< June 9	June 11 >

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 rogerd (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description stating that "This image is non copyrighted but can be used only for wikipedia purpose" is not compatible with Creative Commons licencing. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- no legitimate NFCC use — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 11 June 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.

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 rogerd (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Available on Commons as a superior scan as File:John Harding by Washington Bogart Cooper.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which came from the same source and was also a .gif, but the source also provided a bigger .gif and I cropped the frame. Saved it as .jpg because Mediawiki handles that better. Don't transfer this .gif to Commons, frames are problematic. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to the JPG file. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 10 June 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows a similar image at Commons, which is marked as PD. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Spain is not listed on c:Commons:Threshold of originality. You may prefer to keep it here as ((PD-USonly)). (TOO unknown means Commons deletes it if nominated) Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Refer to Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TVE1_(1992-2002).svg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Televisión Española logos. I have opposed to use the US' TOO as a reference for Spanish originality, but Commons people hasn't really cared enough. Docu TVE.png is no more original than those examples therefore, there is no real reason to keep them here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:57, 10 June 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.

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 rogerd (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows a similar image at Commons, which is marked as PD. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:27, 10 June 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows a similar image at Commons, which is marked as PD. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of Commons version. Falls below the TOO and should be licensed as pd-logo. Salavat (talk) 23:55, 10 June 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.

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: no consensus. This has been left undiscussed for almost half a year. Zeng8r's point about WP:NFCC#3 is well taken, but the WP:NFCC#8 point is more questionable and WP:NFCC#1 was left undiscussed. I think that there is no clear cut consensus here for either keeping or deleting. This does not preclude any renomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NFCC#8 - there is no real "fair use" significance to the copyrighted "Gator Head" logo to use in individual teams' articles as opposed to the Florida Gators page. A December 2015 FFD discussion concluded that the non-free File:Florida Gators logo.svg file had enough fair use justification for the main Florida Gators page but not for individual teams like Florida Gators football, Florida Gators men's basketball, etc.

(Edit to add) Other colleges' individual team pages use non copyrighted wordmarks, like Florida State Seminoles football, South Florida Bulls football, and Michigan State Spartans men's basketball.

As an alternative, I propose using the non copyrighted File:Florida Gators wordmark.svg instead (edit to add) that individual seasons' pages use such as 2017–18 Florida Gators men's basketball team, since that word mark is frequently used on the FloridaGators.com official website (see [1] [2] [3]) and team jerseys (see photos: [4] [5] [6]).

The files in question like file:Florida Gators men's basketball logo.svg are just Gator Head logos with sports' names slapped underneath and hardly qualify as unique individual team logos. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Nom. We only need one Unfree file for all of the Gator's sports. Your alternative sounds fine for me. --Church ^Talk 06:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per this discussion from 2015, team-specific gator head logos have been used on UF's individual sports team articles for years. It makes sense; that logo is used by the University of Florida to represent every one of the school's sports programs (as seen at floridagators.com), so why would it not be appropriate to use on each Wikipedia article as well? There is nothing at WP:logos that prevents the fair use of a logo just because it's shared by multiple notable subjects. And the wordmarks are NOT appropriate replacements. The script "Gators" is only used on football helmets and is a secondary (at best) logo for the football team only, while the "Florida" wordmark is used sparingly for football (painted in one end zone) and basketball (used on the front of some jersey options). They are hardly (if ever) used for any other sport. Displaying them in the infobox of every UF sports program article is simply incorrect, and comparing the situation to schools which commonly use a wordmark across all sports is a false equivalence. Zeng8r (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: For reference, here is the prior discussion that resulted in the creation and use of team-specific versions of the gator head logo: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_December_15#File:Florida_Gators_logo.svg. A usage guide is described in detail at File talk:Florida Gators logo.svg. user:Dirtlawyer1 was instrumental in working out the arrangement and created all of the logos. Unfortunately, he has not been seen on Wikipedia in a couple of years. Zeng8r (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Zeng8r: A quick glance at the Florida Gators baseball Twitter feed indicates that the "FLORIDA" wordmark is prominently used. Why else would the team use it in its "national championship" logo along with a photo of a baseball player holding the championship trophy while wearing a jersey with that wordmark? I'd also be OK with using the capital F wordmark for both the baseball and softball articles, since the Florida baseball headgear [7] [8] and softball headgear [9] consistently use it. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "Prominently" used where exactly? I only see it in photos of game action. If you're using uniforms as a argument, the gator head logo is used at least once on every UF uniform for every sport, so that's a wash.

On the other hand, the official website of UF's athletic program uses the gator head logo prominently at the top of the front page AND the top of every page for every sport, in the upcoming schedule for every sport, in the game results list for every sport, in every single promotion, etc. etc. etc. I just clicked the link myself and instantly saw four instances of the logo on my screen, without scrolling. (Display settings may vary.) The gator head is quite literally the face of the entire Florida sports program - every team, men's and women's. That being the case, there's no Wiki or logical reason to remove it from the articles for those teams, especially the team-specific logos that were inserted the last time this issue was re-re-hashed. Zeng8r (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

addendum on the big picture On a broader level, the rationale for removing and deleting these logos is flawed, imo. I've long wondered why editors try to use the "too many instances" argument to restrict use of logos, which is the argument I've seen many times in the past. If you read the actual policy that uses that phrase (NFC #3), it's clearly talking about a) how many DIFFERENT non-free logos/images are used in the same article, and b) taking care to use only the portion and image resolution needed. There's nothing at all about using the same or similar logos in multiple articles when the subjects of those articles are all best represented by the same logo.
We don't use the Apple logo for every Apple product because each product has its own logo or is a physical object that can be photographed and dropped into the infobox. Similarly, college sports articles use the logo currently used by the school to represent each team. Florida uses very consistent branding, and the gator head logo is used for everybody. Wikipedia should follow that lead.
And invoking NFCC#8 is just silly, given how the university uses this logo. If you're seriously trying to argue that it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and thus doesn't fall under fair use, then by extension, you're arguing to remove every logo on Wikipedia. Does any corporate logo really help you understand the company? Yes, because it displays how the company brands itself. The same concept applies here. Zeng8r (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zeng8r. Pinging Marchjuly since they were the ones who nominated File:Florida Gators logo.svg for deletion back in 2015 and also worked with Dirtlawyer1 on this issue. Corky 21:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I was not aware of this discussion from 2015. Keep per Zeng8r. --Church ^Talk 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was pinged so I might as well comment. I think it's important to realize that the 2015 FFD discussion was not about the use of these various individual files, but rather about the use of File:Florida Gators logo.svg in the individual team articles. The Twitter logos came up during the discussion as a possible way to resolve the WP:NFC#UUI17 issue of the main logo, but they were not really the main subject of discussion. I posted at the time that FWIW, using the Twitter logos would eliminate my concerns about No. 17, but I cannot speak for others., and there were others who did post that using them would not be appropriate per the NFCCP. If you look at the close by CactusWriter, you'll see that there was no mention of the Twitter logos, so I think it's a bit misleading to say that there was a consensus established that their non-free use was acceptable; the files were not added to the articles by the closing admin, but rather independently of the discussion or as an interpretation of part of the discussion, and the "compromise" was something more assumed by Dirtlawyer1 than reached through consensus. FWIW, Finnusertop and Masem presented strong arguments against the Twitter files use which seemed to be well grounded in current policy, but the discussion stopped when the FFD closed. This is a bit complicated and the points raised by Arbor to SJ seem valid. The team names themselves are not copyrightable elements, so essentially this could be seen as the same logo so to speak. If the consensus is that they are essentially the same, then they shouldn't be used; if not, then they probably can be used. I discussed this kind of this before with Explicit at User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, and it might be in some cases that the additional text is enough to be considered a different logo. Finally, there is also the question as to whether this gator imagery might be considered ((PD-FLGov)). University of Florida is part of the State University System of Florida so maybe the logo would be considered PD since "Florida state universities and state colleges" are listed in the template as one of the "Agencies permitted to claim copyright". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are all redundant to the standard Gator head logo; the additional text underneath them do not sufficiently change the identity of the logo (which is only be used for identification in these cases), and so per NFCC#3 we want to reduce the use to only the Gator head logo for all these cass. --Masem (t) 15:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, as noted in the above comment by Marchjuly, the December 2015 FFD concerned only the use of the Gator head logo — and I closed that discussion under the consensus opinion that the non-free image should be restricted to the single main article. Although it was not the issue at the time, my opinion here is that each of the twitter logos is a redundant derivative of the original image and should be deleted. Noting that the twitter logo is not the topic of the article, I don't see that these images "omission would be detrimental to that understanding” of the article topic (WP:NFCC#8). And if this is simply about finding images for the infobox, then use free images which illustrate the article’s actual topic as required by WP:NFCC#1. (Baseball, softball, Swimming, etc.) It should be emphasized that Wikipedia’s legal policy at WP:NFCC states that there is no "entitlement to use non-free content” anywhere on Wikipedia. And that it's use must be “judicious” and only “as a last resort.” — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 10 June 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.

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 ⚡ 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader states that the image is "Send to me personally", which means the image is not made bij de stated author Frederika Van der Auweraert". So this person cannot place the image in the public domain. Because there is severe doubt about the copyright situation this image should be deleted. Hetty Pangel (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've asked the uploader to provide permission via the volunteer response team. If they're able to prove that the photographer did put this image in the public domain, we can keep it and transfer it to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, it should be deleted per nom and WP:CSD#F11. I would recommend giving a few more days for the uploader to respond (though the file can always be undeleted once permission is received). clpo13_(talk) 20:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can restore if/when OTRS processes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 11 June 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.

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: relisted on 2018 June 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruth Porat 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious flickrwashing is at play here. Brand new account, just these photos uploaded. Zero EXIF data. Other photos on the account are all over the Internet already. Majora (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Salavat and Rhododendrites. My original assessment appears to have been incorrect. After talking with the uploader on my talk page they have provided enough evidence for me to say that the image really is licensed correctly. The originals can be found here and the main page of that site now links the label with the flickr account in question. This appear to be promotional photos whose copyright would belong to the label (as a result of a highly likely work for hire). As a result I'd like to formally withdraw and close this FFD but since you both commented I don't want to do so without your consent. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy with that, I have struck out my delete above. The image is no longer orphaned which was my only other issue. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 16 June 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.

June 10

File:Article Wan.jpg

File:John Harding by W. B. Cooper.gif

File:Docu TVE.png

File:Line Music.png

File:ZUKMobilelogo.png

File:Florida Gators men's basketball logo.svg

File:Paul Smolders, portrait.jpeg

File:Ruth Porat 2016.jpg

File:0010x0010 skirt.jpg