Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:flaticon

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.

Files found with Special:Search/insource:flaticon

In this Village pump/Copyright discussion, it is mentioned that the icons are subject to licensing terms that are not compatible with the free content requirements for Commons. At the same time, some of the icons may be acceptable on the grounds that they are below the threshold of originality for the US. (For any icons that are non-U.S. works, my understanding is that the threshold of originality for the work's country of origin would also need to be considered.) In addition, there may be a copyright issue with the vectorization itself for the icons.

Extended content

Gazebo (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Gazebo — Suggest speedy close — The icons were released under CC-BY 3.0 in 2014 (archive). The licence information page is now a 404 page. CFCF (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'm new in the deletion procedures on commons, so I please you to help me and to be kind if i'd make some error. I'll speak about the "Eucalyp-Deus series". I upload these files downloading from the site [1] and editing them on gimp. I'll take randomly one example (the File:Eucalyp-Deus WikiPrince (black).png): the downloading page says:

Our license allows you to use the content:
For commercial and personal projects
On digital or printed media
For an unlimited number of times and perpetually
Anywhere in the world
To make modifications and derived works

If the problem is that i have to specify something about the copyright or the attribution (i specified the authors but, maybe, i did something wrong), tell me how i could resolve the problems. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce The Deus (talk • contribs) 13:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Speaking for my uploads File:Oilcan1.svg and File:Oilcan2.svg: Those were under CC BY 3.0 with no restrictions when uploaded (in the former case this was documented via Template:LicenseReview). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This nomination suffers from the same weakness as other mass deletions nominations and, while the reasons for the mass delete may be different from one mass delete nomination to the other, they almost always share the same flaw: they attempt to apply the only one single delete argument evenly to each and every image in question, when each image in question would have immensely different arguments from editors with an opposing view to the delete nomination.

Take, for example, File:Simpleicons Places sunbathing.svg. I would oppose the nomination of such file on the basis that the image consists only of simple geometric shapes and, therefore, doesn't meet the Commons:Threshold of originality needed for copyright protection and is, thus, in the public domain (regardless of whether or not the Source site attempted to claim copyright).
On the other hand, take this other file File:001-teacher.svg. An editor could oppose the delete nomination (correctly or incorrectly) based on Flaticon's published licensing requirments, namely that you can use their images for commercial purposes so long as you attribute the source to them.
Fast forward, then, to another image, say File:Eucalyp-Deus WikiPrince (black).png. An editor, such as it already occured above via Bruce The Deus, could argue that, "Hey, the Source does state the image can be used by anyone, anywhere, and for as long as wanted, for any commercial or personal purpose." Just those 3 images mentioned can have 3 different arguments opposing the delete nomination.

So, whereas the delete nomination is casting all images into teh same "basket of deplorables" with oone single delete nomination argument, each single one of those images may very well have a very distinct reason to be preserved. The point being, the dozens of images brought forward for Speedy deletion here do not all conform to only one single for/against argument; they all have unique arguments of their own. That said, I oppose the nomination because, in the event that there were one or more images in the delete nomination set that may, perhaps, be fairly presented as good delete candidates, the rest of the images, perhaps hundreds of them (see below for why I say "hundreds") should not be made to suffer the same fate as the few that could in fact be noncompliant with Commons requirements. What the nominating editor actually needs to do is to categorize the images into 1 of 4 groups representing each of the delete nomination arguments his gives above: "[1] the icons are subject to licensing terms that are not compatible with the free content requirements for Commons, [2] some of the icons may be acceptable on the grounds that they are below the threshold of originality for the US, [3] For any icons that are non-U.S. works the threshold of originality for the work's country of origin would need to be considered, and [4] there may be a copyright issue with the vectorization itself for the icons".

IAE, I would like to make two additional observations:

(1) I would argue that a Village pump discussion involving just 3 editors can hardly be considered consensus enough to justify the deletion of the proposed images. A discussion seeking elimination of this magnitude of files should had received participation from a much greater number of editors. Additionally, the discussion there, even for the 3 editors involved, was extremely short (less than 1500 bytes) for the magnitude of the result now sought: the elimination of the almost 100 images listed at that Village Pump discussion.

(2) There were less than 100 images discussed at the short Village Pump discussion referenced to by the delete nominator above, and yet there are almost 700 images listed in this delete nomination herein. Why is that? On the surface it would appear that a discussion between 3 editors about less than 100 images is suddenly seeking to elimnate some 700 images by my count; that is, the nomination seeks the deletion of some 7 times the number of images discussed at the original Village Pump discussion. If my math is right, something appears to be awfully wrong with the dynamics evolving here.

Mercy11 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In view of the above--Bruce The Deus (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with speedy close; not only because of the arguments above, but because there was also no consensus at the original discussion last month. (In fact, maybe some consideration should be given to blocking Gazebo for flogging this 700-item dead horse and wasting so much of others' time responding to it.) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the referenced VP/C discussion, there was a reference to icons and this search query. I looked at the icons that were found via the search query (from what I remember) and generated a list of a subset of the icons that I thought were below the threshold of originality. I added this list to the discussion and invited others to contribute. Subsequently, another editor mentioned that they had changed the licensing for some of the icons in my list to {{PD-shape}}.

Perhaps on my part it would have been better to reintroduce the issue of the icons in a new VP/C discussion instead of opening a DR for all of the icons referenced by the previously-given search query. I am sorry to see that others are quite unhappy over this DR, and on those grounds, I would be all right with keeping the icons for now and speedily closing the DR. --Gazebo (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the pd-simple files such as File:Simpleicons Interface arrow-pointing-to-left-side.svg have also been nominated for deletion.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazebo: It's not enough to simply say "I would be all right with … speedily closing the DR." You actually have to go back and remove all those {{Delete}} tags. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlgaeGraphix: The images in Special:Search/insource:flaticon should not have any {{Delete}} tags now. --Gazebo (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, see also w:en:WP:TRAINWRECK. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]