Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

File:2008 Champions, San Juan Jabloteh.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a 2008 football championship team. However, this image is not used in an article about that championship team, but in List of TT Pro League seasons, whose topic is all seasons of the entire league. This image is therefore potentially replaceable by any free image that illustrates any season of any team in the league. Additionally, the inclusion of this image in the article does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding of the topic of the article. The use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is important to the winners of Trinidad's football clubs. (Kylekieran (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2011 (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:PFL-TT.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old logo for TT Pro League. We already have the current logo in the article. There is no commentary or analysis of the old logo or any indication of its importance. This image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the TT Pro League, and its use fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is important. (Kylekieran (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2011 (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:17thshehrullah03.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unidentified, user is very inactive. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:27, 19 August 2011 (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:1960 Malvern FA Trophy.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free photograph of the captain of a 1960 football team holding a trophy. It is used in List of Trinidad and Tobago Cup winners. There is no commentary or analysis of this image in the article, nor is the importance of this image or of this particular event discussed. In this article, this image is potentially replaceable by a free image of, for example, any Trinidad and Tobago Cup winner in any year since 1927. The use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Trinidad and Tobago Cup winners. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is important. (Kylekieran (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2011 (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:Sochi 2014 - Logo.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo fails the WP:NFCC points 1 and 8. Per an WP:OTRS ticket (2010031110047226), it cannot be labelled as public domian, but OTRS is not the US Copyright Office, so they cannot decide when something passes the threshold of originality (this and this passes it).

The image can be described as "The logo of the 2014 Winter Games consist of the word "Sochi" in a blue tone. It continues with the contour of the word ".ru", written in the same tone. Below, the word "2014" is written, an its right the Olympic Rings appears." Failing the "Contextual significance" and the "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created", this is not place to this image. Delete as nominator. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Your proposed description fails to provide information about the mirror effect in the logo. Good luck with that one. Anyway all logos of Olympics Games can be roughly described as well by words. For instance Calgary 88 is a red mapple leaf made with olympic rings bits, etc. Or maybe do you want to remove all Olympic logos ? Seriously, I think you fall with this one exactly under WP:POINT. I think you made this nomination because you were explained by me that this logo cannot be put on Commons due to the opinion of the legal counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation and a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation by the IOC. And you are not happy with that. Hektor (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this can be described as a black mouse with red pants, and I'm not asking its deletion. "Typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States", this work is based solely in typefaces, therefore a) it can be replaced by free media, b) readers can understand the description I gave of the logo, and c) call it POINTY (with 0 basis), but this is a strong nomination. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, keep. I don't like arguing for keeping non-free media, but I don't understand the nomination here—why is this particular logo different from the thousands of other logos we have for all kinds of things? Long-established consensus has been that the use of a logo in the article about the organization represented by the logo generally meets the non-free content criteria. (I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, but that's the way things are.) The nominator seems to be arguing that it is so simple, "based solely in typefaces," that it does not cross the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, while simultaneously saying that it is a non-free image that must meet WP:NFCC. I think these are contradictory statements. Either it's in the public domain, in which case who cares about the NFCC, or else it has sufficient creativity of design to be copyrightable, in which case those design elements would seem to be sufficient reason for it to pass WP:NFCC#1. Apparently the powers that be have decreed that it's the latter case. Now, I don't understand how this logo meets WP:NFCC#8, but then I don't understand how most logos meet that criterion (but apparently they do, by wide consensus), so I'm not going to argue along those lines. —Bkell (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I contridected myself a bit, but I do not know to express it correcly. Ignoring the Olympic Rings (Because they are PD-old, PD-shape and PD-simple), only left the next sentence "Sochi.ru 2014" written in a font and all in a shade of blue. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); "Material not subject to copyright. Typeface as typeface." This file has been tagged many times (here and at Commons) as a non-original work, but the IOC utilized the WP:OTRS system to reserve all rights on it. As I noted, OTRS is not the/or part of the US Copyright Office. According to this, OTRS "grants of license for donated media", not "grants of license for media". If this file is "all rights reserved", it has to be threaten as one. As such, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". And this is an example of how the "or could be created" means. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of this logo wouldn't somehow be freer than the logo itself, if the logo were the primary subject of the photograph. I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense to use the OTRS system to claim rights for something that, in my non-professional judgment, is too simple for copyright protection, but if the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has agreed that it is copyrightable, as I gather they have from reading this discussion, then we are bound to respect that decision. What you seem to be saying is that, on the spectrum from "simple, uncopyrightable textual logos" to "intricately designed graphical logos", the simple stuff is allowable here because it's in the public domain, and the complicated stuff is allowable here because it satisfies the NFCC, but somewhere in the middle there's a gray area of logos that are not allowed. That's a huge can of worms, if you ask me. It's hard enough delineating one transition, such as the transition from uncopyrightable to copyrightable content (this transition, as you know, is the "threshold of originality," which is pretty vague and constantly disputed here). Trying to delineate two transitions (from obviously uncopyrightable and hence allowable logos, to "gray-area" logos that are not allowable, to complex logos that are allowable again under NFCC) would be a nightmare. —Bkell (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unclear about your citations of various points of U.S. copyright law. If I understand things correctly (note that I've really only read the discussion here, so perhaps I have these facts wrong), the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel, which is composed of one or more actual lawyers who are certified experts in the law, believes that the IOC has a credible copyright claim on this image. If that's the case, I, as a non-lawyer, am forced to concede this point, and so are you, no matter how much we might feel that our own interpretations of copyright law point to the opposite conclusion. (In fact, we should consider it a luxury that we have an official legal opinion about this particular image—most of the time we have to guess for ourselves what the copyright situation is.) Now, if there is a credible copyright claim on this image, then that must mean it reaches the threshold of originality. Hence it contains a non-negligible amount of creativity in its design. This fact seems to me to be a pretty good argument that the image meets WP:NFCC#1, at least as much as any other non-free logo does. —Bkell (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2011 (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:1921 Cup Final.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually a free file, the act of scanning does not erase the original copyright, which is still in effect. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe {{PD-scan|Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - issued in 1930, Anonymous-EU. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (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:Taklung thangpa.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no metadata or other information to indicate that Bert0001 took the photograph. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission to use this file from Taklung Matul rinpoche and his contributors. What do you propose as an alternative? Suppose i took the photograph, how can you verify then if i am the owner? Suppose i took the photograph from this thangka, how can you verify this thangka correctly represents the depicted? Is there a guideline about pictures? And can you help me with this guideline? I guess somebody has to do some clean up regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert0001 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source: http://taklungkagyu.org/aboutus.php?id=2 - http://taklungkagyu.org/images/taklungthangpa_medium.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert0001 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source page says at the bottom, "2011 © Taklung Kagyu. All Rights Reserved." There is no evidence there that the copyright holder has agreed to release this image under the GNU Free Documentation License, as it is claimed on the file description page here. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In particular, if you have e-mail confirmation from the copyright holder that he or she agrees to license this image under the GFDL or another free license (please understand that permission to use the image just on Wikipedia is not enough!), please forward that e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org and add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page. —Bkell (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2011 (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:Mumbai Indians colours 2008.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, team color swatch from 2008, team now has new colors. Unlikely to be used in an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 August 2011 (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:Lieutenant (retd) Karam ud Din.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a scan of a photo. I have a strong suspicion that the own work claim is a complete fabrication. Uploader's talk page is literally a wall of image deletion notices and associated warnings. Conflicting licenses. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:20, 19 August 2011 (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:Ivo Andric Letter.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the copyright of the author, Ivo Andrić, and therefore the uploader has no legal right to release it under a free license. Does not add enough to the article it is used in, Lotika Zellermeier, to meet NFCC#8. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:25, 19 August 2011 (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:Dem, Congolese Air Force Roundel.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:Congo Air force roundel variant.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This version is different than the one on commons, but:

* User blocked as a sockpuppet with a history of uploading incorrect SVG (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum/Archive#15_December_2010)

* Easy to check the source for the version on commons, but I don't have access to the source given here. (Index here)

-> Delete, easy to correct the one on commons, should it be incorrect Iridos (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2011 (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.

Uploads by User:Zwilson14

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About a dozen of this user's uploads have already been identified as copyright violations and deleted. They were mostly lifted from various sports news articles published online. This user's remaining uploads are of a similar nature - they appear to be taken by a staff photographer on the playing field and are unlikely to the work of the uploader. Most of the photos have been uploaded as png files, too. I strongly suspect these remaining uploads are used in violation of copyright. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I nominated File:Mike Minor Braves.png, File:Freddy Freeman.png and File:Cade Foster.png, all uploaded by the same user, since they were obvious copyright violations of works by Getty Images and The Birmingham News. The others aren't obvious, but based on the red flags mentioned above, they should all be deleted unless the uploader is willing/able to provide more complete source information. If these images are actually the uploader's own work (or even if they're not), they should be replaced by the original JPEGs at full resolution. Mosmof (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (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.