Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

File:ATK Champions 2016.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 as F7 by Rehman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed use is for visual identification of the subject (a football club) but is in fact being used to illustrate a section of the article. The fact that they are 2016 champions does not require a non-free image to convey that fact and there is no sourced commentary about the image itself so there is no foreseeable change in the rationale that could be used to justify the usage of this no-free image. Whpq (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image used in the section 2016 season in the ATK(football club) is justified because it depicts the club lifting the trophy in the above mentioned season. If you go through the details you will understand why the image is necessary for the page. It is all about how you represent the page with valid details. The details that are listed in the section are true and justified and I see no reason for the image to get listed for discussion as the image is necessary for the section. Whpq hope that you will understand my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitosomRoy1234 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RitosomRoy1234:: The usage of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In particular, contextual significance is not satisfied as the reader's understanding that the club was the 2016 champions is already explained in the text of the section and does not need an image to convey this fact -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whpq But it gives a visual delight and in no way you can deny that it is not linked to the section. So why you have to delete it? I just wanted to make sure that the page looks nice with all necessary details. I see other clubs posting the same and their images are not listed. There are so many clubs all around the world who has such images although it is explained in the text section but their images are not listed. I request you to grant access to this image so that everyone else can see the glory that the club has achieved in just 4 years. I can do nothing but request. Please! And moreover I gave all relevant details regarding the image when i added it. i want to know what will I have to do next so that images is clear of all sorts of speculations. If there is any way to solve this problem do let me know. But just dont delete it. Because it takes a lot of time to edit such pages and at the end if this is the final outcome then one just gets tired. i really want this image to stay along with the another file ATK champions 2014. Please sir. its a request — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitosomRoy1234 (talk • contribs)
    - Your statement "...it gives a visual delight..." makes it fairly clear that the image is primarily decorative. And as much as we would like to have such an image, it does not meet the criteria for use of non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq Then give me a reason where big clubs have such images intact in their content and why clubs like ATK has to face this. I am in no way tampering the content of anything but just giving a better view of the fact that is exactly written in the content. Then why images are made to inserted in contents???? Just to give a valid identification of what is exactly happening in the content! There are so many pages doing such staff and it would be biast of you if you delete it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitosomRoy1234 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other images also in many other pages showing exactly what is written in the contents. then why they arent deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitosomRoy1234 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles on football clubs may also be using non-free content inappropriately. But that is not a reason to keep the non-compliant image here. It is a reason to remove the image in the other article. You haven't given any examples of this usage in other team articles. -- Whpq (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't need to see the team pose with a poster to understand the statement that they won a championship. Proof for claims made in articles is done by citing reliable sources with inline citations. If there are similar cases, please report them to FFD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (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:House of lords.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 Rehman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be album cover-art, so a clarification is needed as to how this qualifies as self work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to File:House of Lords LOTUG.jpg,and license claim is not credible. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2018 (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:Greenup-Il-Sign.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 as F8 by Rehman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A sign is an artwork, There is only limited Freedom of Panorama in the United States and this is of recent origin. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2018 (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.