Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6



File:India FA.svg

 * 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 All India Football Federation, remove all other instances. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:India FA.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by OAlexander ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally listed at non-free content review, but discussion is going nowhere. There are doubts as to whether all of these pages can display this image as fair use. Please see for the original discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Paging Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed since this was first brought up for discussion at WP:NFCR. I still think that only the usage in All India Football Federation is acceptable per WP:NFCC because the usages in all of the individual team articles fails No. 17 of WP:NFC. This has been the consensus reached in similar discussion such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56 to name just a few and I don't see how this particular usage is any different than those. Suggest keep in "All India Football Federation" and remove from "India national football team", "India national under-17 football team", "India national under-23 football team", and "India women's national football team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:US Soccer Federation.svg

 * 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 United States men's national soccer team. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:US Soccer Federation.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Yxifix ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dead non-free content review discussion, archived at. Please see the original discussion. There are doubts as to whether all of these pages meet free use policy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest keep in United States Soccer Federation and remove from United States men's national soccer team for the same reasons given in the aforementioned NFCR discussion. The consensus in similar NFCR/FFD discussion has been that usage is considered acceptable in the stand-alone article of the national federation, but not acceptable in individual team articles. I don't see how this usage is really any different from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56 or why No. 17 of WP:NFC should not be applicable for this particular logo in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.jpg

 * 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 List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by IQ125 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer. Image has a non-free use rationale the stand-alone article about the book itself and I believe that usage complies with WP:NFCC. Usage in the list article, however, fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Non-free cover art such as book cover is generally considered acceptable in a stand-alone article about the book itself because the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 comes from the entire article and its sources. However, per WP:NFC, usage in other articles, it generally only considered acceptable when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced discussion. Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is a single entry in a list of books and films, etc, written by Fischer or about Fischer. There is no need for the reader's to see this particuar non-free book cover any more then there is the need for them to see File:My60MemorableGames.jpg, File:Bobby Fischer Against the World.jpg or File:Pawn Sacrifice Poster.jpg, the cover art from three other entries in that list. There are plenty of freely licensed images on Commons atc:Category:Bobby Fischer which can be used if desired so a non-free image is not needed. For reference, I've removed the file a few times, but it's been re-added by despite relevant links being left in the edit sums each time it has been removed. So, I have brought here to FFD so that this can be resolved one way or the other. Suggest keep in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and remove from "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The image of this book cover of the seminole work Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Bobby Fischer is the subject of the article, i.e. the author of the book and the book itself; amongst other books about the author in this list. The license attached to the image would allow it to be used in this article.  The image should be allowed to stay in the article. In addition, the image is being used in an article about the book Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. This book is the highest selling chess book of time.  Considering chess books are the second most written and published books in the world this is quite an achievement and certainly adds value to the article. The same is being done with the seminole work of Adolf Hitler with the book cover for Mein Kampf at List of books by or about Adolf Hitler. IQ125 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject of "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer" is not Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. The article is a list of various books and films by Fischer himself or by others about Fischer. The Non-free book cover license for the file just shows that the cover art is protected by copyright, which is something I am not disputing. Every image uploaded to Wikipedia, free or non-free, is required to have information about its licensing or it can be deleted per WP:F4. A copyright tag, however, is not the same as a non-free use rationale and each usage of non-free content is required to satisfy each of the non-free content criteria in order for a valid non-free use rationale to be written. The file's usage in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is not being disputed since the file is provided with a valid non-free use rationale for that particular usage. The current usage of the file in the list article, however, fails two out the ten non-free content criteria and this edit you made does nothing to resolve either of the two.
 * Maybe it will help explain this if I give some examples. File:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg is non-free cover art which is perfectly fine for use in For Whom the Bell Tolls because that is the stand-alone article about the book itself, but it's not being used in Ernest Hemmingway or Ernest Hemingway bibliography, even though it's mentioned in both, because the cover itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within either article. Such usage would fail NFCC#8 because the book is nothing more than a single entry in a list of other books. File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg is considered fine for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because that is the stand-alone article about the album itself. It is also being used in The Beatles where the album cover itself is the subject of sourced commentary, so the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 is considered to be provided. However, the Sgt. Pepper's cover art is not being used in The Beatles discography because such usage would be considered decorative since the album is simply one entry (the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion) in a list of other records, films, etc. by the Beatles themselves. You'll see that the freely licensed File:The Fabs.JPG is being used instead, and the same could be done with any of the freely licensed images of Fischer on Commons in "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove from List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer per failing WP:NFCC; the topic of this article is the bibliography and documentaries as a whole. Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is one of those books, but not synonymous with the whole bibliography; it's not the same topic.


 * While 's concerns about this being a remarkable book by its author are relevant for content - the article text should be written so as to reflect this fact - it doesn't change the NFC considerations here. "Contextual significance" is an abstraction much like notability and we are not claiming that the book is "insignificant". It simply doesn't meet the requirements that are in place for the relationship between a non-free image and an article topic. The consideration about Mein Kampf is irrelevant as that image is free. If Fischer's book cover was free, it would be a content decision whether to include it or not. But it being non-free overrides any debate over preferred content. The image used in this fashion is nice-to-have, but not contextually significant to the degree that "its omission would be detrimental to [the] understanding [of the article topic]" (WP:NFCC8). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, the Mein Kampf example was added by IQ125 to the above post more than an hour after it was originally posted and after I had already responded, which Is why I made no mention of it in my reply. As Finnusertopltalk points out, the image for that book is freely licensed so it's usage is not restricted by the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:UKentucky logo.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  05:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:UKentucky logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Porsche997SBS ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned; Now on Commons as an SVG file. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 15:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:RSS.png

 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:RSS.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Remember the dot ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

SVG version already available at Commons. This local version is only linked to an archived talk page. Cube00 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:DPKA.jpg

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:DPKA.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Srimanthudu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image has been added to the Deepika Padukone awards article. It looks likely to be a copyright violation by a fan as it looks like a photo taken of a another photo from a photoshoot in a magazine. There is no attribution to the author or indication that the uploader is the one who did the original photoshoot. Cowlibob (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.