Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31[edit]

File:WayneThiebaudThreeMachines.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: Kept in Wayne Thiebaud only - other uses do not meet the non-free content criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Wayne Thiebaud: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's your opinion; he is an important visual artist and those images demonstrate and illustrate the work he is notable for. They do not require words - they are visually self explanatory and of educational value to our readers. As the wikimedia foundation has said - works of visual art are exception to those rules...Modernist (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fair use rationale established in each usage instance. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles, except from Wayne Thiebaud, for failing NFCC#8. Modernist has not been able to cite a WMF Resolution or a community policy that would, notwithstanding NFC, exempt works of visual arts from meeting all 10 NFCC. See (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 29#Frank Auerbach). Non-free use rationales must not only be present on the image description page, they need to be valid (WP:NFCC#10), and since these do not establish meeting NFCC#8, they are not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As correctly pointed out by the wikimedia foundation significant modern artworks do not require words of explanation; they are Visual thus meet the requirement stated by WP:NFCC#8 although fair use rationales are required as well...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As correctly pointed out by the Wikimedia Foundation, non-free content may only be used in accordance with an EDP, and the EDP must be minimal. This image seems to be used maximally instead of minimally, which is not compliant with a valid EDP as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is also not compliant with English Wikipedia's EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan - you know and I know that you cannot be objective or unbiased in dealing with these issues. We need neutral and objective opinions here; see WP:UCS which should essentially prevail...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation drew a distinction and an exception regarding visual art which needs to be seen to be understood...Modernist (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikimedia Foundation wrote that visual art may be displayed provided that the use is minimial. Also, WP:UCS in this case means that we should not use excessively many images. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except Wayne Thiebaud. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 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.

Jean-Michel Basquiat[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: One deleted, one kept in Jean-Michel Basquiat. arbitrarily I kept the first and deleted the second listed. Images failed NFCC#3a and 8 in their former usage. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains two examples of the same art style. Per WP:NFCC#3a, this should be reduced to only one image. One of the images is also used on two other pages, but there is no sourced critical discussion about the image on those pages, so it should be removed from those per WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's your opinion; he is an important visual artist and those images demonstrate and illustrate the work he is notable for. They do not require words - they are visually self explanatory and of educational value to our readers. As the wikimedia foundation has said - works of visual art are exception to those rules...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major 20th century artist. To not to show examples of his widely reproduced work would make our coverage and in article discussion weak to say the least. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, for failing NFCC#3. Modernist has not been able to cite a WMF Resolution or a community policy that would, notwithstanding NFC, exempt works of visual arts from meeting all 10 NFCC. See (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 29#Frank Auerbach). Being a major work by a major artist bears no direct relevance to any of the 10 NFCC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As correctly pointed out by the wikimedia foundation significant modern artworks do not require words of explanation; they are Visual and thus satisfies WP:NFCC#8; although fair use rationales are required as well...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As correctly pointed out by the Wikimedia Foundation, non-free content may only be used in accordance with an EDP, and the EDP must be minimal. This image seems to be used maximally instead of minimally, which is not compliant with a valid EDP as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is also not compliant with English Wikipedia's EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan - you know and I know that you cannot be objective or unbiased in dealing with these issues. We need neutral and objective opinions here; see WP:UCS which should essentially prevail...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation drew a distinction and an exception regarding visual art which needs to be seen to be understood...Modernist (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikimedia Foundation wrote that visual art may be displayed provided that the use is minimial. Also, WP:UCS in this case means that we should not use excessively many images. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove one from all articles except Jean-Michel Basquiat and delete the other. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 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:Untitled painting by Larry Poons, ca.1964.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: Remove from all pages except Larry Poons. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Larry Poons: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's your opinion; he is an important visual artist and those images demonstrate and illustrate the work he is notable for. They do not require words - they are visually self explanatory and of educational value to our readers. As the wikimedia foundation has said - works of visual art are exception to those rules...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether he's important or not is irrelevant. As long as there is no sourced critical discussion about the painting in those articles, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have repeatedly stated the Wikimedia Foundation has made works of visual art - exceptions to those rules...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saying again in this serial deletion campaign, major artist, major work. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles, except from Larry Poons, for failing NFCC#8. Modernist has not been able to cite a WMF Resolution or a community policy that would, notwithstanding NFC, exempt works of visual arts from meeting all 10 NFCC. See (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 29#Frank Auerbach). Being a major work by a major artist bears no direct relevance to any of the 10 NFCC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As correctly pointed out by the wikimedia foundation significant modern artworks do not require words of explanation; they are Visual and thus satisfy all WP:NFCC#8 requirements although fair use rationales are required as well...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As correctly pointed out by the Wikimedia Foundation, non-free content may only be used in accordance with an EDP, and the EDP must be minimal. This image seems to be used maximally instead of minimally, which is not compliant with a valid EDP as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is also not compliant with English Wikipedia's EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan - you know and I know that you cannot be objective or unbiased in dealing with these issues. We need neutral and objective opinions here; see WP:UCS which should essentially prevail...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation drew a distinction and an exception regarding visual art which needs to be seen to be understood...Modernist (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikimedia Foundation wrote that visual art may be displayed provided that the use is minimial. Also, WP:UCS in this case means that we should not use excessively many images. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except Larry Poons. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an educational image that does not violate the project's goal, but in fact is in keeping with fulfilling those goals. This image should stay!!!Modernist (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of non-free content is based on the WP:NFCC policy, which is not only based on whether something is educational. For example, check the way the image is used in the article WP:NFCC#8. One condition is that the image must increase the understanding of the article, but the article contains excessively many images, takes forever to load and forever to scroll through, in particular if you use a device with a small screen such as a phone. The excessive use of images seems to decrease the understanding of the article instead of increasing it. Reducing the image count to 10 or 20 would greatly increase the understanding of the article. The same is true for the text: most sections contain way too much text, and text should be moved to other, more specialised, articles so that the article only contains a simple summary of the subject which is faster to read, with links to pages with more information for those who want to know more. Look at the Spanish version of the article, es:Historia de la pintura, which provides the same kind of content but presented in a much better way. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to remind that in the area of non-free content, the project's goal is to minimize the use of non-free files rather than maximize educational value. To quote wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, because "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to 'empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license'" (emphasis in original), local non-free image use policies "must be minimal". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I have stated before these are used educationally; visual art must be seen in order to be understood. Ironically these are minimally in use, what's more is we only have one example of this work to use. Historical articles like these need visual examples...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As was correctly noted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in Special:Diff/702628984, the argument "art must be seen" is not a valid criterion for using non-free content. For example, you have WP:NFC#UUI §6 which says that you should link to other articles instead of using non-free content wherever possible. In this case, you can get the same understanding by linking to the article Larry Poons instead of including the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Larry Poons. The other articles where it is used contain no sourced commentary regarding the artist, his style, or this specific work. Instead, the artist is mentioned in various lists within the article, and the image is used only to illustrate an entry in a list without pertinent commentary. Its use therefore fails the principles of WP:NFLISTS. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion and address larger issues If you do remove this, and other fair-use images, from art overview articles, you will be left with articles about art that don't contain any actual art. This image is used along with a series of others to give an overview to an artistic style, and as a recent artistic style, pretty much all of them are fair use images. I think fair use should be permitted in gallery fashion, only for articles about visual arts, and only if the work used has its own article. But, again, that should be a different discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind using non-free galleries to illustrate and identify art styles but there has to be some individual discussion going for each image, otherwise there is no way WP:NFCC#8 is met. This doesn't seem to be the case here, so remove for now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 March 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:National Scout Organization of Bulgaria.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 ⚡ 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in Scouting in Bulgaria. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is a list of multiple organisations. It should only be used in an article about the organisation, but not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this trivial image, as please ye guys. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Do you think it's possible this could be considered public domain? I don't think the fleur-de-lis is copyrightable, since there are plenty of free variations of it on Commons such as File:Fleur de lys (or).svg, and the rest of the logo seems to be nothing more that simple shapes and colors. I think better sourcing is probably needed for verification. I did some Googling and was able to find www.scoutgb.org/en/27-news-en.html, www.facebook.com/scoutbg and twitter.com/scoutbg where the logo can be seen, though the last two have some additonal text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per commons threshold of originality / US Case Law] a simple fleur de lis is not considered to be copyrightable, neither is the flag. It is unlikely that one overlaid on the other within a circle, will be considered as original. In the commons article there is example of the fleur within a more complex geometric shape - best western, In "I love my sailor" where there is heart shape overlaid on an american flag inserted into a rectangle along with the american seal. It is a safe bet that under those standards the logo at hand would not be considered as copyrightable. Rybkovich (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only a fleur de lys but a fleur de lys together with a number of other elements. This logo which is essentially just a sphere and some Ω and ★ signs was apparently declared copyrightable in Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., according to c:COM:TOO. This arrangement of a fleur de lys and some other elements might be more complex than the Ω+★+sphere logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, If I was arguing for registration of the omega logo I would say that what crosses the originality minimum is that the globe is not only is presented in 3D (I think its not enough solely) but also that the globe is see through and we see the mirror images of the simple shapes, because the shapes are on the opposite side of globe. That's pretty original. So I don't think it can be argued that the image here is actually complex than the globe. Rybkovich (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be possible to see through the sphere as all of the things you can see on the sphere appear to be on the same side of the sphere. It also illustrates how low the threshold of originality is in the United States. When you compare this scouting image to the "I ♥ my sailor", then you are making the mistake of comparing something which is not text with something which is mostly text (+ a PD-USGov seal). USA seems to exempt text not so much because of originality concerns, but more because it is text. If you look at the examples of allowed and disallowed stuff at c:COM:TOO#United States, some of the allowed images with a lot of text seem to be more complex than some of the disallowed images with no or little text, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 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:Nouvelle Caledonie (Scouts de France).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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 1#File:Nouvelle Caledonie (Scouts de France).svg. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in New Caledonia. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is a general article about scouting at a specific location. The image should only be used in the article about the organisation itself. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is small enough that the organization itself is under the broader topic. Keep per Nyttend's rationale of January 29.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the organisation is non-notable, then we shouldn't use the organisation's logo at all. Compare with MOS:FILM#Soundtrack which says that we do not use cover art of non-notable film soundtracks, only cover art of film soundtracks which are so notable that they get their own articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 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:Girl Scouts of Min-la-kota.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting in South Dakota. This is a general article about scouting and shouldn't contain logos. The logo should only be in the article about the organisation itself. Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 31 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.

File:Ph seal camarines norte.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: remove from Bicol Region. — ξ ^xplicit 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Camarines Norte and Bicol Region. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but only the one for the stand-alone article about "Camarines Norte". Usage in "Bicol Region" seems pirmarily decorative and thus fails both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFTABLES/WP:NFLISTS. Suggest keep in "Camarines Norte" and remove from "Bicol Region". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that Commons treats these images as PD while Wikipedia treats them as unfree. I think that we should at least wait until the end of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Template:Non-free Philippines government before we do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 31 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.

File:Naga, Camarines Sur official seal 2011.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these non-free files are being used in Bicol Region. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but the rationale claim the files are being used in Naga, Camarines Sur and Sorsogon City respecitively,. It appears, however, that each of these files has been replaced by another non-free file, which is only slightly different, in their stand-alone articles. Not sure why that was done, but regardless the usage of these files in "Bicol Region" is primarily decorative and does not comply with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFTABLES/WP:NFLISTS, so I suggest remove each from "Bicol Region". Since this means they will end up being deleted per WP:F5, I'm not sure if another FFD will then be needed regarding their possible re-usage in their stand-alone articles and the possible removal of the their replacements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 31 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.

File:Faroe Islands FA.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: remove from Faroe Islands national football team. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Faroe Islands Football Association and Faroe Islands national football team. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but I think the one for the national team's article does not satisfy WP:NFCC because of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Similar discussions about similar usage have almost always reaced the consensus that usage in the parent article is acceptable and usage in the child article is not. See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg for some examples of this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 31 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.

File:Richmondkickers.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: remove from Richmond Kickers Academy. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Richmond Kickers and Richmond Kickers Academy. Usage the stand-alone article "Richmond Kickers" seem fine, but the logo for the parent team should not be used for the academy (a sub-entity) per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. So, suggest keep in "Richmond Kickers" and remove from "Richmond Kickers Academy". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 31 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.

File:Coal Chamber.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: use in Nu metal, I don't think WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. Illustrating what a band in that genre looked like doesn't significantly increase understanding of the genre itself. Re: use in Coal Chamber, I don't think there's a compelling reason to keep it in that article either, unless the uploader can show what particular critical commentary the band's appearance at that point in time is supporting.

I strongly suggest removal from Nu metal, and not-quite-so-strongly suggest deletion if there isn't a valid reason found to keep it in Coal Chamber. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image from the nu metal article and I figured out a way to put the caption info as text alone. But I don't think the image should be deleted. I didn't remove it from the Coal Chamber article because the image is a picture of Coal Chamber and readers can see what Coal Chamber used to look like. If I can find a fair use picture showing the way Coal Chamber look nowadays then I can use that image and put the 1990s Coal Chamber image (which is on the page) in the history section or something, with the more 2010s Coal Chamber image (if I can find one that's fair use) on the musical artist infobox.

Statik N (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#1 in the band's article as freely licensed images exist example (this photographer has additional photos of the other members also under a suitable Creative Commons license). There's nothing particularly special about the band's look from 1993–2003 to their present look that would justify the use of a non-free image like this. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 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:Isabela Moner preforming at the The Bitter End.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the first WP:NFCCP criterion (NFCC #1). A free equivalent could be easily created because the subject is living. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:32, 31 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.

File:Florida Gulf Coast University Wordmark.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. In an attempt to transfer the logo, I was warned that this logo was previously deleted on Commons as being too complex. — ξ ^xplicit 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:FGCU wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 11:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be considered as copyrightable in the US. It is not currently used but it may be in the future, as it is an official and used logo. The pdf cited in the description contains examples of this logo. Because of this it should be kept. Rybkovich (talk) 20:27, 31 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.

File:Ed Edd n Eddy film.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: convert to {{PD-text}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a title screen with only black text and white letters with a normal font. Is the vertical displacement of the letters enough to nudge it above the treshold of originality? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the vertical displacement of the letters is not enough to make it copyrightable. In treshold of originality see the S and Q in the Geek Squad example - treshold of originality, handwriting in Arrows, the I in I love Marine. PS In general - allot more complex font with more complex geometric relationship between words has been considered uncopyrightable in the US Rybkovich (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally no information would be lost from the page it's on if this was deleted. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete even if its in the public domain as uncopyrightable? Or did you mean if considered as a non-free image? Rybkovich (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an out-of-focus image of text which is mere decoration. If this had illustrated art there would be an argument here, but this is black-on-white text. It adds nothing to the article at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a title frame for a show and it does have some originality elements to it (i think), not enough for copyright protection but still there is what can be reasonably considered to be originality in a non legal sense. I would totally agree if it was just straight forward text but its not. If a title frame has an aspect of originality, then it adds to a reader's conception of the show. Do we have an image's relation to the article/contribution to the article requirement or a policy? If so can you cite it? Or is this more of a common sense evaluation? Which is reasonable. Rybkovich (talk) 16:59, 1 February 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:Travels of User Abjiklam.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 as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused usermap. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead, I have no objections. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:52, 31 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.

File:SurvivorFlags.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 31 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.

File:User Fredrik contribution graph.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused usergraph. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 31 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.

File:Profile of Abhijit.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphoto. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 31 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.

File:Dc streets 3.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unencyclopædic and also looks a bit like a TV screenshot. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 31 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.

File:Blacklemon67testone.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 as G7 by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage picture. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this was from many years ago when I was a little baby programmer, no longer needed --Blacklemon67 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sam Walton (talk) 17:28, 31 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.

File:MandM Direct 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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The source country is the UK, which has a considerably lower threshold of originality than the U.S. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a {{PD-textlogo}} case to me - just coloured letters. I doubt that it would be copyrightable even in the UK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - So in layman's terms this is basically something for Commons ? –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes. I am not a copyright lawyer and copyright is Serious Stuff, so I am asking for input here to be sure.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I kinda assumed you knew more than me

, Okie dokie well I'm not really fussed if it's kept or deleted if that helps anyone, –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very likely to be considered as non copyrightable in the US. Simple font is non copyrightble, this is very simple font - compare to the fonts in the wikimedia commons examples. Also see the examples for the positioning relationships between the letters, it is hard to argue that this example is more sophisticated then in I my marine or avenue of the saints. Unlike wikimedia commons, we are only concerned about US standards, is that correct? Rybkovich (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per Wikipedia:Public domain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 31 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.

File:Lipscomb University Wordmark.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; Main athletics logo is PD image. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 22:01, 31 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.

File:Rimoprogin.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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality (small raster image with low resolution and light-looking text). Also poor choice of orientation because of vertical bond to iodine symbol (sans-serif capital "I"). Unused because I replaced it at Rimoprogin with higher-quality File:Rimoprogin skeletal.png that I uploaded to commons. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 31 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.

File:Lon Chaney Jr..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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 on Lon Chaney, Jr., WP:NFCC#10c on all other pages and WP:NFCC#9 on User:Rreemmett/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 31 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.

File:Help The Aged.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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as unfree, but it is unclear what the uploader thinks is unfree. The only potentially unfree thing is the vectorisation, but if the vectorisation is copyrighted, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by a different vectorisation of the same logo. The logo itself is {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 31 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.

File:James McGirr 1947.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 in James McGirr, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in New South Wales state election, 1947 and Premier of New South Wales, and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Linkqer/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 31 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.

File:Marshall brown girl.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 in Brown Girl, Brownstones, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use in Paule Marshall violates WP:NFCC#8, the use in Brown Girl, Brownstones violates WP:NFCC#10c and the use in User:Fazim persaud/sandbox violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 31 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.

File:Lon Chaney as Kharis in The Mummy's Ghost (publicity photo).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 in Kharis, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mummy, WP:NFCC#10c in Universal Monsters and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Rreemmett/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 31 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.

File:Gold Star Studios - Wrecking Crew.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 in Gold Star Studios and The Wrecking Crew (music), remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Wall of Sound and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Garagepunk66/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 31 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.

File:University of Sydney coat of arms.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 ⚡ 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#1 as it is a coat of arms. It additionally appears to violate WP:NFCC#9 on User:InfoDataMonger/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it being a coat of arms violate replaceability? By the way, NFCC#9 violations can be addressed without discussion (as I have done in this case); they should "be removed ... without warning" (WP:UNOT#Non-free images). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with the elements that make up a coat of arms. The blazon is generally considered to be in the public domain according to c:COM:COA and the heraldic elements are often also available freely licensed (see c:Category:Coat of arms elements). Using these free elements may allow a sufficient replica of the coat of arms to be created; it may not be exactly the same, but sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This seems to be the case for lots of coats-of-arms you find on Commons such as File:Charles V Arms-personal.svg where multiple freely licensed elements are used to create another coat-of-arms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coat of arms images can be replaced by freely drawn replacements based on the blazon, per c:COM:COA. There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 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:Robert Heffron 1960.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 in Bob Heffron, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Premier of New South Wales and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Linkqer/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 31 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.