Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

File:FBP 3 block diagram.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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Jpaulm (talk) 17:44, 3 June 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:FBP-Update.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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Jpaulm (talk) 17:44, 3 June 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:FBP representation of 3 function calls.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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Jpaulm (talk) 17:44, 3 June 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:FBP general interactive application.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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Jpaulm (talk) 17:44, 3 June 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:Daniel-Paillé-Infobox.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, replaced with commons:File:Daniel-Paillé-infobox.jpg and commons:File:Daniel Paillé.jpg. 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 3 June 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:Tropes vs woman.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: Not deleted. There is no consensus to delete and while many of the arguments for keeping it were not consistent with policy, Jayen466 did give a correct reason for keeping the image. Our rationale for using copyrighted logos is that the logo identifies the subject (oh, that Microsoft, not the other Microsoft). This section is essentially the "article" about the video game campaign and as such can have a logo. (This doesn't mean that it is required to have a logo, just that it can have one and be consistent with our policy, so there is no policy-based mandate for the image to be deleted.) --B (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use. The image contains multiple copyrighted images, with copyrights held by different companies, which are not discussed in the article. It does nothing to illustrate the topic, and is redundant to free images. File:Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games - text logo.png illustrates the Kickstarted project, and File:Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia Harassment.png illustrates the online harassment. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This again?. My arguments have not changed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has already been discussed. Our use is as fair as that of all the media organisations (with much better legal expertise than we could provide) who reproduced the image under the same fair use terms (examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). Andreas JN 466 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (e/c) WP:NFCCP tells us that Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. Let's take them one at a time:

1.No free equivalent Obviously this requirement is met.

2.Respect for commercial opportunities No commercial opportunities are eliminated by our use of the image.

3a. Minimal usage We are only using one item, so this criterion is met.

3b. Minimal extent of use Our version of the image is lo-res. This criterion is met.

4. Previous publication Obviously this requirement is met.

5. Content Obviously the image meets Wikipedia standards and is encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy This one is self-referentially what I am arguing is met here, see WP:IUP.

7. One-article minimum Obviously this requirement is met.

8. Contextual significance This image, especially its innocuous and colorful nature, by its very contrast with the tsunami of abusive retaliatory trolling that the project unleashed, enhances the reader's understanding of the vicious nature of the response to Sarkeesian's proposal by illustrating it in a way that I think words are not capable of doing.

9. Restrictions on location Obviously this requirement is met.

10. Image description page Obviously this requirement is met.

So use of this image is allowed under the relevant policy which, as the policy page notes, is "subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." That leaves us with the nominator's argument "The image contains multiple copyrighted images, with copyrights held by different companies, which are not discussed in the article." This is nonsense and is contrary not only to settled US copyright law but to widely accepted practice on Wikipedia. I suggest that the nominator give that argument a try on File:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg and see how well it works.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: Where in the article is this image discussed? That was part of the nominator's argument. -84user (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - An image does not have to be discussed in an article to satisfy the non-free content criteria. For example, logos and cover art such as book covers and record sleeves e.g. are routinely included in the articles on the relevant organisations, books and records, whether the logo or sleeve design is discussed in the article or not. In this case, the image is the identifying logo/title image for the Tropes vs Women Kickstarter campaign, which is discussed at length in the article. Andreas JN 466 07:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. It is also worth noting that there is a longstanding consensus that this is the best secondary image for the article - not necessarily an explicit consensus, but it's certainly been unchallenged for several months of consistent editing by several people Euchrid (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As there were no free alternatives on WP; now there are two. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is "no free alternatives"? It's certainly not a part of NFCCP. If you're talking about free equivalents, there aren't any.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:11, 3 June 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:FerdinandIsabellaSpain.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, but a local image description page exists. If you are wanting the image deleted, please nominate it for deletion on Commons. If you are requesting deletion of the local image description page only, use {{db-nofile}} if possible; if that is not possible, list it at WP:MFD. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher-resolution, but much uglier copy of File:Fernando_e_Isabel.jpg, with some additional information about the painting. Should probably be replaced everywhere by the low-resolution version. Cal Engime (talk) 05:18, 3 June 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:Sarpsborg Stadion.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unacceptable to use a non-free image of an extant stadium as Norway has Freedom of Panorama for buildings Sven Manguard Wha? 15:56, 3 June 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:The Womman Taken in Adultery.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) This one is all dark and blurry, so I replaced it in the article with a better one from Commons: File:Rembrandt Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery.jpg. The current file is tagged for transfer to Commons, but I think it can better be deleted. Jane (talk) 19:41, 3 June 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:Walt Disney World 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has the standard logo in the infobox, so this minor variation appears to violate fair-use policies of non-free content. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the other one appears to be the variant, and this one the proper one, atleast, as far as I can remember their logos being used. -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know which logo is correct, but the article only needs one logo. However, the image appears to violate WP:NFCC#3b. See for example Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format which tells that "Fair-use SVGs shouldn't include more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at their current resolution." However, this SVG seems to contain enough details to display it at a 2000×1141 pixels resolution which is a lot more than the 220×125 pixels resolution used in the article. I'm not sure how to reduce an SVG file as it would require rewriting the code quite a lot by removing SVG elements. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the requirement about SVG detail codified in a policy? That seems like an absurd requirement. For photos, using a web-resolution photo for "minimal use" makes sense. But it just isn't something that makes sense for SVGs. Quite the contrary, taking someone's official logo and changing it because we have a paranoia about vector images seems like more of an infringement than just using the image as is. We should be displaying the official logo, not a modification of the official logo with detail omitted. --B (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rule is WP:NFCC#3b: you shouldn't use more of a work than necessary for the article. Compare also with Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old: "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." In this case, the resolution doesn't depend on the number of pixels but on the number and shape of geometrical elements. I'm not sure what discussions those statements on the category pages were based on. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has something in the page changed since this IFD started? File:Walt Disney World logo.svg does not seem to be a "minor variation" of File:Walt Disney World Resort logo.svg at all. They both use the same "Walt Disney World" words, but that is where the similarities end. If the logo being used were the one actually discussed at length in the article ("The original logo had an over-sized "D" with a Mickey Mouse-shaped globe containing latitude and longitude lines, ..."), then I could see keeping it, but this seems like it's just a former logo that was moved down and probably should have been deleted once it was no longer needed. --B (talk) 13:21, 12 June 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:FinancialMarkovProcess.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, replaced by File:Financial Markov process.svg (with improvements as discussed on Talk:Continuous-time Markov chain) Gareth Jones (talk) 22:34, 3 June 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.