Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 13

< July 12	July 14 >

July 13

File:Obligitory.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaledeeply (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

Unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 09:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image is orphaned and unencyclopedic, will probably not see any future use.
talk) 01:17, 19 July 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:Us senate result 1996.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:1996 Senate election map.svg FASTILY 09:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image made obsolete by the vector version.
talk) 02:05, 19 July 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:Optical-field-autocorrelation-setup.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Optical-field-autocorrelation-setup.svg FASTILY 09:39, 13 July 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:Tubulin.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Tubulin.svg FASTILY 09:39, 13 July 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:Abbireddy Ravi Kumar.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a photo of the uploader, so it's unlikely that the uploader is the photographer.

Stefan2 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 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:ChicagoBlackhawksLogo.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. The instance in the sandbox has already been removed. The use of the picture in Chicago Blackhawks has not been contested. There is no consensus to remove it from Melbourne Whalers as an NFCC violation but some criticism about the value of having this logo on the article, so I'm closing this as keep without prejudice against removing the image as an non-administrative editorial decision. Deryck C. 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the image is fine at
WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Remove from all except Chicago Blackhawks per Stefan2. ★ Bigr Tex 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Melbourne Whalers and of course Chicago Blackhawks and remove in sandbox. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from user sandbox and "Melbourne Whalers" and keep in "Chicago Blackhawks" per nominator. Removal from the sandbox per
WP:NFC#UUI) seems more than sufficient for the reader's understanding in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion of the reasons for no longer using the logo that is on the page is exactly the situation that the policy allows for these logos to be used. This article is actually a perfect example of when we can use them. Seeing what the logo was is helpful to the discussion on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy (more specifically

WP:F5

and the logo can still be seen by readers in the Blackhawks' article, so this other usage does really not seem necessary to me per UUI#6.

In addition, the

context in which the logo is being used is also suspect. The article states that "The jersey design and uniform bore close resemblance to the Chicago Blackhawks design, with the AJIHL logo used for shoulder crests.", but the source cited in support of that sentence says no such thing at all; there's no discussion of either team's logo, or any possible similarity between the two in that particular source. The other source cited in that section is a deadlink, but this archived version shows that, even though the source does mention the naming controversy between the AJIHL and the NHL and how that may have affected the AJIHL's decison to change the names of someof its teams, it does not discuss any similarities between the teams' logos at all and makes no mention that the "NHL had made complaint about a breach of copyright". The sources cited in support of that particular section (as currently written) are questionable at best, and certainly not sufficient to justify the non-free use of the Blackhawks' logo in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 26 July 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:Melbourne Whalers logo.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 Majora (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second use in

Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the 2nd use of the logo is fine as it is used in a specific description about logo design history. This is in line with similar sport team pages who do exactly the same thing to show the evolution of a sporting team logo. I feel that you would need to build a case that supports your opinion about this convention many of the hockey team pages are using, are wrong. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Maple_Leafs Orion 2012 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only in Infobox. I agree with Orion 2012 that Toronto Maple Leafs has a number of inappropriately used non-free logos, and I will plan to start looking at logo use on NHL team pages when I finish with NBA team pages. ★ Bigr Tex 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in infobox, but remove the second usage per
WP:NFCC#10c. There's no need to use the same non-free image twice within the same article and the reader's understanding of the relevant content in "Logo and uniform" section would not be affected by simply showing the logo in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Second use of image removed. Closing this discussion. If there is an issue with other images on other articles those can be brought up in different sections (if they haven't been already). --Majora (talk) 03:47, 4 September 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:Elixir (Banaras Hindu University festival - poster).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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a logo, although the file name presents it as a poster. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Appears to fail

Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 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:Judy.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified person.

Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 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:Comino.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: Keep, now in use Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality, no foreseeable use.

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, it is being used. Case closed. Norum 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image is low quality, and was only put into use on Norum's userpage after the FfD discussion was put up. Just because an image is in use doesn't mean it should be kept.
talk) 02:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per
WP:UPYES, Norum is entitled to display this image that they uploaded on their userpage. If it had been in use, I believe that there is significantly less chance that it would have been nominated. This appears to be a reasonable use of the image. ★ Bigr Tex 19:03, 21 July 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:ATO-Philippines, Inc. Official Coat of Arms.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 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:AP express on inaugaration day.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 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:Anye.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 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:Andy bennett performing solo material.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 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:Alexei Zoubov.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 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:AI2016toneel.jpeg

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 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:AI2016Tekenen.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 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:AI2016KlassiekEnsemble.jpeg

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 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:2016 Yamaha SuperJet on trailer.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

G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This file has Facebook (FBMD) EXIF. This means that the file comes from some page on Facebook. Evidence of permission is needed from the Facebook user.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Please delete file. Hyperduc (talk) 15:35, 13 July 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:"La Vena Amoris" by Mauricio Toussaint.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: 'resized' czar 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@
Stefan2: This can easily be fixed with a manual downsize; from what I know Theo's Little Bot does not work on GIF files. I've made a downscaled crop but my Internet connection does not seem to like it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Stefan2: I have uploaded a smaller version. If it is not small enough, please ping me and let me know how small we are looking for. I have kept a copy of the original on my computer which I can reduce further if necessary. I am happy to do a small volume of manual gif reductions, but would prefer to be told a rough target size. ★ Bigr Tex 19:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@BigrTex, standard is length in pixels times width should be less than 100,000, but as far as I know, that's an arbitrary distinction. The point is that it should be low res enough to not affect the copyright holder's right to sell the image. czar 21:05, 23 July 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:Ant-Man Credits.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 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:Article in August 25, 1983 Times Picayune validating the existence and naming of the official mascot.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 czar 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 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:BG Freshman G&D dj small.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: no consensus, default to keep. (batch closure) There is apparent disagreement on whether or not the "contextual significance" is sufficiently significant. A literal reading of the policy would suggest that it has been complied with, so in absence of a consensus for the contrary, I'm closing these as no consensus default to keep for now.

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File:BG Sophomore ALB dj small.png

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File:BG World's Fair ALB dj small.png

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File:BG World's Fair dj small.png

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File:BG Junior G&D dj small.png

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File:BG Senior G&D dj small.png

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The guidelines for "contextual significance" (NFCC#8) state that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." The idea that a reader's understanding of a series of books would not be "significantly increase[d]" by understanding the books themselves sounds rather implausible. Usernameunique (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that a book cover only is needed in the article about the book in question. This is not the article about the book in question. See also

Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is such a rule stated? The point in contention here is NFCC#8, "contextual significance." As mentioned before, understanding the books in a series would generally tend to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the" series itself. Envisioned in the section explicating contextual significance, "an image of the front cover art" is practical to "identify a subject of discussion." Some articles about series of books might not include discussion of the individual books; the article in question does.

Note also examples six and eight on the list of generally impermissible non-free content. Six, an "image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" (emphasis added), implies that where a separate article does not exist for the relevant passage, including a non-free image there may be appropriate. This is expressly stated by eight, saying that the use of a baseball card image "may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article" (emphasis in original). What is relevant is the specific passage containing discussion, not the broader theme of the entire article.

Re:

WP:NFLISTS, the Beverly Gray article is not a "list article," e.g., "a list of characters in a fictional work." See examples one, two, and three of such "list articles." Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 13 July 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:Rabil.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. --

Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 13 July 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:HJR International Train.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is attributed to Johannes Gloeckner. Who is this person? The uploader has uploaded a couple of other files which are attributed to Denizcan P. Dorsam where the uploader uses the {{

Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 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:Activity score.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by ${\vec {S}}_{W\;AV}={\frac {1}{\sqrt {\sum _{i\in N}k_{i}^{2}}}}\sum _{i\in N}\sigma _{i}k_{i}{\vec {Z}}_{i}$ .

Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 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:Consistency.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by $V_{ij}=\sum _{d\in D}\sigma _{ij}^{(d)}\left|t_{ij}^{(d)}\right|S\left(p_{ij}^{d}\right)$ .

Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 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:Sdenotes value.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by $S(p_{ij})={\begin{cases}1&p_{ij}\leq 0.05\\0&p_{ij}>0.05\end{cases}}$ .

Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 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:Significane of correlation.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by $\sigma _{ij}^{(d)}={\begin{cases}1&\mathrm {sign} \left(t_{ij}^{(train)}\right)=\mathrm {sign} \left(t_{ij}^{(d)}\right),\;d\in D\\-1&\mathrm {sign} \left(t_{ij}^{(train)}\right)=-\mathrm {sign} \left(t_{ij}^{(d)}\right),\;d\in D\end{cases}}$ .

Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 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:Fisher Projection.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Should be replaced by $y_{ij}={\frac {1}{2}}\log {\frac {1+c_{ij}}{1-c{ij}}}$ if useful.

Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 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:Tushpa.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file information page contains the name "Tony Nilson". It is unclear who this person is. Is he the photographer? He is not the uploader as the uploader's userpage identifies the uploader as Xavier Yeran Lister Yuan Xavier.

Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 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:Trotsky grave 2.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete quote. It's unclear what the copyright holder has agreed to.

Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 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:JAGODINAloc.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map.

Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 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:Sasa Milivojev.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 ⚡ 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not own work. Was published before, for example in those newspapers. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 13 July 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:SHSapChart06.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use.

Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 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:Tour de France Titles Per Country.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by wikicode:

Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 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:Runehq.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website screenshot. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader.

Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 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.