Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5

File:CoronadoCA2007.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad quality photo. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2011 (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:Newton with the Box.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot for TV episode infobox. Random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not required for understanding the article, as so often. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Illustrates the episode and the main subject of the episode. Depicts the box showing the relative size, structure and look, which can't be fully explained in the prose. Also allows for a visual reference for Newton who is a central figure in the episode. Therefor passes fair use requirements. Most articles on television episodes use similar non-free images to help illustrate the individual episodes for clarification. Plus the use of this screenshot in no way hinders the creators from advertising or selling their product.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The look of the box could easily be described in prose, if it was important for understanding the plot (which it isn't, which is why you never apparently felt a need to talk about it in the article.) The fact that other articles make the same mistake violating our WP:NFC rules is of no importance. Such images get cleaned up to the extent people find time to tackle them. They get routinely deleted here at FFD, by the dozens, unless they have a much better justification than this one. There are hundreds of precedents for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the character's appearance would be fairly easy to understand. He is played by Sebastian Roché, so he will probably look like Sebastian Roché. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but as he currently has no picture on his Wikipedia page readers would be forced to seek out an image navigating a way from WP. As he is a central figure in the episode it is also helpful to have him in the shot--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To prattle on about the boxes shape and size would be intrusive to the proses. Add that to the fact that the description would be in some instances complete estimation or perhaps unreliable comparison. I would describe it as similar to a trumpet case but how much does that do for the reader? I could estimate the size as 24x10x6 inches then add the templates to display the numbers as metric but that's probably not right for starters and if you don't commonly work with measurements is that really helpful? I can either disrupt the proses with these descriptions that won't help the reader or I can show them exactly what it is. The episode is called The Box I think some sort of image should be included to aid in the understanding of what that is.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:52, 7 February 2011 (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:Espanola Logo 2010.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 Danger (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of Arizona State University Sun Devils logo, see Arizona State University Official Athletic Site. Also, no evidence given that this is in fact a logo of Espanola Valley High School, as would be required to justify its use under fair use. 75.211.15.206 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school uses the same exact "Sun Devil Logo" of that from ASU, they have since the school opened, so if that is the reason why it is going to be deleted that seems outrageous. SteveoJ (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does seem to be the logo used by Española Valley High School; see [1]. —Bkell (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The high school uses what appears to be a copy of the Sun Devil logo on a fiery background; the present file is a different design that does include the Sun Devil, omits the fiery background, and adds some text. The present file, although incorporating some elements of the school logo, is not the school logo and should not qualify under fair use. Further, the present file is still a derivative work and copyright would be owned at least in part by ASU, regardless of whether the high school uses ASU's logo. --75.211.15.206 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school does not use the fiery sun devil logo, that website is made by EPS they copied the sundevil logo off the internet, ASU uses the fiery sun devil as well. This is the proper logo used on school letterheads and memos that I have obtained from the school, thanks. SteveoJ (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to the Arizona State University Office of Public Affairs asking for clarification. I will report back if I receive a reply. —Bkell (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received the following response from Fernando Morales at Arizona State University:

Thank you.

This high school is currently infringing on ASU trademarks. We will contact it again to see if it is still interested in using the marks under agreement or will drop use of ASU's federally registered trademark. We will make the initial inquiries of this follow-up, through our licensing agent, LRG.

We cannot give permission at this time as this high school should have dropped the mark or signed an agreement to allow it to use ASU trademarks.

It appears, then, that the high school does not currently have permission to use the Sun Devil logo. We should not support this trademark infringement by including this logo here. —Bkell (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see proof of the e-mail and the adresses it was sent to. SteveoJ (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will forward the e-mail to the OTRS address "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", and then you can ask any of the OTRS volunteers to verify the contents of the e-mail. I will not post e-mail addresses or the full contents of the e-mail here because of privacy concerns. —Bkell (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is currently the HS's logo, so we keep it for now. Let ASU and the HS fight it out as needed, either way we are fine on fair use and our general rules of having HS logos. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.) Since the use of the logo by the high school seems to be a trademark infringement, I'm not sure we would be "fine" if we used it in the high school's article. We would probably be okay under "fair use" as far as copyright law goes, but trademark law is something else. Having the logo in the high school's article might be construed as using the trademark "in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the [trademark] registration covers" (quote from the trademark infringement article), since Arizona State University and the high school are both educational institutions. If our use of the logo could be construed to suggest that the high school is associated with ASU, that is potentially problematic. —Bkell (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently fails WP:NFCC#8, as it is currently being used decoratively, hanging out without a caption in a section about the school's principals. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Policy is not clear here, but in view of:
- the dodgy nature of the image, which is infringing ASU's trademark, and may be a student creation and not be the real logo (it's not used on the school web site);
- policy is still that each use of non-free content must be justified if challenged, and that justification has not been provided (it's traditional to include school logos, but that should not be taken for granted);
- the uploader SteveoJ (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and so cannot clarify the status here;

I recommend that we be cautious and delete the image. --75.211.39.254 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2011 (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:Heel Nederland English.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 14:41, 5 February 2011 (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:Crysis MotionBlur.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of a non-free computer game, used only in the Computer graphics section of the Graphics article. The caption there reads, "A screenshot from the 2007 video game Crysis displaying extremely photo-realistic real-time computer graphics". This screenshot is not otherwise discussed; neither is Crysis. No explanation is given in the fair-use rationale for why this image is not replaceable by a free image (see WP:NFCC#1). —Bkell (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (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:Butyl nitrite.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned chem image. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 5 February 2011 (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:Isopropyl nitrite.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Isopropyl nitrite structure.svg. Kelly ^hi! 20:39, 5 February 2011 (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:World post soviet.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map. Kelly ^hi! 20:52, 5 February 2011 (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:Motorcycle engine configs.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned diagram. Kelly ^hi! 20:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for WP:CSD#F8 as it's now on Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2011 (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:COPS template.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 ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been replaced by File:COPS template.svg, which has been moved to commons. Usage has been replaced (even though it doesn't currently show it on the image page, give WP some time to catch up). SVGs can automatically export PNG images, so we don't need this file, and I see no reason to move it to commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:53, 5 February 2011 (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:Crazy-taxi-cabinet.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. It would seem that due to the artwork on the outside of the cabinet, we would end up having to tag a new photo as non-free anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is replaceable with a free photo. Someone just needs to take a photo of the arcade machine. Emptyviewers (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an older arcade game, and thus taking a free replacement cannot be assured. Also because of the art on the cabinet, even if the photo can be taken for free, it may be the case that image would be a reproduction of the copyrighted cabinet article, making it non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then a different photo from Crazy Taxi (series) has to be deleted because there are 7 non-free images on that page, and thats way too much. Emptyviewers (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "too much non-free". Yes, when we use many, they will be questioned, that's fine. But we don't delete just because there's "too much". --MASEM (t) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and that goes for all of the images in that article. I agree that a topic can have too many non-free images (although that is always a judgement call), but if you look through that article each image is illustrating a specific topic. The images describe diverse information such as patents, mechanics, merchandise, etc. Each image has sufficient context, and the images are heavily captioned. The article was already well-vetted and is now a featured article, and I think the images are certainly a part of the reason it reached FA status in the first place. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ( Just as a note: the patent images are actually free: in the US, unless you specify it, patents are considered public domain). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaceable by a photo of the cabinet in an arcade. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the cabinet is 12 years old, so unlikely one can be found, let alone one in good shape. Weak because while I don't think this is replaceable, I'm not sure we need it. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (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:Wikilogo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned; text logo - no source article or other encyc use = also, misleading file name Skier Dude (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has now popped up at Commons and warrants Deletion there too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2011 (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.