The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 19:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 19:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 20:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. […] The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable.File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg is currently used in 6 articles and I think that that extensive use is in violation of #UU17. I'd say that only AFC Ajax, which arguably, is the main Ajax article should use the logo. Jonteemil ( talk) 10:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 20:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, those closes were quite consistent with the way WP:NFC#UUI17 has been applied since Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, which was the first discussion regarding UUI#17 and this type of file use. They were also consistent with previous discussions related to UUI#17 and such logos such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. So, if there is a problem with the way the the policy is being applied or not applied in certain cases, then that is a discussion for the policy's talk page WT:NFCC.
Anybody who enforces NFCC/NFC routinely runs into editors who insist on restoring violating content.- Hammersoft. That's how I feel now. Jonteemil ( talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Animated version of thanos simply in the article without any explanation, compared to the other depictions of thanos relating to CGI advances or facial animation. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 05:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The image is still copyrighted in US. — Ирука 13 11:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The image has been indexed by TinEye since 2016. Image has been removed from Commons. The image is not used, and it has analogues on Commons. — Ирука 13 16:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Date of publication is unknown - it cannot be argued that the image is PD in US. — Ирука 13 16:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Date of publication of the image/painting: 1970 (?). There is no date of the author's death. Those license templates that are now on the file description page are not applicable. — Ирука 13 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Some image from the internet. — Ирука 13 19:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not known when the photo was published: the license status in the US is unknown. — Ирука 13 20:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 19:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 19:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 20:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. […] The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable.File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg is currently used in 6 articles and I think that that extensive use is in violation of #UU17. I'd say that only AFC Ajax, which arguably, is the main Ajax article should use the logo. Jonteemil ( talk) 10:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC - FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFC#UUI17 in most of its usages. Jonteemil ( talk) 20:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, those closes were quite consistent with the way WP:NFC#UUI17 has been applied since Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, which was the first discussion regarding UUI#17 and this type of file use. They were also consistent with previous discussions related to UUI#17 and such logos such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. So, if there is a problem with the way the the policy is being applied or not applied in certain cases, then that is a discussion for the policy's talk page WT:NFCC.
Anybody who enforces NFCC/NFC routinely runs into editors who insist on restoring violating content.- Hammersoft. That's how I feel now. Jonteemil ( talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
FASTILY 01:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Animated version of thanos simply in the article without any explanation, compared to the other depictions of thanos relating to CGI advances or facial animation. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 05:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The image is still copyrighted in US. — Ирука 13 11:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The image has been indexed by TinEye since 2016. Image has been removed from Commons. The image is not used, and it has analogues on Commons. — Ирука 13 16:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Date of publication is unknown - it cannot be argued that the image is PD in US. — Ирука 13 16:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Date of publication of the image/painting: 1970 (?). There is no date of the author's death. Those license templates that are now on the file description page are not applicable. — Ирука 13 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Some image from the internet. — Ирука 13 19:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not known when the photo was published: the license status in the US is unknown. — Ирука 13 20:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)