Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

April 5

File:CBC Logo 1992-Present.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images is used in the same article twice, thus failing wp:nfcc minimal usage, and it also fails to increase the readers' understanding Fasach Nua (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article directly discusses the logo in the bottom section of the article. Both instances needed, both are fair. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks to be simply consisting of simple geometical shapes (circles, half circles, quarter circles) and therefore should be in the public domain. єmarsee • Speak up! 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's daft! The placement of those geometric shapes is important and artistic. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although each piece is relatively simple, I believe the logo as a whole would meet the threshold of originality and be eligible for copyright. Some of the PD-text logos I've seen on Commons really seem to be stretching the concept pretty far. As for deletion, I could go either way. The main identifying logo should be this one or File:CBC Radio-Canada logo.svg, but I don't see a need for both. Reach Out to the Truth 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently used on TV (CBC & SRC). 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2010 (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:CTV 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non free image is used in 23 articles, of which only one has a fair use rationale, the article which uses this image, has a second copy of the logo on the same page thus violating wp:nfcc minimal use requiremnets Fasach Nua (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All 23 articles have FUR images. It's impossible for the image to not be used 23 times because of the usage on the network article and the rest of the images are for the O&O stations which do not use local branding. єmarsee • Speak up! 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a FUR, and this is the current logo, unlike the others. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are actually twenty-four non-free use rationales on the image summary page: one for each article the image is used in, plus one for an article it isn't used in. I agree that the CTV Television Network article does need to cut back on non-free images; but it should be done by removing the other logos, not this one. Reach Out to the Truth 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from articles where it is not necessary. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2010 (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:Republica - Drop Dead Gorgeous excerpt.ogg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article. Dawnseeker2000 00:41, 5 April 2010 (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:Redgameboywithgamegenie.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 ⚡ 03:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is unencyclopedic because it depicts the subject inaccurately -- the orientation of the cartridge is backwards. It is also a grainy, low quality image that makes it difficult to see what is being portrayed (not helped by the fact that the Game Genie itself is off-center in the far corner of the image). And last but not least, it is not being used except by a single contentious anon who insists on adding it to the Game Boy article without explaining his rationale, despite multiple appeals by other editors to replace or remove the image.[1] Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons License is compatible, the orientation is correct as far as I can see (it is in the Game Genie, which swaps placement of the cartridge). And it could be used on the Game Genie article at the Game Boy section. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The orientation is actually entirely wrong. As an owner (well, former owner, I sold it) of a GB Game Genie, here's the thing about that peripheral- first off, it doesn't (and couldn't) swap the orientation of the cartridge. Games go in the Game Genie literally facing the same way they would as in a regular Game Boy. That is, with the label facing away from the user. If you look at images of the Game Genie without a cartridge, there is actually a WARNING right where the cartridge goes into the slot stating this fact. Galoob took advantage of this by including (and later, marketing) a series of Game Boy Game Genie stickers which could be attached to the backs of the cartridges, thus when inserted into the Game Genie made it easy for the user to quickly see some of the most popular codes for the game they were playing. Grrgh, if I still had my Game Genie, this would be easy to prove, but all I can find when I search the net for GG images are ones where the Warning label is blurry. For some reason, the Wiki commons large Game Boy Game Genie image is in Spanish, which I am not familiar with, but when you run it through a common translator, the proof is in the pudding, as it were- the words right there state "Inserta el juego con la etiqueta mirando hacia dentro (opuesta a ti-la parte trasera mira hacia fuera)" which mean "Insert the game with the label facing the inside (away from you, the rear looks out". I just realized that the picture in the commons, even if it's not translated, doesn't have to be- it's large enough that you can look at the cartridge slot and clearly, plainly see the diagonal notch at the back of the cartridge slot- said notch goes down the front of every Game Boy cartridge, thus proving without a doubt that there is no way a GB cartridge could be inserted label-out without damaging the Genie or the Cart.FluffyPug (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, innacurate and not helpful to the article or necessary at all.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, we don't need an image showing incorrect usage of a device. The quality is poor, and we have far better pictures to show both the gameboy and game genie on their respective articles, thus I cannot see how this will be beneficial to any article- Quite the opposite, accidental misuse would worsen the articles it is used in. --Taelus (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (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:MicrosoftJet.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. It is well-established that book covers may only be used in conjunction with discussing the book or the cover itself. howcheng {chat} 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image in nominated for deletion because:

This image violates Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 8: Contextual Significance as this image is used with the sole purpose of adding a decorative image to the article and its removal is not detrimental to understanding of the reader from the topic of Microsoft Jet.
This image also lacks a proper fair-use rationale. The rationale reads: "The image is important to the article, conveying the image that Microsoft created for the Jet Database Engine through the use of graphic design." This is an inadequate rationale: Simply text (as well as a good source) can serve this purpose.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like most computer software, the database engine is invisible and cannot be photographed. Common ways to illustrate software are to use a logo or screenshot. As far as I know there is no logo for Jet, and any screenshot would show an application such as Access instead of the Jet engine. This image shows that even though the Jet engine is a low-level piece of software, it was important enough for Microsoft to publish a second edition of a book with a cover designed by a graphic artist. JonH (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Although perhaps your argument is logically correct, it is against Wikipedia policies: Yes, the image may serve the purpose that you said, but Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criteria Policy demands that if you are not discussing the book or not giving a commentary about it in the article, then don't use an image of its cover if that image is copyrighted. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline → Unacceptable use → Images gives example of a similar case (not exact this case, but a similar one) as an unacceptable use. Fleet Command (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that we do or at least should make reasonable exceptions when it serves the interests of having a better article. WP:NFC is a guideline, not policy and thus inherently admits exceptions. The example you are using deals with a portrait of a person on a book jacket, and if it is a living person it's basic to the rules that it is always possible to get a free image. It is not possible to get a free image of this. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: The image is violating Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 8 (which is policy) as well as standing copyright laws. None is authorized to use the property of others in "the interests of having a better article". Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2010 (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:Emblem-important-blue.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This emblem doesn't seem to have been properly converted to an SVG. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I was trying to do was use Inkscape to convert the red, yellow and orange SVGs to different colours. Obviously, I failed, and I didn't realise that until I saw it after recieving the notification. Sorry. (Or was I using Paint?) I'll try and convert it properly. Rory Re loaded 21:00, 6 April 2010 (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:Balancegame.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 Orphaned image deletion bot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image from deleted article. I'm the original uploader of this version of the file. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2010 (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:Wait Your Turn Screenshot.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. A screenshot isn't needed when the text adequately describes what we see here: a black and white music video. — ξ ^xplicit 20:30, 5 April 2010 (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.