Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 12



File:Australian Federal Police.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 Australian Federal Police, remove all other instances. As the agency was formed in 1979, it is impossible for this logo to fall under a public domain license based on age. — ξ xplicit  04:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Australian Federal Police.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Bidgee ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used in Australian Federal Police, ACT Policing, Operational Response Group, and Specialist Response and Security. The first qustion is whether this needs to be non-free or can it be converted to PD-Australia or PD-AustraliaGov. If it can, then what any non-free usage concerns are a moot point. If it cannot, then even though the file has a non-free use rationale for each use, only the non-free use in "Australian Federal Police Force" seems to comply with WP:NFCC. So suggest keep for "Australian Federal Police" if the logo needs to be treated as non-free.

Each of the other three organizations appear to be sub-entities of the AFP. "Specialist Response and Security" and "Operational Response Group" seem to have been special groups within the AFP and, therefore, using the logo of their parent entity the AFP is not really allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC; specific logos (if such exist), however, may be used to identify each group in its respective article. Suggest remove from these two articles. "ACT Policing" is listed as a "portfolio" of the AFP, but it's not clear what that means. According to the organization's official website, "it is "the community policing arm of the Australian Federal Police (AFP)". This means the logo should not be being used in this article as well for the same reason given above, even if it does not have its own unique logo. So, also suggest remove for "ACT Policing". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 12 September 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:Jasimuddin.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 ⚡  08:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Jasimuddin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Armanaziz ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCCP. There are free images available for this person. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 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:Mini sonic chao heroes.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 czar  04:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Mini sonic chao heroes.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mechaknux ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Almost identical image was with the FFD rationale "Derivative of non-free/unlicensed content ("Spriter's Resource sprites were used here")" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 12 September 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:Harland Sanders.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 ⚡  11:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Harland Sanders.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by SonPraises ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There is free image about the the character ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Deletion was previously contested by on the talk page.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete  as replaceable with a free image. This free image has Sanders in his usual white suit and string tie so it includes all of the elements associated with his iconic look.  --Whpq (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , did you get these pings? If you have a special defense of the image, now would be the time to present it. (Otherwise the WP:NFCC is clear about replaceable fair use...) czar  04:44, 19 September 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:2012 BWF logo.svg

 * 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 ⚡ 06:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:2012 BWF logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Aleenf1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Near identical duplicate is on Commons, but it's not an exact match. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Copyrighted material allow to upload in Commons? --Aleen f 1 13:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The logo here may be below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The logo is definitely below TOO and the Commons version is fine. Is there any specific reason why we need to have a local copy of this file? If not, I'll go ahead and tag this one as F8 and we'll just use the Commons one. --Majora (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Are we absolutely sure that the Commons file is free in its source country?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 12 September 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:EdwardBall.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 - lack of evidence of copyight holder Nthep (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:EdwardBall.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mgreason ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Description page at Florida Memory contains no information concerning authorship. There's no evidence the government of Florida holds the copyright. Kelly hi! 07:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to the contact at the State Archives (archives@dos.myflorida.com). I suggest holding off a bit to see how they respond.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , hear back? czar  15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did hear back. The answer wasn't quite as "clean" as I had hoped, and I mulled over next steps and then got distracted. I will provide the email contents, so we can discuss what to do:


 * -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd vote keep and retag because the above seems to make it beyond reasonable doubt to me that the work is CC-By compatible. But FFD and Commons regulars seem to have an unusually strict interpretation of licence compatibility. Deryck C.
 * As Allen Morris is in the photo, it's doubtful he is the photographer/copyright holder. Kelly  hi! 09:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more input

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided that it is tagged: c:Template:Attribution – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Allen Morris could not have transferred copyright to Florida Memory, since he did not take the photo. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:13, 29 December 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:Emory-university-psychology.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: Relisted on }}
 * File:Emory-university-psychology.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Blagov ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * 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:Kylieputyourselfinmyplacevideo.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 as F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Kylieputyourselfinmyplacevideo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by CaliforniaDreamsFan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails contextual significance requirement (WP:NFCCP #8). There is already a fair use image of the album cover on the article as well. A still image of the person singing it has really no bearing on the article and does nothing to increase the reader's understanding. In addition, the close up image does not show anything significant and could be from any song making it much less likely to meet our fair use standards. Majora (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from uploader; I appreciate your comment above, but bare in mind that I did state that the video has been heavily cited in biographies and online publications (as referenced in the article) about the comparisons, both as an inspiration from Minogue's/directors perspective and critically analysed, of the 1968 film Barbarella. There are a few comments that have been cited by the sources in the article that stipulate some significant understanding that require the photo; i.e. her stripping nude for the first time (in the screenshot and referenced in article), the characteristics between the Barbarella character and Minogue paying tribute (in the screenshot and referenced in article), and the reception panel. Again, I appreciate your comment and don't intend on negative conflict, but there is significance towards the video screen shot (unless you recommend a double shot of the Barbarella character and Minogue together, or replace with another screen shot) and me mentioning that she's just "singing" is a slight understatement considering it can be easily changed to what I've mentioned above, but to say "the close up image does not show anything significant" or "A still image of the person singing it has really no bearing on the article and does nothing to increase the reader's understanding" is slightly far. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk &middot;&#32;contribs} 03:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is some discussion about Kylie's appearance in the video in the article that may justify the non-free image, so relisting for more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 12 September 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:The American linguist Roy Andrew Miller (1924–2014) in Kyōto in 1982.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 Nthep (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:The American linguist Roy Andrew Miller (1924–2014) in Kyōto in 1982.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Khiikiat ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Original description was under free use but was attributed to William Schoen. Uploader claimed that they sent it to them. So I tagged it F11 for lack of permission. CSD tag was removed and the image was reclassified under fair use. If the photographer sent it to the uploader it is clear that they can release it to us under free use making fair use unnecessary and failing WP:NFCCP requirements. Since this is not a normal case, the person is deceased, I wanted to bring it here instead of just tagging it F7. Majora (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The fair use rationale given are very dubious: it is not a historically significant photo; its inclusion in the article does not add significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are not the object of discussion in the article; and it is not a much lower resolution than the original (image size is 8,000 × 5,288 pixels). Therefore the best resolution would be for the uploader to contact the photographer (William Schoen), and ask him to send a release email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If no permission is forthcoming then then it should be deleted as fair use rationale is insufficient. BabelStone (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Non-free images of deceased people are usually acceptable, hence needs more opinions on deletion rationale.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 12 September 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:Ferencvarosi TC logo.png
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 Ferencvárosi TC II. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Ferencvarosi TC logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Thehoboclown ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Ferencvárosi TC and Ferencvárosi TC II. Files has a non-free use rationale for each use, but only the one for "Ferencvárosi TC II" seems valid. Logo's use in the image gallery in "Ferencvárosi TC" is decorative for the reasons given in WP:NFG. The logo is not being used as the primary means of identification at the top of the article and it is not itself the subject of any sourced commentary with the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC is lacking. Suggest keep for "Ferencvárosi TC II", but remove from "Ferencvárosi TC". -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved the logo in the Ferencvárosi TC article up to the infobox and removed it out of the Crest and colours section. I believe this solves the issue and that both usages of the logo now meet fair use requirements. Salavat (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, the logo used only in the Ferencvárosi TC infobox. I delete the logo from the Ferencvárosi TC II as non free logo. I removed the Non-free use rationale logo about Ferencvárosi TC II from the logo summary. --IM-yb (talk) 13:20, 17 September 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:Northwestern University Seal.svg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Northwestern University Seal.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Connormah ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

WP:NFC 17 - the law school is a child entity of Northwestern University. Therefore, a separate logo should be used... preferably the law school logo that is currently being used. disagrees and cites some school wording that does affect Wikipedia. Although their edit has been reverted, this file will probably be put back by the other user, which also will violate WP:NFCC. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 17:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How old is that seal? This link says by 1891 all of the familiar elements of the current seal were in place which may signify that the seal existed in identical form back then. In that case it would fall under PD-US-1923 - c.f File:NU seal.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea, . It could be the seal from 1891, as the current page says the same thing... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the file is PD, then the NFCC would not apply. I think the file has to be clearly PD and should be treated as non-free if there's any doubt much like Commons does with c:COM:PCP. Now, if it is non-free, then the file currently fails WP:NFCC and could be removed on that alone. Then, the question is whether a valid non-free use rationale could be written for this particular use. I would say no based upon No. 17 of WP:NFC since the law school is a division (child entity) of the university and the WP:NFCC typically does not allow such use, even when the child-entity lacks it's own specific branding or by default shares the same branding. A possible alternative for the seal might be what the school uses on Twitter and Facebook, or Instagram and Linked in. Either of those two would likely be considered PD-logo for Wikipedia's purposes. This The second of the two has the advantage of actually using the law school's name which would help aid in identifying the subject of the article, which is usually the main reason for using an infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly since relevant logo is already being used in article -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)]
 * Let's be clear here. The child entity does not lack its own branding pursuant to  No. 17 of WP:NFC.  Rather, it has explicitly adopted the branding (i.e., seal) of the parent for use on its diplomas, certificates, architecture, and transcripts, for example.  IvyLaw  (talk)
 * If the seal is PD because of its age or for some other reason, then NFCC compliance would be a moot issue. Are you able to provide any clarification regarding the date the seal was established? If the file is non-free use, then it fails NFCC#10c and could be removed per WP:NFCCE. Are you able to provide a valid non-free use rationale which clearly shows how the file satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria? Finally, No. 17 of NFC#UUI is just a guideline meant to help assess situations such as this. It is something which has been cited in previous WP:NFCR/FFD discussions about similar seal use in similar articles and the closes of these discussions have pretty much been that non-free use in the main university article is acceptable and use in the individual school articles is not. This does not automatically mean such usage is unacceptable in all such cases; however, whether the school has decided to use the same seal also does not automatically mean this particular use is NFCC compliant. So, any information you can provide which helps support non-free use in the law school's article would be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, after some time and effort and thanks to the WayBack Machine: "The Northwestern University seal... 'It sure looks Greek to me'". This "modern" seal was established June 17, 1890.   Prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, copyrights existed by default for a term of 56 years.  Even if Northwestern sought an extension, it can no longer be protected under U.S. Copyright law. (Disclaimer: This is not legal advice -- merely general information directed to the public at large. Consult an attorney regarding the facts specific to your case in your jurisdiction.). However, the analysis does not end there.  Northwestern University maintains two active trademarks on the seal.  USPTO Seal 1  USPTO Seal 2.  However, the University permits use of its trademarks for publicity if used correctly; i.e., accurate color, no modifications to logo, etc....  IvyLaw  (talk)
 * Thank you for providing that link. It does seem that the seal is old enough to qualify as PD-US-1923. Pinging for his opinion. As for copyright vs. trademark, my understanding is they are two separate things and the fact that a logo, etc. is trademarked does not preclude it from being uploaded as non-free content and in such cases trademarked is simply added. I also don't believe the trademark matters as well when the seal is in public domain because there are a number of files uploaded to Commons (for example, File:Coca-Cola logo.svg) which are in the public domain and are also tagged as trademarked per c:COM:Trademarks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%. Subject to my disclaimer, this is known as "nominative fair use" in U.S. Trademark law.  Technically, though, anything that has intellectual property rights associated with it cannot be in the "public domain."  But that's an academic discussion for another day and has no relevance to this matter.   IvyLaw  (talk)
 * Unless there are outstanding objections, I propose adding PD-US-1923 to the seal and removing Non-free school logo by September 15, 2016. IvyLaw  (talk)
 * Done. Feel free to edit as this is the first time I have used a PD template.   IvyLaw  (talk)
 * 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:Staritrg.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: procedural close. Deryck C. 11:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Staritrg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jajaniseva ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Nice postcard looks old, but no date so unknown if it's PD in Croatia or the US. No FUR, and uploader is long gone (with a history of copyright problems).  Mini  apolis  20:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This forum post implies that it was before 1900, but not much more than that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; it's a lot better than nothing. Based on that, I'm inclined to think it's PD-1996 and will edit the file page tomorrow. All the best,  Mini  apolis  01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and ✅, so this can be closed. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:07, 19 September 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.