Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10

File:EWTN logo 2016.svg.png

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 G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally uploaded the wrong way. Billboard Man (talk) 15:18, 10 July 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:Ihs-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: procedural close. No action required here. Ricky81682 is welcome to replace the Jesuit logo on the articles discussed below with more relevant logos as he sees appropriate, following the guideline Wikipedia:Logos. Deryck C. 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ihs-logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This is a follow-up from the dispute at the COI noticeboard where it is not relevant. I'm going to create separate subheaders for the actual pages where the usage is still there and in question. This may either be handled here or possibly at each page's talk but I think this is preferable, definitely over the COI noticeboard handling it. Most of the pages seem to have them removed. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682, this file is hosted on Commons, so this is technically the wrong forum. It would maybe be a good idea to extend FFD to allow discussions like this, but I'm not sure if FFD is allowed to do anything about the matter for the moment. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't FFD cover usage? Else, how would a file covered in Commons be covered? We wouldn't have a discussion at Commons about the usage here? Else, maybe the image talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - FFD covers file usage of files which are hosted locally, at least if they are listed as unfree. We don't seem to have a venue for discussing file usage of Commons files. It might be a good idea to extend FFD to cover this, but that would require a discussion at WT:FFD about extending the scope of FFD, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint seems to be that the logo has been used "promotionally". Idk about that, but even if it was, it would be a content dispute, with nothing to do with the logo as such, even if the file was hosted here. The logo was designed in 1541 and is of undeniable notability, and is just as undeniably not coverred by copyright, so there is simply nothing to discuss in terms of the image file. Don't drag content disputes into "for deletion" pages, it's an abuse of process. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use at Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio

This seems to be a local Jesuit Outreach and seems like it's basically the same as their actual logo but it's possible to replace this with the specific logo for the program. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use at Casa Ricci Social Services

Their website here here seems to have a different logo so I'm not sure about using the full Jesuit logo for this group. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use at Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs

The website link is a PDF and I can't find the actual logo. - Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 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:ROY STONE LIVE 2.tif

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, file is not in use and probably won't have an encyclopedic use in the future. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 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:ROYSTONESTUDIO25.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, file is not in use and probably won't have an encyclopedic use in the future. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 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:ROYSTONESTUDIO19.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, file is not in use and probably won't have an encyclopedic use in the future. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 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:ROY STONE LIVE 7.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, file is not in use and probably won't have an encyclopedic use in the future. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 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:Donkeys in Monolithi Beach.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. In the absence of further rebuttal, Harrygouvas's PD rationale is accepted AGF. The file description page is updated to reflect this. Deryck C. 21:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The license statement says The unknown photographer died on 1930-1940 but the information template says UNKNOWN PHOTOGRAPHER. How do we know it's PD then? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: Thank you for your discussion. The answer to your question is this. The period 1925-1940 there was ONLY One photographer in Preveza. Nikolaos Thomaides, who came here from Turkey (Νικόλαος Θωμαίδης (1875-1942): The photographer of Kemal Ataturk). The dress style of women in the photo is about 1930. So 99,9999 % the photographer is Nikolaos Thomaides. (2016-1942= 74, So thephoto is public domain). In the same period (1930) we have photos ONLY from the famous photographer from Athens Spyros Melentzis. All his photos have published by Benakis Museum in a Photo Album. This photo does not exist in this Album. So Propably the photo belongs to Nikolaos Thomaides. Again thank you Sit. Dr. Harry Gouvas, MD, PhD Harrygouvas (talk) 17:24, 10 July 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:JHarvardOlympusCigar.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: Relicense Majora (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is marked as "fair use", but unless the label was unpublished (which sounds unlikely) it seems like it may qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}} instead in light of the lack of a copyright mark. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 10 July 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:Plant City City Seal.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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a seal of a Floridian city (see e.g http://www.plantcitygov.com/DocumentCenter/View/19194) and thus falls under the scope of {{PD-FloridaGov}} rather than {{Non-free logo}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 10 July 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:Anchalpur.jpeg

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: Revisions attributed to other person deleted Majora (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision of this file is attributed to weedthebestherb, and I don't see evidence that this is the same person as the uploader. The 2nd version is fine though, per EXIF checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 10 July 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:Small1.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 Oshwah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has two small versions, each of dubious copyright status:

Version #1 is Photograph by Bekah Groves Model: Mandy Groves. User:Lola-sama indicates that they are called Mandy Groves, but it's not clear if she's the subject or the photographer.
Version #2 is photo by Salman Ehsan Graphican also used in www.uchsharif.com but User:Ashraf 03006372488 says "Ashraf ali" and "Ashraf Kaleem Sagar". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:10, 10 July 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:Harland Sanders.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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 12#File:Harland_Sanders.jpg}}

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:1st Gen Honda Ridgeline closed-box unibody frame.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: no consensus for deletion. Miniapolis 22:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is releasing this as public domain but it is a derivative work from a copyrighted Honda brochure (http://hondanews.ca/Content/hondanews.ca/d6f7e22e-e62f-43de-8221-bf62f2da4aa3/Brochure/2006HondaRidgeline.doc). Although the uploader acknowledges the source, that does not negate the fact that this is a derivative work for which he does not hold the original copyright. I don't know if this makes it eligible for G4 speedy deletion, but this conversation has been had before. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 28#File:Drawing of Honda Ridgeline Frame.svg. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These files are fundamentally identical, so I'd agree with a G4.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I really struggle with the idea that an outline of a frame's cross-section is somehow copyrighted. They're just three vectors that are arranged in a particular way to try and represent what Honda did to build the frame. Likewise, an outline of a frame is just that, an outline. How would that be any different? I'm not a copyright lawyer but this does not fit the "common sense" test or fair use test to me. If this were true then I could draw a squiggly line, submit it for copyright, and no one would be allowed to draw a similar squiggly line without my permission. --McChizzle (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is an illustration of the Honda Ridgeline chassis design but is not a direct copy from the brochure. I tend to agree with McChizzle above that, while the brochure is copyrightable and the complete design of the chassis may be patentable, the geometrical shape of the chassis - the intellectual "property" in discussion here - is fundamentally uncopyrightable because it's just a geometrical shape. So McChizzle is entitled to draw an illustration of it and publish it into public domain. Deryck C. 21:47, 25 August 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:Myheart.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 all revisions ★ Bigr Tex 20:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second file revision is clearly copied from http://www.glamsham.com/download/hd-images/hrithik-roshan-hd-pictures/bollywood-actors/8/12/index.htm which doesn't show a free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other picture is also a copyright violation, see [1]. Therefore, delete all revisions of this file. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 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:Jack Buchanan.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 ⚡ 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second revision of this file exists already at File:Jack Buchanan (15054935160).jpg and should be deleted under WP:CSD#F8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other revisions of this file have a copyright tag from the wrong country. Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, not the United Kingdom, so we need a United States copyright tag. The picture is clearly unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, the copyright on this image would expired either 70 years after the death of the author (if author known) or 70 years after publication (if author not known). Assuming the latter case the UK copyright would have expired in 2008 and the US one in 2033 given the URAA recopyrighting. If the author was known, it is probably even later unless the author died in 1938. I see a few images from this same magazine on Commons that should be listed for deletion as well, methinks.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 10 July 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:Forevermore.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. Deryck C. 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has no copyright license or origin, and the prior version already exists at File:Whitesnake Forevermore.jpg. Will message the uploader of the second file, but if they don't have information on license and origin this should be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:34, 10 July 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:Donnie Commercial.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded is claiming to be an of the production company and that this pr photo is being released under a free license however we would need OTRS confirmation Whpq (talk) 13:45, 10 July 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:Swaminarayan charity.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: no quorum, permission granted to nominator-admin Jo-Jo Eumerus to do whatever she sees fit with this file. Deryck C. 21:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file currently contains two revisions:

The older file is marked as PD-Art in the history, but the provenance is not clear.
The younger file has an OTRS ticket attached, which apparently is a GFDL release but on the OTRS noticeboard questions have been raised about its validity.

They need to be split in some way. Also pinging Stefan2 because they tagged the Commons file as "wrong license". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:02, 10 July 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:Bilal H. Khan During his M.B.A.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a picture of the uploader and doesn't seem to be a selfie. No evidence of permission from the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 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:J. Roderick MacArthur.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 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:Alfred Hammacher.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 ★ Bigr Tex 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Possibly PD because of age, but no verifiable source has been provided. Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://blog.hammacher.com/2014/02/happy-175th-mr-hammacher/ or another site associated with the group seems like the original source.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 10 July 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 Bowery Brothers.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 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:William F. Schlemmer.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 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:Hammacher Schlemmer Cartoon.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 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:New Yorker Hammacher Schlemmer Cartoon.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 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:Hammacher Schlemmer on the Today Show.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 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:Mad Men Hammacher Schlemmer Ad.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 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:Hammacher Schlemmer Gnome Campaign.png

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: Relicense Majora (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Possibly pre-1923, but the article is unclear. Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hammacher.com/History/default.aspx is not easily browsed, but it contains the image under an entry saying Hammacher begins its "gnome" campaign - an ad campaign that features diligent little cartoon characters in the pages of its catalogs. dated 1920.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it only says that the campaign started in 1920, but the campaign might have been ongoing for several years and this might not be from the first year. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same image in the URL says "1920 catalog", so I don't think that's so likely.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus's analysis. Closing this as relicense and changing the tags on the image. --Majora (talk) 22:31, 9 September 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:2003 Cartoon Cover.png

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 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:2014 Hammacher Schlemmer Augmented Reality.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 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:Ladybird Johnson.png

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 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.

Two files

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 ★ Bigr Tex 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two copies of the same file with different copyright tags. I can't read the text on the source website, but I can't find any mention of Creative Commons on the linked page. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 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:Sammy Nyakeyo Ogega.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be pictures (and text) about a non-notable person. Not currently used in any en-wp page (and unlikely to be used). DexDor^(talk) 17:23, 10 July 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:Argonnelablogo.PNG

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 as non-free Majora (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed to be unfree. If this is the case, then it violates WP:NFCC#9 on the page Template:PD-USGov-DOE-ANL. However, that page states that all works by Argonne National Laboratory are works by the United States Government. If this is the case (I can't figure out how the laboratory is organised), then there's a fair chance that the laboratory's logo also is a work by the United States Government. Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.anl.gov/disclaimer says Documents authored by Argonne National Laboratory employees are the result of work under U.S. Government contract DE-AC02-06CH11357 and are therefore subject to the following license: The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly by or on behalf of the Government., which seems to exclude third parties, i.e unfree. Contractor work, not government work, so to speak.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the template is invalid and should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template deleted. Closing as keep as non-free per Jo-Jo Eumerus. --Majora (talk) 00:18, 7 September 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:ASEANFootballFederation logo.png

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 only in infobox of ASEAN Football Federation ★ Bigr Tex 20:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fails WP:NFCC#10c in ASEAN Football Federation as the FUR doesn't reveal which one of the file's uses the FUR refers to or what purpose the image serves.

Additionally, the file fails WP:NFCC#8 at several places in the article. It should only be used in the infobox but not at dozens of places in tables. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 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:Peris Carbonell Museum.png

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER. Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 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:Wii U disc and app icon (Super Mario 3D World).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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in List of Wii U software and WP:NFCC#9 in Talk:List of Wii U software. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 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:Peris carbonell studio.png

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:FREER. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 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:Wiki02CinoFront1965.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wiki02CinoFront1965.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 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.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10

July 10

File:Ihs-logo.svg

Use at Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio

Use at Casa Ricci Social Services

Use at Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs

Two files

Navigation menu

Search