Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28

File:Kmbh.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Also fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 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:Kmbh2009.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Also fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 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:Mobilink 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the apparent recentist theory behind these three nominations. What is the difference between describing the present logo and a former logo? Encyclopedically their value is identical; we care not if the company still exists at all. Wnt (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCI §2 only allows one logo, which is usually the most recent one. Anything else would be a violation of WP:NFCC#3a. Extra logos are deleted all of the time when someone spots an extra logo in an article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2015 (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:Eastern Michigan Block E.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused PD logo; PNG version uploaded to Commons at File:EMU Eagles logo.png. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:43, 28 December 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:George Zimmerman head welts (ABC, Daily Caller, Forensic Protection).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: Deleted. My reading of the below is that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and possibly #1 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO and violation non-free use rationale . This image is taking a video frame from ABC News, a frame of video from The Dally Caller, and a video frame from a commercial company Forensic Protection, Inc. There are existing free photos, such as File:George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg showing injuries, so the non-free use rationale is invalid. The article and the related content does not need this composite. - WP:NFC#UUI - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long time since I added this video or paid any attention to the article, but Shooting of Trayvon Martin still addresses it in a special section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Surveillance_video_mistake:

"ABC News obtained a surveillance video of Zimmerman walking unassisted into the Sanford police station after the shooting. An officer is seen pausing to look at the back of Zimmerman's head, but ABC originally said that no abrasions or blood can be seen in the video.[381] The Daily Caller disputed this claim, and posted a still from the ABC video which showed an injury on the back of Zimmerman's head.[382] ABC later reported that it had "re-digitized" the video, and said that this version showed "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head," but the story's main focus was on a doctor who claimed it was unlikely that Zimmerman's nose had been broken.[383][384]"

Because the Trayvon Martin story had much to do with how people came to see it as a contentious national issue, and specifically the quality of news reporting of this exact photo, I think it is still useful to include it, and well within Fair Use to use it to illustrate the discussion. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the benefit of some time since the incident, and given that there are free photos of Zimmerman's back of the head injuries, we don't need this collage of three images infringing copyvio. The text and the free image itself is sufficient. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be careful with the meanings of "don't need" and "copyvio" here. When you say "don't need", do you really mean that we don't need them to make it clear to the people reading the paragraph we actually have in the article what level of injury was initially apparent to the first reporter vs. how much was revealed by the two image enhancements? Or do you mean that we "don't need" them because we could write a different article that doesn't talk about the issue? Because if Fair Use only applied when you couldn't possibly write about something else instead, it wouldn't protect anything. But as it does, this is no copyvio. Wnt (talk) 13:24, 29 December 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:Wichita State WSU Wordmark.gif

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD logo. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:46, 28 December 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:Metro TV 1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo for MetroTV, so this fails WP:NFCC#8. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:50, 28 December 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.