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: Not at all clear that this is an official logo, deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ollscoil na Banríona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mccormickanton (notify | contribs | uploads).

• A logo created by a student organisation, appears to be an artificial construct, having no usage by the university itself, or outside of that society, or wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find any intelligible context for this image (as I can't speak the language). Why do you assert this is a logo created by a student organization and is not used by the University? ÷seresin 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On an internet image search it only came up in two locations, wikipedia, and the student society credited on Wikipedia, it may be else where, although I suspect it is not. Ultimately it is responsibility of the person who added it to Wikipedia:PROVEIT is used by the university, and not just by some unregulated student club. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the university talk page, to encourage people to contribute to this discussion Fasach Nua (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a student society logo, as opposed to an official university one. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2010 (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.

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009–10UEFAEL.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by 613 The Evil (notify | contribs | uploads).

• It is a copy of File:2009–10 UEFA EL.PNG, The space in the file name is unnecessary. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, its a duplicate. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:33, 16 March 2010 (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.

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 G3 by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishoptamaki.org.nz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ropata (notify | contribs | uploads).

• The website has been proven to be a fake. See [1] gadfium 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:09, 10 March 2010 (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.

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. I'd like to make a few points about the result of this closure. I'd like to remind those reading this that the result of this discussion was determined by not only consensus, but also by weight of the arguments.

• From the discussion at hand, those who participated agree that the reunion—the event itself—was indeed historical. Those who were in favor of keeping argued that the photo itself was historic. There attempts to prove the photo was historic, only to have the argument of the event itself being historical reiterated; there was failure to provide direct evidence to show that the photo itself was historic.
• Keep arguments also felt that this photo covered all the points of our non-free content criteria policy. The photo was challenged of meeting point one of the policy, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. [...] (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion. Those in favor of keeping the photo argued that it did increase the understanding of the reader of the subject at hand, and that this non-free photo was placed within context of the event. What they failed to address was how this photo increases the understanding of the reader. This was the biggest flaw I saw in the keep arguments: the photo was added to the article despite the fact that the text adequately described what the photo shows. Going back to the bold text above, if the subject is adequately conveyed by text without the use of non-free content, this photo clearly fails one point of the non-free content criteria policy. Therefore, the outcome is to delete the file.

As always, queries are welcome on my talk page. There's also deletion review if you disagree with my assessment of consensus; just drop a note letting me know if you initiate a discussion there. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three-little-old-maids.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ssilvers (notify | contribs | uploads).

• WP:NFCC #8 violation. It is not necessary to see this photo of three women to understand that they were in a musical together. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an historic photo of the reunion of these three actresses 45 years after they appeared together as the "Three Little Maids from School", creating these roles in the famous original production of The Mikado. The photo is shown next to the discussion, in each article, about the reunion in question. In each case, it does indeed "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note that the photo was taken in 1930, all three subjects are long deceased, and the publication in which the image was originally published is defunct. The image is the only fair use image used in each article. Even if the copyright still subsists, no one claims copyright to this image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this "historic"? I would agree that it's "historical" (meaning it happened in the past), but "historic" is a stretch. A historic photo will have sourced commentary about the photo itself and its influence on people or other works. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is historic; David Rubinger's Paratroopers at the Western Wall is historic. This is not. Besides, no photo is necessary to understand that the three women had a reunion. Lastly, whether or not anyone claims copyright on the image is immaterial. We avoid non-free content wherever possible because it's our mission. howcheng {chat} 04:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with preceding editor; relevant to the article, and no serious reason to delete. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important historic photo showing the reunion of the three actresses who played the original roles in 1885. Jack1956 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Manifestly of historical relevance, and very much to the point that it depicts. The distinction attempted above is one of degree, and is a matter of personal opinion. I suggest that reasonableness indicates that this picture ought to be retained. - Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source that states the photo is historic? howcheng {chat} 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not get caught up in semantics. Several books have chosen to reprint this photograph (including the Wilson and Lloyd book that it was scanned from) because this image has great interest for fans of Gilbert and Sullivan and Victoriana. Nearly every biography and article about these actresses mentions this event. You have stated your opinion that the image does not comply with criterion #8, that it must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", but everyone else here disagrees with your assessment. It is a striking image of the reunion of these three Victorian stars, so many years after their appearance together in the premiere of The Mikado, a seminal work of musical theatre, and vividly illustrates an important event in their lives. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that the semantics are the entire point here. The event of the three actresses having a reunion after so many years is historic in the world of musical theatre; the photo in and of itself is not. I don't see how anyone reading the article needs the photo to understand the concept that they reunited for another show. If you can adequately explain what encyclopedic information is conveyed in this photo that simply cannot be understood without having it in the article, I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the discussion above. Clearly an important and historic picture in terms of the original production. Dreamspy (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes this is a historic image, but can you understand the topics without it? The answer is clearly yes, the image fails wp:nfcc and thus fails the criteria for inclusion on this site. Fasach Nua 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't this be out of copyright by now? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be nice, but in the UK, copyrights last for 70 years after the author's death. The photographer would have had to have died in 1939 for this to be PD now. I never remember what the rules are for corporate authorship, though. howcheng {chat} 17:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ...can you understand the topics without it? The answer is clearly yes, the image fails wp:nfcc and thus fails the criteria for inclusion on this site.: Fasach Nua nailed it on the head. ÷seresin 05:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Historically important photo as regards the first production of The Mikado. Yes, you can understand the article without it (as you can with the images on most articles here) but the article will be poorer and less interesting without it. Dreamspy (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Less interesting" is immaterial, unfortunately. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the non-free argument is immaterial, as the image is out of copyright (1930). The photograph is of parallel quality and importance to the other photographs of the three ladies involved in their articles: Jessie Bond, Sybil Grey, Leonora Braham. The articles document each lady's career and life, including a section best depicted by this photograph. Removing this image would detract from all three articles. Rosuav (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think being published in 1930 means it's out of copyright? howcheng {chat} 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Under British copyright law any photograph from an unknown source is out of copyright 70 years after it was published. This image was taken in Britain. Jack1956 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...except it's not an unknown source. The source is Volume II of The Savoyard, p. 155, so the copyright is owned by the publisher. howcheng {chat} 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Savoyard is a defunct magazine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights don't simply vanish when the company owning them goes out of business. Its assets, including copyrights, are still held by some entity. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the holder of the copyright from c.1930 is unknown then? That means that in the UK the 70 year rule applies...the image is copyright free. Jack1956 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't bothered to do the research" is not the same as "There is no way to determine who the copyright holder is". Someone owns the assets of the magazine, and it's possible (and even likely) that there are public records somewhere in England that indicate who that might be. You only get to declare the copyright holder to be unknown after you've exhausted all possible options. howcheng {chat} 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - At least on the actresse's bios. The removal of the photograph would be prejudicial to these articles. Image should be removed instead from "The Mikado". Probably copyright is on the verge of expiring anyway.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly fails NFCC#8.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not essential to the understanding of the articles. Additionally, it may be a photo of a historic event, but no evidence is provided that it is a historic photo. —Bkell (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historically important photo of an historic event Pemberton08 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite sources that demonstrate that the photo itself is historically important. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is necessary for a full understanding of the articles. -- Broadwaygal (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How, exactly? howcheng {chat} 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in the context of images such as File:ThreelittlemaidsLondon1885.jpg, this doesn't add significantly to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight is right, the article is plenty of pd files enough for understanding of the reader.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (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.