The result of the discussion was: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#1914–15 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.
ℯ
xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Files are licensed as non-free historic images, but I am wondering whether they can be converted to public domain due to their age or for some other reason (e.g., lack of copyright notice, etc.). The source of the file is given as "University of Illinois Archives", but there is no other information provided. If for some reason these files cannot be converted to public domain and need to be treated as non-free, there's really no way to justify using both of them in the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since they essentially seem to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., identify the team) and neither photo is individually the subject of any sourced commentary within the article.
So, I suggest keep for both if the licensing of each can be converted to public domain, and delete for one of the files if they need to be treated as non-free. Which of the two files should be kept in the latter case is open for discussion, but "File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" being currently used in the infobox is of a better quality and actually identifies the members of the team, so it seems that this probably should be the one that is kept.
Finally, if only one of the files can be converted to public domain, that the one which cannot be converted should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete second and there images only. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free images being used in 1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Unless these files can be converted to public domain because of their ages or because of some other reason, there is really no need for three non-free images of the same team to be used within the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. So, suggest keep for all three if they can be converted to public domain, and delete for two of the three if all three cannot be converted. Which of the three should be deleted is open to debate, but "File:1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" is currently being used in the infobox to identify the team, so the other two seem to be unnecessary. If, however, only one of the files can be converted to public domain and the other two cannot, then the non-free files should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: remove from Walsall by-election, 1925. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in Walsall by-election, 1925. Can this file's licensing be converted to public domain due to its age or for some other reason? If it can, then it would not be subject to WP:NFCC. If not, then I'm not sure how its usage in the by-election article satisfies WP:NFCCP, and the file would be must better suited for William Preston (British politician) instead per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Typically, non-free images of deceased politicians have been considered OK in stand-alone articles about the politician because the file serves as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. However, the same has not been the case with respect to using such files in articles about specific elections or list articles because the usage tends to be a little more decorative and not really something needed for the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Item 10 of WP:NFCI says that free use is acceptable for "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person..." We should not interpret item 10 as meaning 'only pictures in their stand-alone article'. If it was meant to mean 'only pictures in their stand-alone article' then item 10 would say something like "Pictures of deceased persons, in the article about that person..." or some similar wording that either specifically uses the word biography or talks about an article in the singular form. The article the image is being used in, is an article about the subject's first election to parliament, so it is most certainly an "article about that person", which means that it meets NFCI#10. It is acceptable under WP:NFCI for a non-free image like this to be used in more than one article. The policy concerns itself with minimal use rather than singular use. There is no reason why this image can not be added to the stand-alone about Preston, so long as an additional fair use rationale is provided. Graemp ( talk) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagged as PD but no evidence of authorship/license/origins/first publication at listed source czar 13:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Primefac ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This violates NFCC No. 8 as it does not contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the article. Moreover, a coloured version of the non-free portrait photograph is already being used in the infobox. De728631 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Third party logo, This version may be self, but the underlying logo design possibly isn't. See http://www.norfolkfireservice.gov.uk/nfrs/ Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The WP:NFCI policy guideline lists the most common cases where non-free images may be used (#1): "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).[1]" Meanwhile, WP:NFC#UUI (#9) states that "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." I uploaded this file to illustrate Alexander B. Rossino article and provided sourced commentary for it, in a stand-alone section of the article, devoted to this book. I believe I have met all the requirements as requested, but the file is being removed now, in a protracting edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz under his claim that the inclusion of it is an NFCC violation. Please comment on our disagreement here. Thanks in advance. [2] [3] [4] [5] Poeticbent talk 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused logo without article. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This was removed from Arlie Neaville by an Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and cited as failing WP:NFC#UUI, although it gives non-free use rationale for every parameter necessary. I disagree with this assessment, but would like to open it up for comment prior to final removal or restoration to the page. Garchy ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#1914–15 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.
ℯ
xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Files are licensed as non-free historic images, but I am wondering whether they can be converted to public domain due to their age or for some other reason (e.g., lack of copyright notice, etc.). The source of the file is given as "University of Illinois Archives", but there is no other information provided. If for some reason these files cannot be converted to public domain and need to be treated as non-free, there's really no way to justify using both of them in the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since they essentially seem to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., identify the team) and neither photo is individually the subject of any sourced commentary within the article.
So, I suggest keep for both if the licensing of each can be converted to public domain, and delete for one of the files if they need to be treated as non-free. Which of the two files should be kept in the latter case is open for discussion, but "File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" being currently used in the infobox is of a better quality and actually identifies the members of the team, so it seems that this probably should be the one that is kept.
Finally, if only one of the files can be converted to public domain, that the one which cannot be converted should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete second and there images only. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free images being used in 1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Unless these files can be converted to public domain because of their ages or because of some other reason, there is really no need for three non-free images of the same team to be used within the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. So, suggest keep for all three if they can be converted to public domain, and delete for two of the three if all three cannot be converted. Which of the three should be deleted is open to debate, but "File:1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" is currently being used in the infobox to identify the team, so the other two seem to be unnecessary. If, however, only one of the files can be converted to public domain and the other two cannot, then the non-free files should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: remove from Walsall by-election, 1925. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in Walsall by-election, 1925. Can this file's licensing be converted to public domain due to its age or for some other reason? If it can, then it would not be subject to WP:NFCC. If not, then I'm not sure how its usage in the by-election article satisfies WP:NFCCP, and the file would be must better suited for William Preston (British politician) instead per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Typically, non-free images of deceased politicians have been considered OK in stand-alone articles about the politician because the file serves as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. However, the same has not been the case with respect to using such files in articles about specific elections or list articles because the usage tends to be a little more decorative and not really something needed for the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Item 10 of WP:NFCI says that free use is acceptable for "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person..." We should not interpret item 10 as meaning 'only pictures in their stand-alone article'. If it was meant to mean 'only pictures in their stand-alone article' then item 10 would say something like "Pictures of deceased persons, in the article about that person..." or some similar wording that either specifically uses the word biography or talks about an article in the singular form. The article the image is being used in, is an article about the subject's first election to parliament, so it is most certainly an "article about that person", which means that it meets NFCI#10. It is acceptable under WP:NFCI for a non-free image like this to be used in more than one article. The policy concerns itself with minimal use rather than singular use. There is no reason why this image can not be added to the stand-alone about Preston, so long as an additional fair use rationale is provided. Graemp ( talk) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagged as PD but no evidence of authorship/license/origins/first publication at listed source czar 13:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Primefac ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This violates NFCC No. 8 as it does not contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the article. Moreover, a coloured version of the non-free portrait photograph is already being used in the infobox. De728631 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Third party logo, This version may be self, but the underlying logo design possibly isn't. See http://www.norfolkfireservice.gov.uk/nfrs/ Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The WP:NFCI policy guideline lists the most common cases where non-free images may be used (#1): "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).[1]" Meanwhile, WP:NFC#UUI (#9) states that "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." I uploaded this file to illustrate Alexander B. Rossino article and provided sourced commentary for it, in a stand-alone section of the article, devoted to this book. I believe I have met all the requirements as requested, but the file is being removed now, in a protracting edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz under his claim that the inclusion of it is an NFCC violation. Please comment on our disagreement here. Thanks in advance. [2] [3] [4] [5] Poeticbent talk 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused logo without article. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This was removed from Arlie Neaville by an Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and cited as failing WP:NFC#UUI, although it gives non-free use rationale for every parameter necessary. I disagree with this assessment, but would like to open it up for comment prior to final removal or restoration to the page. Garchy ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)