Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 28



File:Bottlewisdom.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: Reluctant DElete. Her archived website (http://users.lmi.net/sonyarap/kkabul/credits.html) has a clear copyright statement so it is likely other work also does. We don't have enough to know that she agreed to release this into the public domain. A permissions email is needed from the director of the Sonya Rapoport Legacy Trust, who seems to be the copyright holder of her work. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Bottlewisdom.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Saudade7 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Used as the illustration of a work by Sonya Rapoport, as such, how can it be released here as their own work if the user is not Sonya? Tiggerjay (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article on Sonya Rapoport with a friend because we had met her and she is a pretty important artist who did not have a page. I knew her in real life and she helped me with information and sources as well as images. This image was uploaded by me sitting with Sonya at her own computer. I think she was 89 years old at the time and couldn't figure out how to upload it herself / found the way to add images on the wikipedia too complicated.  S a u d a d e 7  10:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting however you need to see WP:CONSENT so that express consent for use on Wikipedia is provided. When her content is uploaded here, it is not simply enough for her to give permission for it's use on Wikipedia, but she is making a much broader release of her work and copyright, and such make an irrevocable release for it to be used on Wikipedia as well as any other website or by any other person. Since you are not the holder of copyright for this work, you cannot make this assertion on her behalf. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2016 (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:IPFW Wordmark.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 ⚡  07:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:IPFW Wordmark.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bsuorangecrush ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned PD image; File:IPFW wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 04:38, 28 January 2016 (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:Logo of WeMarket, online B2B marketplace, Jan 2016.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: convert to PD-logo. Even in countries with an extremely low threshold of originality, this logo will likely not meet it. — ξ xplicit  05:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Logo of WeMarket, online B2B marketplace, Jan 2016.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by UnumĒdere ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This looks like another logo where PD-textlogo would be an appropriate marker. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The company's website says "© 2016 WeMarket BV" so is this a logo of Dutch or Belgian origin? I agree that it is not copyrightable in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2016 (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.

Charlotte DiLaurentis

 * 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 infobox image, delete the rest. — ξ xplicit  05:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Charlotte Black Hoodie from Pretty Little Liars.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Scream4man ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:PrettyLittleLiarsCapeMay.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Miss X-Factor ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:CeCeDrakeRedCoat.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Miss X-Factor ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:CeCe Drake from Pretty Little Liars in 5x13.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Scream4man ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Violation of WP:NFCC. The article contains four non-free images of the character, but we only need one. Thus, delete three of the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2016 (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:Channel Ten logo 2013.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 in Network Ten and Ten Network Holdings, remove all other instances. 05:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Channel Ten logo 2013.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Abesty ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFC §17, except in Network Ten. Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Case One: Network Ten and Ten Network Holdings (parent organisation) use the same logo, there is no lack of branding for these two cases, simply identical branding (can be seen here under logos used for TNH meetings and events and on a TNH annual report. I believe that Case One follows WP:NFC#UUI §17 for this reason.
 * Case Two: Metropolitan TV stations have a similar case concerning logo usage (file usage is shared by metropolitan Seven Network and Nine Network stations). This case may be slightly more complex.
 * – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The TV stations appear to be subentities of Network Ten. If they do not use their own logos, which are different from the logo of Network Ten, then the articles about the TV stations shouldn't contain any logos, see WP:NFC §17. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not object to removing the logo from TV station articles, but I believe that it should be kept on the TNH article. (P.S. The similar TV station logo usage for Nine and Seven would have to be reverted too, correct, even though the Nine stations have had it for a long time?). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One could argue whether the 'parent' is Network Ten or Ten Network Holdings, and one could argue where it is most likely that people will look for the image, so for the lack of clarity, the image could in my opinion stay in both of those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a viable solution. I think we have solved this issue: Network Ten and Ten Network Holdings shall both keep the logo, while the individual TV stations will have the logo removed (the same will have to be done for Seven and Nine Network TV stations too, correct?).– Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I have removed the main network logos of Network Ten, Nine Network and Seven Network from their respective TV station articles. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 06:36, 31 January 2016 (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:Recife.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Recife.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by MigraineBigBoy ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan picture of low quality. No description provided. Presumably a picture of Recife, but plenty of quality pictures exist of this city already. LukeSurlt c 17:46, 28 January 2016 (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.