Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 7

November 7

File:Ghadhban Obama (cropped).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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of own work is suspect. Uploader has history of copyright violations and the EXIF on the photo shows this is from Facebook. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:09, 9 November 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.

Greater New York Councils logos

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation -FASTILY 00:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8.

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} — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These images have adorned this article for ten years. This is not the first time these images have been tagged for deletion. I found a reference to the last time here: User talk:Gadget850/Archive 2014#Orphaned non-free image File:Greater New York Councils CSP.png. On background, currently there are 1375 images being monitored by Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. Many of these are images related to local councils of the BSA, like these. These five images belong respectively to Bronx Council, Brooklyn Council, Manhattan Council, Queens Borough Council, and the Staten Island Council. Each of the five councils, have been rolled up into the Greater New York Councils, which itself is a subset of Scouting in New York. Can Greater New York Councils, and each of the subsections be expanded? Yes. However, this does not lessen the importance of the images, just the paucity of the article. The images themselves are a visual reminder that there are five organizations represented on this page. They increase understanding of the reader and should not be deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minus the last sentence, none of that is a policy-based reason to keep the images. Regarding that sentence, none of them identity the subject of the article – File:Greater New York CSP.jpg serves that purpose, and none of the are the subject or sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation was for context. The penultimate sentence is the important one, "The images themselves are a visual reminder that there are five organizations represented on this page." It is how they increase understanding of the reader. --evrik ^(talk) 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a visual reminder that there are five organizations represented on this page That's not what non-free images are for. Those five are not the subject of the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The councils are core to the unique structure of that council. Hence, the images are appropriate. --evrik ^(talk) 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that like it is a fact, but it is contrary to the guideline that I quoted in the nomination. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact. Whether it is contrary is subject to interpretation. --evrik ^(talk) 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sourced commentary about these logos, and the each represent a subunit of the NY council, and as such are not the main subject of the article. As such, their usage is not in line with WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 8 November 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.

Non-free Singapore Air Force insignia

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. The arguments that WP:NFCC#8 is not met are convincing and haven't been compellingly addressed by the keeps. It is not enough for an image to be "relevant"; it has to "significantly increase the understanding of the article topic where its omission would hurt the understanding" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of non-free logos in image gallery in Military aircraft insignia#Current insignia of national air forces which fails WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. The non-free use rationales for the use of the files in the more general military insignia article look like they were just basically copy-pasted from the ones for the uses in Republic of Singapore Air Force with just the article name changed. The two articles are completely different and images are being used in the main infobox of the RSAF article, which isn’t the case at all for the more general article. There is no sourced critical commentary of either the RSAF or these particular images in the more general article, so the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is not really provided. There’s no content about these files in the insignia article which requires that they be seen by the reader to be understood; so, there’s no reason for them to be seen. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP allows the reader to follow the wikilink to the RSAF page, and vice versa - 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- A non-free image isn’t needed at all to create a WP:WIKILINK to another article since there are plenty of alternative ways to do the same thing per WP:FREER; moreover, if that’s the primary justification for using the image, the non-free rationale should state so and not simply try to use the same justification used for the non-free use in RSAF article. —- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, national markings are pretty relevant to an article about national air force markings. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of non-free images which could be argued as being relevant to an article, but “relevancy” is not really a justification in and of itself. Non-free image use in image galleries like this are pretty much never allowed because the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost always lacking; so, perhaps you can clarify how seeing this particular image of the rondel/insignia significantly improves the reader’s understanding of the subject of of the article to the degree that not seeing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about flags, etc. which have similar image galleries, but the use of non-free images in such articles is not the default simply because the non-free file is a flag or something else “relevant”. Perhaps there’s a way to provide the same encyclopedic information about the Singapore rondel/insignia to the reader (e.g. a placeholder image linking to the file’s page) as is done sometimes for similar image galleries, or maybe there’s a way to incorporate some sourced critical commentary about the rondel/insignia into to the article to better establish the context for non-free use. Even if the latter can be done, there would still be need to use two essentially identical non-free files for which the only real difference is that one is red and one is black per WP:NFCC#3a, and this would apply to the RSAF article as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usage in Military aircraft insignia is not suitable for the reasons pointed out by Marchjuly (WP:NFCC#3 / WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFG). Usage in List of air forces does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFLISTS. Usage in Republic of Singapore Air Force fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3 since File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present).svg is part of File:Republic of Singapore Air Force service flag.svg and File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present, low visibility).svg is just a different color. (Color can be described with free prose.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, JJMC89, and mistaken rationale of the unsigned keep !vote that "allows the reader to follow the wikilink to the RSAF page". The reply by Marchjuly points out the reason this is not a good argument for keep. Otr500 (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they are not the subject of commentary and are in fact just jammed into an image gallery. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 8 November 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:Madhava sine tabe in Devanagari.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, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madhava sine tabe in Devanagari.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:18, 7 November 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.