Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22

File:PhotoImpact X3 boot spash screen.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 (because a File:PhotoImpact Desktop.jpg already exists). Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2014 (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:Manuelvelezsignature.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan 190.14.255.152 (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (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:Internet Explorer 1.0 and 2.0 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; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as the logo itself is not discussed by sources in the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:30, 22 June 2014 (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:Asrar.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no context, lacks description. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2014 (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:EuthanasiePropaganda.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: No Consensus for deletion. TLSuda (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image does not meet the context requirements for use in Action T4, and even if it did, it is possible even likely that a free propaganda poster which served the same encyclopedic purpose could be found. The BEST outcome for this discussion is that the image will be proven to be a free image so it can be transwikied to the Commons and used in articles where the NFCC cannot be met. Possible ways to prove it is the public domain include showing that Commons:Template:PD-GermanGov applies, demonstrate that its copyrights were forfeited as a result of WWII, or demonstrate that it has fallen into the public domain in the US or never had a US copyright due to not complying with applicable copyright formalities or another reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting is that davidw is removing the file everywhere and then claims it is unused. The Banner talk 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to text and not to images, as stated at c:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this needs to be procedurally closed then re-done as a Wikipedia:Non-free content review, that is fine with me. It is currently in use on 4 articles, Action T4, Life unworthy of life, Nazi eugenics, and Propaganda. The same argument I made above regarding the likelihood of a free equivalent being available hold for all 4 articles. The argument about context applies to some or all of these articles. Proving that this poster is in the public domain is the best possible outcome. Short of that, it should be removed from these 4 articles. If it is not used in any article, then it should be deleted. As an aside, if this poster itself meets WP:Notability, which is doubtful, an article about it can be created and this image used in that article as a non-free image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can prove that Commons:Template:anonymous-EU applies, this might solve the problem. See Commons:File:Bund Deutscher Osten - nazi poster.jpg for an example. I am not optimistic regarding the ability to use that template though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You should check the note about Germany: Germany has an odd definition of the word "anonymous" for works created before 1 July 1995. As far as I can tell, a German artwork created before 1 July 1995 can only be anonymous in two special cases:

if it was first published after the death of the anonymous author, but within 70 years after his death, or
if it satisfies {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}.

If it doesn't satisfy any of the special cases, then it is not anonymous even if it is impossible to identify the author. It is of course never possible to tell if a work satisfies condition 1. Note that an artwork isn't the same thing as a literary work. The definition of an anonymous literary work is different. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not particularly up on the intricacies of copyright law, but I fail to see any difference between the Bund Deutscher Osten poster and the one here that would be relevant to copyright. The Bund Deutscher Osten is even noted on commons as public domain as an official government work, which I see no reason wouldn't apply here. This is such a great image that I'd hate to see it go, and would love it to be available on other language wikis. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you talking about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bund Deutscher Osten - nazi poster.jpg? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's procedural comment Now that this page is used in 5 articles (it was recently re-added to Eugenics) FFD is not the right venue for this discussion, Wikipedia:Non-free content review. I will check back in a few days, if there are no objections AND no strong evidence that this image is both PD-US and PD-country-of-origin, I will close this as "procedural keep/moving to NFCR", open a discussion there, and copy-paste the existing discussion into a new NFCR discussion. NFCR has the advantage that each use of the image can be discussed individually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FFD can end with "removed from some articles" if that is the preferred outcome, although you shouldn't start an FFD discussion if you do not think that deletion is the preferred outcome. I suggest that we keep the discussion here for simplicity. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, I completely reject the idea that this image might be replaceable. Even if we do find some replacement, I can say with 100% certainly that that other image would also have been produced by Nazi Germany and would therefore have all the exact copyright problems this one does. Thus, keep for being irreplaceable. That said, I don't see this particular image as necessary for propaganda, so it should be removed from that article. For the other articles, this image is essential. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2014 (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:Chuck Helicopter.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (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:Chuck Helicopter 2.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (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:TJ-OnnaPV.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A staircase made up of wardrobe draws is pretty hard for me to conceptualise personally, just from the text. Hence, an illustration depicting this would be very beneficial! --Prosperosity (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no sourced critical discussion about what one looks like, so there is no need to see what one looks like. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2014 (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.