January 4
File:BamsiKurulusOsman.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Limorina (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This image is being used in the infobox in a section of an article. The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png- I believe that the non-free image in the other infobox (File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png, also uploaded by me) should be deleted rather than this because I had some doubts when uploading it about it actually being an interpretation or just a fan-made image. Limorina (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I think File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png should stay because it is used in a wider part of the article, and was the original use of the character. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @P,TO 19104: I uploaded File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png and I really doubted that it was actually an interpretation of the character when uploading it, I think it should be deleted if we are to compare it with File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png, and plus half the article is covered by File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png and the other half is covered by File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png, the only reason why you may have thought that it (File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png) covered most of the article was that it was used in the main infobox. Limorina (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is a no-brainer, really: it's extremely low quality; it lacks author attribution; and most crucially, it obviously fails the replaceability test. We can never use a modern non-free depiction to depict an ancient legendary/fictional character, because any such depiction is totally arbitrary and could therefore be replaced with any other, including a free one that you or I could draw. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: why delete both? I mean, you explained your reasons for deleting File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png, and I agree with it. However, the reason why File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png is because there is already a non-free image on that page and if that is going to be deleted then there is no reason at all to delete File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png. Also, File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png is used in the TV adaptation section so it is obviously not a "modern illustration" of any sort of a historical character. Limorina (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere in the nomination does it state that the reason is that there is already a non-free image in the article. The nomination is for WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whpq: WP:NFCC#8 states, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Now that File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is deleted, it's the only image conveying that significant information so I'm still going to go with keep. Limorina (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to WP:NFCC#3a. Look again at bullet point 8, "Contextual significance.". -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whpq: Sorry, you're right, but that still doesn't change anything, that says, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This image does significantly increase readers' understanding. We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character if it doesn't fit the criteria. Again, now that File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is gone, it's fine to have this in the article. Limorina (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character if it doesn't fit the criteria." My response is that we do. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whpq: That was a typo, I was meant to say We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character even if it fits the criteria, that still isn't my point anyway, my point is that because the image (File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png) is now deleted, this image (File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png) fits the criteria and shouldn't be deleted. Limorina (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (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:Don R. Berlin.png
File:ET012-12.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ala di Stura-Stemma.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
So, there is a Commons file on the same name which shows an artistic interpretation of the COA. Such interpretations are apparently considered to be heraldically correct - thus it can replace the local file - and also not copyrighted as a heraldically correct interpretation does not automatically qualify as a derivative work (coats of arms are ideas rather than images thus not copyrightable even if a particular image-interpretation is). Assuming that I am interpreting the heraldry principles correctly, this means that the local file fails WP:NFCC#1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2021 (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:Mayo-clinic-logo.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: PD-simple, deleted in favor of superior version uploaded by Andrew nyr -FASTILY 00:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mayo-clinic-logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File may not meet the TOO, though it is tagged as fair use. The font that spells "Mayo Clinic" is pretty generic, and the Tri-Shield logo is not that special. Consists of only simple and solid colors. Example: c:File:Best Western logo.svg. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 4 January 2021 (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.
