Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 25

< March 24	March 26 >

March 25

File:Uncircumcised male masturbating.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 with fire, for a myriad of reasons - Alison ^❤ 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry. We've got better images. See Commons:Category:Uncircumcised human penis. Stefan2 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include the user's other upload in this nomination? --B (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture of male buttocks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

We should be speedy deleting this stuff if there isn't a clear and unambiguous statement that the person depicted is 18+. Wikimedia's absurd age record requirement guideline basically washes its hands of the legal requirement to document age and says that users are the actual publishers, so it's on the user, not on Wikimedia. Well that's all fine and dandy, but it's a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Our theory of copyright is that every time you edit a page, you are making a derivative work of that page and republishing it under a Creative Commons license. So essentially, if someone uploads a photo without an age disclosure, they are forcing anyone else who might like to edit the page for whatever reason to join them in their lawlessness. Though I think we should obey the law and require proof of age be sent to OTRS, I'll settle for deleting anything that is debatable and the uploader doesn't clearly specify. --B (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good that I'm outside the United States so that I'm not covered by US law when making a derivative work by adding an {{ffd}} template to the file information page. ;-)

I have no idea how to tell how old a person is by looking at the person's private parts. To me, most photos could be a person of any age, for example 15 years or 50 years. Also, I don't know how US law defines "pornography" or whether these photos are pornography or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no idea how to tell how old a person is by looking at the person's private parts" ... that's why we ought to require a statement from the uploader. If the uploader claims that the person depicted is 18+, then we at least have a good faith basis to accept the image. But without a statement, we have no such good faith basis and should err on the side of caution and kill it with fire. --B (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themccoy301 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This is just pointless and the guy looks circumcised to me. Delete it, he just wants his knob on Wikipedia. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um excuse me I am NOT circumcised What's so wrong with the other one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themccoy301 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with it is that Wikipedia is not free webhosting. If an image is not used in any article and is not going to be used in any article, it gets deleted. --B (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themccoy301 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have plenty of higher quality images on Commons for this topic. Russavia (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Still from Chatrak - Paoli Dam and Anubrato.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: Speedy deleted per CSD criteria F5 after removal from article and per user request. Chamal ^T•C 08:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already one non free poster (and another non free image) in the article. There had been long time edit dispute in Paoli Dam and this article. Both at image description page and at Talk:Paoli_Dam#added_picture_to_chatrak they have told this picture will help to prevent contentious editwars. There are other ways to prevent wars. Both the articles are pending changes protected now! Tito Dutta (contact) 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also VRTS ticket # 2013032510005123 QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC, several places, including 3a (there's already a poster to visually identify the film) and 8 (the text already sufficiently describes the controversy, the copyrighted work does not add significant understanding to the article beyond what is conveyed in the text). --Jayron32 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this person is the copyright holder why would they need to upload as fair use? Something is wrong here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Please: Subject has requested to remove the uncanny image and author has requested to delete the image . G7. --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Aerial image of isolated societies taken from 40,000 feet, from the series "40K.003" by Justin Guariglia.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 G7 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brice777 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted G7. FYI, to delete your own recently uploaded files, you can tag them with {{db-g7}}. --B (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Prevalence of physical or sexual violence, or both, by an intimate partner among women aged 15–49 years, selected countries.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-free graphs attributed to the World Health Organization. The WHO does claim copyright in its works; see [1]. These images violate Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1, because they are potentially replaceable by freely licensed graphs of the same information. See also item 11 of WP:NFC#UUI, which says that it is unacceptable to use a non-free chart or graph. —Bkell (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hustler-white-film-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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use overuse - there is already a film poster in the infobox. This one is in the #Cast section of the article and is apparently being used just to show what the lead actor looks like. B (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Celeb-Toby Pimlico.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A collage of celebrity photos. At least one of them is from a magazine. Where did these come from and is the uploader claiming to be the copyright holder? B (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This collage of images was given to me, the uploader, by Toby Pimlico who has acquired rights where necessary of images of his products when used in magazines/film shoots etc... I released the image under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Chaosandvoid (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you, personally, are not the copyright holder of an image (or, in this case, all of the components of the image), then documentation of the permission must be filed with Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample statement of permission that the copyright holder can use. If it would be useful, Commons:Commons:OTRS gives more information about the process and makes the instructions available in other languages (just per sure to use the permissions-en@wikimedia.org email address, not the Commons one). Also, since the Creative Commons license requires that the copyright holder be attributed, you need to make sure that the name of the author/copyright holder is clearly specified on the image description page. --B (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Penngrove2inch.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too small to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Olbas.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pennherb.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:His Dark Materials.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 according to the arguments of the nominator. Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFLISTS: no justification for the need of three different images. Just one of them would be enough to identify the trilogy. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mill Chute (Lost River) 1966.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 as per noms reasons NtheP (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that this image comes from Tribune Photo Archives. If this is the same as http://www.tribunephotos.com/ then the image violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ayal Kadhayezhuthukayanu audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Akashdeep singh.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kamaladalam101.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the VCD cover: File:Kamaladalam.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Thattathin Marayathu audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Narasimham audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Praja audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spirit audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Nandanam audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't understand what's the matter. Please explain it. SidhardhRamesh (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells that you shouldn't upload images of audio soundtracks because they violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Thanmathra audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Thanmathra 101.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the other poster. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Chotta Mumbai audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Oru Marubhoomikkadha Audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Madampi audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Madampi 108.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant to the other poster. Violation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kakkakuyil audio.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 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Rasathanthram audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bhramaram audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Aaraam Thampuran audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Flash audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hallo audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Innathe Chinthavishayam audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kurukshetra audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Vadakkumnadhan 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Naran (film).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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Magadheera cd.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pranayam Audio.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Balettan 101.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the other poster in the article. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Thenmavin Kombath 135.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the other poster in the article. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Manichitrathazhu200.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the other poster in the article. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:VietnamColony143.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the other poster in the article. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Josh 2009 cdcover.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Yamadonga dvdcover.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the poster at the top. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala' (1896-1961).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: Deleted and replaced with photograph File:Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala'.jpg Dianna (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Suryakant Tripathi Nirala.JPG: we don't need two non-free images of the same person. Violation of WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one and delete the other copy, since it was uploaded in 2008 and the other in 2009! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is so dark and it is hard to see anything. I think that it would be better to keep the other one. See {{Image-Poor-Quality}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes! But, I want to have the other image deleted here for following reasons- 1) the other image seems to be a painting and more importantly 2) see this edit where the uploader/editor is replacing a non free image. --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm confused by your second point - both images are non-free, so there's no reason to prefer one over the other from that standpoint. --B (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Greetings, The second file violated NFCC 3a right from the time of uploading. Uploaded either did not know/ignored that the article contained a non free file and just replaced the image without any edit summary. And for this file, the older file violated NFCC 3a too! Best, --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I see what you're saying, but NFCC 3a doesn't forbid replacing one image with the other - it merely forbids keeping both of them. From a policy standpoint, there's no particular reason to prefer one over the other - that's an editorial decision. --B (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both images are awful quality but the other is clearly better - painting or not. -- Nik thestunned 10:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NFCC3a, other image is of better quality and therefore more encyclopedic. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala' (1896-1962).jpg to File:Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala' (1896-1961).jpg by TBrandley (talk · contribs) at 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better image Option: Since we are talking of a better image here, I just found two photographs now available, (The one currently lined up for deletion was uploaded by me in 2008, when no better options were available), I believe this would be a far better option than either, see here (image link), posted here . Second option--Ekabhishek^talk 06:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:"Sudeep Sen(centre) at the Odisha Literacy Festival 2012.jpg".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. Dianna (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo, no indication of encyclopedic use. B (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Could be used for Sudeep Sen; even in a cropped state. Russavia (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, this isn't Commons. We don't use the voting templates here because there is no need for internationalization templates. If you know that this is actually that Sudeep Sen (as opposed to a photo of someone else with the same name), then please feel free to crop it and add it to the article - you don't need a vote to do it. --B (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does indeed appear to be the same person. So the image could be moved to Commons, cropped accordingly, and used in that article. That it's not in use at the moment isn't a reason for deletion. Russavia (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company old logo.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 - old logos in a gallery to not improve our understanding of the topic. No one added any critical commentary or discussion of the logo whilst the image was nominated for deletion. Thus the image still fails the non-free content criteria, same as the day Stefan nominated it. Dianna (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE – see below

Keep - As discussed here, old logos allow readers to recognize old promotional material, advertisements, or any other historic document associated with the company in an earlier period; therefore its omission would be detrimental to this function (satisfying WP:NFCC#8), and it has a different function than the current logo (thus satisfying WP:NFCC#3a). To better comply with WP:NFG the images can be included within the article's text instead of in a gallery. Diego (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.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 - old logos in a gallery to not improve our understanding of the topic. No one added any critical commentary or discussion of the logo whilst the image was nominated for deletion. Thus the image fails the non-free content criteria (as currently in force, WP:VP discussion notwithstanding). Dianna (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE –

"A file that you uploaded has been listed for deletion". Stefan2.

No, it hasn't "been listed for deletion" – YOU listed it for deletion. At least have the courage to use the personal pronoun for your own actions.

NONE of the three files that you listed infringe on copyright (namely BTC logo 1, BTC logo 2 and Vivatel logo).

They are OLD logos of an organization and they DO respect minimal usage and contextual significance requirements - because they are ONLY used in this one instance on the ENTIRE Wikipedia...and as tiny thumbnails at that; because all 3 logos are part of the history of this company. This is also the argument for the non-free content guidelines, which specifically says "should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Did you consider this case by discussing this with me? No, you didn't.

Furthermore, I am not setting up some sort of precedent here – ALL companies are allowed to have their old logos listed on their pages – Scheesh! some of the biggest corporations in the world even have entire articles dedicated to this – note the BBC and NBC.

AND, when uploading them, I only listed them as "copyrighted" because I don't know if they are or not, and was afraid they'd get deleted if I simply uploaded them as "free" images.

But don't be a jobsworth and merely tag something for deletion as a thoughtless, kneejerk reaction, but THINK about the reasons behind my having uploaded these images. Get a grip, man!

LEARN THE RULES and until you're sure, and until you've discussed it with them first – DON'T delete people's edits and DO NOT list their stuff for deletion. And even if you WANT to – go to the user's TALK PAGE first and DISCUSS the issue before going over their head to the Administrators like a crybaby at school going to the teacher. It took a mere six hours since my upload to your listing it for deletion... WTF, dude? Chill! (Like I was till you came along.)

Now, if you insist on being a nuisance without presenting arguments like I did with both of my edits, and with the explanations I gave on my images' talk pages, then I will complain about you to the admins, and notice that I will be doing it as a last resort, because all of the time I have spent on carefully uploading the images, writing up their explanations and talk page entries (specifically because I knew someone like you would come along), and then finally presenting arguments here... will have been a waste of time. Now remove the tag for deletion and go about your life without bothering me any more. BigSteve (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you learn the rules yourself. Per WP:NFCC#8, non-free images may only be used if removal of the images would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. In this case, the understanding of the article would be completely unaffected by removing the images, so the use of the images is obviously inappropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if you know of other articles that have galleries of old logos, please list them here so that the files can be deleted. Thanks. --B (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can we be sure that these files wouldn't be PD-textlogo? Do they meet the threshold of originality under Bulgarian law? If not, let's move them to Commons instead of deleting. Russavia (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B and Russavia - thanks for the opinions! I also answered B separately here, I'll repeat it below.

I very rarely upload images to WP and was under the impression that copyrighted material cannot go on Commons, hence why I opted for en:wiki. If it is now OK to do so, by all means let's do it!

My point is that old logos are OK for WP articles - as I say, BBC and NBC are cases in point where there are full separate articles. Even without a separate article - e.g. the LA Clippers have all 3 of their logos in their article, and I could list a myriad of other articles here that have all of their old logos within the article text. I do believe galleries should be acceptable, especially as there is not so much to say about these particular 3 logos as to actually have an entire explanatory section on them, when the Vivacom article is, for the minute, clearly short - hence why I opted for the gallery view.

But did Stefan2 need to just a) delete them from the article and b.) nominate them for deletion from Wikipedia itself? Clearly not. He could have merely interspersed them as thumbnails along the right-hand side of the article, say, or asked me to do so. Right? I did initially think of that myself, but, entirely stylistically I thought gallery view looked better. I'm all for proposing it as a policy that galleries should be acceptable, precisely because in certain articles they appear better, stylistically. Because the logos themselves are part of the company history and all WP company articles do try to include all their past logos, where they can. Otherwise, BBC Logos and NBC Logos should be deleted, as should all historical logo pics from LA Clippers, LA Lakers...how many hundred articles shoud I list here? Because they either all infringe on WP:NFCC#8, or none of them do. So, which is it?

Anyway, I did get angry at Stefan2 earlier. I'm all for constructive debate, I just hate it when people act before they communicate. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NBC article is about the logos themselves. If an alternate logo is the subject of sourced commentary, it would be appropriate ... but not if it is used in a way that it doesn't help you understand the article text. Non-free images are only permitted on Wikipedia when not having the image would be detrimental to the user's understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8). The rationale for including any logos at all is that the logo helps a reader who may not be familiar with the subject identify what the article is talking about. However shaky this rationale may be, it certainly doesn't apply to a gallery of former logos. The excess Clippers logos should probably be removed. --B (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't! :-) Do you know how many hundred, if not thousand articles on WP have logos in them? Logos are necessary for the understanding of a subject, just like any image is. If someone grew up with, say, the old Clippers logo and saw it every day of their lives for 20 years because they supported the Clippers, they'd want it acknowledged in the article...no, they'd need it acknowledged. A logo is a large part of a company's/team's/whatever's identity. And the only reason BBC and NBC Logos got their own pages is because they were sections within the normal BBC and NBC articles that got too big. By following your policy to remove them, they could never have become large enough sections to warrant their own articles - and they probably would not have got such articles in the first place if they were started off on their own rather than as spin-offs, due to WP:Notability. BigSteve (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, most of the BBC logos are in the public domain because they are below the threshold of originality, so that article only uses one non-free image. Also, NBC is an American company. Many old American logos are in the public domain because they were published without a copyright notice at some point before 1989, so most of the images in that article are probably also in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that it would never at any point be appropriate to include the copyrighted logos themselves without some amount of sourced text about the logos. Whether that sourced text started out in the main NBC article or the logo article was created from scratch is irrelevant - in order to have the logo, there needs to be sourced text about the logo or it needs to be the primary logo for identifying the subject. --B (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, Commons:COM:TOO has no entry for Bulgaria, so it's not clear what the threshold of originality is like there. All logos are definitely too complex for Commons:COM:TOO#United Kingdom and I'm also having doubts about Commons:COM:TOO#United States. Compare with the two logos on page 1 of this document. The first logo is below the threshold of originality in the United States while the second one is above it. For that reason, I'm having serious doubts that File:Vivatel-logo.png would be below the threshold of originality (mainly due to the colour effect) and File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.jpg is questionable. What are those lines doing? File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company old logo.jpg is probably below the threshold of originality, but if the other two logos are removed, it might look weird to keep a single logo. That is an editorial issue, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 - thanks for getting in on t he convo :-) I dont think it's a T.O.O. issue, but rather a point of whether the logos should be included or not. Read my above post (I added it above yours due to an edit conflict). to save me repeating all of my arguments over and over, I sall summarise them in one sentence -

Historical logos are part of the history of a single company, and they appear in a myriad of other WP company articles - and none of them break WP guidelines.

Why you should all be picking on me and the Vivacom article is up to you, but the only thing I can see I've done "wrong" is to put them in a gallery rather than interspersed through the text. But, considering the fact that they're all registered by the same company and for the same reason (i.e. they're all the company's logo), I don't see how they infringe. They add to the historical understanding of the article's subject. BigSteve (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan: The Clippers logos are so not in the public domain! File:SanDiegoClippers.png & File:LAClippers5.png. And I understand that one of you is an Admin, but I'm prepared to take this all the way. You CANNOT, because of this convo we are now having, start going around Wikipedia and deleting every single copyrighted image of a historical logo just to prove your point. I will go to war with you on that (goodwilled, naturally :-), but you can bet your bottom dollar I'm not alone in my opinions. BigSteve (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, let's stick to writing at the bottom of the page!

B: Hardly any articles where the logos appear within the normal article itself, such as the Clippers article, "include sourced text about the logos". The logos are just there to add color and histoical imagery & info to the article and save it from being a stuffy old b&w page! BigSteve (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more point and I'm off for the night –

Wikipedia is not just about the "here & now". It's about history as well. And if a logo has been used for 50 years (as has the BTK logo), removing it from the article clearly infringes on the reader's understanding of the subject. (Same argument goes for a short-lived logos, since the principle is the same - a logo is a logo.) BigSteve (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally figured out how to make an official proposal and have begun the procedure. Please continue the discussion here, at the Village Pump, where I outline all of my arguments - including reasoning for all concerned policies. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As discussed here, old logos allow readers to recognize old promotional material, advertisements, or any other historic document associated with the company in an earlier period; therefore its omission would be detrimental to this function (satisfying WP:NFCC#8), and it has a different function than the current logo (thus satisfying WP:NFCC#3a). To better comply with WP:NFG the images can be included within the article's text instead of in a gallery. Diego (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Vivatel-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: Delete - old logos in a gallery to not improve our understanding of the topic. No one added any critical commentary or discussion of the logo whilst the image was nominated for deletion. Thus the image still fails the non-free content criteria, same as the day Stefan nominated it. Dianna (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE – see above
The logo is being used at Vivatel for a valid NFC-compliant purpose. Diego (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:BlackTheotokosHalki.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: not deleted because the image is now freely licensed. If it is desired to delete the image for non-licensing-related reasons, please open a new nomination. --B (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of an old 2D work. However, there are also some 3D things on the photo (mainly because glass or plastic in front of the artwork acts as a mirror). As there are 3D parts, it doesn't qualify for {{PD-Art}}, and there is no evidence of permission from the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. I'm the photographer, and by uploading it, I'm giving permission for Wikipedia to use it. And this isn't art; this is a liturgical object. The glass protector is not part of the icon itself; it's a guard to protect the icon from damage. So then I'd like to ask again, what's the problem? You can't copyright icons, there's no violation here. Konstantinos (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I do have permission. Pilgrims to Halki are given permission to take pictures of anything on the grounds. In fact, it's encouraged. If you'd like to contact the Halki monastery/theological seminary, go right ahead. Konstantinos (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the photographer AND the painting itself is in the public domain by virtue of being really really old (16th century will do), then you need to get rid of all of the fair use mumbo jumbo and use a tag like {{PD-self}} to state that you are the copyright holder and are releasing your creative work into the public domain. --B (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added "{{PD-self}}," is everything fixed now? Konstantinos (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, closing. --B (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hook A Kid On Golf.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Start Smart.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 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:MLKMIA.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC) not deleted - I received permission for this derivative work from the copyright holder and have forwarded it to OTRS. --B (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a paiting. Sreejith K (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold, please - I am going to contact the family at oscarthomas.org and see if we can get permission for this derivative work. --B (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold withdrawn. I have received no response to my message and will delete the image. --B (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:CHC-MLB-alternate.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Logo used on the page of the organization discussed. It's been there for 5 years. Meets WP:FU rationale in minimum use, small size and relevant to the article in giving the reader a visual description of the current alternative logo, which meet WP:NFCC 1-6.. If you want, you can move to the top infobox. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical discussion about the alternative logo, though. One logo is enough to identify the company. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hook A Kid On Golf.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 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Does not appear to violate so long as the list is there to begin with.... Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Non-free images are not permitted in lists and this is a list, so what is it that you don't get? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot 3-24-2013.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: Delete; deleted as G5 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the uploader has been blocked for block evasion. If this block is correct, then the image qualifies for deletion per WP:CSD#G5. If not, then the image isn't very useful anyway since we've got lots of other screenshots of the same website. Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.