The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.png Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Decorative use of non-free album cover art in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game#Soundtrack which fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free album cover art can be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this is generally only when the cover art is being used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album itself; other types of uses are not automatically prohibitted by WP:NFCC, but they tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#cite_note-3). For this reason, soundtrack album covers are pretty much never considered acceptable in articles about films ( WP:FILMSCORE) and articles about TV shows ( MOS:TVPRODUCTION) unless there is critical sourced commentary about the cover art itself (not just the soundtrack album), and I see no reason why the same application of NFCC#8 wouldn't apply to this article about a videogame. There is no sourced critical commentary about the cover art in the section about soundtrack and even if there was this type of non-free use is also problematic per WP:NFCC#3a since it's bascially the same image at File:Scottpilgrimthegame.jpg being used in the main infobox of the article to identify the game. This file was originally tagged with {{ di-fails NFCC}} by JJMC89, but that tag was disputed at File talk:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg#Re. NFCC prod; so, I'm starting a discussion about the file's use here at FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
significantly discussed within the article. WP:NFC#cite note-3 — JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus is to keep this image, but per the updates on 22 March 2020, use it in the article on the book and not in the article on Benson. There is only a FUR for the article on the book currently, so if it is re-added to the article on Benson, a FUR must be added for that article as well. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Decorative use of non-free cover art in Ezra Taft Benson#Civil Rights Movement which fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free book cover art is allowed to be uploaded per item 1 WP:NFCI, but generally only when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book in question. While ther types of non-free use or uses in other articles in not automatically prohibited, they do tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself to tie the article content to the image. This file was originally tagged for speedy deletion by JJMC89 and that tagging was challenged at File talk:The black hammer.gif by it's uploader and with this edit summary by Chris.sherlock. While I think those things were done in good faith, I don't they accurately reflect how this type of non-free use tends to generally be assessed per WP:NFCCP. Even though there is some discussion of the book in the "Civil Rights Movement" section of the article about Benson, there is nothing specific to the cover art itself or any controversy associated with it. There is a caption added to the file that is supported by a citation, but bascially only seems to leave to an archived version of the book (which actually might be a problem per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER) but which doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary about the book's cover. If this book meets WP:NBOOK and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a simple descriptive statement about the cover itself is added to the article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN, in which I purposely used "we" not "you" because it is we who need to be careful of posting anything that doesn't specifically reflect what's stated in reliable sources but which might be based upon how we interpret what we have read. Now, if you want me to be more specific, I do think we need to be careful making statements like this
It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement,
The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itselfand
The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different articlebecause those types of statements are our own interpretations or critical commentary on the situation that have little value to Wikipedia unless they are actually the interpretations/critical commentary found in reliable sources. Anyway, if my opinion is in the minority and the consensus turn out to be that file's use is justified, then that's fine and a consensus doesn't need to be unanimous; however, I've seen nothing posted in this discussion or in the changes made to the article (at least so far) that makes me think the file's use does comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN.I thought that was understood since we appeared to be discussing adding content to the article about the image and Benson's connection to the image. OR and SYN only apply to article content; so, when someone brings them up who seems to have been editing for quite awhile, then it should be kind of understand that's the context the terms are being used. If that part of my post was confusing, however, then my apologies and let me rephrase it as "inferring such things in Wikipedia articles often runs afoul of OR and SYN". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Unused, and the licenses on the file have been in question for almost 6 years and have not been verified and/or corrected. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.png Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Decorative use of non-free album cover art in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game#Soundtrack which fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free album cover art can be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this is generally only when the cover art is being used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album itself; other types of uses are not automatically prohibitted by WP:NFCC, but they tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#cite_note-3). For this reason, soundtrack album covers are pretty much never considered acceptable in articles about films ( WP:FILMSCORE) and articles about TV shows ( MOS:TVPRODUCTION) unless there is critical sourced commentary about the cover art itself (not just the soundtrack album), and I see no reason why the same application of NFCC#8 wouldn't apply to this article about a videogame. There is no sourced critical commentary about the cover art in the section about soundtrack and even if there was this type of non-free use is also problematic per WP:NFCC#3a since it's bascially the same image at File:Scottpilgrimthegame.jpg being used in the main infobox of the article to identify the game. This file was originally tagged with {{ di-fails NFCC}} by JJMC89, but that tag was disputed at File talk:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg#Re. NFCC prod; so, I'm starting a discussion about the file's use here at FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
significantly discussed within the article. WP:NFC#cite note-3 — JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus is to keep this image, but per the updates on 22 March 2020, use it in the article on the book and not in the article on Benson. There is only a FUR for the article on the book currently, so if it is re-added to the article on Benson, a FUR must be added for that article as well. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Decorative use of non-free cover art in Ezra Taft Benson#Civil Rights Movement which fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free book cover art is allowed to be uploaded per item 1 WP:NFCI, but generally only when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book in question. While ther types of non-free use or uses in other articles in not automatically prohibited, they do tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself to tie the article content to the image. This file was originally tagged for speedy deletion by JJMC89 and that tagging was challenged at File talk:The black hammer.gif by it's uploader and with this edit summary by Chris.sherlock. While I think those things were done in good faith, I don't they accurately reflect how this type of non-free use tends to generally be assessed per WP:NFCCP. Even though there is some discussion of the book in the "Civil Rights Movement" section of the article about Benson, there is nothing specific to the cover art itself or any controversy associated with it. There is a caption added to the file that is supported by a citation, but bascially only seems to leave to an archived version of the book (which actually might be a problem per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER) but which doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary about the book's cover. If this book meets WP:NBOOK and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a simple descriptive statement about the cover itself is added to the article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN, in which I purposely used "we" not "you" because it is we who need to be careful of posting anything that doesn't specifically reflect what's stated in reliable sources but which might be based upon how we interpret what we have read. Now, if you want me to be more specific, I do think we need to be careful making statements like this
It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement,
The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itselfand
The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different articlebecause those types of statements are our own interpretations or critical commentary on the situation that have little value to Wikipedia unless they are actually the interpretations/critical commentary found in reliable sources. Anyway, if my opinion is in the minority and the consensus turn out to be that file's use is justified, then that's fine and a consensus doesn't need to be unanimous; however, I've seen nothing posted in this discussion or in the changes made to the article (at least so far) that makes me think the file's use does comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN.I thought that was understood since we appeared to be discussing adding content to the article about the image and Benson's connection to the image. OR and SYN only apply to article content; so, when someone brings them up who seems to have been editing for quite awhile, then it should be kind of understand that's the context the terms are being used. If that part of my post was confusing, however, then my apologies and let me rephrase it as "inferring such things in Wikipedia articles often runs afoul of OR and SYN". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Unused, and the licenses on the file have been in question for almost 6 years and have not been verified and/or corrected. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)