Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25

NSYNC single covers

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: relisted on 2020 October 17. (non-admin closure) St3095 ^(?) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iwantyoubacknsyncgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tearinupmyheartgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Itsgonnabemelimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Iwantyoubacknsync.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tearinupmyheart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Hyundai A-League logo (2004–2017).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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The logo is actually discussed in the relevant section and that commentary is supported by citations; so, the claim made in the nomination statement is not entirely true. It might be argued that there's not enough sourced critical commentary or that coverage is too trivial, but that's not the same as claiming there's no sourced critical commentary at all (which the nomination seems to be doing). The problem might more of one dealing with perception than actual use because content about the logo and trophies are combined together which means that the two Commons files for the trophies also added to that section make it seem that there are too many images. That, however, is more of a formatting issue than a non-free issue and there are probably ways to resolve that don't resolve deleting images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marchjuly. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:46, 25 August 2020 (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:Canadiens100Anniversary.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO, and convert to {{PD-logo}}. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a stronger consensus before this can be closed as "Keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:47, 25 August 2020 (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:Minnesota Wild Alternate.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. Izno (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stronger consensus needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:48, 25 August 2020 (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:5th Anniversary.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: keep. Izno (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This logo does seem to be used for primary identification purposes in 2007 Las Vegas Gladiators season. It was the team's 5th anniversary season and logos for specific season are often allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If this was simply randomly added somewhere in Cleveland Gladiators, then perhaps being a former logo would be a problem per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:48, 25 August 2020 (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:BBC Two Paint ident.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: relisted on 2020 October 3. Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.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: keep. Izno (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This logo does seem to be used for primary identification purposes in 2010 Minnesota Vikings season. It was the team's 50th anniversary season and logos for specific season are often allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If this was simply randomly added somewhere in Minnesota Vikings, then perhaps being a former logo would be a problem per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So you can't have all the non-free logos a team has had on its page, however, if you create a page for every season the team has played, you can? That's so strange.Jonteemil (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Common practice per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI is that a season specific logo for a re-occurring event may be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about individual seasons or occurrences of the event. So, an event that is held annually like a major awards show or annual sporting event might have a primary logo that it uses all the time, but it might also have year/occurrence specific logos that it uses for each individual occurrence. If that seems strange in principle then you should probably ask about it at WT:NFCC since that's the relevant policy page. If you think the principle is fine, but just the application of it to this particular non-free use is a problem, then that's something to discuss here. FWIW, item 14 of NFC#UUI doesn't mean it's simply OK to keep repeating the use of the same logo file in all individual seasons where it might have been used; it's generally limited to specific seasons (like anniversary seasons or seasons where the logo was used for the first time by the team). Ideally, there should be some discussion of the team's special logo or the team's change of branding in that particular season's article, but often the same reasoning applied to cover art given WP:NFC#cite_note-3 regarding being used for primary identification purposes is also applied correspondingly to this type of non-free use. That is what is meant (in my opinion) by the first sentence of NFC#cite_note-4. In other words, NFCC#8 tends to be a little less vigorously applied when the non-free use is for primary identification purposes at the top or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (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:MontrealCanadiens1918.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stronger consensus needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (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.