Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

April 5

File:Wooden chairs transported from RHA.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, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 00:29, 5 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:Subzi getting transported from RHA.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, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 00:29, 5 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:Indian railway pantry cars.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, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 00:30, 5 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:Crowded Train in Ranaghat.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, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 00:30, 5 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:1920 cub 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: retagged as PD - On searching for photos, I found this photo on eBay showing that the standing bear was definitely used pre-1923. --B (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was used by the Chicago Cubs from 1927 to 1936. I had originally tagged it as a F7 (disputing the fair use rationale) but discussion with Stefan2 on the talk page leads me to believe it might be in the public domain, as it combines the bear from the PD logo from 1908–1914 with a stylised "C". Hence I have brought it here for wider discussion. Dianna (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aren't sports team logos allowed under WP:NFCC with proper FURs?-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are, but there's multiple logos in the same article, with no critical commentary or discussion of the second logo. I had initially nominated for deletion as an F7, until Stefan2 pointed out that the logo might be PD. That's the issue I was hoping to get further input on. -- Dianna (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete If there were discussion of logo changes, I could see keeping this, but there isn't in what is otherwise an exceptionally comprehensive article. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wrote most of this article. And I uploaded the pic. The section in which it is included reflects the character of the logo. I can see adding a section such as this. Good advice. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the logos shown at [1], both the bear logo and stylized C elements of this particular logo pre-date 1923. I don't believe combining the two elements would be sufficient to generate a new copyright, therefore this logo should be considered public domain. Resolute 17:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though, of course, the file name and information will have to be updated, along with the source URL, it seems. Reso lute 17:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or better: replace with this higher-quality image). There is no chance that a logo is unpublished. This page tells that the bear was used on a logo from 1908–1914. It also tells that the C was used from 1919–1926. The bear and the C are thus unquestionably in the public domain as published before 1923 (and the C is additionally below the threshold of originality in my opinion). They were combined into this logo with a colour change in 1927. I would assume that the combination of the two public domain elements as well as the colour change are below the threshold of originality. Also, it is very likely that an old logo was published without a copyright notice at some point and it seems unlikely that someone would renew the copyright. It seems highly unlikely that this would be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This logo serves a purpose, with a franchise that has a history of over 120 years, it would be good if we had even more logos, to show a flavor of how the team logo has progressed over time. Nostalgia is good and gives the reader a great perspective on how the franchise has changed over time. It may make sense for Wikipedia as a whole to come up with a way to display them in a uniform fashion for older franchises, such as incorporation into an infobox. However, this is fair use and it is relevant, and small so to delete for the sake of deleting makes no sense. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:14, 8 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:Micah Johnson anchoring CNN Headline News.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 ⚡ 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary in article, fails Fair use. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:47, 5 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:A poster of marley and me.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 ⚡ 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A movie poster that someone made in MSPaint. Unused, and it seems out of scope for Wikipedia. Nymf _{talk to me} 18:29, 5 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.