Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

File:Longview.ogg

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 in Longview (song), remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 and WP:NFCC#8 on multiple pages, and WP:NFCC#9 on User:Lemanofthehour/sandbox. This should only be used in Longview (song). Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (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:Awakening of the land.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (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:Countdownpanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:NFCC#8. From a description - "This scene symbolized the arrival of a character known as "The Messenger", and each countdown number had a meaning. Each number was highlighted by fireworks on the islands, with numbers between 2 and 0 being from the bridge." In the image there is a hand sign for 2 on the monitor and fireworks on stage. Grand and artistic elements are associated with opening ceremonies, here we have a description of one and an image for that description. Unlike a straight picture of a description of whats happening, there is a discussion of meaning. There are too many images and not all comply to #8 and should be deleted, but I think for others there is a good argument and several or at least one should be kept. Rybkovich (talk)

@Sportsfan 1234 if you agree with the above can you go through all the images and point out the ones that you may agree that in its strictest sense, don't pass the #8 requirement that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' in its understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That way we can concentrate on discussing the one's that may/or do pass #8 Rybkovich (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2016 (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:Pwowo.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (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:Donovonbaileypanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (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:Entrancepanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Entranceofheralds.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Fores.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Firelinepanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Radiopanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Mountainpanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (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:Ladderpanama.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Trainpanam.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Actionpanama.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Flascarriedin.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Ceospeech.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Flagsontorpanama.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:Finaltorontoapan.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the images pass WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. The subsections are very descriptive and these images help the reader visualize what is being conveyed through writing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (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:The Tilled Field.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 18#File:The Tilled Field.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, except in The Garden of Earthly Delights: replaceable by File:The Tilled Field.jpg which is {{PD-1923-abroad}} and is of similar art style. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in The Garden of Earthly Delights and other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 in The Garden of Earthly Delights and Joan Miró and History of Painting...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? There are indeed discussions about the image in those articles [1]....Modernist (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Modernist - "During the early 20th century, Bosch's work enjoyed a popular resurrection. The early surrealists' fascination with dreamscapes, the autonomy of the imagination, and a free-flowing connection to the unconscious brought about a renewed interest in his work. Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[113] and Salvador Dalí[114] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor. Miró's The Tilled Field contains several parallels to Bosch's Garden: similar flocks of birds; pools from which living creatures emerge; and oversize disembodied ears all echo the Dutch master's work.[113]" Rybkovich (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not critical discussion. It just means that the painting is briefly mentioned. It's not necessary to display the image just for that. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary that is extremely relevant to that critical discussion...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is crucial critical discussion, totally critical to our understanding of Bosch's relationship to 20th century painting. Miro directly quotes Bosch as demonstrated in the article's discussion...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is only mentioned in that section. Precisely the situation which is described in WP:NFC#UUI §6: we link to other pages instead of including non-free content. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except The Garden of Earthly Delights. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The coat of arms of Canada was a completely different situation where that image was used in dozens of places; however intelligence and discretion and common sense says leave the Miro painting in the few historical articles to which it is adding relevant and educational information and value as well as The Garden of Earthly Delights...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (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:TheFarmMiro21to22.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 18#File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Joan Miró. Claimed to be from 1921-22, but the year of first publication is unknown. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be PD image; per WP:AGF and the reported date...Modernist (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again Stefan - there is a discussion regarding the painting already in the article [2] and there is this - [3], show some class and add this discussion to the article........or don't you know how?...Modernist (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good point Modernist - however the proposal is to delete the image because it is not discussed .... but it is here. This has lots of stuff about the painting. Stefan2 .... you are allowed to improve the wiki?? Why not make the improvements you identify? Victuallers (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file has not been proposed for deletion but for removal from one article. Since the painting has an article, WP:NFC#UUI §6 says that we should link to that article instead of using the painting in additional articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Joan Miró. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (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:Still 1957 D1.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: Kept for Clyfford Still only. Other uses are decorative and fail WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Clyfford Still: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFCC#8...Modernist (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. There is no sourced critical discussion about the painting in any of those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup Clyfford Still is discussed in all of those articles and this is an excellent example of his work...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. Clyfford Still is mentioned but not discussed in all of those articles. Also note that this file is not Clyfford Still himself but a painting made by him, so even if there were some sourced critical discussion about him in the article, it would not allow you to insert any of his paintings in the article. You need to add a section or two which is specifically dedicated to sourced critical discussion about this exact painting in order to use it in those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly you should resign from this project, because you have no understanding of Visual art. The images of paintings exemplify why those articles exist....or perhaps you don't know that. Clearly you should resign Stefan...Modernist (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image passes for Clyfford Still, Color Field, Abstract expressionism. The image is helpful for the other articles, but arguably less critical. The idea of having an article on 20th-century Western painting with no examples of seems ridiculous. Knulclunk (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Clyfford Still. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (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:UTSARoadrunners.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: keep in UTSA Roadrunners, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#UUI §17 on numerous pages, and WP:NFCC#9 on Draft:North Texas-UTSA Rivalry. Should only be used on UTSA Roadrunners. Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2016 (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:HiloVulcans.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in University of Hawaii at Hilo as it is not a logo for the university but for a different entity associated with the university. It should only be used in the article about that entity but not in the main university article. The image additionally appears to violate WP:NFCC#9 in Draft:University of Hawai'i at Hilo volleyball team. Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (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:KylieMinogue3DImpossiblePrincess.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant extra cover. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (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:LaSalle Script Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:La Salle Explorers wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 02:02, 1 February 2016 (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:Rokison.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Oliver Rokison article was deleted in 2007, and this orphaned image is unlikely to be ever used. GoingBatty (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (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:Seton Hall Pirates Wordmark.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Seton Hall Athletics wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 02:58, 1 February 2016 (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:Cal State Northridge N Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; multiple files have replaced this file in the articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 04:01, 1 February 2016 (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:ABCTelevision.svg

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 in ABC Television, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in ABC Television, ABC (TV station), ABD (TV station), ABN (TV station), ABQ, ABS (TV station), ABT (TV station), ABV (TV station), and ABW (TV station). File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but only the usage in the parent article "ABC Television" seems appropriate per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. A logo specific to each individual station could possibly be used in their respective articles, but they should not use the parent's logo by default if they don't have such logos. Suggest keep for "ABC Television" and remove from all the individual station articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2016 (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:NDBison.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: remove from North Dakota State University. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file violates WP:NFCC#8 in North Dakota State University as it is not a logo for the university, but for the Athletics Dept., a different organization associated with the university. It should only be used in the article about the Athletics Dept., but not in the main university article. Logo was previously removed from child entities per WP:NFC#UUI §17. [Note: Stole from previous discussions] ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like previous discussions on these logos for Athletics. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The athletics department is not a separate organization or entity but rather an arm of the existing unit of government, a public non-profit organization designed for the benefit of the "citizens of North Dakota" under the authority of the State of North Dakota. It therefor is not unrelated as per WP:NFCC#8 and the view that the logo is not representative of the institution is incorrect. As per the 'University Logos' page the specific use of any of the logos are the specific privelage of either the Office of the President acting on behalf of the University in it's official status or as part of the Athletics Department see https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/www.ur.ndsu.edu/images/NDSU.brandguidelines.pdf. As to WP:NFC#UUI §10, specifically part B,C the additional information can be added - instead of just lazily removing the image at large. Remember that these guidelines for non-free use were added to Wikipedia only AFTER many images were already uploaded to Wikipedia. This image is not even remotely related to WP:NFC#UUI §17 as universities are neither child-parent relationships nor are they unrelated organizations. Blanksamurai (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WP:NFC#UUI §17 refers to articles like the football and men's basketball articles. They were listed there, but I removed them. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, my position was that for the main university article and the main athletics article that it provides the user with an illustration or description of the common school athletics mascot(s), school symbols, logos etc that many readers would find notable. I do not disagree with removing the image of the mascot(s), logos etc from additional articles that focus on specific sports such as football or others. Blanksamurai (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each usage of non-free content is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria. The most subjective of these seems to be WP:NFCC#8. The usage of a non-free image as the primary means of identification for an organization either in the main infobox or at the top of the stand-alone article about said organization is generally considered to satisfy NFCC#8 because the contextual significance it requires is assumed to come from the entire article and its sources. When an non-free logo, etc. is being used with in the subsection of an article, however, it generally considered necessary for the image itself to be the subject of sourced commentary to satisfy NFCC#8 in a manner that seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that removing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Usage is typically considered decorative when there is no sourced discussion (otherwise, it could be considered WP:NOR) of the image because the reader generally does not need to see the image to understand what is written. This is my understanding why mascot logos are generally considered acceptable for stand-alone articles about university athletic departments, but not in subsections about athletics, etc. of main articles about universities. Athletic department articles often include some discussion of the mascot logo a university uses (they probably should if they currently don't) which is supported by some reliable source(s), whereas main articles do not because they just tend to be very simple summaries. The same reasoning is not only applied to athletic teams, but also to any department of a university. Of course there are exceptions, but I don't see anything outside of the first sentence in North Dakota State University#Athletics which mentions the logo, and don't think what is written requires that the reader actually see the mascot logo for that content to be understood. The hat note at the top of the section and the wikilink for "North Dakota State Bison" both direct the reader to the athletic team's stand-alone article where the mascot logo can be seen, which is more than sufficient in my opinion. I think if more sourced information is to be added about the mascot logo, it would be more appropriate to do so to "North Dakota State Bison" than "North Dakota State University". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (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:Vermont Catamounts.svg

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: remove from University of Vermont. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file violates WP:NFCC#8 in University of Vermont as it is not a logo for the university, but for the Athletics Dept., a different organization associated with the university. It should only be used in the article about the Athletics Dept., but not in the main university article. Logo was previously removed from child entities per WP:NFC#UUI §17. [Note: Stole from previous discussions] ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like previous discussions on these logos for Athletics. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the university mentioned is no North Dakota State University, but rather the University of Vermont and in essence is still a fair use of a non-free image used to inform the reader about the primary subject material related to the University of Vermont. By removing the image the revision detracts from the content of the article. Unlike other multitude pages like those of the University of Florida, many analogous articles do not have repeated re-use of the same image ad nauseam as discussed in the TFD from December at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_December_15#File:Florida_Gators_logo.svg. There is a principle difference in the number of, and quantity of use. Blanksamurai (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat everything I wrote above in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 1#File:NDBison.png, but I think almost all of it applies to this image as well. I'm not sure if the number of articles where the mascot logo is being used matters, but rather whether WP:NFCC#8 is being satisfied. I don't think that removing the image from University of Vermont#Athletics would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of "The athletic teams at UVM are known as the Catamounts", especially since a wikilink and hat note is being provided to direct those readers interested in learning more about the university's athletic teams to "Vermont Catamounts". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (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:NewUCSBLogo.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: remove from University of California, Santa Barbara. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file violates WP:NFCC#8 in ~~North Dakota State University~~ University of California, Santa Barbara as it is not a logo for the university, but for the Athletics Dept., a different organization associated with the university. It should only be used in the article about the Athletics Dept., but not in the main university article. Logo was previously removed from child entities per WP:NFC#UUI §17. [Note: Stole from previous discussions] ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like previous discussions on these logos for Athletics. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: I think you meant to discuss this file's usage in University of California, Santa Barbara and not North Dakota State University. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Yes I did, thank you! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (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:Microhydro System.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file was converted to svg and moved to the commons as requested on the image page since 2011. Aptek (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2016 (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:Corky the Hornet.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: remove from Emporia State University. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#2 non-free use on Emporia State University as it is specifically listed as a symbol of the mascot of the athletics department of the university, a "unrelated organization" affiliated with the university. It should be used in the article for the Corky the Hornet or the associated Athletics Dept. page, but not in the main university article. The logo was removed per WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#10 Part C. In specific this likeness is "copyrighted by its creator, Paul Edwards" and "cannot be used without his permission via the Alumni Association and the University". Same as above. Blanksamurai (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Blanksamurai (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been fixed. Hope you're happy. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you'd look deeper into Emporia State's brand, they use Corky the Hornet a lot. See here, and the flags. They also use it as part of the logo on social media: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. To say Corky isn't apart of the university and solely athletics would be wrong. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be made for nearly all of the above non-free university logos, brands, images etc. You are being biased for your alma mater and frankly a bit hypocritical. Either-or, but not both ways. Blanksamurai (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question seems to have been removed from Emporia State University#Mascots so maybe this has already been resolved. Just for the record, I don't think it's usage was appropriate for the university's article because the freely licensed File:Corky the Hornet.jpg (added after the fact) seems to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (WP:NFCC#1) and the context required by WP:NFCC#8 was also not being satisfied. At the same time, I also think the statement copyrighted by its creator, Paul Edwards and cannot be used without his permission via the Alumni Association and the University is not really relevant because non-free content is by definition considered to be "protected by copyright". Each usage of non-free content much satisfies WP:NFCC, but explicit permission from the copyright holder is not needed for such use. The non-free usage in "Emporia State University" was not problematic because the image was copyrighted; it was problematic because it did not satisfy NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (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.