Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29[edit]

File:IUPUI Jaguars Wordmark.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:IUPUI Jags.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:54, 29 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.

Frank Auerbach[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#Frank Auerbach. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains two images, but they both display the same art style, so per WP:NFCC#3a, one of the images should be deleted. One of the images is also used in a bunch of other articles, but it isn't subject to sourced critical discussion in any of them and violates WP:NFCC#8 in both of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are needed...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's most important living painter. The Tate review LEAVE HIS WORK ALONE. Visual art needs to be seen not heard...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither image is not the subject of critical, sourced commentary in the article Frank Auerbach (violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). Being the "most important living painter" gives no privileges in NFCC; all 10 criteria need to be met regardless. You need to prove that these particular pictures are 'needed to be seen in this article' by making the case that they are the subject of critical, sourced commentary (currently they are not). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's your opinion; he is an important visual artist and those images demonstrate and illustrate the work he is notable for. They do not require words - they are visually self explanatory and of educational value to our readers. As the wikimedia foundation has said - works of visual art are exception to those rules...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernist: where exactly has WMF stated this and what particular rules are you referring to? For all I know, the WMF has stated this: wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which basically says we had to come up with this WP:NFCC, which in turn says all 10 criteria must be met for all non-free images. WP:NFCI explains that "Paintings and other works of visual art [are acceptable f]or critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school". Critical commentary does require words. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I've been having these discussions since 2006, bear with me and I'll locate the links...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important link - [1]...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the Wikimedia Foundation is saying basically is use common sense, and stop blindly following rules that do not apply to every case...Modernist (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: The letter you are referring to (from February 2007) is talking about a then forthcoming Resolution (linked above, from March 2007). Yes, it outlines the reasons behind that Resolution, but it does not contain anything to the effect that the Resolution should be circumvented. Unfortunately, NFC issues are the likes that have not much leeway for Common sense, though that is not to say there is none. It's crystal clear what the relevant policies according to WMF and the community are, and how they should be implemented. There are no exceptions to having to meet NFCC, and uses like this fail NFCC#8. I've dealt with similar cases before and have been here since the inception of FFD and worked previously with its predecessor, WP:NFR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Auerbach is arguably as important as Bacon or Freud. Its very disappointing and discouraging to seem him lumped into a deletion spree. Is there any concept of reasonable doubt or measure here, or just rules are rules and blind "no exceptions", a mentality that seems to me would choke the project. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: This is what is stated regarding significant modern artworks: Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a

doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose. ...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: No one disagrees that this is being pursued under a fair use doctrine. It's a given. But our non-free content policy sets "purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law". In sum: "Non-free content can be used in articles only if: usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria" (WP:NFC, emphasis mine). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This discussion is about whether the images need words of explanation; and common sense and the wikimedia foundation says they do not need further explanation because visual art speaks for itself and satisfies WP:NFCC#8; and yes Fair use is required as well...Modernist (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, I notice, provided. WP:NFC seems applicable to trivial rubbish like the nom below this, but a major 20th c painter like Auerbach? At some point wiki has to decide on how it treats knowledgeable contributors like Modernist, and weigh the letter of the law vs editor retention, rather than frustrating them at every turn. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content may only be used in accordance with an EDP, and the EDP must be minimal. This image seems to be used maximally instead of minimally, which is not compliant with a valid EDP as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is also not compliant with English Wikipedia's EDP.

Additionally, the pages History of painting and Western painting currently violate WP:TOOLONG: there are too many images, it takes forever to load the pages and it is virtually impossible to scroll through all of the images on a mobile phone. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan - you know and I know that you cannot be objective or unbiased in dealing with these issues. We need neutral and objective opinions here; see WP:UCS which should essentially prevail...Modernist (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete one of the two images per the nominator's logic. The issue is not whether "visual art needs to be seen", but whether we may blithely display nonfree content without critical discussion in artist biographies. "Music needs to be heard" has never been accepted as a rationale for deploying commentary-free sound samples in musician biographies. If these works are so important that they "need to be seen", then the onus is on those insisting on their inclusion to create appropriate articles on the individual works, including sourced commentary attesting to their particular importance, and including the images in those articles. The consensus practice of including a single example of the artist's work to illustrate their style, absent genuinely substantive commentary (not merely coatrack text to hang an illustration on) whould be enforced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per .Modernist who has demonstrated there is enough flexibility in the WMF position on Fair Use to accommodate a proportionate use of IAR and UCS with respect to images depicting visual artworks. This nomination, I'm afraid, is just another example of nit picking and policy wonking (there's a term from the distant past) in extremis. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has User:Modernist demonstrated that there is such flexibility? From what I can see, the user has only demonstrated that the user has no understanding at all about the WP:NFCC policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who are you kidding? It's you Stefan with an extremely limited understanding of wikipedia, policy, and visual art...Modernist (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one and restrict the use of the other to use in Frank Auerbach only. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree with the above example as a precedent for the Auerbach painting. Firstly it is only used in 4 articles, his biography and 3 historical articles. This is not an excessive use but in fact a minimal use; the images are used educationally, they are unique and cannot be substituted by words. The Foundation is aware that exceptions must be and can be made for contemporary visual art. If this encyclopedia is to maintain it's credibility those exceptions must be honored. A blind adherence to rules and regulations is not the correct way to build this project; those suggested guidelines are just that - in fact they are vague, and open to interpretation; they are not basic policy...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Wet Secrets Publicity Photo 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 as F7 by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photo for an extant band. A free image of the band could almost certainly be obtained. Further, if the uniforms are such a signature element, the band would likely be wearing them in the free photo. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this photo deleted and reload it in the commons, as well as Tanya Tagaq's photos. I am struggling to load photos with success with your tutorials. Can you please advise - I have press photos that can be used, and that would fall under use along the lines of - You are free:

       to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
       to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

       attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
       share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

What is the best way to do this? I see a lot of approved photos coming out of flickr. Is this the preferred method? Thanks. --Redediting (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find File:Wet Secrets 2007.jpg, a free image. The Wet Secrets Publicity Photo 2016.jpg is now tagged for speedy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:37, 30 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:Super Bowl XLIX final play.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 Bagumba (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet Wikipedia:NFCC#8: "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is neither an iconic photo representative of Super Bowl XLIX, nor is it accompanied by critical analysis of the picture. This is purely decorative. This is not like 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy, a referee decision where visual analysis is needed to accompany critical commentary of the decision. —Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded that file because I had intended to create an article about the game's final play. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's immaterial, as non-free use rationales need to be created for each article. Aside: I doubt a stand-alone article on a play is needed when an article on the game already exists, and I dont think there is a precedent. Per WP:N: "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesaaronthompson has requested deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 29 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:WIU Leathernecks Wordmark.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:WIU wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:12, 29 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:All Saints 2014.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current use of the image violates WP:NFCCP clause one, as a free use image is entirely creatable Tabercil (talk) 03:12, 29 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:MKS Mobo 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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current use of the image violates WP:NFCCP clause one, as a free use image is entirely creatable Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 29 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:Against Me! Rock am Ring 2014 (50).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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary lower resolution local copy of commons:File:Against Me! Rock am Ring 2014 (50).JPG. Incorrectly uploaded as fair use. It's freely licensed, but there's no need for a local copy. Delete. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:17, 29 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 of Ed Feingersh by Erich Hartmann, NYC, 1953.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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears to come from a commercial source where they charge for exactly the use it is for here. Image looks to fail WP:NFCC#2 in that its use replaces the current market role they (c) owner has for it. Peripitus (Talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Reasoning. Thank you for your diligence in checking if the copyright status of this file and querying its use. Yes this is a fine portrait of Feingersh and very useful in this biographical article for the identification of the subject. Please note that the image was previously published by the original copyright holder, the photographer Erich Hartmann, in the large-circulation magazine (American) Photography Annual of 1954 (WP:NFCC#4). Consequently, may I:
upload a thumbnail file of exactly the dimensions normally employed in the person data file in bio articles? Thus the file will be rendered unusable for print purposes. The sale of the image at the considerable prices advertised on the Magnmum site would be for a high resolution file for printing of high quality. A thumbnail of the image on WP is more likely to increase the saleability of the image to collectors seeking print quality versions, and therefore put Magnum at a commercial advantage, not a disadvantage.

Or alternativey seek out the original publication in which this portrait was printed full-page and upload a copy of the image in the context of the magazine page?

are there other solutions?

sinarau (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the previous post's bulleting because it was breaking the sections.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#2. Just like Getty Images photos, if the copyright holder is in the business of selling their photos for the exact type of use that we're employing here on Wikipedia, the file ought not to be used. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 10:44, 30 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:Time2direct-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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a clear case of a texlogo that can't be copyrighted in the US. Not sure if it would be original enough for the United Kingdom, either (although that is more relevant for Commons that for us). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tag as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since the UK has a crazy low c:COM:TOO. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 10:45, 30 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:CSL Limited logo.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another text-only logo that does not seem to meet any treshold of copyrightability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I put it up as a fair-use of a trademarked logo just to be on the safe side, but it's not registered, nor can I imagine it being since it's plain text. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and evolvability Just as a note, trademark and copyright are different concepts. Trademarks can apply to a number of things in particular contexts, but the main thing we do with trademarked images is to tag them {{Trademarked}}. Copyright we have strict policies about but not all things that are trademarked are also copyrighted. I think it's very likely that this logo is trademarked but copyrighted I question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 30 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:31QCTV 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree and support deletion. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 08:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chamorro Council.svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 29#File:Chamorro Council.svg. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting in Guam because it is not the logo of an organisation called 'Scouting in Guam'. It should only be used in an article about the organisation to which the logo belongs. Additionally, the file seems to violate WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring the issue of whether a former logo is appropriate here. You seem to misunderstand what's going on — Scouting in Guam was previously administered by the Chamorro Council (whose logo this is), so this logo is that of the parent organisation. The significant issue is the scope of the article (i.e. its subject), and not at all the title of the article; if we renamed this article "Chamorro Council" and kept the same contents, this image would not be any more or less suitable. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be more of an article which discusses scouting in general, and several organisations are discussed in the article. Since the article isn't focused on any single organisation, it's not appropriate to show logos in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, and thank you for being the voice of common sense.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contingent upon any outstanding NFCC concerns remaining unresolved before this discussion is closed. Logos of parent organizations in articles are generally considered to be inappropriate for articles about their sub-entities per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Moreover, single logo is typically considered acceptable in the main infobox when it serves as the primary means of identification per WP:NFCC#3a. If the article is primarily about the Chamorro Council then File:Chamorro Council.svg should be the only logo used in the infobox, and maybe the article should be moved accordingly. If it's about scouting in Guam in general, then this logo should not be used in the infobox. Simply adding logos to the main infobox does not mean that their usage complies with WP:NFCC. Unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced commentary, then I don't feel the way it is currently being used satisfies WP:NFCC#8. In addition to NFCC#8, there are also NFCC problems to consider because of the lack of sourcing information provided. There's no way to verify WP:NFCC#4 or WP:NFCC#10a without better sourcing information. I tried Google searching for the image, but the only hit I got was for chamorrousa.com/home which seems to be a private business which is not directly related to scouting. Each usage of a non-free image must satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria and valid non-free use rationales cannot really be written for those usages that don't; therefore, renaming the article may resolve NFCC#8, but it would not solve the other problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aloha Council 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 29#File:Aloha Council logo.svg. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is used in Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands and Scouting in Palau, but neither article is an article about this organisation. The file seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 in both articles. Additionally, it says that The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America. and this information does not seem to be sufficiently detailed to comply with WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Council administers Scouting in both jurisdictions, along with Scouting in the majority of Hawaii. This is fundamentally the same situation as putting the logo of the Presbytery of Northern New England in an article about "Presbyterianism in New Hampshire" (assuming that "Presbyterianism in NH" could easily be seen to be notable); perhaps that kind of thing is generally seen as nonfreeimage overkill, but in both situations, this would be the logo of the relevant local organisation. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, logos only end up in the article about the organisation but not in other articles, so an article titled 'Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands' or 'Presbyterianism in New Hampshire' should not contain logos but instead refer to articles about the organisations where the logos appear. If an organisation isn't notable, this means that the logo isn't to be used anywhere at all. The only reason for having an article like 'Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands' or 'Presbyterianism in New Hampshire' is for discussing multiple organisations and/or activities outside such organisations. If all activities are directly related to a single organisation, the title would typically not exist as an article (although there might be a redirect). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: "The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America" is automatically inserted by {{Non-free use rationale logo}} when the "owner" field is filled but the "source" field is left blank. If you think this is insufficient (WP:NFCC#10: "[The] media description page contains[:] Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder[.]"), you should ask that template to be updated to produce an error message promoting the editor to fill all necessary fields with valid information (as it does when the "use" field is blank). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, and thank you again!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands" and "Scouting in Palau", unless the NFCC issues are resolved before this discussion is closed. If, according to the above comments, the Aloha Council administers both local scouting organizations, then I don't think it's appropriate to use the logo in either article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Generally. one logo is considered acceptable for the main infobox when it is used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. This seems to be role being served by both File:Aloha Council Northern Marianas.svg and File:Aloha Council Palau.svg in their respective articles. The usage of a "parent" organization's logo is generally not allowed to be used in articles about its child entities, unless the logo itself is subject to sourced commentary so that context required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. I don't see any of that in either article and simply adding the logo to the main infobox does not automatically make its usage non-free compliant.

There is also the problem of the lack of sourcing information provided. There's no way to verify whether the logo has been previously published (WP:NFCC#4) or its copyright status (WP:NFCC#10a). I could not find the logo being used anywhere on the www.alohacouncilbsa.org so I checked some older archived versions of the website. The earliest I found was this from April 2004. It shows a similar logo, but not the exact same one being discussed here. This one from February 2009 shows a completely different logo. So even if the NFCC#8 issues can be sorted out, there's still other NFCC issues related to sourcing which need to be resolved to fully satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EltonMayo1950.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged {{subst:rfu}} because this is listed as an unfree file which violates WP:NFCC#1, but the tag was removed by Nyttend (talk · contribs) stating See the PUF; it's being suggested that this image is in the public domain. We shouldn't speedy an image on copyright grounds when the copyright's being discussed elsewhere. However, I can't find any PUF discussion where anyone suggests that this one is in the public domain. I can only find a PUF discussion where a user states that a different image is in the public domain and that this one has an unknown copyright status. Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apology; I misread the discussion and thought the PUF nominator was saying that this was in the public domain. Do you mind if we close this FFD, and I'll self-revert? Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine with me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 29 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:111 logo November 2015.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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This logo consists entirely from letters and colour. Probably a case for PD-USonly (not PD plain because if the Aboriginal flag is copyrightable in Australia, this one certainly is too) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 29 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:.top domain.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an orange dot and three coloured letters are not enough originality to make this copyrightable per commons:COM:TOO, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 29 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:UrbanClap 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. Urbanclap was deleted under WP:A7, leaving this orphaned and with no further use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More PD-textlogo candidates; a little text and a black box with lettters, each of which can't meet commons:COM:TOO in the US. Dunno about India. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 29 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:90210 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This and the previous versions of this logo are only letters and thus clearly PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with File:90210 (logo).svg or File:Logo 90210 (TV series).svg. Ineligible for copyright, but the SVG copies are better. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 30 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:I-20 mile marker 195.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A photography of a street sign can be easily recreated as a free image, so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 29 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:Euroinvestor 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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo consists entirely of text, so this is PD-textlogo rather than copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'd rather upload images with Template:Non-free logo originally, then have it changed to PD-textlogo. Elisfkc (talk) 06:31, 30 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:Film1 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is currently marked as non-free but File:Film1 Logo.png exists on Commons and is marked as "PD-simple". Either this logo should be deleted for redundancy or if the copyright status is iffy, the logo on Commons nominated for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this file as free and in the public domain, because it consists of typeface, slogan, number and simple geometric shape. I have verified this file and I'm afraid we disagree on redundancy of this logo or that the copyright status is iffy, the logo on Commons nominated for deletion. This logo is PD-textlogo and PD-shape. Cordially, XPanettaa (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:File002.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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unused file from long inactive user with a meaningless file name and no explanation at all as to the origin or content of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 29 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:Image011xx.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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Jeanbon St. André 1795 portrait by Jacques-Louis David.jpeg with a vague title. Does not seem to be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 29 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:Logo of the global aluminium solutions company, Sapa AS.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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with other logos along this line, this text only logo should qualify as PD-USOnly or PD-logo per commons:COM:TOO. There is also a smaller file on Commons File:NySapalogo2016.jpg which may or may not be suited for Commons depending upon whether Norway's TOO allows it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 29 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:UMBC Wordmark.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:UMBC Athletics wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 21:41, 29 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:Daniel arap Moi.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 ⚡ 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing claim is not credible. Other images from same uploader, claimed as own work, have been deleted for similar reasons. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring everything else, this is suspicious because it looks like it's scanned from somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks suspicious. We have several other images of the guy in c:Category:Daniel arap Moi, so losing this image shouldn't be a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 30 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.