Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16

< November 15	November 17 >

November 16[edit]

File:Mobileenterprise.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ModelTHorselessCarriage.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hershey Bears (original logo).png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was in a gallery when nominated for deletion, but has now been moved to a different location in the article. As there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in the article, it violates WP:NFCC#8. You can only include one logo (the one in the main infobox) without sourced critical discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well once again it seems that no good deed goes unpunished on WP so I guess I'll just move on to other things. With respect it would be nice, however, if there were not quite so many editors in here assiduously looking for narrow excuses to delete relevant material that others have contributed to help elucidate and expand the understanding of WP's readers. Centpacrr (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 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:Hershey Bears (logo).svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was in a gallery when nominated for deletion, but has now been moved to a different location in the article. As there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in the article, it violates WP:NFCC#8. You can only include one logo (the one in the main infobox) without sourced critical discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Identifies the team at a point in time. Does not fail NFC. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 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:Hershey Bears Hockey Club 75th Anniversary Logo 2013.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was in a gallery when nominated for deletion, but has now been moved to a different location in the article. As there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in the article, it violates WP:NFCC#8. You can only include one logo (the one in the main infobox) without sourced critical discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Identifies the team at a point in time. Does not fail NFC. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no sourced discussion of this at all in Hershey Bears#Logos and uniforms. Without reliable sources supporting the discussion the entire section could be tagged or even removed as WP:OR. I think more discussion (i.e., sourced discussion) about the logo itself is needed per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion to justify non-free use. Otherwise, usage is primarily decorative and the logo does not add to reader's understanding to such a degree that omitting it would be detrimental to that understanding in my opinion. NFCC#8 requires more than simply identifying an organziation at particular point in time for images used outside of the infobox. The non-free use rationale provided for the image claims "The image is used to identify the organization Hershey Bears, 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." This is pefectly fine for an image being used in the infobox since that is what the reader sees at the top of the page and is what is being used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. It makes little sense, however, to try and claim the same about an image being used near the end of the article which does no such thing and is not needed at all for such a purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well once again it seems that no good deed goes unpunished on WP so I guess I'll just move on to other things. With respect it would be nice, however, if there were not quite so many editors in here assiduously looking for narrow excuses to delete relevant material that others have contributed to help elucidate and expand the understanding of WP's readers. Centpacrr (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 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:Hershey Bears Hockey Club Logo (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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was in a gallery when nominated for deletion, but has now been moved to a different location in the article. As there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in the article, it violates WP:NFCC#8. You can only include one logo (the one in the main infobox) without sourced critical discussion. I note that the section where this logo appears contains statements about another logo, though. These statements do not contain sourced critical discussion about a logo, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Identifies the team at a point in time. Does not fail NFC. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no sourced discussion of this at all in Hershey Bears#Logos and uniforms. Without reliable sources supporting the discussion the entire section could be tagged or even removed as WP:OR. I think sources need to be provided in support per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion to strengthen the claim for non-free use. NFCC#8 requires more than simply identifying an organziation at particular point in time for images used outside of the infobox. The non-free use rationale provided for the image claims "The image is used to identify the organization Hershey Bears, 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." This is pefectly fine for an image being used in the infobox since that is what the reader sees at the top of the page and is what is being used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. It makes little sense, however, to try and claim the same about an image being used near the end of the article which does no such thing and is not needed at all for such a purpose. A non-free rationale more specific to this particular usage, not just a generic "purpose" statement which doesn't apply at all is needed in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well once again it seems that no good deed goes unpunished on WP so I guess I'll just move on to other things. With respect it would be nice, however, if there were not quite so many editors in here assiduously looking for narrow excuses to delete relevant material that others have contributed to help elucidate and expand the understanding of WP's readers. Centpacrr (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 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:HersheyBears.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Centpacrr, no non-free policy violated. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is now apparently only used in the main infobox. When listed here, the file was also used in a gallery, but it has since been removed from there. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Identifies the team at a point in time. Does not fail NFC. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 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:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.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 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is neither "in a gallery" nor is it orphaned and therefore does not fail WP:NFG or any other Non Free policy. Centpacrr (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with Centpacrr, no non-free policy violated. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

This logo has apparently been moved to a different article (Hersheypark Arena). This is not the logo for the entity Hersheypark Arena and is not the subject of sourced critical discussion in that article and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop:, @Centpacrr: Not sure if simply moving the image to another article and adding a (generic) non-free use rationale solves the NFCC problems pointed out by Stefan2. The image's nfur for "Hesheypark Arena" claims "The image is used to identify the organization Hersheypark Arena, 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." yet the logo is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the arena and there is no sourced commentary about the image at all within the article. NFCC#8 has essentially two parts: (1) the inclusion of the non-free content significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject matter; and (2) omission of the non-free content is detrimental to that understanding. I simply don't see how its current usage significantly improves the reader's understanding to a such degree that not being able to see the logo is detrimental to that understanding. How is not being able to see a logo not even mentioned at all in the article detrimental to the reader's understanding of the arena? If, for example, the logo and its significance was discussed in detail within the article and the discussion reflected what reliable sources said, then sure seeing the logo would be important. Otherwise, its current usage seems primarily decorative to me and does not meet the contextual significance criterion.-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I didn't take a proper look at it at first. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image is now the infobox logo image for Hersheypark Arena and is not orphaned therefore meets all criteria for retention. Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hersheypark Arena may only contain the logo for the entity Hersheypark Arena. The article currently seems to contain a logo for a different entity: Hershey Bears. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stefan2 here. The arena's official website (at least I think it's the official website) seems to imply that it is still being used for all kinds of events despite the team no longer playing there. Justification for using the patch outside of the infobox could possibly be made if itself was discused in the article and sources were provided in support, but simply moving the patch to the infobox seems inappropriate for a number of reasons. If the arena has it's own specific logo, then that may be used. Another possiblity would for someone to simply take a photo of the arena itself and freely license it. It could be used the infobox like is being done in Astrodome, Silverdome, Spectrum (arena), United Center , or The Forum (Inglewood, California), etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now relocated in the text of the article where it is discussed in the text and sources are supplied to support it. A free image of mine is now being used in the infobox. This should finally put dispute of the use of this image to rest. Centpacrr (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is only mentioned briefly, and the text seems to have been included for the purpose of including an image. WP:NFCC#8 is the other way around: non-free files should only be included for the purpose of illustrating text, and the purpose of the text should not be to include non-free images. I don't see any need for a logo in this section. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be no way to please this persnickety user, I have removed the logo and every thing else (including images) I had contributed to the HPA article. Anyone interested in the history of the building as it relates to hockey will now have to follow the link in the "External Links" section to my 6,000+ word illustrated history of hockey at HPA originally published in the Bears special program magazine on April 7, 2002. Centpacrr (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Krishna Menon14.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image was originally uploaded as public domain [1], but was changed to non-free [2] by Matanya. No source was provided by either the original uploader or Matanya, but a Google image search shows the image being used on many websites. Would any usage which predates the upload date of 8 October 2011 (such as this Corbis image used in Was Krishna Menon A Sick Man …) be OK to use as the source? Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SolarCT.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer in use; has been replaced by File:CT Channel.svg. Sixth o f March 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like the SVG version can serve the job just as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice SVG. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GreatSilenceCinematographyExamples.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: no consensus. I originally relisted this discussion because the circumstances had changed: the montage was reduced to a single frame, and the contextual significance of this image in its use in The Great Silence was expanded, which the discussion did not properly touch on before or after the relisting. This closure holds no prejudice for future listings. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free file montage seems like it may fail WP:NFCC#8 at its current location. The caption for the image on The Great Silence seems to do more to explain Silvano Ippoliti's filming style rather than contextual significance to the subject in the article which it is placed. However, due to the lack of content at Silvano Ippoliti, I'm not sure if the image could fit there either per Wikipedia's fair-use policies. Steel1943 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of writing about the film's themes, which is where this image would be better placed when I'm finished writing it. Just give me some time. PatTheMoron (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure, but since this is a user created montage, it may require a non-free use rationale for each screenshot. I could see possibly using one of the three to support sourced commentary within the article, but don't think multiple screenshots are really needed per WP:NFCC#3a in addition to NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added the thematic section I mentioned. Take a look, and see what you think. If your assesment is that it's not nessecary for three images, I can just do a n upload of the top image. PatTheMoron (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the discussion, this was a user-created montage when the file was listed at WP:NFCR, but it is currently not a montage but a single image. The screenshot might be {{PD-Italy}}, and its copyright status in the United States then depends on whether the film had a copyright notice or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: I didn't relist this one; it's not from WP:NFCR. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was relisted from elsewhere.^[where?] Doesn't change anything, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6#File:GreatSilenceCinematographyExamples.png, but was relisted by Explicit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stop-Hand-No-Access-Sign.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it Commons already has an equivalent vector version, extracted directly from a relevant official document. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently in use (and possibly unfree). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:U Tha Myat-Intermediate Examination in Arts.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in certifcates like this is normally held by the issuing party, not the recipient, However this appears to have been issued in 1921, so this is FFD not PUF. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if this counts as 'published' or not. {{PD-1923}} demands publication before 1923, and if it was only recently published, then it is too recent for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:U Tha Myat-High School Final Examination Certificate.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in certificates like this is normally held by the issuing party, not the recipient, However this appears to have been issued many years ago so this is FFD not PUF. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:U Tha Myat-Master of Arts(honoris causa).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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in certifcates/letters like this is normally held by the issuing party, not the recipient, However this appears to have been issued in 1937, so this is FFD not PUF. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:My image.jpeg[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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding the title to the list of banned file names. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is being used in Super Victor and UEFA Euro 2016#Mascot. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I'm not sure if the image is needed in the tournament article per WP:NFCC#8. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed.

In addition to the aforementioned article, the images was also added to UEFA European Championship mascot, but I removed that per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the ~~stand-alone~~list article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly fro clarification by replacing "stand-alone" with "list" -- 04:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from UEFA Euro 2016 per WP:NFC#UUI §6. The image is only needed in the article Super Victor. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Marchjuly and Stefan2: Super Victor has since been merged to UEFA Euro 2016. Not sure if it changes your opinions, but it is worth noting. — ξ^xplicit 02:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know about the merge so thanks for the ping. The cited source is a dead link, but there is this archived version. The source does discuss the mascot, but I'm not sure if what is written in that particular section of the article requires that the image actually be seen. I'm sort of on the fence on this now that there's no stand-alone article for the mascot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't notice this. Since Super Victor no longer has an article, the image no longer fails WP:NFC#UUI §6. However, I'm not sure that the image meets WP:NFCC#8. It's just a short section, and I don't think that this section needs an image. To me, it looks like film articles where there is a short section on the film's soundtrack, and then we do not add a non-free image per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 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:Minecraft Squid.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unusued, Game art? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. If so, then it is unfree. If not, then it is out of scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and Sfan00 IMG: Since the "squid" looks exactly like it does in Minecraft, this (IMO) is clearly a derivative work, and thus belongs on WP:PUF. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cropped 2013.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Profile photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Area code 917.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image has seemingly been deprecated in favour of vector versions, Unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this being deleted. There are so many area codes in the New York City metropolitan area - including those in the rest of the state as well as New Jersey and Massachusetts - that I switched to SVG format to make creating new maps as even more area codes are added would be easier. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Area code 716.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image has seemingly been deprecated in favour of a vector version. Unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this being deleted. There are so many area codes in the New York City metropolitan area - including those in the rest of the state as well as New Jersey and Massachusetts - that I switched to SVG format to make creating new maps as even more area codes are added would be easier. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WiMedia PHY Spec BG3 TFCs.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as CC, but an entire other license has been pasted in. If CC as claimed additional text is unecessary. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Judkin-FitzGerald 3rd Bt Lisheen.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links directly to source image, meaning the status cannot be easily confirmed. In any case an extended text portion should be on wikisource, not in a file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M36engine.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, what's actually shown is in dispute. Let's start again with a clean image that's clearly labelled. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ABC RTV6 official.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in WRTV#WRTV to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KCUV-FM.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former radio station logo being used in KVOQ-FM#Former logo. Image is not subject of any sourced commentary within article so contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. In addition, usage for decorative purposes in a gallery or a gallery-like way is not something allowed per WP:NFG. Image, however, might be too simple to be considered non-free and therefore may be a candidate for {{PD-logo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. However, there is no source for the logo, so we do not have any evidence that the logo ever was used by the radio station. Does it satisfy WP:OR? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- KVOQ's current official page is only archived back to November 2013. I did find a few articles about the end of "KCUV" in 2008 such as this and this, but they show a different logo. This does show the logo and it's also from 2008, but they could've just gotten that from Wikipedia since the logo was uploaded in 2007. The uploader Transent hasn't edited since 2012, so not sure how to find out actually where they found the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - An annoying problem with {{logo fur}} and a few other FUR templates... The FUR templates just insert a standard text, for example 'The logo may be obtained from Moreland Properties, LLC,' and then there is no easy way to verify this. Files with this statement should in my opinion simply be tagged with {{subst:nsd}} as the statement seems to be a violation of WP:NFCC#10a, and PD-textlogos should not be added to articles unless there is a reliable source telling that the company actually uses that logo. It's typically trivial to show that a company or a radio station is using a logo when the logo is uploaded, but it becomes a lot more difficult a couple of years later when the logo has been changed. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Darcythompson.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: Withdrawn with tag changed to PD-1923-abroad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Public Domain as claimed, at best it's a with permission 'fair use'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This is PD-1923-abroad, and I've updated the tags accordingly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MichaelShermer4.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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the reasoning given by Stefan2 here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan2&diff=prev&oldid=690971586 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In his email correspondence with me about that image (contained on the image page itself, dated 21 Sep 2006), Shermer explicitly states that he owns the copyright to it and that he grants WP permission to use it. So this probably needs to be converted into an OTRS ticket. (I don't have the expertise to do this; in the past, other editors have been kind enough to take care of this). As for the GFDL version, it makes sense to use the version that was active at the time Shermer granted permission to WP. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons:

According to c:COM:GOF, an OTRS ticket is needed for all files uploaded since 15 March 2006. This was not uploaded before 15 March 2006 and does not have an OTRS ticket.
In the e-mails on the file information page, Michael Shermer claims to be the copyright holder. However, this is a photo of Michael Shermer, so it is very unlikely that Michael Shermer is the photographer and thus very unlikely that Michael Shermer is the copyright holder.
The picture appears to be a scan of an unidentified magazine. This is noticed by the image quality and by the strange border to the right which appears to show a small piece of a different page.
It says that the picture is licensed under 'GNU Open License agreement and Free Documentation License'. I don't know what 'GNU Open License agreement' means, but if you wish to use something which is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, you are required to include a copy of the correct version of the licence whenever you use the material, and you must also state that the file is licensed under this version of the licence (and not that it is licensed under some other version of the licence). The correct version number is undisclosed, so it is therefore impossible to comply with the licensing requirements. When it is impossible to comply with the licensing requirements, the file is effectively unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Rather than doubt Shermer's own claim of copyright ownership, why not ask him directly? His contact email is listed at the bottom of his official webpage. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule is that the uploader should arrange so that the copyright holder sends permission to OTRS when the file is uploaded. This didn't happen with this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. But I was not aware of OTRS procedures at the time. I've had similar issues with other images I've uploaded, and in these cases other editors stepped up and handled the OTRS creation for me, since I am not savvy about this. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stefan2. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 1 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:Sonata.mid[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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, No context, uploader now seemingly indeffed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by User:Turbanator[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BlankMap-RussiaRepublics.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, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and compared to Morwen's map this only shows some entities, is there a reason for this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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