Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

File:Tupac Shakur 4.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image belongs to Corbis, a press agency. The image is used merely to show what the subject looks like (as opposed to a significant photograph in its own right) and so clearly fails NFCC#2. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as F7: Such press agency images almost universally fail NFCC#2 and have a speedy deletion criterium.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 6 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:VCU Rams.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept and marked as PD - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is currently being treated as non-free, but I believe it might be simple enough for {{PD-logo}} since it's pure text which is generally not considered eligible for copyright protection. If, however, the image is really non-free, then its usage in the individual team articles would fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and it should only be used in VCU Rams. Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the font is not copyrightable and the horn swirl is not enough to pass the US originality standard. Rybkovich (talk) 19:14, 10 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:W&L Generals.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept as a non-free image for the main article only - Peripitus (Talk) 11:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple geometric shape which seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and OK as {{PD-logo}}. However, if the image is truly non-free, then it's usage in Washington and Lee Generals football would fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and the logo should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the letters were separate then very likely it would not be considered as copyrightable, since usually font on its own is not. But because the letters are not separate and parts of each shape complete the other shape into a letter - the W would not be a letter without the L and vice versa - there is enough originality to make the logo copyrightable. Agree with No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI Rybkovich (talk) 19:23, 10 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:Bullett Raja (cover).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:34, 4 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:Campbell Fighting Camels C.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned free image; multiple images have replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 06:39, 4 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:StMartinsSaints.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo which seems to be too simple to be copyrighted and acceptable as {{PD-logo}}. Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 4 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:Spokane Shock Home Helmet Logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both non-free logos are being used in the infobox of Spokane Shock to identify the team. Each has a non-free use rationale, but there is no real difference between the two and each provides essentially the same information; therefore, only one is really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 4 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:Tacoma stars logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: DEleted one, kept one. ANything else can be fixed with bold action by editors - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both logos are non-free and have non-free use rationales for Tacoma Stars (2003) and Tacoma Stars (1983), respectively. There's no real difference between these files other than one is .png and the other is .jpg so both are not needed per WP:NFCC#3a. Also, it's not clear how each logo is tied to the article for each year since there is nothing specific to indicate such a thing in either image. There would still be no need for both images even if one was {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tacoma stars logo.png is the real file, with the correct color tones. The other file could be deleted. The PNG image is suitable to be used in both articles, Tacoma Stars (2003) and Tacoma Stars (1983). Fma12 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which one should be deleted, but the source for the png version is the team's official website while the source for the jpeg version is for an apparently unrelated website and the link is not working. As for using it in both articles, I'm not sure if No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI would apply in such cases since the 2003 team might be considered to be the "parent" and the 1983 team might be considered to be the "child". The fact that 1983 team may have used the same logo as the 2003 team does not automatically mean the non-free image should be used in both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. According to what you have exposed, the 2003 logo should be used in its corresponding article. The old version (which has also an opaque background) could be removed with no objection from my part, at least. - Fma12 (talk) 00:46, 5 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:Georgetown University Hoya logo.svg

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: Used in one article only now. Marchjuly - you can just be bold and change this without a discussion if you like as it's fairly obviously correct - Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Georgetown Hoyas, Georgetown Hoyas men's lacrosse, Georgetown Hoyas women's lacrosse, Georgetown University Rugby Football Club and Steven Dean Memorial Trophy. File has a non-free usage rationale for each use, but should only be used in "Georgetown Hoyas" per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. File:Georgetown Hoyas alternate logo.svg is available on Commons and is being used in Georgetown Hoyas baseball, Georgetown Hoyas football, Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball and Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer so there's no reason why it can not be used in the other stand-alone articles for the univeristy's athletic teams and the "trophy" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are as interchangeable as you suggest. The "alternate logo", the G, is mainly used by and associated with the school's men's and women's basketball teams, while the bulldog logo is used by all.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article in such cases is generally considered to be the article about the university's athletic team and the use of the mascot logo is typically considered acceptable in such articles per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC#8 because such logos tend to be the subject of discussion somewhere within the article such as in Georgetown Hoyas#Mascot. The individual team articles, however, are considered to be "child entities" and the usage of the "mascot" logo in such articles is generally not considered acceptable because such usage tend to be more decorative than contextual. Something specific to each team may be acceptable if such logos exist, but the default is not to automatically use the mascot logo when they do not. In addition, the "G" can be seen on the helmets and the jersey backs of the men's team as well as on the jacket of the women's team coach in some of the photos posted on the official webpages of men's lacrosse and women's lacrosse, so maybe it's usage is not so uncommon with respect to those particular teams. I could not find the rugby club on the university's athletic department page, so perhaps it's not a full-varsity team. If it's not, then this further weakens any argument for using the mascot logo in it's article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 5 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:CUA Cardinal 2008.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: DEleted - Perhaps I am being presumptious but we have a free image File:Initials catholic univ.svg used on eswiki and on their uniforms, or a probably non-free image with poor rationale for use in all but one place. I've boldly replaced it in one use with the free svg and deleted otherwise - else we will be back with with an NCFF#1 complaint eventually. Complaints to the right - Peripitus (Talk) 01:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in The Catholic University of America, Catholic University Cardinals, Catholic Cardinals football, and Steven Dean Memorial Trophy. File has a non-free use rationale for each use, but only the usage in "Catholic University Cardinals" seems appropriate per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. File:Initials catholic univ.svg exists on Commons which could possibly used as a replacement in all individual team articles and could definitely be used in the "trophy" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that specific cardinal logo can be copyrighted. There is a wide range of nearly identical cardnals sports logos. An example would be a card company claiming that some minute aspect of its queen or king cards that makes it copyrightable even though almost all of it is identical to other companies card images. Or a minute derivation from a standard chess piece. I am not sure so I am going to look into this. Rybkovich (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are similar logos, it can still be copyrightable. It would not prevent someone else from designing a similar logo, but one which reproduced the exact lines seen in this one could still be a problem. On the other hand, if this is indeed the logo, I don't think the letters-only one is an equivalent substitute. Seems like the usage is valid in at least two of the articles. The other chance is if this exact logo was in use before 1989 or especially 1978; I would suspect that there were many publications of it without a copyright notice, and if so its copyright may have been lost then. I could not find any in a quick search, but the team name has been in use since the 1920s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and could not find any use of the logo in old media guides or programs. Lets say I did find a pre 1978 poster without a copyright and that had the logo in it - it could be argued that the logo itself would lose the copyright not just the image of the poster? Would it make a difference if there was also another poster with the logo in it but this poster had a copyright? Rybkovich (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the mascot logo is considered to be public domain per {{PD-Pre1978}} (like File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png) or for some other reason, then it would not be subject to WP:NFCC and could be used in all athletic team articles for the university, etc. If, however, it is copyrightable, the consesus in similar NFCR/FFD discussions to date has been that it should only be used in "Catholic University Cardinals" per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The reasoning is that in a stand-alone article about an university's athletic department, there is often some discussion of the mascot logo's origin, etc. and, therefore, the contextual significance is achieved in a manner which is similar to the use of non-free cover art in the infoboxes of stand-alone articles about books or albums. In individual team articles, on the other hand, the discussion is primarily focused on the team itself so the usage tends to be more decorative and is generally not considered to be appropriate since the teams are considered to be "child entities" of the athletic department. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that (re only keeping it on the athletic department) the cardinal can be replaced with the CUA on the specific team articles. I gave it some effort and could not find any early use of the logo, so it is very unlikely that it is PD. How do we go about the process? Wait until an administrative decision and then I or someone else make the replacements? Rybkovich (talk) 06:33, 12 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:WGEN8.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 08:38, 4 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:GenTV.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 08:38, 4 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:Gautam germany.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a gentleman in a street that adds no value to Wikipedia and illustrates nothing about the gentleman or the street. Purpose appears to be decorative in a draft. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmkarve Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As the uploader was blocked when the file was uploaded, you could simply tag the file with {{db-g5}} if you want it deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 4 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:Savez Izviđača Kosova i Metohije.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo are being used in Scouting and Guiding in Kosovo. Image has a non-free use rationale, but the rationale's claim that "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Scouting and Guiding in Kosovo, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" is not true at all since the article has no infobox. Image is being used in a purely decorative manner in a gallery of other non-free images which is not allowed per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three other non-free images being used in the same gallery of the "Scouting and Guilding in Kosovo were also discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 29#File:Qendra Nacionale e Vëzhguseve të Kosovës.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 29#File:Scouts of Kosovo.svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 29#File:Društvo Izvidjaca Omaladina Kosova.png and each was deleted by admin Explicit. This particular image is also being used in Savez Izviđača Srbije#Savez Izviđača Kosova i Metohije. The non-free use rationale claims that the image is being used in the infobox at the top of the article which is not the case at all. In addition, there is no non-free use rationale (nfur) for Savez Izviđača Srbije (the article listed in the nfur is Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore where the image is not being used) which is required per WP:NFCC#10c and there is no source information provided except for a wikilink to the uploader's user page which allows the image's copyright status to be verified as required by WP:NFCC#10a. Furthermore, it cannot be verified that the image has been previously published per WP:NFCC#4 or is a derivative of such work. Even if the NFCC#4 and NFCC#10 issues could be resolved, the usage still fails NFCC#8 since the image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and is included in an sub-section which has no text and has be tagged with {{Expand section}} since June 2008. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 6 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:Portrait-Beard Andrew Jackson.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept _ Peripitus (Talk) 00:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fair use image. Fram (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to list orphaned fair use images on FFD as there is a bot which tags orphaned files. Considering that the file is so old, it is possible that the file is in the public domain, but we would need to know when the picture was first published in order to determine the copyright status. It looks like a scan of a newspaper or some other publication, so the picture has obviously been published, although it is unknown when it was published. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The file is in fact in use. Speedy keep and close. Fram should be advised to wait a while before hastily moving to nominate an image for deletion. The uploader uploaded the image today. It's rather obvious there was intent to use it. Creating a deletion notice for it being unused on the day it was uploaded just creates work for other people. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, I thought our established editors and would-be admins and arbcom members were supposed to follow our fair-use and copyvio policies, not to upload a fair use image and leave it orphaned until some undetermined later moment. The image was created with very incomplete fair use templates, and the editor then went and edited other articles, not showing any intention to use the image. Your "the file is in fact in use" should obviously be corrected to "the file is now in use", thanks to this nomination. Fram (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why this file was orphaned for a short while after it was uploaded. Maybe the uploader forgot to make a planned edit until you reminded the uploader by nominating the file for deletion. In any case, a more appropriate solution is to tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F5, or you could wait until a bot tags the file automatically, which typically happens on the day after the file was uploaded if the file never was added to an article. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Fram (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image should be reduced in size, it is too large for a fair use image anyway (596 × 782, should be 300 by 400 at most, probably less for a simple black and white portrait). Fram (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requested reduction of the image size. Keep the image otherwise, unless a free image can be found.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that the subject died in 1921, and the photo is significantly older than that, the photo is almost certainly PD and there it is only in an excess of caution that it is listed as fair use. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:15, 7 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:Harvard International logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Accompanying article has been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard International). Cloudbound (talk) 22:42, 4 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.