Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

December 2[edit]

File:Sheffield FC.svg[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: Kept for Sheffield F.C. only - Peripitus (Talk) 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Sheffield L.F.C., Sheffield F.C., Yorkshire, Sheffield Rules, Combination Game and History of English football. Image has non-free use rationales (nfurs) for each usage, but the only the nfur for "Sheffield F.C." seems valid. Usage in "Sheffield L.F.C." does not seem to satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, but it might be acceptable if this is the official logo of the women's team. Usage in the other articles, however, seems purely decorative and not to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and the nfurs for these articles are incorrectly claiming that the image is used as being used as the primary means of identification. The image should definitely remain in "Sheffield F.C" and possibly "Sheffield L.F.C" (if UUI No. 17 does not apply), but should be removed from the other articles per WP:NFCCE in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only for the Sheffield F.C. article. The badge was indeed replaced by the the Sheffield Rules photo (free image) in History of football in England. In my opinion, the badge should be also removed from Sheffield Rules so that does not necessary identifies the subject of the article. - Fma12 (talk) 23:15, 12 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.

File:The Birds (band) poster.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: Free+used=kept - Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a purely textual poster, so I am querying why this needs to be under fair use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that when I posted it, but I didn't know if I could post it as a free image either. It probably never had a copyright, but I was playing it safe. Inkwell765 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tag to PD-simple, I think it qualifies. Inkwell765 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PD-text, totally ineligible for copyright protection. It should be uploaded to Commons. Fma12 (talk) 03:11, 13 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.

File:Propetual motion wind powered vehicle concept.jpeg[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:STOVL aircraft.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Container harbour crane.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Schnabel Locomotive.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Trimaran Amphibious Assault Aircraft Carrier.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Chinook helicopter container.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

A series of WP:OR images by Kcida10. These are varying degrees of OR, but all these listed are outside of WP's scope. They've also been added to WP articles in a harmful way.

There may be more of these: there are more images, other editors may consider some of those to also fall outside WP:OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I won't edit Wikipedia anymore. Kcida10

No-one is asking you to stop editing. You're one of the few editors who generates images like this and that's a valuable skill. However we do also have an 'encyclopedia here, which is to record things that already exist and are already described elsewhere. We just don't (by project definition) do novelty or invention. There's a place for that, but it's not here.

WP is however relentless. We don't do WP:OR and that isn't going to shift to avoid upsetting an editor. It's your call if you want to stay here (please do, we need image creation skills) but WP doesn't have space for invention and that isn't changing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a Wiki-ideas that can hyperlink to Wikipedia and use its Creative Commons. But I'm gone, literally that was my last idea, but you'll see it in about 5 years. You heard Apples building a car right? [email protected] Kcida10

Wikideas - new Wikimedia project to contribute ideas not suitable for Wikipedia. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Wikideas Kcida10 —Preceding undated comment added 2015-12-03T07:25:45‎

@Kcida10: You may want to advertise this on the appropriate Wikipedia:Village pump board. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They are great images and Kcida10 has the talent to create very useful work. However, these images are the visual equivalent of original research and are not suitable for use at Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed to avoid mistakes where people inadvertently conclude they represent objects discussed in reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've just removed the "Trimaran assault carrier" image from the Aircraft carrier article, where it was listed under "Future ships of the US Navy". It's an interesting concept and very good picture, but this type of WP:OR fantasy has no place in WP articles. - ^theWOLFchild 04:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also the newly added File:Unmanned robot tank.jpeg Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 15 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.

File:NgawangJigral.jpeg[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 G7 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused file, possibly non-free. Kelly ^hi! 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:58, 2 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.

File:Pump It Up Infinity Logo.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: Deleted. We only use images like this if there is discussion of the image itself, not if there is discussion just about the game version that it is a logo of - Peripitus (Talk) 06:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a logo for 'Pump It Up Infinity' but it is currently used in the article about 'Pump It Up'. Per WP:NFCC#8, it should only be used in an article about 'Pump It Up Infinity'. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is in the correct article. Before November 22 that image was in the Pump It Up Infinity article (History here). All of the Pump it Up related articles were merged into one article on that date. Pump It Up Infinity/Pro is a special spin-off series from the main games and is different than the other Pump it Up games because of it, however, as it's still considered a "Pump It Up" game it was included in the merge.

The Pump it Up Infinity logo is in the section about the Infinity/Pro series and is used as an example image taken from promotional materials for the game. That image was chosen to represent the series as it is the most recent logo for the game and it depicts the game's mascots as well as showing some of the art style used in the game. This was done to help differentiate it from the other Pump It Up games.--Lamoxlamae (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The series article only needs one logo for the infobox—the rest aren't necessary unless they're the subject of dedicated commentary czar 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even an infobox on the page, so feel free add it in and pick a logo to go there. Also please define "dedicated commentary". If it helps, the Pump It Up Infinity logo is right next to a section dedicated to just the Pump it Up Infinity series. Is this the type of thing you're referring to? --Lamoxlamae (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an infobox at the top of the page. Feel free to populate it. The WP:NFCC guidelines are very clear that non-free images should not be used unless they are the subject of specific commentary. czar 05:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is embedded in section talking about the game the logo represents. I don't understand how showing the logo for a game the section is talking about is not "specific commentary". Should the section be larger or more in-depth or talk more about the logo, mascots and art style in specific? I'll go ahead and add more about the logo. It is unique as none of the other Pump It Up games have two female mascots. It's usually one male and one female!

What logo would be a good one for the Pump It Up page in general? Each game has a different logo and different mascots.--Lamoxlamae (talk) 01:55, 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.

File:ALinux.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused logo. Kelly ^hi! 11:41, 2 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.

File:Mct.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no context. Uploader hasn't edited since 2007 and hasn't responded to a request for clarification. czar 14:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No utility having this file. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:28, 10 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.

File:NPTetris.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file seems to clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Nintendo Power given that the issue itself is not the subject of discussion. Also, it probably fails WP:NFCC#8 in Tetris as well for the same reasoning (there currently isn't any fair-use rationale present for use there either.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed for sure in Tetris#NES. Since there's no non-free use rationale for this particular usage, it fails WP:NFCC#10c and could be removed just for that reason alone. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 since a non-free image is not needed to support the single sentence "Nintendo Power reviewed this version in its November/December 1989 edition."

Usage in Nintendo Power might be OK if there was some specific discussion of this particular cover which was supported by reliable sources, but that does not currently seem to be the case. There is some general mentions of various holiday issues, but there is nothing specific about this particular issue or this particular cover at all other than the caption "Nintendo Power's 1989 holiday issue". The non-free use rationale says the purpose is "To show artwork of Tetris on the front cover.", but Tetris is not even mentioned a single time in the article. In addition, the image currently being used in the infobox is more than sufficient to give the reader an idea of what the magazine's cover looked like, so another non-free image is not needed for that per WP:NFCC#3a. Finally, I think the non-free usage of File:Cover of final Nintendo Power issue.png in "Nintendo Power" should also be evaluated for the same reasons in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not used in the right context to meet the criteria.Anon 05:10, 9 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.

File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg in an effort to further establish consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot which has non-free use rationales for Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) and TV-am, but does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either usage. The nfur for the "Good Morning Britain" states that the screenshot is needed to "To show both the style (including set and clock) and presenters of the Good Morning Britain television programme at that time. Note that this displays a different aspect to the logo image File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg, and thus use of two shots is believed justified.", but this is something that is can be more than sufficiently done using text: The reader does not need to see the image to understand that the main set consisted of a sofa and other furniture or that a "famous" analog clock was displayed at the bottom right of the sceen. The nfur for"TV-am" states "This was both TV-am's flagship show and the one for which they are best known, so it was core to their success and thus warrants inclusion here", but that information is not obtained from the screenshot at all. Doesn't a screenshot of four people sitting on a sofa smiling simply show four people sitting on a sofa and smiling?

Usage in both cases seems to be, at least in my opinion, purely decorative and not warranted at all. - Marchjuly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 2015-10-11T12:22:25

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the sofa, lack of the usual desk, and the permanently on-screen clock were innovations in UK TV at this time and for this channel, as was the whole idea of breakfast TV. This channel also made a particular and novel feature of its visual design, even their studio building of Eggcup House, something that was widely covered in design magazines of the period. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer; I'm the uploader). I deliberately chose a frame which conveyed as much as possible about the show in a single, concise image- the appearance of the set, several of the presenters and the general style and aesthetic. In truth, if one could only choose one image to sum up the show, or even TV-am as a whole, this should be it- I don't think it's "purely decorative" at all. Equally seriously, your argument that it could (in theory) be replaced by a textual description could probably apply to the vast majority of Wikipedia images... yet it doesn't, because text *isn't* always a satisfactory substitute for a visual representation. And, as Andy Dingley said, it might seem formulaic and boring nowadays, but that aesthetic and "sofa" format was new at the time. Ubcule (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no sourced discussion in either article which discusses the set or it's visual design. Visual representation is only needed when it the contextual significance of the image is such that omitting it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. If the program's set was indeed novel and did receive significant coverage from reliable sources (i.e., design magazines, etc.) at the time, then that information should somehow be added to Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) (since that seems to be the primary article about the programme) and the sources cited in support (otherwise it's just WP:OR). A sentence such as "The show displayed a famous analogue-style clock on the bottom-right of the screen." (which is not supported by a reliable source saying it was "famous" by the way) is not enough to satisfy NFCC#8 for the screenshot. In addition, the only mention in TV-am about the set design is in the image's caption itself and it's also unsourced. Without more critical discussion (supported by reliable sources) of the set's design and how it was novel at the time, the image is pretty much only decorative (in terms of NFCC#8) and does not significantly increase the reader's understanding to the degree that removing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Television is a primarily visual medium, and thus the appearance of the programme is notable aspect of that, which- I believe I already said in different words- it *isn't* possible to truly convey sufficiently via text alone.

You're intentionally focusing on one point regarding the visual design to set a higher bar for inclusion than I believe was required, as if this were the original rationale, when it wasn't. (Andy Dingley was- I believe- simply making the case that it *wasn't* virtually identical in appearance to countless other shows at the time). The image conveys the visual appearance and aesthetic of a television programme that had a clear "look" in a medium where the look is something most people would consider important.

Further, "understanding" in "the reader's understanding" is a vague term in certain contexts- can one "understand" a subject relating to a primarily visual medium as effectively from a textual description alone? In this case, I follow what I consider the established standards and practice. And let me put it this way- we have a fair use picture in the article for Alistair MacLean- someone whose notability is as an author of written works, and whose personal appearance is- strictly speaking- of no relevance to understanding that. Yet while we have a fair use photo of him, you're arguing against having a single, representative image of a primarily visual subject (i.e. "Good Morning Britain")?

Personally, I *don't* disagree with the MacLean example- I'm using it to show that (a) my usage of the image is well within the established-by-convention-and-practice meaning of the rule you quote, and (b) if we accept that your very strict interpretation of that wording excludes the "Good Morning Britain" image, then it arguably excludes the vast majority of "fair use" images which- in theory- could almost all be described using text. (I already made that point, which you didn't really address).

Also, you haven't responded to the point made that it showed four of the main presenters, in context, and as they appeared at the time the programme was made.

In short, I believe that:-

- My use of the image is well, *well* within the limits of the "fair use" policy if one assumes that existing practice to date (and the precedent it sets) represents the widely-accepted understanding of how it applies

- If you wish to argue that your stricter interpretation says otherwise, then- to be fair and consistent- your case should be made against the majority of "fair use" images I believe it would prohibit, not just this single image.

Ubcule (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion of this particular file and how it is being used in these two articles. Broader discussion about how the NFCC apply (or should apply) to all articles should be done at WT:NFC or WP:VPP. Moreover, trying to argue WP:OSE is not always a good argument to try and make with non-free content because each usage is supposed to be evaluated separately and independently per WP:NFCCE

This file is not currrently being used as the single representative image of "Good Morning Britain" in either article. File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg is doing that in "Good Morning Britain" and File:TV-am logo.svg is doing that in "TV-am". In addition, the fact the image is showing the four together is not really essential to understanding that they were the four main presentors on the show. That's clearly stated in the infobox of "Good Morning Britain" and how they appeared at the time is not really relevant to an article about the show, unless their appearances or the way they appeared on set was something covered in reliable sources. The context for using the image is something established by reliable sources; It's not established by the image itself. This iamge should only be added to support what is written in the article as verified by reliable sources; What is written should not simply be added just to include the image. As I said above, if there was more in the article about about the set's design (i.e., its "clear" look) and how it was novel at the time as well as how the presentors appeared, etc. and this reflected what reliable sources said, then the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 would be more apparent.

All 10 of the NFCC, not 9 out of 10, have to be satisfied for each usage of non-free content. One point is all that needs to be focused on if that one point helps determine whether the usage of the image satisfies the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" This iamge should only be added to support what is written in the article as verified by reliable sources; "

No - the image should be added to support what is relevant, and the article should be improved to also support this. Your entire argument is based on arguing for the existing limitations of its current state and their preservation. If it does not cover a relevant topic at present, it cannot be expanded to cover that relevant topic, simply because it doesn't do so already. That is obvious nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify what I meant in my previous post. I was trying to say that content added to the article should not simply be added if the sole purpose of doing so is to include the (non-free) image. I was not trying to say that the article cannot or shouldn't be expanded to reflect what reliable sources say (said) about the set and its design, etc. and to cite such sources in support. If that's done, then the image could (possibly) be added in support of that sourced commentary. I think I've been pretty consistent on this point throughout this thread. If, however, the information is not supported by reliable sources, then it could be considered original research and possibly removed. If it's removed, then the reason for using the image is also removed. I don't think the image should be added in the hope that someday the article might be expanded to add the relevant context because such usage is mainly decorative and is something not really allowed by the NFCC. NFCCE says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." This discussion is to determine whether the usage of the image satisfies the NFCC for either article. The consensus may be that non-free usage is acceptable in both articles, only acceptable for one article, or not acceptable for either article. If you, Ubcule or another editor feel that the image should stay, then feel free to add more content about the set and it's design, etc. to the relevant articles so there is no question that NFCC#8 has been met. If you feel that nothing further needs to be done, then leave things as they are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a discussion of this particular file and how it is being used in these two articles [..] Broader discussion about [the NFCC] should be done at"

"Moreover, trying to argue WP:OSE is not always a good argument [because] each usage is supposed to be evaluated separately and independently"

You've got it the wrong way round. Personally, I *am* arguing the case for this specific image- I simply expect it to be judged against the same consistent standards as other any other fair use image!

I pointed out that while the section of policy you quoted might (arguably) be open to interpretation, the community's *accepted* interpretation- and where the line was drawn- is strongly indicated by the type of fair use material *consistently* accepted in the past for use in other articles.

No, OSE isn't in itself a valid argument, but my point is that when the arguments and interpretation of the rules *you* are using against this particular image appear to be stricter than the standards applied in almost all other cases, and where- if these standards and interpretations were applied fairly and consistently- would likely result in the deletion of the majority of currently-accepted fair use images... then *that* suggests a contradiction or inconsistency with the widely-accepted interpretation of existing policy (rather than an issue with a specific image) and should be discussed as such.

Regarding the "single representative image", if (emphasis on if) this was an issue, I would consider the sofa shot better for that purpose than the logo. Ubcule (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above was written before I saw MarchJuly's reply (at 00:14) to Andy Dingley above. Ubcule (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the community's accepted interpretation is as clear cut as you think it is. There are quite a few examples in the archives of Wikipedia:Non-free content review as well as in Wikipedia:Files for discussion (For reference, NFCR used to be the place to discuss non-free content matters, but it was recently merged into FFD whose name was then changed from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion") where usage of a non-free image in an article has been deemed unacceptable solely because of NFCC#8 for reasons similar to what I given above. So, the fact that a non-free usage rationale has been provided for an image does not automatically mean it's valid and that all of the NFCC have been met. I am not saying that this image's usage is unacceptable just be the usage of those images was determined to be unacceptable. This discussion is, once again, simply to determine if NFCC#8 is met for this image in these two particular articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure that the community's accepted interpretation is as clear cut as you think it is"

I don't think I was claiming it was. What I *was* arguing is that the case for this image is stronger with respect to NFCC#8 than many- if not most- currently-accepted fair use images (not merely a few hand-picked OSEs). This strongly indicates that this particular image is within the accepted interpretation.

"The fact that a non-free usage rationale has been provided for an image does not automatically mean it's valid and that all of the NFCC have been met"

Again, I wasn't claiming that it was. However, we're not talking about a few OSE's.

The interpretation of NFCC#8 you are using against this specific image would- if applied fairly and consistently to all other fair use images- probably result in the deletion of the majority of them. *That* strongly suggests a significantly different or stricter interpretation of the policy than is generally accepted elsewhere at present.

Unfortunately, we're going round in circles here- I'd already made both these points twice before(!), and (IMHO) they still haven't been properly addressed. I believe that the rationale given and usage for this image is within the currently accepted interpretation of NFCC#8. If you disagree, can you let me know how you intend to proceed? Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the non-free usage of this particular image currently satisfies NFCC#8 for either usage (article) for the reasons I've given above. You and Andy Dingley disagree with me and have given your reasons. Others reading this thread are free to comment and the admin who eventually closes the discussion it will take all of what is written into account. I haven't removed the file from either article; I simply started a discussion about it at NFCR, which has be moved to and continued here at FFD because of the merge, because it involved evaluating the nfurs for each usage and not specifically the deletion of the file itself. If the closing admin feels that usage in both articles is NFCC compliant, then they will leave the images in both articles. If the close is that it should be removed from one or both articles for NFCC reasons, then the closing admin will do that. That's typically how discussions work on pages like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete. in TV-am the image is not even mentioned nor is any element of it. To me as a casual reader of the article I see a corner couch with 4 people on it, nothing special at all. I leave having gained nothing and do not know what understanding I am supposed to have gained by seeing this image. For the other article, Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) I am left in the same position. If there were any sourced commentary at all I expect that the image could and would be replaced by text and so fail NFCC#1. AS it stands the images looks to fail NFCC#8 in that it adds virtually nothing at all to reader's understanding let alone something significant. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for reference to Peripitus or any other editors reading this thread, this file has been mentioned in the an ongoing discussion at WT:NFC#Clarification regarding general legitimacy of video game screenshots and its possible that the outcome of WT:NFC#RfC: Guidelines regarding fair-use images within videogame articles may affect how the NFCC is applied to screenshots such as this. Therefore, it might best for any admin who wants to close this to wait until that discussion has been resolved. --Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. This is an instance where text alone can describe the content in the image, which is as adequate as the image itself because its removal would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. — ξ ^xplicit 02:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecesaary/supplemental nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from TV-am There is no need for images of any programmes in TV-am. That article can refer to articles about individual programmes instead – that's what WP:NFC#UUI §6 suggests.

I'm not sure that we need a picture in Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) which shows a bunch of people sitting on a sofa. What understanding is that supposed to add? That people used sofas in the United Kingdom in 1986? I assume that the room had importance for the TV programme, but there does not seem to be any discussion about the room, so I'm not sure that a picture of the room increases the understanding of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"That people used sofas in the United Kingdom in 1986"

Yes, we need to show that. People on UK TV didn't sit on sofas until TV-AM. They represented a major and innovative turn-around in UK TV presentation: the informality of sofas was just part of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst it may seem surprising to our cousins across the pond, the UK didn't have 24 hr TV till well into the '80s. Programmes started mid-morning and shut down at midnight. Good Morning Britain was very much a different style of TV, previously you'd have seen the presenters behind a desk or in a very small studio with a couple of chairs. The set used for Good Morning Britain set a trend, a picture is very useful for conveying that. I am surprised the article didn't comment on the set as it was a trendsetter. W C M_email 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for reference, the file's non-free usage in two articles is being discussed: TV-AM and Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme). If would be helpful when adding a !vote to clarify whether this refers to both articles or only one of the two, particularly for "keep" !votes. FWIW, a "remove" !vote from one of the two articles does necessarily equate to a "delete" !vote. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 22 February 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.

File:Organization Chart1.gif[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Orgchart2.gif.

These are low quality images with no foreseeable uses. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 2 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.