Commons:Deletion requests/File:GillinghamSchool.png

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:GillinghamSchool.png

Out of scope due to extremely low quality. The image is not the correct logo for Gillingham School. As stated by Bellezzasolo, they created this from a CC0 picture of a deer. Previously, the image was deleted as a copyvio, but I don't think that's the case. It seems to be simple text and shapes, plus CC0 content. Still, delete it as it's not in scope and not useful. Guanaco (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I contest scope based on COM:INUSE (wikipedia:User:Bellezzasolo), regarding "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.". The image quality is low, however it's sufficient for the uses on my user page - however, if there's a way to convert to SVG easily that would be great. Bellezzasolo (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Converting this image to SVG would require some hand-tracing, due to the quality. Can you link to the source image of the deer, to put the copyright concerns to rest? Guanaco (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

publicdomainpictures.net, states CC0. I reflected this image. Bellezzasolo (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, although TOO would apply, this is my source for the shield outline: as above Bellezzasolo (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to support this because the "creator" has been running up and down AN/U and JCB's talk page and frankly that's enough of a loss of decorum to turn me off. At this point I'd support getting rid of it just because it's not any good. If we're going to try to drag people into a fight over an image at least have it be something of substance. If you own the copyright of the derivative isn't really the issue here with me. If I write the word "Kleenex" on a box it doesn't violate copyright because yes it’s simple but it's also not the same thing. To be clear, we're fighting this much over a simple white deer over a green shield. And before you come after me with INUSE INUSE INUSE, read a bit further down the page and see that each of the admins that have questioned this image simply on the merits of this being of poor quality have not been wrong. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: I went to JCB’s talk page as the deletor - the talk page for this photo was deleted, after all. I kept going because he wasn’t substantiating his claims, and didn’t even seem to take what I quoted from COM:INUSE into account. He seemed to accept that it wasn’t COPYVIO. When I basically beat him on the meaning of inuse, he said “I am not restoring it. End of discussion”. I went to AN/I because of that statement- admins who are losing arguments shouldn’t resort to their position- that’s abuse of power. Bellezzasolo (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There may be something to that but as I heard someone else say the other day I think we're making a tempest in a teapot out of all of this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep Not a copyvio. Quality is sufficient for usage on the uploader's userpages. Usage there satisfies any concern of being COM:OOS. Deleting Admin should have started a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• The only way I could consider keeping is if it were renamed description adjusted to avoid suggesting it's the logo of the school..."just some white deer on a green shield". If nobody thinks it's trying to be the logo of the school, it's possible that it's not related to that non-free image. But otherwise it's misrepresenting itself as the logo, which is a promotion of a possible trademark violation by others. As it stands,  Delete as an apparent and stated-by-creator attempt to recreate the non-free image using free material, but that means it's still a Commons:Derivative works. The deer is too complex to be a simple shape. DMacks (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's also a fair point. Even if it is bad, intent matters. If this was done in an intent to circumvent copyright it's still a copyvio. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Intent is to have a non-copyright way of representing the school. I'm definitely pro putting a trademark tag on the image - even though it's not offical (indeed, I don't believe the logo to be a registered trademark). Bellezzasolo (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Is there a high-res photo of the gate with that logo? If not, can you take one? File:Entrance drive to Gillingham School main hall and arts centre (geograph 4291475).jpg doesn't qualify. The original logo is probably 501 years old.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: regarding the logo, it probably is PD, but I'm not certain, hence this effort. I found a use of the deer in 1934, however that's a question of "is the author anonymous?" Bellezzasolo (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Keep but not against moving this to a better title. Bellezzasolo (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per DMacks and also per COM:NOTUSED, since it has no "educational use". The uploader also keeps stating that it is inuse on their userpage but it isn't and why would one create and name it as if it was the logo of the school and also states "FREE stand in logo for wikipedia:File:GillinghamSchool.jpg" in the description. Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Bidgee: The creation of en:File:GillinghamSchool.png on the 4th passed control of the two uses of this file to that local version. It is used here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Jeff, my point is that the logo is not of Gillingham School (this logo is all but fictional), therefore there is no valid reason to keep it (ie. "File not legitimately in use"). Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  May I point out that COM:NOTUSED says "A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above". Hence your argument doesn't apply, since it falls under the remit of "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." Bellezzasolo (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  and then it also states "that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope". Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Your point? What that's saying is that use on non-user Wikipedia automatically makes the image within scope. It doesn't mean that an image on user space is not - the clause I stated then applies. Bellezzasolo (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't mean you can upload and use what you want. The file isn't in scope since it fictional (ie. not the real logo) nor is it "educational". Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete - out of scope - Jcb (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete as per all of the above - Out of scope here and this is something I too would consider a COPYVIO .... anyway it's out of scope for this project and as such should be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete Poor quality and out of scope. Should be recreated as SVG if useful. Yann (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Keep unless someone can link to a replacement. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's either copyvio or fake. In cases of copyvio, waiting for a replacement is not a valid reason to keep. In case of a fake logo, the wish for a replacement would be ridiculous. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you just can't take no for an answer, you really should not care about this so much. I'm going with keep based on readings of policy as raised by others above along with good faith. Try the role of adult like the community expects administrators to be, rather than always being rude and abrupt with newbies that cross your path; Commons is not all about you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The file was taken from en:File:GillinghamSchool.jpg, Obviously the image has been cropped and then uploaded here under "Own work" ..... although it's come from EN I would still consider this a copyvio and it should still be deleted regardless of replacements (or lack of). –Davey2010^Talk 21:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: That accusation is simply untrue. I ask you to inspect the two deer and apologise profusely. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, They are indeed 2 different deer, –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou. I was careful to avoid being a COPYVIO - the only thing I did copy was the colour. I can see how you would make that mistake though. (Sorry for the IP edit, this is me though) Bellezzasolo (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Deleted: This file has been sitting in attempt to get more consensus and it has not thus far. I don't see it getting further consensus so I am closing it as this time; file is out of scope. ~riley (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)