Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

File:O-Shot-Caw Lodge.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The flap is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the article subject (South Florida Council) and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFCC#8. O-Shot-Caw Lodge currently does not have a standalone article, if it did, it would look like this. The totem is referred to in the article. Each lodge has its own totem reflecting the local culture and geography. The image increases the readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In this case, it the great white heron represents both the lodge, the South Florida Council, and the community. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The totem may be referenced, but the flap is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article that includes this image is nominated for deletion. The deletion of the article would affect how the image is used. George Ho (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AfD mentioned above has now been closed as "no consensus". I believe this derivative image of the embroidered cloth patch worn by lodge members meets NFCC, as it is certainly minimal and of low resolution. As the lodge's official symbol, it's appropriately used in the article's sub-infobox (having been previously merged from a standalone article, as Evrik alluded to). In other words, its use in the article helps identify the subsidiary organization to the reader. JGHowes ^talk 04:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't merged from the article that Evrik linked; that was a demo lasting less than a minute. used in the article's sub-infobox is why it shouldn't be used in the council article. The NFCI#2 allowance for logos only applies to the use of the logo on the infobox or lede for the stand-alone article about the entity^{WP:NFC#cite note-4} It is not used in a standalone article about the lodge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 5 October 2019 (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:Cape Bojeador Lighthouse.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non-free per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cape Bojeador Lighthouse.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (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:Cape Bojeador view.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non-free per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cape Bojeador view.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (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:Pressure vessel for Cape Bojeador Light 2005.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non-free per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pressure vessel for Cape Bojeador Light 2005.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (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.