Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10

File:Renault Sport F1 logo small.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 ⚡ 03:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file that essentially duplicates File:Renault Sport F1 Logo White Background.jpg. Also distorts the logo. Super Mario Man 01:29, 10 September 2012 (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 0057.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 ⚡ 03:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan photo seems to be personal photo. Delete per WP:NOTBLOG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:43, 10 September 2012 (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:Xbox Portable Illustration.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:hoax. This is a photoshopped Vita handheld. Microsoft hasn't released, nor announced any such device. Latest confirmation one doesn't exist is from June 2012. Uploaded by a user creating hoaxes and has been warned. « ₣M₣ » 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright violation since the original author isn't credited. It is easy to tell that the image is hoax. Just look at the upload history: the buttons move around between each revision. If the images are different photos of the same product, the buttons would still remain at the same place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (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:Joe Rosenthal.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 G7 by January (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A free photo of him exists. Since he was not primarily notable for his looks, a picture of him later in life will serve the same purpose as this one. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 10 September 2012 (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:Horiguchi Daigaku.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't very detailed, but he looks old on the photo, so it was probably taken at the end of his life. Photos taken before 1946 or published before 1957 are in the public ___domain in Japan and such files are also in the public ___domain in the United States if published without a copyright notice before 1989. Thus, it is possible to replace this photo by a public ___domain photo, for example by the Commons photo shadowed by this one. Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we don't need the later-in-life image under the fair-use criteria. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2012 (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:CPSM Ribbon.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

essentially equivalent to the Commons version of the image commons:File:CPSM Ribbon.png (off by 4 pixels so not eligible for WP:CSD#F8) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (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:Project1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt as well, excessively generic name -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2012 (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:Berna.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (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:Nachopopcorn wth dip.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 F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of two photos put together, one of popcorn and one of nachos no sources or licenses are listed for the original photos. No use of photo as is. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh The images are of items so generic that anyone could have taken tham and evidence of permission is probably not needed , but on the other hand this composite image is not used in any meaningful way and was created by a long-blocked sock account. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. Either you failed to observe that the uploader claims to be the source, or you failed to observe that we have no policy requiring us to assume that components of composite images are not created by the uploaders. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw that the uploader claims to be the source, but most copyvios the uploader claims to be the source and second, anytime there is composite images, each individual image has its own copyright and the derivative image can have its own as well. I err to the side of caution, and regardless, this is an absolutely useless image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you simply refuse to AGF regarding the uploader's claim to be the source? Do you have any reason to dispute that? Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with AGF. It has to do with the fact that the uploader may be claiming to be the source of the composite image (which they most likely are) without realizing or understanding that just because they are the source of the composite does not mean that they own the rights to the image if it is made up of two images that they do not own. Most uploaders do not even barely understand image copyright, heck many admins do not completely understand it. I don't. But what I do understand is that it is very easy for an uploader to say, Hey, what are you doing you crazy person, I own the rights to both photos and add something to that effect on the image description section so there is absolute transparency. And if that happens, I am not above apologizing and fixing my issues when I am wrong. You may think I am out to attack or that I am a deletionist, but I am not. Frankly I just want as much transparency as possible so that anyone can see and understand what is happening. You are right in that there is no hard fast policy stating that transparency with image sources is require, but there should be. If we require an image to have a source (or be deleted) we should require it to have an appropriate source, else anyone could (as many do) simply right PD-OWN or own work on copyvios and get away with it. I thank you for your discussion on this matter, and if there is something that I am actually missing or misunderstanding, I would appreciate you pointing it out to me. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are missing something. The uploader claimed (falsely, as I see from Stefan's comment) to be the source without specifying only that he created the composition. WP:AGF, as policy, says that we must trust claims like that, unless we have evidence to the contrary. It's not a way to get around copyvios, because all copyvio images will be deleted upon discovery regardless of whether the uploaders claim to be the sources; rather, it's a simple fact of Wikipedia that you alleged copyvio but failed to present any evidence thereof. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The right part is a copyright violation. See here (from 2008). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2012 (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:Call OKIE 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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying the fair use rationale used here. The organization represented by this logo is not the primary subject of the article it is used in, indeed it is way down at the bottom in the "other uses" section. I don't think that is an acceptable fair use of a logo, as the article does not "contain critical commentary about the brand" as indicated in the FUR language. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2012 (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:Joan Fuster.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 (see shadowed Commons file) and WP:NFCC#10a. Also, the fair use rationale doesn't seem to have all required components, so I'm not sure that it passes WP:NFCC#10c either. Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings created by Wikipedians aren't sufficient to qualify as replaceable, because otherwise we'd simply upload drawings of everyone and delete just about all of the nonfree images of dead people. No comment on anything else. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the illustration seems to be a notable artist in his own right (see es:Josep Pla-Narbona, translated), who is donating his works to Wikimedia Commons, confirmed via an OTRS ticket. I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand as a drawing by a Wikipedian. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 17 September 2012 (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.