Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7[edit]

File:Entangled quantum reach.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 ⚡ 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No rationale given for fair use. Image seemingly used for decoration. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the biggest news story of the year in the field with Science Magazine in particular providing special featured coverage on the topic. Science being the premier journal in the field the utility isn't decoration but to illustrate impact. Low-resolution images to illustrate the publication of the article with the publication name visible on the image itself qualifies as fair use. Kouwenfeld (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kouwenfeld: What does this picture convey that cannot be stated with text? How does it increase readers’ understanding of Quiness? The point is not whether Science is a “premier journal”… Ariadacapo (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you previously familiar with Quiness? The casual reader may quickly glance over the entry and think "niche topic... esoteric ... no relation to me at all ...." The magazine cover very quickly demonstrates impact. It conveys relevance and importance to the achievement. It grabs the reader's attention to say -- "This is big news -- it's the future of the Internet." Kouwenfeld (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating this does not require a non-free image. This is an encyclopedia. The goal is not to grab people’s attention nor change their minds about the topic. This image would be useful to illustrate e.g. Science (journal) or Cover art where what is depicted in the image cannot be replaced by text or by a free image. In Quiness it just serves to prettify the statement "the topic was on the cover of Science". Ariadacapo (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free cover art such as this is generally only allowed for identification purposes when used in a stand-alone article about the work in question. So, if this was being used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the particular magazine or even the particular issue of the magazine, then it's non-free use would probably be OK. Use in other articles, however, typically requires per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 that the cover itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary. This does not mean that story about the experiment in Science cannot be used as a reliable source, but only that a non-free image of the cover of the magazine where the story appeared is not needed for the reader to understand the current article content about the experiement. An event might indeed be the biggest news story of the year or otherwise considered historic, but that doesn't automatically mean that any images associated with the event are also the same as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:SCENE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2018 (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:IsalambadUnitedFC.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: Nomination withdrawn. Although the club fails WP:FOOTYN, the file is unrelated to this reason, so I would like to keep this file now even if related article is deleted. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the club's article is deleted, unless the nominator can provide some other reason to delete it? Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logo is being used appropriately (I have removed it from the 2007 Geo Super Football League). If the club article is deleted then the logo can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There was no need to bring this file to FFD. Salavat (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if the article is deleted, possibility exists that it can be used in other related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:52, 8 February 2018 (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:TribeFCPeshawar.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: Nomination withdrawn. Although the club fails WP:FOOTYN, the file is unrelated to this reason, so I would like to keep this file now even if related article is deleted. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club fails WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the club's article is deleted, unless the nominator can provide some other reason to delete it? Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logo is being used appropriately. If the club article is deleted then the logo can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There was no need to bring this file to FFD. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if the article is deleted, possibility exists that it can be used in other related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:51, 8 February 2018 (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:QuettaZorawarFC.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: Nomination withdrawn. Although the club fails WP:FOOTYN, the file is unrelated to this reason, so I would like to keep this file now even if related article is deleted. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club fails WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the club's article is deleted, unless the nominator can provide some other reason to delete it? Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logo is being used appropriately. If the club article is deleted then the logo can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There was no need to bring this file to FFD. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if the article is deleted, possibility exists that it can be used in other related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:47, 8 February 2018 (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:LahoreLajpaalsFC.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: Nomination withdrawn. Although the club fails WP:FOOTYN, the file is unrelated to this reason, so I would like to keep this file now even if related article is deleted. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club fails WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the club's article is deleted, unless the nominator can provide some other reason to delete it? Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logo is being used appropriately. If the club article is deleted then the logo can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There was no need to bring this file to FFD. Salavat (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if the article is deleted, possibility exists that it can be used in other related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:50, 8 February 2018 (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:KarachiBazigar.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: Nomination withdrawn. Although the club fails WP:FOOTYN, the file is unrelated to this reason, so I would like to keep this file now even if related article is deleted. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club fails WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the club's article is deleted, unless the nominator can provide some other reason to delete it? Giant Snowman 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logo is being used appropriately. If the club article is deleted then the logo can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There was no need to bring this file to FFD. Salavat (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if the article is deleted, possibility exists that it can be used in other related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:51, 8 February 2018 (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:Gopichakarabani.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File has no author, source and description/infomation. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:283B:D518:AB8E:3E30 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2018 (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:LordOfTheFliesSentiment.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 ⚡ 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential WP:COPYVIO as it's lifted from [1]. Also likely WP:OR since no other works are cited in blog post. AldezD (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2018 (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.