Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longview.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xihix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Awakening of the land.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Countdownpanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Pwowo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Donovonbaileypanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Entrancepanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Entranceofheralds.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Fores.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Firelinepanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Radiopanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Mountainpanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Ladderpanama.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Trainpanam.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Actionpanama.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Flascarriedin.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Ceospeech.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Flagsontorpanama.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:Finaltorontoapan.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sportsfan 1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

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]

File:The Tilled Field.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
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
Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 14 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]

File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 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,
Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 4 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

WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Still 1957 D1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Knulclunk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 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: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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dooptastic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log
).

Violates

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]

File:HiloVulcans.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VitaleBaby (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This appears to violate

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]

File:KylieMinogue3DImpossiblePrincess.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Redundant extra cover. Fails

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]

File:LaSalle Script Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bsuorangecrush (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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]

File:Rokison.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Fish (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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]

File:Seton Hall Pirates Wordmark.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bsuorangecrush (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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]

File:Cal State Northridge N Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bsuorangecrush (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABCTelevision.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stickeylabel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NDBison.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file violates

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:NFC#UUI §17 as universities are neither child-parent relationships nor are they unrelated organizations. Blanksamurai (talk) 18:52, 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
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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Two Hearted River (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log
).

This file violates

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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewUCSBLogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GauchoDude (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file violates

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]

File:Microhydro System.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jmsheats (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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. — ξxplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corky the Hornet.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file violates

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
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_1&oldid=1073596094"