Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16[edit]

File:Trump Bring Back Death Penalty ad 1989.jpg[edit]

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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Readers' understanding of the Central Park jogger case suffers not one whit with the removal of this image, and the presence of this image -- while it may contribute to readers' understanding of Donald J. Trump -- doesn't contribute to readers' understanding of the attack and trial. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This advertisement is critically discussed in the Central Park jogger case article, where it has its own five-paragraph (3138 B) section, Advertisement from Donald Trump. The ad appeared in four major papers and is a historical document, relevant to this article. Aside from its original import, the ad was revisited in the media upon the vacation of the convictions, and again now with Trump's campaign for President. Indeed, there is probably enough significant coverage for an stand-alone article on the advertisement itself. Were this image to appear in an article about itself, I don't think there would be any question that the image met NFCC#8.

There have been so many failed attempts to clarify or revise NFCC#8, perhaps because "significantly increase" is such a vague and subjective criterion. Suffice to say, the current text does not adequately describe this full-page advertisement. The image of the advertisement itself is evocative of the striking experience readers of those newspapers would have had as they turned the page. The layout of the advertisement, with its ample negative space, and with its oversized, bolded, and underlined font communicates the emphasis far better than prose currently does or could. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a lot less uncomfortable about this image if it were sized slightly smaller, enough that the text in the body were illegible. We don't need to be quoting it in full. —Cryptic 20:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: There's a bot for that™. You are right, it is too large for a fair use image. I have marked it with a {{non-free reduce}} request and the bot should take care of that in a day or so. As for the actual reason this was brought to FFD, I'm leaning towards delete. Partially because I agree with the nominator. Partially because it is a clear violation of WP:NFC#UUI #15. --Majora (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally, images of newspaper articles would be deleted as insignificant to topics. However, the section about the ad itself makes the image relevant to the "jogger case". Well, the ad was a reaction to the case, but the section doesn't violate policies, like NOTADVOCACY, BLP, and Verifiability. If the section doesn't violate rules, the image must be kept unless someone else says the section must be fixed, removed, or something. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair Use rules apply. Concur with the reduction of image so that it is not suitable for reproduction. The image is relevant to the article and concerns a public person of interest, which increases its importance. As per Fair Use it can only be used in one article. I see no reason to delete an artifact of historic and public interest. Crtew (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any reason key pieces of the article cannot be quoted? The reduction in size of the image makes it borderline useless and therefore unencyclopedic -FASTILY 04:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyrighted text no longer legible, thus not an issue. May even be PD-simple now. Regardless, it illustrates his ad. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:12, 24 December 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.

File:Marca TV.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version exists: File:Marca TV.svg FASTILY 09:17, 16 October 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.

File:Alianza Popular.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Alianza Popular.svg FASTILY 09:18, 16 October 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.

File:DushanbeIA small.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Dushanbe International Airport.svg FASTILY 09:30, 16 October 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.

File:OVB logo ru .png[edit]

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 ⚡ 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 09:30, 16 October 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.

File:Logo S7Airlines 500x195.gif[edit]

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 ⚡ 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:S7 new logo.svg FASTILY 09:34, 16 October 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.

File:New-Castle,-NH-Town-Seal.png[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (logo) FASTILY 09:37, 16 October 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.

File:Ijaz ul Haq1.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader name differ from the image author name. if image is under CC license , why not uploaded to Commons? likely copyvio as there is no permission and source. Saqib (talk) 12:35, 16 October 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.

File:ExtraFoodsLogo 34 eng.png[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A newer version of the image is available and uploaded under File:Extra Foods Logo.gif. Daylen (talk) 15:51, 16 October 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.

File:Frederick Woodward Branson.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following an exchange at OTRS 2016072110006797, it appears that the files uploaded are all from family album(s), with unknown photographer, and never published. It is therefore likely that some copyright will exist due to their unpublished nature. When asked from proper release forms from copyright holder, we got a simple "No and remove the photos" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:03, 16 October 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.

File:MonkeyFtn.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons as File:EXTERIOR, MONKEY FOUNTAIN DETAIL, FACING EAST - J. Paul Getty Museum, Ranch House, 17985 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA HABS CAL,19-MALI,1A-13.tif. Ineligible for speedy deletion due to file format. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:09, 16 October 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.

File:Audi AG logo.png[edit]

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: Relicense as fair use Majora (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems well over the threshold of originality to me - there's no question to me that if it were a photograph the 3-d elements would be enough to make the photo copyrightable in itself. Convert (back) to fair-use. —Cryptic 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and keep - It seems highly unlikely to me that Audi is from the US and therefore not from Germany and that this logo is complex. This company certainly is from Germany. The US has NOT the same TOO as the UK. The US has a very high threshold of originality and such images can NOT be copyrighted in US, but in the UK, because the UK has a very low TOO. In most cases the photographer or designer would own the copyright. When 3D objects are photographed a new copyright exists in the 2D work. But the original 3D rings are not copyrightable, as the rings made of metal themselves are probably simple, as Graeme Bartlett has said per this. Also, you don't have proof that it is copyrighted in the Germany. Look at c:Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany and Threshold of originality#Germany and you will see what I'm talking about. Germany has a very high threshold of originality, so all German logos marked as PD are NEVER copyrighted unless proven otherwise. This image ONLY consists of simple geometric shapes (circles) and text. The images (which looks the same as this one) can be found at c:Category:Audi logos and c:Category:Audi rings on Wikimedia Commons. However, they are PD-textlogo and PD-shapes. XPanettaa (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially all of that is irrelevant.
  Country of origin and UK/German thresholds of originality would matter only if and when we were considering moving to Commons. On the English Wikipedia, it only matters whether an image is copyrightable in the US, and that can be true even if the image is public domain in its country of origin.
  If you're going to imply User:Graeme Bartlett said the the exact opposite of what he actually did with respect to this particular image, you could have at least had the courtesy to ping him.
  Being circular in overall shape is very different from being a simple geometric shape. The potentially-copyrightable part of the image is the complex, pseudo-3D shading within the circular shape.
  The images on Commons are, for the most part, the simple unshaded version {such as File:Audi-Logo 2016.svg), or are photographs where the photographer has released his copyright interest under a free license. (Two, File:2808 audi logo nuevo th 2.jpg and File:Audi logo detail.svg, are problematic for the same reason this image is.) —Cryptic 19:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fair-use This image exceeds threshold of complexity, (with my argument mentioned above). The reason is that this is either a photo of a 3D structure or a simulated image. The reflections included put this over the "simple" criterion. And since there are plenty of free images available this is replaceable for something to hint at Audi. For the genuine logo, since this is the one, it should only be used under fair use on the one Audi company article. I declined to restore deleted revisions at WP:REFUND because of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 October 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.

File:PFRPG Necromancer.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image used in the popular culture section of necromancy. The image does meet WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance as there is no significant sourced commentary about the image. The image also fails WP:NFCC#1 as the image could be replaced by file:Wesnothlich.png. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 16 October 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.

File:Mungaruoverfloww.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be used as the primary means of identification at the top the article, this image is actually being used within the soundtrack section and fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no sourced commentary about this album cover. Whpq (talk) 21:06, 16 October 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.

File:US Forest Service Shield.svg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, alternates available: File:Forestservice-shield.svg FASTILY 22:50, 16 October 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.

File:Usfs shield 125x125.PNG[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Forestservice-shield.svg FASTILY 22:51, 16 October 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.

File:USFS Logo.svg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Forestservice-shield.svg FASTILY 22:52, 16 October 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.

File:Pecans-crop.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res crop of File:Pecans.jpg, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 22:54, 16 October 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.

File:US-DeptOfVeteransAffairs-Seal-Large.png[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Seal of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (1989-2012).svg FASTILY 23:01, 16 October 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.

File:Surfing in Hawaii cropped.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Surfing in Hawaii.jpg, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:11, 16 October 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.

File:9th Communication Battalion logo.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version exists: File:9th Communication Battalion logo.svg FASTILY 23:14, 16 October 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.

File:ICMFlag.gif[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:20, 16 October 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.