Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23[edit]

File:NASA MAF North Vertical Assembly Building.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:NASA MAF North Vertical Assembly Building.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This PNG was subsequently created from this Barrel Section of the Space Launch System Core Stage.jpg on Commons and is not better. Ras67 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a noticeable loss of image quality in the conversion to PNG. Why convert this to PNG instead of just using the original JPG? -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2018 (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:Whiteout December 25, 2002.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2018 (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:The Independent logo.svg[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. As pointed out one cannot have two "primary" means of visual identification and the logos are almost identical. Almost certainly not a good case that WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8 are met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader argues that it is essential that our article on the former UK newspaper The Independent have two fair use images, one of a sample front page (which obviously includes the logo), and one of just the logo. I contend this fails WP:NFCC item 3 as it is not minimal use. The uploader claims that the very minor changes (one of the elements is rotated 90 degrees) necessitate keeping both images. I disagree. Template_talk:Infobox_newspaper#Logos_and_page_spreads may also be of interest. MarchOrDie (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The use of this logo is redundant to the front page image which also includes a logo. That the two logos are not identical does not mean we need both. As a parallel, music albums are often released with alternate covers, and unless the use of the alternate covers is the subject of coverage themselves, the use of multiple covers is disallowed. -- Whpq (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not an "alternative logo", it's the official logo used, the one on the front page is the alternative version. --RaphaelQS (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need both when they are so similar?MarchOrDie (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the newspaper's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper itself used the rotated logo, so it seems to me that the intended branding is still perfectly fine with either logo. Futhermore, both the logo and the newspaper image are both being claimed as the primary means of visual identification which can't be true for both. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2018 (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:Darian DeVries Headshot.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 ⚡ 02:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF author field states "(c)Chris Donahue". OTRS confirmation would be needed for the licensing. Whpq (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2018 (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.