Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 27



File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.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: keep. ℯ xplicit 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Paul Benjamin Austin ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Second non-free image in article. Two non-free images depicting subject Heather O'Rourke not necessary. AldezD (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This has happened purely because User:TheBellaTwins1445 is trying to force his own preferred photo into the article, a photo that is owned by Getty Images and stolen from IMDb so i can't see it surviving a Files for discussion, either. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The other image is indeed credited to Getty Images. I have tagged it for speedy deletion.  --Whpq (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep since the other image has been deleted. Aspects (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (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:JB Pritzker 2018.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: delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:JB Pritzker 2018.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Over9000edits ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is stated as cc-by-3.0 with a source link to a twitter post. However, the twitter post simply agrees to publish under "creative commons" without specifying which of the many creative commons licenses is being agreed to. This needs to be cleared up as some CC licenses such as non-commercial are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Withdrawn  - Per this update, a clear statement of license has been made (CC-BY-3.0) -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except,, whose Deonte Baker? Is he the one in the photo with J.B. Pritzker? If so, was this taken on a timer? There is no bystander exception in US copyright law. --Majora (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the Pritzker campaign after doing some more research. Deonte Baker is definitely the other person in this photo and it is unlikely they have the right to release the photo. I asked if they would be willing to release a different photo for our use. I'll follow up via the OTRS system but it looks like we can't actually keep this in its current state. If you still wish to withdraw the nomination I will take it over. --Majora (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I agree there is an issue with the right to release the photo.  I have struck through my withdrawal as there is an issue of who holds the copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Files for discussion/Administrator instructions #8. If there are no objections to the deletion of the file, which there are not now that Whpq has withdrawn their witchrawal, then the file can simply be deleted without relisting. It is fine to do so in the grand scheme of things but it isn't normally done. --Majora (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Majora! I'm aware of the closing instructions, but thank you for the link! I misread the ending of the conversation above, which is why I relisted it. I'll close it shortly after this edit. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2018 (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:MichaelMousou.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:MichaelMousou.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Adminium ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use  F ASTILY   07:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2018 (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.

2016 Euro Beach Soccer League logos

 * 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 only the Superfinal logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * File:EBSL stage 1 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:EBSL stage 2 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:EBSL stage 3 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:EBSL superfinal logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Multiple non-free logos being used in the main infobox. These are all essentially the same logo with the only true difference being the stage/location name. While it might be acceptable to use each logo for primary indentification purposes in stand-alone article about each league stage, there's no need to use four per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and even possible WP:NFG. Perhaps there's one single logo being used by the league without the city names, but if not then only one of these should be kept and the others should be deleted. Maybe the logo for the final should be the one that is kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Whilst they are indeed similar, the logos are nonetheless different, and these differences are for a specific reason. The reason why different logos are used is because each stage is held as a mini-tournament within the wider scope of the league season. At the end of each stage the best team is crowned winners of the event and awarded with a trophy; individual awards are also presented for top scorer of the stage, stage MVP etc.


 * The purpose of a different logo for each stage therefore, is to communicate to attendees, fans, readers of news online etc., the fact that the particular stage in question is being treated as its own tournament, requiring its own branding to visually, simply and clearly distinguish the stage as its own event, particularly compared with the other stages with their own logos.


 * The branding of each stage like this helps establish an understanding for the relevant parties (attendees, fans etc.) that the results taking place under the logo of said stage are therefore contained to that stage itself and holistically part of the whole season at the same time.


 * Therefore I do believe WP:NFCC is satisfied, that the non-free presence does increase the readers' understanding of the article topic as explained above.


 * Removing logos and leaving just the final logo as suggested would be misleading for readers. Without any logos, the distinguishing of each stage as its own event is diminished; readers could easily believe/be forgiven for thinking that the results of all the stages of the regular season can simply be merged together, considered as ultimately one set of results spread out over a number of weeks. That each new stage is simply a continuation of the last. As explained, the presence of each logo, crucially, with a simple visual aid, conveys the information for readers that said stage is treated as its own event, standing independent from the other stages.


 * The final logo alone simply cannot convey the fact that the regular season stages also had their own logos because they were being treated as their own events. Only all the logos can portray this vital information. Therefore I believe WP:NFCC is satisfied. There is absolutely the need to use all logos as one item cannot convey equivalent information as explained.


 * Perhaps most importantly, the organisers and logo copyright holders, Beach Soccer Worldwide (BSWW), have themselves explained why such logos are used for each stage – they are used to, quote, "enhance their identity" ('their' meaning the event’s identity). It is quite clear to me that BSWW want to use their logos to make clear graphical distinctions between each stage to ensure fans and other parties view said stage as it’s own event. I think removing the logos would be irresponsibly going directly against what BSWW intend their logos to enhance the understanding of.


 * TurboGUY (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the individual stage logos were used in individual stand-alone articles about each stage, then their respective non-free use would be fine; however, there's really no jusitifcation for a user-created image gallery to be used in the main infobox per WP:NFCC and WP:NFG of the parent article. If these individual stage are notable as individual events, the perhaps they can support stand-alone articles; otherwise, I think more sourced critical commentary about the logos needs to be somehow added with the individual logos moved near that content to meet WP:NFCC. Right now, however, all the content about each stage is simply results, so there's no real need to see the logos to understand any of that; if content about each logo was added to each section, then the logos could probably be moved there. Another alternative would be to add a separate section about the the reasons why the logos were selected and used, and then add the logos to that section near the relevant content leaving the primary one (if there's a primary one) for identification in the main infobox (the infobox logo, however, shouldn't be used twice per NFCC#3a unless two separate non-free use rationales are also provided). I do think that more sourced critical commentary than is going to be needed though; for example, perhaps there's something showing why certain logos were specifically selected for a certain event which discuss the particulars of each logo and also shows the logo(s). Otherwise, there still doesn't seem to be a very strong connection be article content and logo use, especially multiple logo use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You say there is “really no justification” for the gallery, and by extension, no justification for more than one of these logos in the infobox as per WP:NFCC. This is in spite of the fact I have quite literally just stated the justification of the logos and their fulfilment of the requirements of WP:NFCC in my last comment.


 * To paraphrase the justification, I explained that multiple logos are used to distinguish each stage as its own event and independent from one another using a visual aid. Remove these logos and this understanding is diminished for readers. Readers could be misled into thinking the stage results can be understood as ultimately one continuous lump separated only by date and location instead of individual sets of mini tournaments; the logos help communicate the latter through each stage’s exclusive graphical branding. It is impossible for one logo used to identify one stage also be used to identify another. This is an obvious premise. Therefore, WP:NFCC is satisfied as one logo cannot convey the equivalent information that the four together successfully and simply communicate as intended by the organisers.


 * For some reason you have decided not to critique my justification. Instead you have simply dismissed my comments and have then said there is no justification.


 * I understand what is said in WP:NFG and so to whomever decides the outcome of this discussion, as WP:NFG says instances should be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is important that this situation should be recognised as a unique – No one logo takes precedence over the other, no one logo represents the season better than the others, nor does one logo represent the whole season without the others to accompany it. This again is why WP:NFCC is so comprehensively satisfied because one logo does not convey the equivalent information that all of the logos do in unison.


 * Such a unique situation, in my opinion therefore, requires a bespoke solution, and I believe the gallery is the solution, wholly justified.


 * You say that critical commentary about each logo needs to be added in order to meet WP:NFCC. I don’t believe this to be the case. I articulated my justification that the current use of the logos already does meet WP:NFCC in my last comment and again above. Again, you haven’t put any points forward in opposition of what I said; you have simply proceeded to jump to the conclusion that there is no justification.


 * Your comments about the need for critical commentary seem to completely miss the point of what logos are there to do. For sure you could discuss them verbally if want, but the whole point of the logos, and for any logo for that matter, is to visually communicate information without words being needed. Otherwise it would be considered a poorly designed logo if a textual explanation is mandatory to understand what the logo is all about, what it identifies and its significance.


 * Ultimately, the purpose of a logo is for identification, and this is inherently accomplished through it’s visual nature. That’s it.


 * WP:NFCI#2 reinforces and recognises the nature of logos, stating that the justification for using non-free logos is for identification. For other images like posters, video screenshots, cover art etc., WP:NFCI explicitly says critical commentary is needed to justify their use, but this is not the case for logos. In the case of logos, the need for critical commentary to justify their presence is omitted in the clause.


 * Even WP:NFCC itself also says nothing about the need for critical commentary, that simply the non-free content is justified as long as it increases the understanding for readers. It is unspecific on how the understanding is achieved – i.e. it does not have to be done by words accompanying the non-free content discussing it. In this case, the inherent nature of a logo communicates an enhanced understanding of the article to readers through a visual medium for identification.


 * The entire theme of the justifications of the presence of the logos has been about identification – readers use the logos to identify each stage as its own event though the presence of each stage’s own logo.


 * WP:NFC even says, “identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used; for identification of specific coins and currency, images of the front and back are normally used.” Two images for coins are used for identification because both are equally important for identification of said coin. Neither coin face takes precedence over the other. As I explained earlier, each logo, like the front and back of a coin, are equally as important for identification of the season, and to differentiate between the events within the season in these articles, and so are justified to be present in gallery form.


 * You say go on to say “all the content about each stage is simply results, so there's no real need to see the logos to understand any of that”. But that’s exactly the reason the logos are needed; this is what I explained! As I said, paraphrasing again, the logos help add to the understanding of the sets of results showing that with their own branding, each stage was treated as its own event, to be viewed independent from one another. The logos help aid in communicating the fact the stages should not be viewed as “simply results”!


 * When you talk about “another alternative”, again in this part of your comment you are talking about critical commentary. As I just explained, commentary is not necessary to justify the presence of logos in the article. Their purpose is for identification – exploration of the reasons why logos were selected, talking about certain elements of the logos is irrelevant to the concept of identification. As visuals they simply need to be on display.


 * Regardless, I think your suggestions for commentary are going way overboard, far beyond the pale of what is needed to justify having logos in an article. your questioninI say this because I seriously question whether any logo in any article has such a detailed breakdown of the particulars of its logo as you're suggesting is required, bar truly iconic ones like McDonalds.


 * BSWW themselves in that link state the logos are to “enhance identity” of the events. To dismiss this in favour of a more detailed commentary would be wrong in my opinion. The organisers recognise identification is the purpose of their logos and hence they know they don’t need to explain their logos verbally.


 * Throughout this comment, with all due respect, for some reason you have been extremely dismissive of the points I set out in my last comment. I very clearly established the connection between the article and the logos. For you to end the comment by saying there isn’t a strong connection feels somewhat patronising.


 * TurboGUY (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCI is a guideline which provides examples of what are generally considered acceptable types of non-free logo use; it does not mean that every logo used in such a way is an acceptable type of non-free use. My replies have not been dismissive of your posts; I've only pointed out why I feel your rationale for wanting to use so many logos does not, as I see it, clearly satisfy the WP:NFCCP. You keep posting that each of these logos represents a particular event with their own individual branding and that they are essential to the reader's understanding of that idea, yet there is nothing in that article at all about any of that (which is quite important to justifying non-free use); you understand it because you added the logos, but other readers don't automatically make that same connection. The lede states "This season there were three stages of fixtures." and then goes into a little bit of description of the tournament format, none of which requires seeing individual stage logos to be seen. That's why I still feel some more specific commentary about the logos themselves would be helpful to justifying non-free use. If each host city used its own branding, then adding discussion about this would help clarify why the reader needs to see these logos; otherwsie, the reader does not need to see a non-free logo of stage 2 to understand which team won on which date or that the stage was held in such and such a city. So, if you're going to use a user-created gallery in the main infobox, then there should be some discussion of the things you keep pointing out in this FFD, but for some reason are not mentioned at all within the actual article itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Evaluating this comment, it seems this debate has bottlenecked into what is a essentially a case of your claim that critical commentary is needed versus my claim that the logos are there for idenficiation purposes and therefore commentary is not needed.


 * In summary, I have evidenced, using what is said in WP:NFCI, that logos do not need to be accompanied by critical commentary. Meanwhile you have not quoted any clauses to disprove this, just stated your opinion you think it's needed. As much as I respect your standpoint, I believe the policy in WP:NFCI trumps personal opinions. There's little more I think either of us can say on this point without completely repeating myself from previous comments.


 * The crux of the matter is ultimately this - if only one logo can remain in the infoxbox as both you and Explicit have said, what logo shall it be? BSWW did not use one single logo to represent the whole of the 2017 season. A series of logos, the ones shown, were used as the tournament progressed from each phase to the next.


 * You once suggested, of the series of logos, the logo of the Superfinal should be the single one that remains?


 * Well, the Superfinal logo does not represent the whole season, it obviously only represents the Superfinal. It can only be used to identify with one of the four events of the season; 25% of the article content, 25% of the season's activity.


 * It in no way can be used to identify with stage 1, stage 2 or stage 3. There are many accidental red herrings readers could think here - just one may be, identifying with the logo, readers could be mislead into thinking this article is only about the Superfinal.


 * Fundamentally, an undeniable fact is only a composite of all the logos identifies with 100% of the season. One logo cannot equivalently identify with the whole season.


 * So this makes the Superfinal logo unsuitable to be used to represent the 2017 season in the infobox. Therefore we return back to the question - which logo shall be left in the infobox that accurately represents the entire 2017 EBSL season? My answer? Only all of the logos can accurately do this.


 * In the same respect, since WP:NFCC says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", please tell me, which one of these non-free items can convey equivalent information that the four together currently do, and why. TurboGUY (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, WP:NFCI is not policy; it is only a guideline which provides examples of some typess of non-free use which are generally considered acceptable. My reference to critical commentary is based upon NFCC#8 (and how it's usually intepreted in WP:NFC) and minimium use NFCC#3 (WP:NFC). As for which logo to use, the superfinal might be the best one simply because it represents the final stage, but there is no real difference in any of the logos except for the names of the cities. The basic design is the same, so any one of them could be used. An appropriate caption for the main infobox can be added to make it clear which logo it is, and maybe even sourced content could be added to the article discussing the logo(s). Regardless, per WP:NFCCE it is the "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"; moreover, there is similarly wording specifically related to logos found in WP:LOGO. So, this discussion will be decided on whether a consensus is be established that such a thing has been accomplished. Others now have commented on the non-free use as well, and they have still suggested suggested delete based upon the same NFCCP concerns even though they have read everything posted above. We've gone back and forth here pretty much repeating the same stuff and this is unlikely to change. If the consensus is to keep all the logos, then they'll be kept. If not, then they won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all but one. A clear violation of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. NFCC was conceived exactly to not allow such abuse of non-free images. ℯ xplicit 00:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is clear that only one file is OK, but it's not clear which file out of 4 to keep (if any)
 * Delete Concur with Explicit. Also, it is unnecessary to have so many logos either in the infobox or in subdivisions within the article. If they were removed from the infobox, they should not then be distributed throughout the article. As mentioned by some, a stand alone article would warrant a respective stage logo in the infobox. Keeping them all here, whether in the infobox or scattered throughout the article, is no different than including every singles cover for an album in its infobox, and once denied then scattering the singles throughout the album's article. We strive here to reduce non-free content to an absolute minimum. This isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per 's comment above, it appears that one file is all that should be allowed. Any suggestions on which one that should be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Superfinal logo File:EBSL superfinal logo.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hammersoft, File:EBSL superfinal logo.png should be utilized. Pinging . ℯ xplicit 06:33, 23 May 2018 (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.

2017 Euro Beach Soccer League logos

 * 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 only the Superfinal logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * File:2017 EBSL stage 1 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:2017 EBSL stage 2 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:2017 EBSL stage 3 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:2017 EBSL stage 4 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:2017 EBSL stage 5 logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:2017 EBSL Superfinal logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TurboGUY ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Similar to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 15 only this time there are six non-free logos being used in the main infobox. These are all essentially the same logo with the only true difference being the stage/location name. While it might be acceptable to use each logo for primary indentification purposes in stand-alone article about each league stage, there's no need to use four per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and even possible WP:NFG. Perhaps there's one single logo being used by the league without the city names, but if not then only one of these should be kept and the others should be deleted. Maybe the logo for the final should be the one that is kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is clear that only one file is OK, but it's not clear which file out of 6 to keep (if any)
 * Keep – Ditto my comments on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 15. TurboGUY (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My response to this is basically the same as the one I posted above. There's no need for a user-created gallery of non-free logos in the main infobox per WP:NFCC and WP:NFG. If this collage was something created by the tournament organizers, then thatmight be different; however, that does not appear to be the case. If each stage is notable enough to support a stand-alone article, then the individual stage logos can be used in those articles. If there's sourced critical commentary about the logos (for example, their designs, why they were selected, who selected them, who created them, etc., etc.), then that should be added to the article and the logos moved near that relevant content; otherwise, I don't think there's any justification for the non-free use of multiple files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto my second comment on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 15 dated 21 February. TurboGUY (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all but one. A clear violation of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. NFCC was conceived exactly to not allow such abuse of non-free images. ℯ</b> xplicit 00:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, concur with Explicit. Also, it is unnecessary to have so many logos either in the infobox or in subdivisions within the article. If they were removed from the infobox, they should not then be distributed throughout the article. As mentioned by some, a stand alone article would warrant a respective stage logo in the infobox. Keeping them all here, whether in the infobox or scattered throughout the article, is no different than including every singles cover for an album in its infobox, and once denied then scattering the singles throughout the album's article. We strive here to reduce non-free content to an absolute minimum. This isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per 's comment above, it appears that one file is all that should be allowed. Any suggestions on which one that should be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Superfinal logo File:2017 EBSL Superfinal logo.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hammersoft, File:2017 EBSL Superfinal logo.png should be utilized. Pinging . <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 06:33, 23 May 2018 (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:2017 Turku stabbing news photo of the year.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:2017 Turku stabbing news photo of the year.jpg">File:2017 Turku stabbing news photo of the year.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Manelolo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Added proactively by uploader to seek discussion on the image's fair use rationale and if it properly falls under WP:NFCC 'Contextual significance'. As put it when I asked his opinion: "It's the kind use that is neither obviously acceptable nor unacceptable." Tips on reinforcing and/or amending the rationale welcome as well! Manelolo (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 04:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. See the full discussion on my talk page. I think the image serves two purposes that together tip the scales in favor of NFCC#8. On the one hand, it's an illustration of the attack as it actually unfolded, and a highly recognizable one at that, and we don't seem to have free alternatives of that. On the other hand, there is sourced critical discussion of the photograph itself in the article that would be greatly inconvenienced if no image was present. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is the intended use for NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2018 (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:The British eSports Association Logo.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:The British eSports Association Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

Please delete. Obsolete. Replaced by Sacco26 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it isn't obsolete and is still in use. "British Esports Logo.jpg" doesn't exist. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep since the image is still in use and the other image was never uploaded to Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2018 (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:Nofx - fuck the kids (revisited).ogg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Nofx - fuck the kids (revisited).ogg">File:Nofx - fuck the kids (revisited).ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ceoil ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

it's not a sample, it's the entire 34 second long song. RF23 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2018 (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.

Uploads by PeppermintSA
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Horde-zla-derby.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by PeppermintSA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:FK.Sarajevo.Fans.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by PeppermintSA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

PeppermintSA is a copyvio uploader who recently uploaded whole bunch of unfree photos from web under false self made claim. He cutted off the images tags, added false dates and descriptions. These two nominated files seems to be taken from Facebook, since both photos have a width of 960 pixels and this is the default size to which Facebook reduces uploaded photos. The first file has also typical metadata of Facebook photo "JPEG file comment: *". Also PeppermintSA description of this file is false, because there are also other shots of this fellow on the fence and they are from May 2012, not from 2015/11/07 as he claim Oleola (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2018 (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:Mysteryofthewaxmuseum.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 as is. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Mysteryofthewaxmuseum.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Andrzejbanas ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low quality poster, no need for NFCC because there are no copyright notice in poster (it was made 85 years ago, this image should be in public domain in few parts in world). Poor sized image. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C9AB:1D0A:F284:1E2A (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads up, i just uploaded a better quality scan of the poster that is uncropped. The new version has better clarity and is uncropped, which now shows the copyright information on the bottom right corner. You can see the copyright if you click the corner of the image here at this site. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How long until the copyright expired? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:58F2:70A:65B5:C319 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its unclear. I have no official word as I can not find information on who the original artist is and how that would apply with copyright laws. Unless he or she died shortly after, then we would have more information. I haven't seen any duplicates fly around the market of it, so I'd imagine its not out of copyright. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2018 (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:Miervaldis Ādamsons.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Miervaldis Ādamsons.jpg">File:Miervaldis Ādamsons.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Semigall ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A non-free image without a fair use rationale for the article where it's used: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A). In any case, even if such rationale existed, it would not be valid, since fair use rationale does not extend to list articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (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.