Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

File:Cirque du Soleil Saltimbanco logo.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded PNG version of file per recommendation. New file is File:Cirque du Soleil Saltimbanco logo.png (Brent.austin (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Question: Is this sufficient to be eligible for copyright in the first place, or is this an ineligible text logo? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was flagged for artifacts, and thus the reason for removal. It is an ineligible text logo when resizing is taken into consideration. (Brent.austin (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy delete the above nominated file per author request. Eligibility for copyright for the new file may be discussed at a separate discussion if necessary.. Reh man 02:18, 27 March 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:Simpson County Kentucky courthouse front.jpg.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 - if someone wants to restore it and move it to Commons or use it here, feel free to do so --B (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned except for in a vanished user's userspace, and the subject is mostly obscured by trees. Same subject already photo'd on Commons as File:Old Simpson County, Kentucky courthouse.jpg without the foliage blocking most of the subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nom is right, Commons file is better in presenting in subject. But, the above file is also in good quality. I'm ok with deleting this, but maybe move to Commons if anyone else thinks so (author?). Rehman 02:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My view was that the trees blocking the subject almost entirely out made it unsuitable for Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 29 March 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:Regular 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality — all blurry and pixellated from being blown up. Also, this is not the show's official title card; that's already on the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Criteria F5 and F6 both apply, although both of them take 7 days. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Reh man 02:11, 27 March 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:Billy Mitchell uniforms.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image exists at the same name on Commons. It would normally qualify for CSD F8, however, a retain-the-local-copy tag exists on it. The local image, however, is blocking the Commons image, which has seen further processing to reduce some of the glare and crop out unnecessary elements. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As SchuminWeb has proven with his apparant need to compensate for something at my expense, there is a need to keep things locally on English Wikipedia so that I know when some person with some axe to grinf wants to delete stuff.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no reason to keep this image around locally when it is blocking an improved version of the same image on Commons, and there is likewise no reason for users to have to duplicate efforts to placate a few users who do not trust Wikimedia Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the original uploader, my reasonable requests should be honored. You do not run WIkipedia; you should remember that.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except when it blocks improvements in the same material. It is unreasonable for the community to have to duplicate its efforts in improving media to placate one user who doesn't believe in Wikimedia Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except when there is a wild administrator abuses his privileges by targeting particular users and has a strange fixation in favor of Commons, and continues to show why it is best for things not to be moved to commons.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. File on Commons has sufficient record of original history/uploader, including the original version of the image. F8 is good I guess. Reh man 02:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I asked this in another like discussion - if Wikipedia is not a personal web-hosting service or an image repository than what valid reason is there to allow an editor to upload their own work and than dictate it can never be deleted from here? In *some* cases material that is not free, and that would not be allowed at Wikimedia Commons because of non-free elements, than sure - there is a valid reason. But too many of the images I see where the owner has asked to retain a local copy are not unfree images. As this free image is now on Wikimedia Commons this should be deleted. Need a policy based reason? Start with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 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:2-bromo-1-chloropropane.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 Rifleman 82 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

slightly different appearance, but essentially a duplicate of File:2-bromo-1-chloropropane-2D-skeletal-formula.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 22 March 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:IMG 1099.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 top photo and retain older photo. I have also moved the file to Commons, and it is located at File:Mission Santa Barbara with cross in front.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo of carving. no way to tell if carving is PD but i'm guessing it is not. no date or artist's name. It looks like it is the same as the totem pole described here (created 1974, still copyrighted). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded underneath (totally different subject) should probably not be deleted, though I suppose it could have a more explicit statement about being own work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 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.

Derivative works of historical markers

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 - the text is, as would be text copied from a work printed on paper, copyrightable and there are no other arguments given that the images are PD. Derivative works with no non-free rationale. as for User:B's statement - while there may be no copyright statement shown the text itself may derive from another (copyrighted source), we just don't have current information to assert that it is public ___domain. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public ___domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that simple signs like File:Jonathan Jennings Marker.jpg are PD-ineligible because there is no creativity in the text. It is just a text with a few facts. Only signs with some "drawing" or some creative text should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I can go there with you. Someone had to write it, and I believe that even something pretty simple like that is likely copyrightable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, absent concrete evidence that something is definitely ineligible for copyright like in the case of the Best Western logo, we likely shouldn't be making decisions about whether this one is free and this one isn't, and need to assume they're non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these need to be examined more closely. File:Louisville City Hall M1.jpg, for instance, is dated 1981 and it doesn't have a copyright notice. --B (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]