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⚡ 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Square layout.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nikkolamur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by Rockstone35 with the reason "Was the companion picture used in the now deleted hoax article Synchronized Football" FASTILY 02:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as original nom. I still think speedy deletion was appropriate since it is in fact a hoax, but this place is fine too. I believe PROD makes more sense. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (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: Keep as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demographics Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hamiltonl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Retag as PD-logo. Tagged PD-USGov, but stated author and source are the University of Virginia. I'd like to confirm that this logo falls below TOO; otherwise WP:NFCC applies. Wikiacc (¶) 01:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's above TOO. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free. I agree with DMacks, there is a fair amount of stuff going on in this logo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:28, 27 June 2019 (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⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thanksgiving Orphans food fight.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• WP:IUP says "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page." The file is 3.23 Mb which, while not huge, is 17 times larger than File:Thanksgiving Orphans Cheers food fight.png (189 KB), the equivalent still image.
• It would not really be fair use to provide "a static image with a link to the animation", since that would entail the use of 2 non-free images where 1 would suffice.
• In effect, at 60 frames, an animated GIF is, technically 60 images (or, in any event, that number of still images can be extracted from it). To that extent, it is comparable to a short video clip - so, and here I'm asking because I'm unsure, would a video clip of this scene in this article be fair use when a still image can suffice?
• It's not necessary, and doesn't really significantly add to any "understanding" provided by the still image.
• It's also distracting to readers, possibly print incompatible, and I think it's just not a particularly encyclopedic thing to do to encourage addition of this type of non-free animation to articles, or really within the spirit of our non-free policies. Begoon 01:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the image back to the PNG version, i.e. previous status quo, for now. I am very undecided about whether the GIF file I made exceeds "fair use", but if it's too excessive, then the still image would pose less risk of infringement. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another update - The previous GIF version may have been excessive, so I eliminated about 90% of frames into just six, reducing the size to 360+ kb. -- George Ho (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another update - I reduced amount of frames to three, reducing the size to 186kb. I also reinserted the GIF file into Production section as temporary until the matter is resolved. Honestly, I am unsure whether the six or three frames would suffice, but I wanted to capture everyone in the scene. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Excessive (WP:NFCC#3) and the gist of it is already covered by the verbal narrative of the food fight in the Plot section (WP:NFCC#1). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:26, 27 June 2019 (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: Allow on Arsenal W.F.C. -FASTILY 21:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arsenal FC.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peeperman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file is currently used as the logo for Arsenal F.C.. It also the correct logo for Arsenal W.F.C.; however, a previous discussion resulted it being removed from the latter page as the women's team was deemed to be a "child club." Not only is that not correct, but it's inconsistent with the we handle other clubs that share the same logo across multiple teams - we simply apply separate NFC criteria for each page that requires the logo. A later discussion then resulted in the @ArsenalLadies Twitter profile photo being used as the logo on Arsenal W.F.C., which was never even an official club logo to begin with, and no longer reflects the current name of the club. Frankly, I'm not sure why I'm being forced to explain this here. It seems like a dead simple fix to me. @Fastily and Explicit: Maybe you can explain the situation better. Eightball (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unsure what the nominator wants to do here? Do you have any evidence that the WFC use the same logo as the men's team? Please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Yes - as mentioned above, File:Arsenal FC.svg is the correct logo for both Arsenal F.C. and Arsenal W.F.C. and should be included on the latter page. As evidence please see the logos used on the offical Arsenal W.F.C. web page, the logos displayed on their jerseys (this is from one of their most recent player signings), and on their official social media accounts. Eightball (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's evidence. GiantSnowman 12:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Same logo used for the men's and women's team. Number 57 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reinstating this logo in the article on Arsenal W.F.C. The reasoning provided in the old discussion by the nominator to remove it was simply wrong. There is no evidence that the women's club is a child entity of the men's club. An affiliation is not the same thing as being a child entity. Therefore all NFC conditions are met for using that logo for that article.Tvx1 23:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd like to chime in here because a related discussion at WP:AN was rather truncated. Mainly to agree with those who have questioned User:Marchjuly's long term pattern of conduct on this issue. His dogmatic insistence that women are "child entities" of men is self evidently dubious. Others have used stronger language but as Marchjuly is obviously very sensitive and liable to take discussion of this matter personally (and is an acknowledged serial complainant at ANI) I'll demur on this occasion! For one thing it is overtly discriminatory - and I suspect the copyright owners of these logos would be horrified at them being fair-used here in such a way. It is also inaccurate: it's not as if Vivianne Miedema will be 'elevated' to the men's team if she keeps banging in goals for the Arsenal women's team. There are FIFA rules prohibiting this, as can be seen from cases like Stephanie Labbé and Maribel Domínguez who were signed by men's teams but blocked from playing. Of course, if her goals suddenly dried up she might find herself demoted to an actual "child entity" i.e. the women's reserve/development team. Under FA WSL licencing criteria the clubs must have their own legal structure, so they produce separate accounts and so on. In no sense whatsoever are they a "child entity". As an elite athlete Miedema competes at the very highest level, not for a farm team or a practice squad. Anyway, the whole concept of a "child entity" appears to be something borrowed from computer programming. The – with all due respect – well-meaning nerds who inserted it into NFCC a few years ago doubtless never imagined it could be misused in this way. Look, I can see that something like the London branch of a British trade union (for example) can be construed as a "child entity" and therefore not entitled to have the national logo on their article. But pretending national football teams are child entities of their associations is a bit of a stretch. Pretending women are child entities of men is even more of a stretch, as well as being offensive/provocative on several different levels. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think the same file should be used in the Arsenal F.C. Under-23s and Academy article as well - from Google images, the academy players are shown using the same logos as everyone else. Iggy (Swan) 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? The problem is that "child entity" is so ill-defined. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy the Swan and Bring back Daz Sampson, a discussion was held a while ago at WP:NFC to try to clarify wether football teams and clubs fall under these "child entities". I focussed on national teams in particular. Although there appeared to be a broad agreement that national teams aren't child entities of FA's, the discussion ultimately dried out and was never assessed to consensus. I have put up a request to have it closed nevertheless. If nothing comes from it, I fully intend to seek clarification on this matter at WP:NFC again.Tvx1 21:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The proposer has been indefinitely blocked and will not be able to respond if required. Nevertheless I do believe this can be closed now. This appears to be completely uncontroversial.Tvx1 21:01, 9 July 2019 (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) 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niels Ejdesgaard.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ronnie Thomassen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lack of detail makes it impossible to determine if this picture is PD or not. Nthep (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not sure what purpose this serves. GiantSnowman 09:24, 28 June 2019 (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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apache Mahout Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NaTRenKO (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't seem unique enough to be eligible for copyright in the United States. If this is so, this should be moved to Commons since this image originated in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2019 (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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croatian Post (Hrvatska pošta) official logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Haganj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

((PD-logo)) since this doesn't seem unique enough to be eligible for copyright in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2019 (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.