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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}}, as the threshold of originality of the source country is unknown. — ξ^xplicit 01:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reform Party (Latvia) logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Endrū Hejs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Should this be tagged with {{PD-logo}} instead of being marked non-free? I'm not sure if the "arrow in a box" is original enough to make this image eligible for copyright. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, but I'm ignorant about these things :)Endrū Hejs (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow in the box is not original enough for the US, at least. So yeah, textlogo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse either {{PD-logo}} or perhaps {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} unless someone can confirm that Latvia's threshold of originality is comparable to the US's and not as restrictive as, say, the UK. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 08:36, 20 December 2015 (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: resolved by uploader, so withdrawing. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riga Stradiņš University logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Endrū Hejs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Riga Stradiņš University logo small.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Endrū Hejs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both of these are essentially the same logo for the institution, but the words arranged differently. Both are not necessary in the infobox since only one is needed, and having both present fails WP:NFCC#3. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Endrū Hejs (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2015 (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 in Bellator MMA, remove all other instances. — ξ^xplicit 01:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bellatormainlogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Unak78 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo currently be used in Bellator Fighting Championships, Bellator Fighting Championships: Season One, Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Two, and List of current Bellator fighters. A non-free use rationale has been provided for each usage, but usage only seems appropriate for "Bellator Fighting Championships". Usage in the two season articles definitely does not seem acceptable per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI. Usage in the list article also seems inappropriate. I guess it could be argued that the logo is the single identifying element for the entire list, but that seems a bit iffy to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2015 (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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Mount Hawkins Fire Watch Tower.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Damotclese (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per the source website provided, "Permission was give by Thelma to allow these archives to be freely used and disseminated provided they are not used commercially." (emphasis is mine). This is not proof of a full public domain release and is not free enough for Wikipedia standards due to the non-commercial clause. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:03, 17 December 2015 (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. The image is replaceable with a free alternative, one of which is already on the site, and so fails WP:NFCC#1. I get the passion of those arguing for it but feel the arguments fail in showing this image meets the criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 09:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thue (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image was speedy deleted, deletion was contested at DRV, which resulted in bringing it here. My action here is administrative only; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having read through the DRV, let me start out by stating that the WP:NFC#UUI#4 arguments for deletion are not convincing. This map isn't depicting a geographical area, it's depicting a flight path. WP:NFCC#8 is not the issue here, as a map of this kind would certainly support critical commentary. WP:NFCC#1 is the issue. Can this map be reasonably recreated in a freely-licensed form? Having looked at File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg, it seems clear to me that the answer is yes. Even if you have problems with that particular freely-licensed map, it shows that the creation of one is possible. I accept that because the flight data points are being extracted from their position on an existing map, as opposed to the release of actual coordinates, there is going to be ever so slight inaccuracies between the original map and a user-generated map. However, the Russian line and the Turkish line are so significantly different from each other that it does not require an extremely small margin for error. The fact that File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg takes the two lines from two very different-looking maps and places them together on the same map so they can be easily viewed side-by-side means that the image is not only preferable from a NFCC#1 perspective, but from an encyclopedic perspective as well for the ease of understanding of our readers. Any concerns about the wording on the map can be rectified by discussion and editing, or creating a new one. However, with a freely-licensed alternative both possible and present, this image fails NFCC#1. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 21:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see the argument about extracting the coordinates. But it still does not have the same authenticity and showing the original image released by the Turks, and hence is not a proper replacement, and hence does not fall under WP:NFCC#1. You can make the same argument for quotes: a quote is copyrighted, and we use it under fair use. We could make a paraphrase to replace the quote, but even if it was a perfect paraphrase it, Wikipedia still sometimes prefer to include the copyrighted quote under fair use. Thue (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for the fact that quotes are specifically exempt from the requirement of meeting all 10 NFCC, including NFCC#1 ("Articles [...] may [...] use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media [...] specifically indicated as direct quotations[.] Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media [...] may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." WP:NFCCP)

Delete as in this case WP:NFCC#1 is not met. It would be absolutely bogus to claim irreplaceability of any image of my choosing based on it being the "authoritative statement" of the author of my preference. I can see how this question is relevant when discussing works of art (a mock-up Picasso is not a free equivalent of the real thing), but for maps and diagrams it isn't. Their statement is what happened and where, and not the visual expression it's wrapped in. That information can be conveyed by conventional encyclopedic means: text, and if need be, free maps made on the basis of the same data.

Regarding the map and its controversy, article only states that "The Turkish military released a graphic of the Russian aircraft's flight pattern, which shows it crossing the southern tip of Hatay Province before being shot down and crashing near Turkmen Mountain" and goes on to say that Russia published two maps of their own. This is the only discussion of the map in the article. That a) Turkey released a map, b) two geographical fixes are made reference to, and, c) Russia published two maps of their own; is information that can be easily conveyed by words alone, or a free map (WP:FREER). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) (modified Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• strong Keep I don't see how the statement "Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." That is exactly this case, many sources have discussed this map itself. Further, in addition to the passive "it is allowed" argument, I believe having a fake image in the article would be actively harmful to the article. The point _is_ that Turkey published this map that makes a specific claim. Any reproduction that is different in any meaningful way is problematic in that there can be claims that Turkey was making claims that they are not (or aren't making claims they are). And any image that makes only cosmetic changes would still be subject to copyright. Finally, the folks at the article have already decided if they can't have this image, they won't take a recreation and they will, to limit issues of POV, not have the Russian image either. That's not a bluff, it's that they believe just what I described above. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word in WP:NFC#UUI#4 is "may". All 10 NFCC must still be met. Consider if someone uploaded a map at 4000x4000px resolution because "it is allowed" to post maps that are discussed. Would we buy that argument? Of course not, because it would fail one of the NFCC (NFCC#3). Similarly, this map fails one of the NFCC (NFCC#1) and that's enough to answer that "may" in the negative.
    • No, the whole point of NFC#UU is to illustrate when things may not be replaceable. This isn't for the reasons given in NFCUU4. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' failure to reach consensus about a replacement does not mean that the image is not replaceable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the fact that the actual picture has significant coverage means it's reasonable to discuss the picture in the article (which we do). Remove the picture and we nearly need to remove that coverage. We really shouldn't be saying "well the real picture shows XYZ, much like the picture we made up" Hobit (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 since it is a map. Per WP:NFC, fair use on the English Wikipedia is determined by United States copyright law. Per this guideline, any copyright claim that Turkey may be able to pursue on an image here is irrelevant; that would only be a concern if the image was on Wikimedia Commons. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We discussed these issues at length at the page's talk page, but let me sum this up for those who are uninitiated with the topic; because it is easy to dismiss it as "it's a map, it's replaceable" (i.e. basically WP:NFC#UUI#4, which is definitely not suitable here, as correctly noted above in the first comment). This file is what Turkey claims to be the radar trace they saw, and submitted as evidence on what then became an international quarrel. The article uses the file to show what radar output Turkey released, it includes two other files released by Russia as well (which are fortunately in public domain and don't risk being deleted). Russia claims that some details of this evidence (or maybe all of it) is falsified or fabricated.

While I understand the argument, I disagree with the claim that the file is replaceable. This file is used in the same way as, say, File:David Camm blood evidence.jpeg. Yes, in a sense it is replaceable as all files are. We can produce a map that attempts to show the same flight routes based on the file Turkey released; and in the case of the latter file we can easily produce a picture with a few circles that will look similar and be in public domain. Probably those will be good enough for most readers, but it doesn't mean it is replaceable for encyclopedic purposes. In fact, the file in hand probably has a better claim to irreplaceability than that file and probably most other similar files. The file that Turkey released - every pixel of it - is subject to international and scientific scrutiny, and we cannot replace it with a file that attempts to roughly show the same content.--Orwellianist (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"[G]ood enough for most readers" is pretty much the standard that the NFCC are derived from. For instance, NFCC#1 effectively bars us from using a non-free image if text is 'good enough for most readers'. NFCC is never about finding the best and most encyclopedic image. It's about those cases unavoidable cases wherein any free alternative would not be 'good enough for most readers'.

While it's probably true that every pixel of Turkey's map is scrutinized in the intelligence community, this discussion is about our article and what treatment it gives to the image. Our article does not even attempt to recount those accounts of scrutiny. It simply says that Turkey published a map. The image is used to illustrate (almost decorate) this simple claim. The act of publishing is not something that needs to be explained by displaying the image. If this article discussed about the image itself in significant detail, the image would be needed as a reference point. In terms of its current use, it's not. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I think "eh, it's good enough for most" is not and should not be the guideline. Yes, in a sense, everything is replaceable with a free alternative if that's how you look at it; can you claim that most readers can distinguish between File:David Camm blood evidence.jpeg and another free file that I can create to look similar? I can easily produce a free file that 99.9% of readers will be fine with; it doesn't mean that I should. In a lot of cases, original file must be used; we may need to lower resolution, etc. for Wikipedia use, but creating a different file simply won't be a substitute.

In an extreme example, take File:Capitalism and Freedom.jpg. We can easily create a substitute, File:Portrait of Milton Friedman.jpg is in free domain and all we need to do is to mirror it and add some words. While it is good enough for most, it is an inappropriate thing for an encyclopedia, as that file wouldn't be the actual cover of the book. Similarly for the blood evidence or Turkey's radar evidence. The article already includes two pictures released by Russia, which are in commons, the file released by Turkey is absolutely indispensable to the article as well. I believe it conforms to the every single one of the 10 WP:NFCC criteria.--Orwellianist (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This map has been the subject of significant commentary, and is key to Turkey's claims in the shootdown affair so the non-free image criteria are easily met IMO Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has it been the subject of significant commentary in the article: 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown, Nick-D? That's the use our NFCC pertain to. There is literally one sentence about the map and none of it comments on what it looks like. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the WP:NFCC criteria are you referring to here, Finnusertop? Are you arguing for WP:NFCC#8, about contextual significance? If that is the case, I don't think you have a good argument there; I think almost all can agree that the contextual significance of a map depicting Turkey's claim is extremely self-evident. I am the one who added the sentence you are referring to to the article a few days ago, and frankly that sentence can be removed back; I only added it in order to include the sources in the article text instead of the image's caption. The map's contextual significance is not based on that sentence at all; Russia disputes Turkey's version of events, as depicted in the file Turkey released, and that controversy is discussed in the article, in fact, it is very much the subject of the article. The article would be extremely deficient and POV without it. I think the only argument that has some merit to it here is WP:NFCC#1, which you raised above and I explained why I disagree.--Orwellianist (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting for the sake of argument only that the NFCC#8 criterion is met, the file still needs to meet condition #1 and all the others. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I explained in detail why it meets condition #1 (and all other conditions) just above. Unfortunately I am yet to see any thoughtful counterarguments. People are just parroting "maps are replaceable", linking to WP:NFC#UUI#4, without apparently even reading it. It will be a shame if this file gets deleted over this; it is probably among the files most deserving of fair use claim on Wikipedia and absolutely essential to its article.--Orwellianist (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it doesn't meet #1 since the reason why it meets #8 is the information on the map, not the map itself. Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I'm getting the argument. I see your point, but I don't think we can easily discuss issues about the map when we are in a position of not hosting the actual map. A user-generated map by definition will be different in some meaningful way, otherwise it's just a copy. Hobit (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a map, it's replaceable. I absolutely don't buy the arguments that this original map needs to be included pixel for pixel for "authenticity". A user-generated map can be authentic without being an unnecessary nonfree file, which this one is. --John (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NFC#UUI §4, a map is automatically replaceable as someone could easily create a different map of the same geographical area or of the same event. Additionally, there is no sourced critical discussion about the map, so the map fails WP:NFCC#8. There is some discussion about the path but a path is not the same thing as a map, and the same path can easily be inserted on a different map. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Free alternative exists (File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg). This non-free map replaced it because it had a "very strong fair use claim", in utter violation of WP:NFCC#1. — ξ^xplicit 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Free alternative exists or could be created. Fails WP:NFCC#1 by a country mile. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because it fails WP:NFCC#1. Even if the currently available SVG is not accurate, it can still be repaired. One can argue either way on UUI §4 or NFCC#8 given that there is one or two sources talking about the map dispute, but the image needs to fail only one NFCC criterium to be deletionworthy. I'd recommend to link to the origin files on the filepage and caption for the replacement image, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In a manner similar to verbatim quoting text or speech contained in a press release with original phrasing and word choice intact, using the image offers evidentiary value of how information was presented in addition to what was put forth within. In this case it seems warranted to include it in comparison to the Russian offerings also pictured. Should it be decided to remove the image and replace it with a custom rendering of the illustrated paths then I feel the Russian images should then also be replaced with custom renditions as well for consistency and neutral balance. I'm not asserting they must be but rather that in fairness in such a case they should be. Of course it would be simpler to just leave them all—both Russian and Turkish—'as is' and be done with it. Hence avoiding any criticism of preferential rendering and such that might arise. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simpler, but less congruent with our free mission. I would be fine with removing all three. --John (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2016 (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.