Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 October 3



File:Joyce Ellen Scott Signature.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: Speedy deleted under F8, file at commons. kelapstick(bainuu) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Joyce Ellen Scott Signature.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Manually moved to Commons. MichaelEdmundScott (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2014 (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:Joyce Ellen Scott, Sculptural Ceramics, Work105.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 F11 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Joyce Ellen Scott, Sculptural Ceramics, Work105.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Manually uploaded to Commons. MichaelEdmundScott (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2014 (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:FourHeavenlyKingCantopop.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 ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:FourHeavenlyKingCantopop.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Benjwong ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I see no reason to include a fair use picture of the four of them together when it can be replaced by four pictures of them individually. If they are not known for performing together, there is no contextual significance of a picture of them together (NFCC#8). kelapstick(bainuu) 14:11, 3 October 2014 (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:Spam ad.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 ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Spam ad.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Kitkatcrazy ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2014 (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:RB Leipzig historical.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:RB Leipzig historical.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Wiggy! ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

See WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * transform - please transform this images in its three parts. I have had never seen the Red Bull brand logo as club logo. I mean without soccer ball and name of Leipzig. --Nikebrand (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFCC: the historical logos are not critically discussed. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (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:Dream Team Basketball 1992 Olympic Games Barcelona.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 ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Dream Team Basketball 1992 Olympic Games Barcelona.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Дмитрий Козлов ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2014 (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:Unsafe At Any Speed Final.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 ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Unsafe At Any Speed Final.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Murraymaynard ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: cover art in the article about the group. Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (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:SouthamptonAirportlogo.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:SouthamptonAirportlogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Mark999 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (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:Rosies of the North poster.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 Longer Orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Rosies of the North poster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bzuk ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally tagged as "di-orphaned fair use" by User:Stefan2. I think this was over-enthusiastic. This image combines an image and a title. The title alone would be "de minimus". The image looks like an original image from World War 2. As per PD-Canada that would put it in the public domain, making this not a fair use image but rather a public domain image, suitable for transfer to the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The file was orphaned and was marked as "fair use", so you should not be surprised if someone tags it as an orphaned fair use file.
 * The PD-Canada template tells if something is in the public domain in Canada. Wikipedia instead requires you to show whether it is in the public domain in the United States, without caring at all about the copyright status in Canada. There is currently insufficient source information about the image. For example:
 * There is no evidence that the image was created during the war.
 * There is no evidence that Canada is the country of first publication.
 * There is no evidence that the picture was published before it was used as the cover image of that product. The image can only be in the public domain in the United States if it was published without a copyright notice at some point before 1 March 1989 or without a copyright renewal at some point before 1 January 1964. If it was first published in 1999 when the film was published, then the image is unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you actually go to the NFB page for the film?
 * Are you really questioning whether images of images of female factory workers during world war 2, in a film about female factory workers during world war 2, were actually filmed during world war 2? Really?
 * Excuse me? Are you questioning whether the work of the National Film Board OF CANADA was published in Canada?  Please don't joke around.  Please only state serious arguments.
 * Again, I request you only state serious arguments. The NFB description of Rosies of the North says it combines footage from interviews of the participants, when they were senior citizens, with footage filmed during world war 2.  The World War 2 footage was from newsreels or "archival".  For our purposes I suggest that holding images or footage in private hands is "unpublished", while footage in public archives, available to members of the public to access, should be considered published.  Most likely that "archival" footage was footage that was published one way or another during the war.
 * I am going to pose this question on the village pump -- I suspect almost every commons contributor who uploads images from public archives that are in the public domain due to age, makes the same assumption I do. I suspect they assume that the image wasn't a recently un-earthed image, that had been held in private hands, and only recently donated to the archive.  I suggest that if you are arguing that we extend the precautionary principle to this image, and demand the uploader prove it wasn't a recently unearthed photo that had lain unpublished in private hands until recently you consider how many other photos are in the same boat?  I am going to guess that at least a million commons images are considered PD due to age.  It might be several millions.  If every commons contributor were to stop what they were doing, and were assigned a thousand images we now consider PD, due to age, were to devote themselves to PROVING those images had been published, the commons would grind to a halt for years.  I strongly suspect that if we tracked down the producers of the film we would find that all the footage was from films that were screened at some time during the war, and that none of it was b-roll footage.  I suspect once ww2 films were cut all the b-roll footage was recycled for the valuable silver on the filmstock.  I suspect the producers would laugh at us, or admonish us for wasting their time.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (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:Zeppi s Maltese Bajtra Liqueur.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 ⚡  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Zeppi s Maltese Bajtra Liqueur.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Glane23 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: this so-called "logo" is not critically discussed. Also fails WP:NFCC as it is not a logo for opuntia which doesn't have a logo in the first place. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The image had been used in the now merged article "Bajtra," and Stefan2 had tagged it as an orphan when that former article was merged into opuntia, the fruit of which is the source of bajtra. I moved the image to the opuntia article in response to the orphan tag. I think the image does well by illustrating bajtra, a liqueur made from prickly pear cactus fruit, helping the reader understand the appearance of one the products of the particular cactus. Thus, it meets WP:NFCC. With a bottle like this, the logo FUR is the only logical and reasonable choice when a free image would look like any pink liquid and such a bottle clearly identifies the content as the liqueur described in that section of the article. Geoff   Who, me? 23:15, 3 October 2014 (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.