Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 12

< April 11	April 13 >

April 12

File:Doggy Day School cast.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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of characters in a cartoon series used in the character section. The infobox already contains a poster (File:Doggy Day School poster.jpg) which includes images of the characters. This usage fails WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2018 (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:Bristol Broadcasting 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a bitmap image within an SVG wrapper. commons:File:Bbclogogr.gif is the same file but with the proper file format. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to GIF file. Salavat (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2018 (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:Harding Racing 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: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the threshold of originality tag. I think that this is a copyrightable logo. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is copyrightable, it should at the very least fall under fair use. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. As far as I'm concerned, it's public domain. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2018 (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:NHS Blood and Transplant.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced in use by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2018 (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:Sanders Sides Season 2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see what the community thinks of the validity of these images, and I will comply with anything they decide. I, as the original uploader, think their use was valid, because it served as support for the description of the characters that are depicted in the images and helped understand casual readers the topic much better than with text alone, which I think is a valid purpose to claim fair use respecting NFCC rules. I took care of lowing down the resolution as much as I could without ruining that purpose, and I also tried to use the lowest possible amount of screenshots to comply with the minimal use rule. But, then again, I could be wrong, so I will abide by whatever is decided here. Just bear in mind the images were just removed from the article Thomas Sanders (entertainer) and they could be deleted since they are currently not present in any articles. Manbemel (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actor-in-role nonfree images are generally not allowed in actor biographies, and in the rare circumstances where they are allowed, reliably sourced critical commentary regarding the actor's appearance in the image is required (but not sufficient). I don't think nonfree montages like this have been allowed in any other bio articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Section has just been split to its own article (before I read this), so if the problem is that the image cannot be present in a BLP, could the use be valid in the separate article? --Manbemel (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have asked for a speedy deletion of the files, so the AfD can be closed.--Manbemel (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2018 (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:Sanders Shorts Counterparts.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see what the community thinks of the validity of these images, and I will comply with anything they decide. I, as the original uploader, think their use was valid, because it served as support for the description of the characters that are depicted in the images and helped understand casual readers the topic much better than with text alone, which I think is a valid purpose to claim fair use respecting NFCC rules. I took care of lowing down the resolution as much as I could without ruining that purpose, and I also tried to use the lowest possible amount of screenshots to comply with the minimal use rule. But, then again, I could be wrong, so I will abide by whatever is decided here. Just bear in mind the images were just removed from the article Thomas Sanders (entertainer) and they could be deleted since they are currently not present in any articles. Manbemel (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actor-in-role nonfree images are generally not allowed in actor biographies, and in the rare circumstances where they are allowed, reliably sourced critical commentary regarding the actor's appearance in the image is required (but not sufficient). I don't think nonfree montages like this have been allowed in any other bio articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Section has just been split to its own article (before I read this), so if the problem is that the image cannot be present in a BLP, could the use be valid in the separate article? --Manbemel (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have asked for a speedy deletion of the files, so the AfD can be closed.--Manbemel (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2018 (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.