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 Cleveland State Vikings, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 03:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

File:CSU07athleticslogo.PNG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SportsMaster ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Cleveland State Vikings, Cleveland State Vikings men's basketball, Cleveland State University, Cleveland State Vikings men's soccer, and Cleveland State Vikings women's basketball. File has a non-free use rationale for each of the aforementioned articles, but only the usage in "Cleveland State Vikings" seems appropriate because it is the main article about the university's athletic teams. I don't think the non-free logo is needed in Cleveland State University#Athletics at all since that usage appears to be purely decorative and does not even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. Usage in the individual team articles seems to fail Number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The freely licensed File:Cleveland State Wordmark.png being used in individual season articles like 2015–16 Cleveland State Vikings men's basketball team could be possibly used in the individual team articles without any real loss of information if the teams do not have their own specific logos. Marchjuly ( talk) 09:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe it meets WP:NFCC#8. People identify Cleveland State University athletics with that logo. There are other Cleveland State's which would lead to confusion. See Cleveland State Community College. I feel that the logos should be kept on their respective pages with the exception of the logo on Cleveland State University#Athletics, which appears to be decoration. I believe it meets WP:NFC#UUI as there is one universal main logo for all athletics.-- SportsMaster ( talk) 14:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just want to add a link to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 15#File:Florida Gators logo.svg, a similar FFD discussion in which the close by admin CactusWriter supported usage of the Florida Gators logo in only the main article about the university's athletic teams. I do not see any reason why No. 17 of NFC#UUI should not be applied the same way here. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:36, 4 January 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.

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 F5 by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Steam Icon 2014.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FunnyKelpie ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free user made SVGs of other logos are not allowable under NFCC MASEM ( t) 13:13, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Ram Aur Shyam soundtrack.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Avengers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not an expert in this type of discussion. I want to add that: unlike world cinema, every Bollywood movies are musical, whether war, action, horror there will be many songs. I can't put any Wikipedia argument related to images. By the way, the article can be developed. Old Bollywood movies don't have many sources. I can give these

Gaana.com -- Link,

itunes,

Saavn-- Link.Thanks. The Avengers 14:14, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Don 1978 CD.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kailash29792 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:03, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Rathinavelu thevar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SNVURDAK SERVAI ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A historical image claimed to be the 'own work' of the uploader. — Vensatry _(Talk) 14:34, 6 December 2015 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Fossil of a complete Stethacanthid sp. skeleton. Akmonistion zangerli specimen HMV8246 of the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow. Photograph taken by Dr. Keith Ingham, published in Coates & Sequeira (2001).gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nidia13 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in that it is used to talk about the skeleton of Stethacanthidae and not the image itself or its publication. Hop on Bananas ( talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Invalid nomination. Of course the representation and the availability of other suitable images is as relevant to an article on the fossil species as it would be to articles on either the fossil specimen, or an article on the particular photograph. Unless you are claiming that, per #1, there are many other free images of such fossils to choose from (you have made no indication that there are), then none of this is reason to delete the image.

When deleting the only image would also obvious damage an article so significantly, it's also good practice to tag that article and the image within it with {{ FFDC}}, so that those editors interested in content (the poor pitiable fools) can see what is about to be wrought upon it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note that the uploader's only uploads are this and File:Drawing of ''Stethacanthus altonensis'', M.V.2830, first dorsal fin and spine. From LUND, R. (1974) ''Stethacanthus altonensis'' (Elasmobranchii) from the Bear Gulch Limestone of Montana.pdf (see its FFD entry above). Their only contributions are to Stethacanthidae and these two files. Hop on Bananas ( talk) 15:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Is that in favour or against keeping these images (the only purpose of this page)? Are you claiming that the uploader has some sort of COI? That they're perhaps some ancient shark uploading selfies? Otherwise your point, and why you chose to make it, makes no sense. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

If both of these images are irreplaceable, I have no objections to deletion. But I'd like more details on specifically why they're irreplaceable (more specific than "complete skeletons of these species are apparently highly unusual" - if all surviving complete stethacanthid skeletons are unavailable for taking freely licensed photos of, where are they and how did they get there)? Someone in the know can tell me here, at the other image's entry, or on my talk page. Hop on Bananas ( talk) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Telenor.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gr1st ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17. A picture like this should only be used in the article about the parent company ( Telenor), but that article contains File:Telenor Group.svg instead.

Also fails WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Removed from userpage (per NFCC#9) and articles where no non-free use rationale has been provided (per NFCC#10c). Agree that non-free usage is not needed in the remaining articles per No. 17 of NFC#UUI. I am wondering, however, if the image is simple enough to qualify for {{ PD-logo}} or at least {{ PD-USonly}} since it just appears to be text an simple geometric shape. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (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.

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 Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 04:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (0–9, A–G).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) as the image isn't discussed critically there.

Fails WP:NFCC#9 in User:DReifGalaxyM31/Partners In Crime 2. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). This is the masthead image for the whole article. These are new Dr Who aliens (AFAIK only appearing in this episode) and this is a representation of them. Their appearance is discussed in the article. Their rendering technique, using MASSIVE, is discussed.

If there is any shortage of discussion in the prose of this article, then the fix for that is to increase the text of the article. The subject matter, our real fixed point in all of this, clearly justifies use of the image.

I have no opinions on the other articles. It's as useful in a list article as any other non-free character illustration is. Non-free isn't accepted in the user: namespace and any use of it for drafting should be done with links to it or placeholders, not by embedding. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), per Andy Dingley. The image is one of the core elements of the article, in both describing the alien, and the production method used in creating them. Remove from List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (0–9, A–G). It should be removed from the user page on sight. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 19:31, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 as failing the non-free content criteria. BethNaught ( talk) 21:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Jacques Lebrun.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NED33 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird as the picture isn't critically discussed there.

Fails WP:NFCC#9 in User:NED33/sandbox. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Removed from sandbox by user _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33 ^talk 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep for Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird. This article is about the Olympic competition in the Snowbird class. The 'present' of the winner/Gold Medaillist is therefor by definition a significant part of the topic. The significance of the picture is to help the reader grab the atmosphere of the event in a way that words alone could not convey and to honor the person. _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33 ^talk 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is no sourced critical discussion about the atmosphere of the event, so we do not need any pictures illustrating this. See WP:NFCC#8. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Compare the picture with one of a sailor of today in a Laser (Similair size dinghy) and you get an idea of the differences in athmosphere in time and culture between 1932 and now. http://www.sailing.org/images/content/awards/lima_celeb_large.jpg _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33 ^talk 21:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • ( edit conflict) If you're claiming that the reader's understanding of those differences is significantly improved by seeing the image, then such differences should be clearly discussed within the article and such discussion should reflect what reliable source say and not what we as editors say. Only then, in my opinion, could it be argued that removing the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding per NFCC#8. Moreover, and a bit nitpicky perhaps, the point of the article is not to honor the person; The article is supposed to simply reflect what reliable sources say (or said) about the event as neutrally as possible. The article says that Lebrun won the event. There is also a stand alone article about Lebrun where the image can be seen. "Honoring the person" implies decorative usage which is not something allowed by the NFCC, so I agree with Stefan2 about it's use the Olympic article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • The time and culture can be illustrated by using any picture of a sailor from that time, not necessarily a sailor who participated in the Olympics. See WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Another problem with the image is that it is being used in a gallery which is generally not allowed per WP:NFG because image galleries generally tend to be for decorative purposes only and lack the contextual significance required by NFCC#8. As Stefan2 says above, this particular image is not needed to illustrate how sailors appeared at the time (if that is even relevant to this particular article) if that's the sole purpose. I guess it is possible that the image may be old enough or some how qualify as public domain. If that's the case, then it can be used like File:Bob Maas en Mr. Stuttenheim.jpg; Otherwise, non-free usage is not really justified for the "Olympics" article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Smartskaft ( talk) 08:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A freely licensed image is present in Jacques Lebrun, so the inclusion of this image is entirely unjustified. — ξ ^xplicit 04:39, 18 December 2015 (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.

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 User:Mardus/Free software projects named after animals. This logo is seemingly non-free. — ξ ^xplicit 04:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

This is claimed to be unfree, but I'm not sure if this claim is correct. According to c:Category:Mozilla Firefox logos, old Mozilla Firefox logos are unfree while new logos are free. I suspect that this also is the case with logos for other products, but I'm not sure. I also don't know whether this is a new logo or an old logo. If the claim about the file's unfree status is correct, then the file should be removed from User:Mardus/Free software projects named after animals per WP:NFCC#9, but if the uploader's claim about the file's unfree status is incorrect, then the file may remain on that page.

Also note that there is an older revision which has been deleted per WP:F5. If this revision turns out to be free, then the old revision might also be free, and should in that case be undeleted. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Removed from userpage per NFCC#9 for time being until this is sorted. Can always be re-added if the image turns out to be free. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You should have instead commented the files out. At least you let me know about the removal. - Mardus / talk 03:01, 8 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Att-cdtol.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Baguala ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3. We only need the infobox image ( File:Tree-of-life-title-card.JPG). Stefan2 ( talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

EXIF says "© John Kelly / RBO / Camera Press / Retna Ltd." which suggests that the picture violates WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (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.

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 Jewish views on slavery#The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. — ξ ^xplicit 04:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)} reply

File:The Secret Relationship cover.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noleander ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and Jews and the slave trade#The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. It has a non-free rationale for each use, but it only seems appropriate for the stand-alone article about the book per WP:NFC#cite note-2. The section about the book in "Jews and the slave trade" links directly to the stand-alone article using {{ main}} and the section does not specifically discuss the cover itself so there is no need for it per WP:NFCC#8. Marchjuly ( talk) 21:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The nomination statement is correct with respect to the use of the file on each of those two pages. But that means that the use at The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is in-policy, so there is no reason to delete the file. The solution is simply to remove the image from the Jews and the slave trade page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the image should be deleted. I think its non-free usage is acceptable in the stand-alone article, but that it should be removed from the "Jews and slave trade article". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. Generally, this page is used for discussing whether to actually delete files. If you just want to delete it from one page, you can just go ahead and do it, and if you get opposition, you can raise the issue at the article talk page instead of here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Just for reference Tryptofish, "Files for deletion" has morphed into "Files for discussion" due to its merge with WP:NFCR. So, discussions regarding non-free content and non-free use rationales are now being done here. Sometimes these discussions do not involve the outright deletion of an image, only whether a particular usage of the image complies with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, thanks for setting me straight! I guess I'm showing my Wiki-age. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
          • FWIW, the merge only happened a month or so ago. There are still some kinks being worked out, one of which is whether it's better to be bold and use one of the alternative to FFD such as what you suggested when it is obvious that an image does not satisfy the NFCC. NFCC#8 removals, however, can occasionally be contentious so I figured it was best to ask here. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Thanks again; you've been very helpful in this discussion. A month ago, I was very distracted from many things here, so I totally missed that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:46, 8 December 2015 (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.