Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4

File:KPNX circa 1985.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KPNX circa 1985.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jgrigsby (notify | contribs).

Fails [{WP:NFCC#3a]]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, image clearly fails non-free content criterion 8 as it is adding nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFCC#8 says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logo doe's increase readers' understanding of the topic as it shows the change in the TV stations branding throughout the TV stations history and increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as it shows the TV stations history in image.
Delete: An image of a logo used in this manner is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. For the most part, the logos are a trivial factor in an article about a station, and the images should not be used in the absence of some clear and compelling reason to use a particular logo image.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 10 August 2009 (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:KPNX circa 1994b.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KPNX circa 1994b.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jgrigsby (notify | contribs).

Fails [{WP:NFCC#3a]]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, image clearly fails non-free content criterion 8 as it is adding nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFCC#8 says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logo doe's increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as it shows the TV stations history in image.

Delete: An image of a logo used in this manner is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. For the most part, the logos are a trivial factor in an article about a station, and the images should not be used in the absence of some clear and compelling reason to use a particular logo image.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 10 August 2009 (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:KPNX circa 1990.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KPNX circa 1990.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jgrigsby (notify | contribs).

Fails [{WP:NFCC#3a]]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, image clearly fails non-free content criterion 8 as it is adding nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFCC#8 says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logo doe's increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as it shows the TV stations history in image.
Delete: An image of a logo used in this manner is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. For the most part, the logos are a trivial factor in an article about a station, and the images should not be used in the absence of some clear and compelling reason to use a particular logo image.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (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:KPNX circa 1998.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KPNX circa 1998.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jgrigsby (notify | contribs).

Fails [{WP:NFCC#3a]]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, image clearly fails non-free content criterion 8 as it is adding nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFCC#8 says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logo doe's increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as it shows the TV stations history in image.
Delete: An image of a logo used in this manner is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. For the most part, the logos are a trivial factor in an article about a station, and the images should not be used in the absence of some clear and compelling reason to use a particular logo image.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 10 August 2009 (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:Holmenow video.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holmenow video.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frcm1988 (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding — Σxplicit 06:32, 4 August 2009 (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:Flag IntA.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag IntA.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gorm (notify | contribs).

Deprecated by SVG version Papa November (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2009 (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:Flag USdive.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag USdive.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gorm (notify | contribs).

Deprecated by SVG image Papa November (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (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:Star Wars Role-Playing Game 1987.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: Deleted, it appears to have been replaced by the scaled down File:Rpg1st.jpg --B (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC) restored and the other one will be deleted - this one is the more descriptive filename and a reduced version will be kept with this filename. --B (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Wars Role-Playing Game 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintaro-san (notify | contribs).

Image is too big to comply with our non-free content criteria, especially since a smaller version already exists (it was replaced in the article Star Wars role-playing game (WEG) by this new image uploaded yesterday). Powers ^T 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Powers. I created this image because the current thumbnail is definitely too crap. The ratio of width to height of my own image is 400:520. If this is too big, what's the biggest authorised ratio ? Kind regards. Kintaro-san (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, just one more thing: I'll be absent for a few days, until monday or tuesday, sorry if I can't answer before that. Hi! Kintaro-san (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly is the problem with the smaller image? As a rough estimate, I'd say we'd want an image to be no more than half the size of the one you uploaded, but I'm not an expert on that subject. Powers ^T 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Smaller image is unreadably small: it's simply too small to accurately make out what's being shown in the (very busy) picture. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images are intentionally low-quality to meet the non-free content criteria. 300px on the largest side is the common maximum, although 250 is usually better. Delete as unneeded, oversized fair-use image, which has already been (p)replaced by another image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ...and replace currently used image in related article. The image being nominated is more descriptively named. If the current size is deemed to violate WP:NFCC#3b it can be resized, uploaded under the same, and then tagged with {{Non-free reduced|~~~~~}}.--Rockfang (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is reasonable, although I think that the size definetely would need to be reduced. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & try reducing, per Rockfang. But without prejudice to a larger image, if what's being shown can't accurately be made out at 235 x 300. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no rationale. Rettetast (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been a rationale on the file since it was uploaded.--Rockfang (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (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:Adam as bitey.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adam as bitey.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dailycrumb (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no source. Powers ^T 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The description page has a PD-self tag. --B (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? Asserting ownership of the copyright is not the same thing as specifying a source. Powers ^T 14:12, 8 August 2009 (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:Taroyokoyama.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 R'n'B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taroyokoyama.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarokyama (notify | contribs).

And this one File:TaroYokoyamaWA2007.jpg too

Delete: orphaned image dependent on article deleted 3 times which included one deletion discussion ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (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:Tidewater Council 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: Delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tidewater Council logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wimvandorst (notify | contribs).

I've kinda put up with this for a long time, but it really isn't appropriate. This image is not a logo - it's a photoshop of part of a patch. Nowhere in the Council is this image used as a logo. It's an element of a patch, nothing more. Calling this a logo would be like cropping a piece of a dollar bill and calling it a logo for the United States of America. I looked through the council's website and the only logos I could find were where the actual patch itself was used as a logo on most pages and where a similar, but completely different, wheel was used as a logo at [1]. B (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right: this doesn't win a beauty contest. I'll not oppose the deletion proposal. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (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.

Former Qantas logos

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1968 Qantas Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lakeyboy (notify | contribs).

File:Qantas.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Trisreed (notify | contribs).

Used solely in an image gallery. These are not the current company logo, and the current logo is similar enough to these ones that I feel it fails WP:NFCC#8 and the guideline on galleries at WP:NFC. Without reliable sources discussing this past logo, I do not see how it increases the reader's understanding of the article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, to clarify, the logos are used here in the Qantas article, in a section discussing the evolution of the logo since 1944, not a WP:GALLERY. The section does cite WP:RSs, and the images help to understand the text -- specifically the 1984 logo to understand the changes made in 2007, and the 1984 logo to show the transitional form between the 1947 logo and the 1984 development. Being able to see the logos makes the overall progression much clearer.

But the real reason to keep these logos is more fundamental. Qantas is the international airline of Australia, an icon for Australia around the world. The logo is intended to be the self-presentation of the airline's identity. Therefore in an article on the airline now 80k long, the evolution of that logo is a relevant encyclopedic topic to present. Not for what could be written about it, but simply for what it is: the prime identifier of the airline over that time. The article should be able to answer questions like "I remember the logo being different to that, wasn't it?" and "How and when did it change?" This limited presentation is not disproportionate in an article of this length.

Finally, note that WP's own attorney has said that presenting and discussing old logos is legitimate fair use. The WP:NFC criteria were drafted to be a balance of getting as much as possible of the "sum of all knowledge" into Wikipedia, and still making sure that knowledge can be disseminated as widely as possible. WP:NFCC#8 and so on are essentially crafted to draw the line: What could a verbatim U.S. commercial republisher of Wikipedia be sure would still be accepted as fair use by a U.S. court, if they could not rely on WP's non-profit status overall educational purpose? (WP:NFC is "stricter than fair use" in some ways, notably on 'replaceability'; but this is not one of them). The logos pass this test. Being narrower on this than we need to really helps no-one; it merely reduces the understanding of the subject our article communicates to our readers. Jheald (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC is much stricter than fair-use law. I don't doubt that the use of the images is legally allowed, I just don't think that they are allowed by long-standing Wikipedia policy. As for the critical commentary on the images, I can see the 1st, 2nd, and 5th images as being valid (barely, but moreso, IMO, than these two), because each one of them is very different from the others. However, #3 is not discussed in the text (other than "The Qantas kangaroo logo has undergone four major facelifts since its introduction in 1944.", which doesn't really address that one specifically), and the main image in it is the same as in image #2, just a different color. Image #4 is identical to image #5 except for the positioning and font of the text, so it doesn't increase the readers' understanding.
I also think that your second argument, the "more fundamental" one, is based mainly on personal opinion. Although I do agree with you a little about this, which is why I can see three logos being reasonable in this case, it doesn't seem to justify having all five from a policy standpoint. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second image aren't up for discussion because they are out of copyright.

As for the policy point, the requirement of NFCC#8 is that the images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". What does and does not constitute "significant" is -intentionally- left for the community to decide, on a case-by-case basis, according to the balance of their personal judgments.

As for WP:NFCC being "much" stricter than fair-use law, this simply isn't true (nor is it clear what if any useful purpose such strictness would serve). What is allowed per the explicit examples at WP:NFC closely tracks fair use law. The main ways in which WP:NFCC is stricter are (i) we require that a commercial reuser could reuse the article, so it is what they would be allowed, not what we as WP are allowed; (ii) we require that we must be confident they can reuse it; and (iii) we don't accept non-free images which would make alternative free images less likely to be brought forward or created. But otherwise the criteria at WP:NFC are precisely the criteria you would look to to try to establish fair use.

The relevance of #3, apart from in its own right given the length that it served as the signature for the airline, is in showing the transition from #2: retaining the central figure design of #2, but in a more stylised, modern overall design; which subsequently led to the even more stylised design of #4.

I come back to my point, that in a comprehensive article on an entity like Qantas, the evolution of its self-identity is an encyclopedic topic which our article would be less than complete if it did not cover; and in an article pushing 80k, the present coverage is balanced and in no way excessive. Jheald (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; my bad on the first and second image info. Linkclassifer (a script I used) marked them as non-free when I was looking at the article because they have {{non-free use rationale}}; those could probably be changed to {{Information}} if the images are PD. My bad. As for the rest of your comments, I don't see any real reason to detail my responses. It's basically still just the same as above, and there's no point going in circles; others who comment here can determine the outcome of the discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:COMPANIES notified of this discussion. Jheald (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2009 (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:Cucca en.gif

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cucca en.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Achillu (notify | contribs).

Wrong image: it does not show what really happened. Achillu (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (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:TaroYokoyamaWA2007.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TaroYokoyamaWA2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarokyama (notify | contribs).

Delete: orphaned image dependent on article deleted 3 times which included one deletion discussion. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (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:One of our aircraft.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 consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of our aircraft.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

I think that it failed WP:NFCC#8... the existence of all art/promotional work can always be understood without an image. impact and context can easily be described in text as well as existence. Diora (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is difficult to assess without seeing the image, the use of an original piece of artwork that was the film's poster also does convey the morays of the period in terms of imagery, in this case a stylistic, post-art deco effect that was popular in the late-1930s. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A statement in the caption that connects the image and its impact allows the reader to understand the connection to the article. Was this even considered before tagging the image? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Upon reading this article as part of a historical research project on late WWII, it did help me understand a) the style used for movie posters in this period and b) that this film was apparently so important in the UK (where I'm not from) that it has actually been released on DVD despite being over 60 years old, which quite impressed me. I say keep. Lovykar (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your second point could easily be conveyed by text. Powers ^T 12:26, 24 August 2009 (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.