Pit entry on Google Maps.png (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Whilst the Google Map listing is discussed in the article the reader does not need a screenshot of Google Maps to confirm it given the reference. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of that section is thd google maps marker. The screenshot illustrates the subject of the section, and is fair use. David Palmer/cloventt ^(talk) 19:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image isn't needed to 'illustrate that there is indeed a Google Maps listing for the Seagull Pit', when a citation that verifies the claim does the exact same thing. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the text of the article sufficiently describes the map/pin, the nonfree image doesn't add significant insight (WP:NFCC8). Consigned (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the text of the article and the citations sufficiently describe the google maps marker. The marker is even saved in 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing extraordinary about this marker on Google maps. Buffs (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.