Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 9



File:ISpitOnYourGraveposter.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: remove from Exploitation film. — ξ xplicit  02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:ISpitOnYourGraveposter.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in I Spit on Your Grave and Exploitation film. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but only the usage in the stand-alone article about the film itself seems to satisfy WP:NFCC. There's no sourced discussion in the "Exploitation film" section which specifically discusses the poster itself, so the context required by WP:NFCC is lacking. The film itself is just one of several discussed in the section and its stand-alone article is wikilinked, so the non-free image can be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding of this particular genre. Suggest keep for the stand-alone article and remove from "Exploitation film" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 9 March 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:Richard Buhlig - CD cover.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 ⚡  04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Richard Buhlig - CD cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Logatorial ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Use in Richard Buhlig fails WP:NFCC. Though the photo of the subject may be part of this file, this image is of an album cover, and is thus inappropriate. Steel1943 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per NFCC#8 (WP:NFC). This discussion is similar to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 11 and the result for that discussion was delete. Since Buhlig died in 1952, a different non-free image of him could probably be used per No. 10 of WP:NFCI. Maybe something like this, this or this would be acceptable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 11 March 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:Abba LA.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 ⚡  04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Abba LA.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Simaalusmani ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused portrait, no clear ID given Deadstar (talk) 10:32, 9 March 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:Makroudh.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 ⚡  04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Makroudh.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JD554 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, low quality. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 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:Sunny Leone Chidiya Ghar.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 F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Sunny Leone Chidiya Ghar.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by TrendSPLEND ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Rationale for use in the cited article seems insufficient. No reason given why this image is not replaceable by free media or text. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:59, 9 March 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:Bajrangi Bhaijaan trailer launch.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 ⚡  23:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Bajrangi Bhaijaan trailer launch.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by TrendSPLEND ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Replaceable by text. Not sure why we need a copyrighted image to show that the actors in a film did an event to promote that film. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:01, 9 March 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:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.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. — ξ xplicit  02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Calibrador ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Since this is an encyclopedia that tries to utilize free content over non-free content whenever possible, I think that this file fails WP:NFCC since File:Cruz 2k16 text.png exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure why Cruz' campaign logo is being singled out as copyrighted when others which I'd argue are just as complex don't meet the threshold of originality. See File:Huckabee Plain.png, File:Marcorubio.svg, File:Kasich 2016.png. And even in cases where this is not the case (e.g. File:Obama Biden logo.svg is copyrighted) consensus seems to be that such non-free logos are appropriate for illustrating political campaigns; File:Cruz 2k16 text.png isn't a viable alternative as you just can't cut off half of the image and claim it's the whole. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  13:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you believe this nominated file qualifies to be tagged free under PD-logo? Steel1943  (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably, as I see no reason why Rubio and Kasich's logos don't meet the threshold of originality yet somehow Cruz' does, as I'd argue they're around the same level of complexity. And even if the images were copyrighted, precedent exists that such logos are still completely fine (see the Obama/Biden example I gave) and there's no violation of NFCC as a modified logo is not the same as the original. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  00:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion still stands about the WP:NFCC issue if this is non-free, but would you be okay if I ping a few FFD regulars I know who may have a better ability than myself to make a judgement call if this image qualifies for PD-logo? Steel1943  (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that'll be great, thanks. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  00:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs to be kept.  There is no problem with it.--ML (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is ... I claim that this file fails WP:NFCC, and your comment does not address the concern at all. How does this file not fail WP:NFCC? Steel1943  (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the OP, but I'd say that there's no NFCC violation as the file you suggested, File:Cruz 2k16 text.png, is not a viable alternative. You can't cut off part of a image and claim it's the whole. So, if we were to use your suggested image, the image caption would have to read something along the lines of "a modified version of Ted Cruz' campaign logo with the image partially cropped" to avoid being disingenuous and misleading; in which case it's far easier to just use the current version. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  00:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per my discussion with Satellizer above, in your opinion, does it look as though this image would qualify for PD-logo? (I'm 50/50 in my opinion if it does; I mean, the logo seems to be geometric shapes only, but they are arranged in a fashion that may be unique enough to surpass the threshold of originality.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be PD-textlogo, but you may want to ask for extra input on the copyright forum on Commons. As for NFCC#1 (i.e assuming it's non-free), I dunno if a wordmark would be considered as a suitable replacement for the logo proper in terms of identification.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a good chance that this is not PD-logo. WMF Legal recently concluded there is a risk that this logo is above the threshold of originality and took it down (c:Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices). They only restored it as PD-logo because the DMCA takedown request that challenged it was withdrawn. The law and court rulings on this area are inconclusive, but the threshold – which is already taken to be low – may be significantly lower than is generally thought. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Satellizer. Wordmarks aren't substitutes for logos, and the simple shapes making up Cruz's flame fall below the threshold. MB298 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you believe that this file qualifies for PD-logo? Steel1943  (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the discussion I've started at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. MB298 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the first half of MB298's comment. I disagree with the idea that this is PD-simple, but that's not relevant to keeping: if it is, we can keep it of course, and if it isn't, it's irreplaceable because visual logos can't be replaced by mere words for the purposes of visual identification.  Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 14 March 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.