Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22[edit]

File:Mariya Takeuchi, 1973.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: Deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either the image is in the public domain in the US, or it's not. The Reddit post and another post don't reveal the copyright page of a high school yearbook showing photos of the singer Mariya Takeuchi. George Ho (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that the yearbook did not contain a copyright notice, so there's no evidence that this is in the public domain. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is in the public domain since the yearbook is in a public library in Rockfalls, Illinois (according to the user sleepytimejunction), and it was published in 1973 in a AFS yearbook, according to the user. Here are the quotes from the user himself answering questions.

reddit user: wondertwins- is it possible to scan this and which school did she stay at?

 reddit user sleepy_time_junction: She stayed at Rock Falls High School in IL. It’s definitely not a big town so I was surprised to see that on Wikipedia. The library wouldn’t let me check out the yearbook but I may be able to scan it next time I go in.

SEE, IT'S IN A LIBRARY IN ROCKSFALL. THERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE. AND HE DOES CONFIRM IN THE REDDIT POST THAT HE LIVES IN ROCKFALL, ILLINOIS. (or as sleepytimejunction puts it, "Just recently realized that Mariya Takeuchi was an exchange student close to where I live. Very surreal to see her in the yearbook from the library and know she’s been places I’ve been visiting since I was a kid! Such a big fan of her❤️") User:Bacromisee(talk) March 22, 2020 22:35pm UTC

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:Datagrams vs virtual circuits 1975.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. It doesn't seem like the copyright issues have been effectively contested nor has it been explained how WP:NFCC would be met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion as failing WP:NFCC#1 @JJMC89 with the rationale "a free diagram could be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Deletion contested by @Whizz40 with the rationale "The article is about a historical topic and the purpose of this image is to show what was used at the time in 1975 by Donald Davies to illustrate the historical state of the art. Creating a new image does not fulfil this purpose. The topic is abstract and covering it with text alone is too cerebral. In addition, I believe the image is in the public domain and may not be copyrighted in the first place. It is a simple graphic consisting of boxes, lines and labels. Davies presented the graphic at a public conference and then presumably either no permission was needed or Davies gave permission for it to be reproduced in a trade magazine with wide circulation, which is readily available on Google Books. Davies passed away in 2000.". FASTILY 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Particularly to look for comments from @JJMC89 and Whizz40:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a copyright issue here. This seems to me to be either fair use or a free image. Whizz40 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't anything special about this particular diagram that couldn't be understood from a freely licensed one. Additionally, the diagram isn't the subject of any critical commentary in the article. In fact, it isn't mentioned outside of its caption. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JJMC89. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2020 (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:Armada vs Leffen Paragon 2015.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting that this image meets WP:NFCC criteria 8. It's a screenshot of one match - which isn't specifically discussed in the article - and its inclusion at most shows one possible layout for a tournament stream. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2020 (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:New Jersey Devils 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 on 2020 April 10. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Jersey Devils logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Seattle Reign FC crest (alternate), 2013.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. The only mention of this logo is: the alternate badge is monochrome and foregrounds the crown itself, which is an unsourced (The current "reference" only pictures this logo and does not discuss it.) description, not critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: There is already extensive discussion about this subject by multiple editors (including patrollers) at the file talk page. Mightytotems (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only outcome from that discussion was moving the images from a gallery to moving them inline with the text, and converting the deletion from speedy to this FFD. Neither of those affect the actual issue being discussed, which is that Wikipedia files a policy - WP:NFCC - and that requires non-free images to be the subject of critical commentary by reliable sources. If you can find sources that are discussing the significance of the alternate logo and put prose into the article about that subject, that would be how you justify the inclusion of the image. Keep in mind that the default is not to have non-free images and the burden is on the writer to justify their inclusion with prose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The alternate image is not the subject of critical critical commentary, and a reader's understanding of the subject of the article is not seriously impacted by inclusion of the image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 23 March 2020 (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:World Memory Tournament Federation 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The Federation is not the subject of the article (Farrow is), and the logo is not mentioned in the article, let alone the subject of critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 22 March 2020 (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:EA Bowles.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The sketch is not mentioned in the article, let alone the subject of critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 at first objected to the image on the grounds that it did "not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". When that failed he turned his attention to this new reason. The image is important in giving a balanced account of Bowles' work. If a critical comment on the image is all that is needed then it would be a simple matter to do so. My feeling is that if the interests of Wikipedia are to be objectively served then the problem should be addressed and resolved after discussion without resorting to deletion. cheers Paul venter (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's long been held that the way to justify the inclusion of a non-free image in an article (except for in the infobox) is through critical discussion - i.e. having enough cited prose about the subject of the image. The sole discussion of the illustration outside of the thumb is "Bowles' more specialised works included his handbooks on crocuses (1924)[46] and narcissi (1934),[47] which contained his own illustrations.". That's not enough to meet NFCC #8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2020 (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.