Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 9



File:LBT (Local Body Tax).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 AnomieBOT ⚡  19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:LBT (Local Body Tax).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Adarshmadrecha ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic. Its not a logo of any organization, not some kinda seal or stamp. Its just something which a blog is using. Although non-copyrighted, its what we call useless and hence should be deleted. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep Comment The image is indeed encyclopedic because it is in established use in an encyclopedia article Local Body Tax. No valid reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We cant just write "D R A M A" in a fancy way, paint it and upload it here and stick it on Drama article. That makes no sense. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dharmadhyaksha's saying that it shouldn't be in use in that article or elsewhere.  The statement by the uploader proves that this is correct: it's a blog thing originally from a wiki.  It's not an official logo whatsoever!  There's nothing out-and-out wrong with this image, but as a user-created image, it's not appropriate for use in any article, and it's not within the project scope over at Commons either.  Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the way to find out whether an image is inappropriate for an article? Best practice is to edit Local Body Tax to remove the image (or discuss at Talk:Local Body Tax). If this meets with consensus then there would at least be some sort of basis for deletion. A misleading image would indeed be a problem but self-created images may (or may not!) be highly encyclopedic. PS: I have just found this image on Commons, uploaded by the same person so there is something worth looking into. Again, FFD is not a good venue. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is on the web here on a page claiming copyright and "all rights reserved". Although the name of the person claiming copyright is the same as the name of the uploader, some sort of release may well be needed to avoid deletion. I am striking my "keep" to change it to a comment and I have removed the image from the article because it may be inappropriate advertising. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Raja Arjun Singh Tomar.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Raja Arjun Singh Tomar.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic 117.197.125.220 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The picture is actually of the Duke of Dundonald and not an indian raja, hence it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.125.220 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I, the original uploader of the image acknowledge its mistaken identity. I second its deletion. Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted as G7 because the uploader agreed with deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Scouting ranks (Scout Association of Japan).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. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Scouting ranks (Scout Association of Japan).png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by V4711 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't know why someone tagged the image with db-f3 as it doesn't have any of the specified copyright statuses to which F3 applies. However, the image is a gallery encoded as a single image (see WP:MONTAGE) and therefore violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The images of the rank patches are significant enough to the issue of the ranks themselves that they should all be used: the insignia are significant for the ranks themselves, not simply trivia.  Look at military ranks and military insignia, which are covered together in Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers, United States Army officer rank insignia, and many related articles.  In the same way, Scouting insignia and ranks are closely related, so they should all be covered together in the same article, and how could we properly cover the insignia without including images of them?  Consequently, we either must use a group image like this or individual images for each patch: either one is equally appropriate, and apparently the past editors of this page have thought that a group image will be better for the page's layout.  Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say — with nonfree montages, the problem is generally that we don't need all the images in question: in most cases, we can replace some or all with free content and/or we can have a decent article with one or more removed. With this one, as I noted above, we really do need to include all of the nonfree images, because they're not replaceable with free content and because their removal would significantly detract from the article.  The components of a collages or montage, as well as the collage or montage itself, must be properly licensed; and (as with galleries) fair-use components are rarely appropriate, as each non-free image used in the creation of the montage contributes towards consideration of minimal use of non-free images. If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences This is one of those rare situations in which it is appropriate, and because of the way in which this image is being used, a gallery would not serve as well as a collage or montage.  Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC, the article can't contain all of those insignia, whether stored as one image or as several images. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. All such images are essential, just as all rank images are essential in the military articles; this is not a case in which one item can convey equivalent significant information.  The only way that one image can suffice is if we merge the items into one image such as here, because a significant part of our coverage of the topic is the coverage of the insignia themselves.  Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:NFLISTS tells that you can't include images of all items listed in a list article such as this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, and thank you Nyttend for understanding their necessity. By the way, I was not notified of this FFD, only the one below.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note There's a parallel discussion at Non-free content review -- Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I have closed the above discussion, as there should only be one centralized discussion. I chose to leave this one open, since the discussion has been about deletion at this point and would therefore be better placed on WP:FFD. My closure in no way gives an opinion on the file nor should the closure reflect the outcome of this discussion. I highly encourage that the closing administrator would be wise to read the other discussion (which eventually will be archived). -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Fuji Venture Scout (Scout Association of Japan).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. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Fuji Venture Scout (Scout Association of Japan).png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free gallery, see WP:MONTAGE and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because the situation is identical to that of File:Scouting ranks (Scout Association of Japan).png, higher up on this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, and thank you again Nyttend for understanding their necessity.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.