Deletion Review Appeal
Hi, I am of the opinion that you prematurely closed the discussion on my file or misinterpreted the argument and have referred it to Deletion Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 5
Deletion review for File:PGA CBS 2014
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:PGA CBS 2014|deletion review]] of File:PGA CBS 2014. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Photo of Henri Giraud
You have deleted a photo that I posted on Henri Giraud, File:Giraud at Ft. Benning 1943.jpg. It was proposed for deletion on 10 October because I am not the photographer (he died in 1995). I followed instructions and revised the photo information, then sent permission to WP:OTRS. Why has the photo been deleted? I am the sole copyright owner and this photo has never appeared anywhere else. Can I appeal this decision? Cmacauley (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unless and until we have full evidence of permission we are not supposed to host images. If you submitted an email to OTRS through the process outlined on that page, as soon as the email is processed, the image will be restored. Deletion is not permanent. It is an unfortunate process, I understand, and there are often backlogs, but as soon as it is caught up, everything will be taken care of. I will go check to see if I can find your email. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TLSuda. You deleted an image (File:Cec logo.svg) and stated here "The result of the discussion was: Delete". Could you please provide a link to that discussion upon which you based your decision to delete the image, or elaborate on your reason for the deletion? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion that you linked is what I based my closure on. The image violates WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, neither point did you completely argue. In dealing with copyright it is up to those who seek to keep the image to prove it meets all requirements. For the image to meet WP:NFCC#8, it must be discussed in the article and it must be necessary to the understanding of the text. The specific logo was not mentioned in text supported by 3rd party reliable sources. If it is not mentioned, it isn't necessary to the understanding. All companies go through logo changes, but unless there is sufficient coverage by 3rd party reliable sources that show the change having notability, we do not include it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response! Since the image is unique (there is no duplicate image of the old mascot being used), and it isn't a high resolution, copyright-violating image, WP:NFCC#3 doesn't apply. I honestly don't see why WP:NFCC#3 was raised in the argument for deletion (please let me know if I am misunderstanding #3). WP:NFCC#8, on the other hand, can be subject to some editorial interpretation as to what constitutes "Contextual significance" -- so I fully expected to see some discussion. Instead, there was zero discussion at the link I provided, and no disagreement at all with the points I raised, which is why I asked you for your reasoning behind the deletion.
- The logo/mascot/voice/image change is indeed mentioned in our article. The present wording is no longer as comprehensive as it should be, or once was (I intend to fix that), but the mascot change is an issue of significance covered by reliable sources (CSM, Time Magazine, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, ...) and has even been a matter of contention among some editors (example). CEC built a whole advertising campaign around the mascot change; most companies never change their logo, and the few that do usually do so quietly and without much fanfare. What steps should I take to have the image un-deleted? Or, given the above information, do you still feel the image should remain deleted? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- BTW - I see you've nominated this related image for deletion; in that case, the reasoning for deletion actually fits. It's clearly a partial duplicate of another image. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a few misunderstandings. NFCC#3 doesn't mean identical images. It purely means that multiple images should not be used when one would suffice. Logos, in this article, are only being used for identification purposes. We only need one logo for that purpose, therefore the rest fail WP:NFCC#3. The image still fails WP:NFCC#8 because WP:NFCC#8 has two parts. The first part says that the image must increase the reader's understanding. I'm not sure that this is met, but one could argue that seeing the old logo would help the reader understand the changes. The second part says that it must be detrimental to be removed. In this case it is not detrimental to be removed. An average reader could understand the significant changes to the logo without seeing the logo. The article doesn't mention the logo, only the mascot changed. The mascot is also a costume and figurine, so taking an photo of one of those (still used under fair use) would be more appropriate for the current content that is in place. I still do not think there is enough third party sourced material that actually discusses the logo (or mascot) changes to a point that would be notable for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Maybe I'm wrong and there are marketing textbooks that discuss the change or something.
- Currently the image should and will stay deleted. The text has to support the inclusion of the image before the image is uploaded (or in this case restored). This rule is in place so that images aren't hosted "waiting" for years for the information in the article to be updated. So, if you can get the text into place to bring the article so the image meets WP:NFCC#8 (which would give the image a different purpose than just identification therefore allowing it to pass WP:NFCC#3), I would be willing to restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the additional explanation on the NFCC requirements in play here. You've added much needed clarity (yes, I was indeed misunderstanding a couple things). I am planning a small overhaul of the article, including content related to the deleted image, but I'm unsure at this point if re-adding the image would be justified even then. I'll do more research and see what available sources have to say on the matter. Thank you again for taking the time to clear things up for me. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly unfree file deletion
Greetings! I noticed that you closed a WP:PUF discussion here - just wanted to point out there were a bunch of other files from the same source listed in that nomination that also require deletion. Thanks! With respect - Kelly hi! 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't feel it appropriate to delete those files based on that discussion since they were added a day before the discussion should have originally closed and only 5 days had passed since you added them to when I closed it. I also didn't feel comfortable because there was no discussion on the images aside from you saying they were from the same source. That being said, the discussion does seem to cover issues with the whole source (which is obviously a copyright issue). I'll go ahead and delete them. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Good Technology New Corporate Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Good Technology New Corporate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Comment by Gogo212121 (talk · contribs)
UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda please look this three page Link To License Information: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683885/
URL: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/171/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683800/ --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note that this also was posted on my talk page: User talk:Stefan2#Comment by Gogo212121.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Please do not post the same discussion on multiple pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)