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 F8 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spinality (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

uploader refers to themself as "Trevor Hanson" (see their user page), but states on the file's description page that "Hanson died in April 1967". Something doesn't add up. Either the uploader is impersonating someone, or is related to the photographer (i.e. not the copyright holder). Either way, dubious self-work claim and missing clear evidence of permission. FASTILY 08:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the file to Commons and my reply is at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to delete the local copy of this image and leave the discussion to Commons. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2020 (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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:McGuffey marker.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niteshift36 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 02:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NFCC#8 doesn't require critical commentary. It requires that it increase the understanding. This photo helps the reader understand why the subject is so notable that the state would devote time, effort and money to erecting a marker to educate people about him.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The entire article explains why the subject is notable, and this non-free image does not significantly add to that understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that you feel 'the article explains it'. Many WP articles are littered with multiple pictures. The Commonwealth actually did give written permission for use on WP, but they didn't go so far as to give the CC type release. When looking at the criteria in WP:FUR there is no non-free equivalent, it doesn't compete with the copyright holder's usage, it is a reduced resolution and size photo, it does illustrate the topic of the article...... it meets the requirements. Your opposition is that you don't feel it's important. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is based on a reading the article, a review of what the image is, and whether it significantly increases understanding. My opinion is that it does not. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you don't like it. That's fine. Other people may find it interesting or helpful. Is there any harm in leaving it? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You keep asserting that I don't like it. I neither like it or dislike it. I am stating it fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 which does not need me to either like or dislike the image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. You don't think it's significant. That's your opinion, ergo you don't like it being there. I say it is significant and poses zero risk to us leaving it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is used in other articles now. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no non-free usage rationale for use in those additional articles. Per WP:NFCC#10c, they have been removed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And you showed exactly what I suspected. A historical marker at the school is relevant and gives a more complete picture of the setting. You don't like the picture and have made it a point to get rid of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not, and I now DEMAND you withdraw your accusation. Did you bother reading my post? Did you not see that the image use fails WP:NFCC#10c? I am very disappointed in your attempt to shade my !vote as one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when it is in fact based on policsy. --- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said your vote was based on IDONTLIKEIT and I've explained the difference. Instead of just linking to a part of a guideline, why not try being helpful and tell me specifically how it fails #10 and how it could be fixed? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly would not have thought it would be necessary to handhold somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for over a decade on a policy point that is all of two sentences long. But here goes. Each article in which a non-=free image is used must have its own separate non-free usage rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I fail to see the significance of a photograph of a historical marker that explains, in text, the significance of the person whose significance is also described in the article. We don't need the photograph to understand that this is a notable person because the article text does that. We don't need to see a photograph to know that this marker exists at a school named after the subject, because we also have text sources for that. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2020 (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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ULtras Ahlawy 2014.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crosskimo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously published at https://twitter.com/UltraMentality/status/672074320206798849. No evidence of ownership or permission. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder has claimed. Image used prior to upload also here. A review of the uploader's talk page history indicates this would not be the first copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to copyright issues. GiantSnowman 11:25, 1 September 2020 (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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:1985 NCAA DII Swimming National Champion USF Bulls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 3ntry0urus3rn4me (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and its stated purpose of supporting the point of "The first and only national championship in school history for USF" is done by the referenced text. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (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.