Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 22



File:Elasticsearch 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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Elasticsearch logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Daylen ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Doesn't seem unique enough to be eligible for copyright in the United States. (Note: It is unclear what the country of origin of this image is.) Steel1943  (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2019 (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:University College Cork emblem.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. No prejudice to editors deciding to replace the other similar image in the article with this image.  MBisanz  talk 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:University College Cork emblem.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jacbourg ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * cf File:University College Cork logo.svg
 * Do we need, and can we justify, two non-free images on this article ffor "identification"? "Precedent"' has been cited in edit summaries:, but I thought it was worth raising the question here for clarification. Pinging , an editor who I greatly respect, and sincerely hope is not offended by my raising this, as concerned. -- Begoon 13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. If both images had the exact same purpose ("identification of the subject"), then that would perhaps not be justifiable. However, before this more recent version was uploaded (replacing a perfectly viable alternative with a more complete FUR rationale IMO), the FUR purpose given was not just "identification". But also to "illustrate the organization's intended branding message". Two crests/logos with the exact same purpose are perhaps not justifiable. But two university logos/crests with different purposes? (One for "identifying the subject", another for "understanding the branding message"?) In my view this is justifiable. And, apparently, has historically been seen as justifiable/appropriate on many dozens (hundreds?) of university infoboxes. Where two FUR images (one crest and one logo) appear together. (The articles/infoboxes on Princeton, Harvard, U of London, Columbia and many many others all include two FUR images. Without question or concern. I'm not sure why we would apply a more stringent interpretation of WP:NFC here. Not least when, per WP:NFC, the "single item" criterion only applies when the FUR purpose given is "identification". Which isn't the case here. Or, at least, wasn't until very recently.) Coupled with the fact that these are not commercial/monetizable images, I do not see why we would not/could not justify retaining both. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're comfortable with all that as a reason to retain multiple non-free images then I'm happy with that. It didn't initially seem justifiable to me, hence the question. I'd welcome further opinions, though. -- Begoon 14:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC. The emblem is included in the logo. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - If that's the case, then why not delete the logo instead? And, for that matter, are we saying that the logos (or crests) of Princeton, Harvard, London and other similar Infobox elements are to be brought into the scope of this FfD? (I am happy to extend the scope if we think there's a misapplication of policy to the elements of these University Infoboxes - that therefore requires a broader discussion.) Guliolopez (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the emblem is preferred over the logo, that's OK with me. I guess they could be, or a bundled discussion of others could be started after this one closes. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. FWIW, while I hadn't set out a specific "bolded" position when this discussion opened last month, given that this has been relisted a few times, it's probably worth noting that it was/is/remains a "keep". Specifically, while WP:NFC (if strictly interpreted), advises against having two FUR images with the same purpose, that isn't the case here. The purpose of the FUR crest may be "subject identification", but the purpose of the FUR logo is "brand illustration". While this may seem like splitting hairs, it appears to be the model used such that many dozens (if not hundreds) of university articles include several FUR images (often including both a crest image and a brand/logo image). Both within the same context. Otherwise, and in the absence of a broader discussion on the practice of including both, it seems a very specific application of WP:NFCC#3a to delete just this image in just this article. Hence: keep.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:University of London.svg and File:Princeton shield.svg have been deleted per WP:NFCC since my comment above. It is not just about this one file. There is no reason to have the same image in the article twice (once as a substantial part of another) since it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of topic and could be described with text in reference to the logo (WP:NFCC). Those two phrases basically boil down to the same thing. Also, see WP:NFC. When the emblem emblem is not a part of the logo, e.g. Columbia, then that is a different matter. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no valid reason to have two copies of the same nonfree image in the same article. Certainly not on the pretext that an "emblem" and a "logo" require separate illustration. However, no prejudice against deleting the other copy if discussion finds this to be a better use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2019 (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.