Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

File:Internet Explorer Mobile 9.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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn in absence of any opposition (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed use: The Microsoft portion of this screenshot is {{PD-ineligible}}; however, this screenshot shows a Wikipedia page with four unattributed images. Most Wikipedia free images need attribution. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The obvious solution is to fix it by attributing the images, and that's assuming that their inclusion isn't de minimis. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Half the images are so small they are not recognizable, this makes them de minimis and unattributable; the remaining ones have been attributed. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 15:03, 26 February 2013 (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:Internet Explorer Mobile 7 Tabs.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3 violation: The Microsoft portion of this screenshot is {{PD-ineligible}}; however, this screenshot shows four non-free images that do not belong to Microsoft (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo! and a Bing image). WP:NFCC#3 does not allow this. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, composition of non-free images. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the Microsoft portion is ineligible for copyright, and I think that a variant which shows only freely licensed websites (such as Wikipedia) would be OK if the attribution requirement is satisfied for every website shown on the screenshot. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2013 (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:Internet Explorer Mobile 7.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. WP images are incidental per de minimis. Chick Bowen 20:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed use: The Microsoft portion of this screenshot is {{PD-ineligible}} (unless you want to dispute that too); however, this screenshot shows a Wikipedia page with four unattributed images. Most Wikipedia free images need attribution. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, images are de minimis and as correctly indicated, the Microsoft portion is ineligible. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if the star to the left really is {{PD-ineligible}}. The star is not de minimis since the purpose of the image is to show what MSIE looks like. Not sure about the images. They might be de minimis, but it would be much safer to simply add attribution to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked around. The star is {{PD-shape}}. So, yes, PD-ineligible applies to it as well. In addition, I vaguely remember in Commons, someone pulled up a U.S. Copyright Office verdict on some logo containing a crown. It was deemed ineligible. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2013 (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:Internet Explorer Mobile 6.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image: This image chiefly shows a screenshot of MSN but does not meet WP:NFCC#8 mandate. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, image is in a non-free gallery, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (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:Pocket Internet Explorer 4.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image: WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 do not approve of decorative non-free images – unless there is a consensus that this image is actually {{PD-simple}}. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text is clearly not {{PD-simple}}. Some of the icons are also likely copyrightable, so I don't think that it would be an option to replace the screenshot with a screenshot of a different website. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2013 (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:WinCE 3.0 Internet Explorer.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free decorative image: This image is in violation of WP:NFCC#8; it is tagged as non-free but has no contextual significance, although I do not know whether it qualifies for {{PD-simple}}. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet the NFCC8 requirements. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suspect that some of the icons (at least the earth with the magnifying glass and likely the house) are copyrightable. I don't think that they would qualify for Commons:COM:DM as the entire purpose of the image is to show what Internet Explorer looks like. There is some unattributed Wikipedia text, although I suppose that this could be repaired by simply telling where the text comes from. If unfree, it needs to be deleted per WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2013 (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:ABP Food Group Logog 2013.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. Chick Bowen 20:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not PD-simple, is a copyvio from http://www.abpfoodgroup.com/ and has been deleted from Commons as such. Nor is it an appropriate non-free use as it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, so it fails WP:NFCC criterion #8. ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, it couldn't be a more obvious case of PD-simple. I have changed the license to "PD-ineligible-USonly" to avoid any issue with the fact the company is based in Ireland and Ireland may have a low threashold for (c) on logos like in the UK. (that's why it was deleted from Commons, under the precautionary principle, which has a stricter copyright policy). But it is perfectly fine under "PD-ineligible-USonly" on Wikipedia.

It is appropriate for non-free use. It illustrates the article in question. Which is about the contamination of burgers. The burgers were produced in meat factories owned by these companies. The company logo is the "face" of the company. Including the logo does significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic by not only by showing the face of the company but also ~~conveying the value of~~ by being the embodiment of the intangible "goodwill" (or its opposite) the company has (or had).

As the Non-free logo template says "logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law."

If it makes it easier we can delete the non-free license part and keep it solely under "PD-ineligible-USonly" Sun Ladder (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is copyrightable in the United States or not. However, it is currently only used in a gallery together with a different logo which is clearly copyrightable, and it would look strange to only have one logo in that gallery. Thus, delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Sun Ladder, definitely {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} so therefore the WP:NFCC is not relevant. As for Stefan2's point thats a content issue and should be taken up at the article and not through deletion. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 00:11, 15 February 2013 (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:Liffey Meats Logo 2013.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not PD-simple, is a copyvio from http://www.liffeymeats.ie and has been deleted from Commons as such. Nor is it an appropriate non-free use as it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, so it fails WP:NFCC criterion #8. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Companies love to sue over perceived misrepresentations of their logo like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, it couldn't be a more obvious case of PD-simple. I have changed the license to "PD-ineligible-USonly" to avoid any issue with the fact the company is based in Ireland and Ireland may have a low threashold for (c) on logos like in the UK. (that's why it was deleted from Commons, under the precautionary principle, which has a stricter copyright policy). But it is perfectly fine under "PD-ineligible-USonly" on Wikipedia.

It is appropriate for non-free use. It illustrates the article in question. Which is about the contamination of burgers. The burgers were produced in meat factories owned by these companies. The company logo is the "face" of the company. Including the logo does significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic by not only by showing the face of the company but also ~~conveying the value of~~ by being the embodiment of the intangible "goodwill" (or its opposite) the company has (or had).

As the Non-free logo template says "logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law."

If it makes it easier we can delete the non-free license part and keep it solely under "PD-ineligible-USonly" Sun Ladder (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more complex than a man with a briefcase, so {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is no option. The current use of the image fails WP:NFCC#8, so fair use is no option either. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2013 (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:LIME Logo.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded in use by File:LIME logo.png. Cloudbound (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2013 (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:Taylor swift-eyes open s.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fake cover and false fair use claim the song was never released digitally by itself or on a CD single and makes a false claim of being from a personal collection which is not physically possible. The image needs to be deleted immediately. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image was removed from the article before discussion occurred. I have restored it so it doesn't get deleted as orphaned fair use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2013 (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.