Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3[edit]

File:Trojan Suspended Fake MSEA.png[edit]

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 F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC violation, items 1 and 8: The main object of this image is showing the words "Unknown Win32/Trojan" but words alone are sufficient to do its purpose. This image is used in Microsoft Security Essentials article, in a section about "Impersonation by malware". But this image does not show impersonation by malware. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC 1, 7, and 8. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2013 (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.

Football programmes[edit]

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. Chick Bowen 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC) This nomination applies to the following files:[reply]

Images of programmes used to decorate the articles about the respective events, with no critical commentary on the programme itself. Violates WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not essential for readers' understanding of the article and its removal would not be detrimental to that understanding. With one exception, uploaders removed {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag without amending the rationale and while I am in within my rights to just re-add it, I have transferred the discussion here as a courtesy. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The match programme is the primary visual identifier of a football match (unless in some circumstances the match has its own logo). Having these images on the match articles allows readers to make sure that they are reading about the correct subject at a glance. Furthermore, I believe that removing the primary visual identifier of a subject would certainly have a detrimental effect on the article, especially since the image is not replaceable by any free alternatives. – PeeJay 14:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously saying that someone will not be able to identify the 2010 League Cup Final from the words "2010 League Cup Final" but will be able to identify it from a programme that they have almost certainly never seen before? Stifle (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If I were saying that, I would be arguing for the removal of the logo from Manchester United F.C., since there are likely millions of people who know what Manchester United is without having seen the logo before. – PeeJay 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that's what your post says: you said the programme is the primary visual identifier of the match. I am saying the title of the match is the identifier. We need to respect the non-free content rules here rather than just concerning ourselves with whether it looks nice. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its well presented on the page and gives the user to see what was issued on the day. By your logic, we might as well take every picture off Wikipedia!! 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I request the closing administrator to discount this !vote as lacking any basis in policy. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how a programme would help people to identifying a sports event. The main identification would be an explanation of what was going on (e.g. what field of sports it was), who the participants were, who the winner was and where the event took place. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole logic about using cover art and posters for "identifying" things hinges on the notion that these things have one primary and privileged visual channel through which they are marketed to the public. Football matches don't. Football matches are simply identified by name of event, names of participating teams, time and place. I have seen TV and media coverage of a lot of highly prominent football matches in my life, and I have never seen a poster like this used in any of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Low-resolution scans of programmes aid visual identification of the article where all articles are structured and named similarly. Given there is never going to be an article on the programmes themselves, using them to represent the matches in question is a valid case of fair-use. Owain (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you explain how removal of the programme would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article? (from NFCC#8) Stifle (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The idea that the image of a program for a sporting event is important to a reader's understanding of the event is preposterous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

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:Digicellogo.jpg[edit]

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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded in use by File:Digicel.png. Cloudbound (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2013 (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.