Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 26

June 26[edit]

File:112 Somerville Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin.jpeg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary in the article. In particular, there is nothing in the article that discusses the "environment that influenced Tarrant's thoughts" as claimed in the purpose. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. We do not need a picture of the specific computer, and nothing about that fair use rationale suggests an encyclopedic purpose for this image. hinnk (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ph Philippine Archipelago.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No forseeable use, except to apparently nullify the content of the article Treaty of Washington (1900), especially in the context of Philippine President Bongbong Marcos mentioning this treaty as a strong basis for the territorial extent of the Philippines, inclusive of disputed areas (Spratlys and Scarboroughs), Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, and some outlying islands like Tubbataha and Cagayan de Sulu (now Mapun town), which were not included in the first treaty from 1898. Map misrepresents the legal extent of the Philippine territory as per the 1898, 1900, and 1930 treaties. Map is not usable and out of scope of Wikimedia Commons so do not transfer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Asia Qualifier logo.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a generic logo, not a logo specifically for the 2023 event, and thus violates WP:GETTY point 14 and WP:NFCC#8. Nothing on this logo is 2023 specific as it has no reference to the year 2023 on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the logo specific to the event, whether it states the year in the logo or not. The 2022 logo looks different, as far as I can tell, https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/icc-world-cup-2022-schedule-get-full-womens-world-cup-schedule-indian-team-fixtures-date-result-here-1608020469-1 MüllerMarcus (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a generic logo used in 2023 that could be used again should the ICC choose to, as nothing ties it to 2023 only (even the sponsor could be the same in 2025, so they could use this logo again). Many similar logos with no year references have been deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: We don't know what will happen in 2025 for sure (WP:CRYSTAL); If the same logo is used in 2025, then only we should delete it; otherwise it should be kept. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As currntly used, the logo is for one specific year. That this may change in the future is speculative. No prejudice to a future nomination if it does get used for multiple years. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.