Commons:Deletion requests/File:FluxTeq PHFS01 Heat Flux Sensor.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FluxTeq PHFS01 Heat Flux Sensor.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Peter at Hukseflux as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: brand name advertising on: URL source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FluxTeq_PHFS01_Heat_Flux_Sensor.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The image is currently in (AFAIK undisputed) use on 3 pages in 2 projects. The announcement[1] by the nominator and their username suggest that they are a business-competitor. Anyway, wrt files being at best borderline in COM:SCOPE, but not violating civil law, usually we host them as long as they are in use in main namespace of other Wikimedia projects. Therefore, a discussion about the nominated image being unsuitable needs to be started on the projects where it is used. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not about being a business-competitor or not and should not be part of this discussion at all. The image used in these projects shows a brand name. This is against the rules of Wikimedia/pedia and therefore, based upon this reason solely, it should be removed. We should all play by the rules of Wiki and not violate them. Peter at Hukseflux (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, "against the rules of Wikimedia" — I am not aware of such a rule for Commons, but I might have missed something. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That part of the image could be blurred. --Achim55 (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems de minimis, no? I would rather it weren't blurred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Peter at Hukseflux Please cite a specific rule that is being violated here. Brianjd (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Peter at Hukseflux And explain why your username does not violate that rule. Brianjd (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio, Achim55, and Ikan Kekek: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked at enwiki for, ironically, advertising or promotion. I am not sure that we need to discuss any further. Brianjd (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If the intent of the user is more important than the potential usefulness of the image, that is. Does Commons have a prohibition on names that are frank about an association with a business? Wikipedia does, but on Wikivoyage, we appreciate honesty in that regard, though we do not tolerate touting, regardless of username, whenever we see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek This discussion is supposed to be about the file, not the nominator. Regardless of the nominator’s status at other projects, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. If the file is in undisputed use on other projects, then it is in scope (by definition), and it doesn’t seem to be violating any Commons rules on promotion. What are we actually discussing here? Brianjd (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, but you seemed to be arguing the other side above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record: In use at en:Thermopile, en:Heat flux sensor and fa:ترموپایل. Brianjd (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Brianjd I am confused. So people on Wikicommons are allowed to post images with a brand name you say? You can read here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing that images must apply to a couple of things, such as being non-commercial. To answer your question about my username, Wikipedia allows having your company name in the username. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy. It says: However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetFactory", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter at Hukseflux (talk • contribs) 1 December 2022, 14:25 (UTC)

(The reply tool still doesn’t work here, even after adding the time to {{Unsigned}}. Why?)

Please cite a specific rule in Commons:Licensing that is being violated here (and quote the relevant section), as I don’t see one. Brianjd (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@BrianjdI already did above. I said: You can read here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing that images must apply to a couple of things, such as being non-commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter at Hukseflux (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Peter at Hukseflux Your statement doesn’t even make sense. Please quote the relevant section of that page. Brianjd (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Brianjd It says: Images must be 'Non-commercial, educational, personal, or editorial use only'. Furthermore, it gives an example by saying: 'For example, the following are generally not allowed: Copyrighted symbols, logos, etc. (Not to be confused with trademarks.)' Since we see a logo in the image, it is not allowed. Besides all this, you can simply wonder why you would allow brand names in images on a educational source like Wiki; that alone should be enough to remove the image. I would like to replace it by an image that does not contain a brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter at Hukseflux (talk • contribs) 11:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Peter at Hukseflux The Commons licensing page actually says exactly the opposite of what you claimed: The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: … Non-commercial, educational, personal, or editorial use only. (emphasis in original)

It does say that copyrighted logos are generally not permitted. But it seems unlikely that this logo is copyrighted, even if it is copyrighted it is probably de minimis, and even if that does not apply, it can be obscured.

The idea that brand names are not permitted on an educational resource is so ridiculous, I don’t know what to say about it (maybe I’ll start by pointing to the brand name in your username). Anyway, it’s still used at other projects. It’s up to the other projects to decide whether they want an image with a brand name or not. Brianjd (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Keep Still no valid reason for deletion. (If I was an admin, I would close this myself.) Brianjd (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)