Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21

[edit]

File:Getty images logo.png

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Getty images logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cnbrb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Kungfu2187 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2011 (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:Sussecoatofarms.jpg

[edit]
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 Danger (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sussecoatofarms.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matt69er (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Outdated "logo", superfluous to File:University of sussex small logo.png, no longer used, doesn't identify the uni any more so cannot qualify under NFCC 8 ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 07:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    1. "very unCIVIL"
    2. "one of the most abrasive I've yet encountered"
    3. "he has particular problems with our civility policy"
    4. "Loss of temper control "
    5. "badgering and petulant"
    6. "rude, snide, and snarky"
    7. "TT [should] always nominate the uploader of the image as a matter of courtesy as he's previously not done so"
    8. "avoid addressing/attacking people rather than issues"
    9. "Agree on much of the above."
    10. "hypocritical"
    11. "very aggressive and it is not good for developing communal working"
    12. "how do you explain a response like this?"
    13. "flippant"
    14. "You've been told you are rude, and you don't believe it, or don't believe it matters. You're wrong. It matters very much. Please leave the project."
    15. "not even prepared to tone down your abrasiveness when you're still at ER"
    16. "Accept the fact that a lot of editors don't like you and may never like you. You're not going to change that by criticizing or mocking them."
    17. "Ched says it well."
  • — BQZip01 — talk 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your omission of the comment from 28bytes (talk · contribs) can only have been intentional, and your cluttering up a deletion discussing with irrelevant bollocks can only be construed as disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt that was more neutral than positive, but fine. If you want a 17:1 ratio instead of 17:0, you've got it. — BQZip01 — talk 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I have attempted [1] to collapse the above section as being completely off-topic and irrelevant to the deletion, but apparently it is not. Hmm. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen The coat of arms has been discontinued. Wikipedia is supposed to stay up to date yes? If not deleted under NFCC#8, then then it should be deleted based on maintenance/housekeeping reasons. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By definition, WP keeps track of history (things that have already happened). As a matter of fact, if you'll read the article, it is up to date and the logo is used in the University's history, not as the primary image. — BQZip01 — talk 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that what Fastily means (and what I mean) is that for all the text you produced above, you have yet to provide one credible explanation of how the image meets NFCC8 – by whoever's interpretation of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 19:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. Was I talking to you? Why don't you let him explain instead of speaking for him? — BQZip01 — talk 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you weren't talking to me. Nor do you have the privilege to ban others from commenting on your arguments, particularly when they're so poorly advanced. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't ban anyone. Only the community as a whole can do that. I asked for his opinion, not yours. — BQZip01 — talk 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for his opinion. I gave you mine. I'm allowed to do that. Cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 20:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that preserving a history is a good reason to keep not delete. Mtking (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. — BQZip01 — talk 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, my understanding of CoA is that they remain for ever, they may not be using it as a logo, but is not still the CoA of the university right or have they disowned it totally ? Does anyone know if it is used on Degree awards ? I suspect it might be, it is not uncommon for a university to have a corporate logo and a seal or CoA. Secondly if it has ever been used on Degree awards (which as I say I don't know) then it is worth keeping as it might help someone who looks up the university from outside Sussex or England wanting to check if it is valid. Mtking (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with absolutely everything you've just said – but it's not relevant to Wikpedia, sadly. Indeed, knowing what the coat of arms looks like could help somebody verify whether or not a degree is authentic. But that isn't actually the point of Wikipedia.
    The policy situation has been very clearly set out by Cmadler (talk · contribs) below. There are two sides to it: (a) the image must be subject to critical commentary in the article, as per WP:NFCI, and this image is not; and (b) the image's deletion must be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Can you quote to me the part of the article which would be harder to understand if the image were gone? ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I doubt any logo on any university page should be kept we are to stick rigidly to that rule - WP:IAR would seem to apply, this "rule" would seem to be harming the usefulness of the article. Mtking (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not harming the usefulness of the article. No encyclopedic content in the article would be any less useful if the image were removed. You're right that it would make life marginally more difficult for people attempting to verify degree certificates, but that's not the service we should be aiming at. Non-free content must be justified by in-article text and that is the rule. (Incidentally, you've not addressed the NFCC1 concerns raised below either.) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCI does not require logos to be "subjects of critical commentary" as you stated. — BQZip01 — talk 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're right! It requires them to be "for identification" – so it's just a pity that this one is (a) replaceable, given Cmadler's comments about heraldry below, which you've still 'accidentally' failed to respond to, and (b) doesn't identify the organisation, given that it's not used any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 07:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "For identification" is not limited to only current use. It can also identify how the organization identified itself in the past. 74.207.165.254 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen - The image, in its current use, is absolutely irrelevant to an understanding of the University of Sussex, the topic of the article. As far as I can tell, it's mentioned in a single sentence ("In an attempt to appeal to a modern audience, the university chose to simplify its logo from a coat of arms to the current "us" logo."), and there's no need for a reader to see the actual coat of arms to understand that statement. In its current use, the image is purely decoration. cmadler (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Cmadler is right on both counts. First (and this is often confusing for those not familiar with heraldry) it is possible to construct a free version of these arms for use in the article. Given that it is not crucial for the reader's understanding to see this specific fixture of the arms, and it is not really given critical coverage in the article (i.e. critical analysis of the image) the image fails both NFCC #1 and #8 --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to keep. Because, as User:Mtking writes, the grant of a CoA is for ever. Yes, per Cmadler, another realisation of the coat of arms could be created, still keeping to the letter of the heraldic blazon. However, if this is the "fixture" that was used as a logo for over 40 years, then it seems to me that there is value in showing this image, over an alternative realisation that wasn't. Jheald (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen, but not because it is easily replaceable - it isn't. This is not a coat of arms. Well, obviously it is, but it has not been used in a manner consistent with being a coat of arms - having multiple acceptable renderings is a defining characteristic of a real coat of arms. Only one rendering of this image has been used for an extended period of time, and if a different one was substituted, people familiar with it would say, "hey, that image isn't right!" In other words, this is a former corporate logo, and if new renderings of existing logos are acceptable then we can use my free version to replace the non-free content in this article (I also offer my artistic skills to replace any other corporate logos in the interests of free content). My actual reason for believing deletion is appropriate is that the image is non-free, not particularly significant or memorable, and no longer proper for identification of the organization because it is no longer used by them. (I do believe some historical corporate logos are important enough to be worth keeping - for example, plenty has been written in reliable sources about the history of the Apple logo - but this isn't one of those cases). Thparkth (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, you'd be wrong regarding both IBM and Coca-Cola's logos. They are both {{PD-Text}}. However, your point about the University is noted. THANKS! Buffs (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2011 (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:4WD VULCAN.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:4WD VULCAN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anitahaase (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

obsolete, replaced by chassis dynamometer compact.jpg Anitahaase (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (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:Jordan Thomas 2011.jpg

[edit]
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 MilborneOne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordan Thomas 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

User (me) leaving Wikipedia, and image is now an orphan, and unencyclopedic ProcEnforce (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (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:Jordan Thomas 2010.jpg

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordan Thomas 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not used. Not useful. damiens.rf 21:23, 21 June 2011 (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:ITM-hyper.jpg

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-hyper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 2011 (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:ITM-super.jpg

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-super.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 2011 (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:ITM-express.jpg

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-express.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 2011 (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:ITM-contact.jpg

[edit]
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-contact.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:28, 21 June 2011 (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:Simply Market.jpg

[edit]
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; solution offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simply Market.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logo used to decorate a gallery. damiens.rf 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Oh come on. It's just labeled wrong (CLEARLY {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}}). It doesn't need to be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks creative enough to me, and not just "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". It's actually a non-trivial combination of them all. It's not like they just wrote the brand name under some typeface and draw some figures. The individual charaters and the figures fuse (see show the y prolongs into a background for "market", or how the "i" has a different color for its dot). I confess I'm not an expert on text-logos, but this is my assessment. Of course, anyone is welcomed to take this confession as an opportunity for gratuitous personal semi-attacks. --damiens.rf 02:25, 22 June 2011 (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:Simply masket 2008.png

[edit]
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; solution offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simply masket 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logo used to decorate a gallery. damiens.rf 21:29, 21 June 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_21&oldid=1146506079"