Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18

File:Air bag warning sign.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. In the absence of evidence that the text is freely licensed, the precautionary principle applies. ✗plicit 03:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work; no evidence that text is freely licensed. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This file is below WP:TOO. It contains text which has no original authorship, as being common property. Other warning labels also fall in that same category as well. Even the icon used to demonstrate this risk is below the threshold of originality. Aasim (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure we can say the text is below threshold. It consists of several complete sentences. Even in the absence of attribution, someone wrote them and copyright attaches. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:All My Life (Foo Fighters song - sample).ogg

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation, no prejudice to restoration if the article(s) are/is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this sample in-depth -FASTILY 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in All My Life (Foo Fighters song) and One by One (Foo Fighters album). Unconvinced that the sample is needed to grasp the subject of discussion in context, especially in both articles. The album article describes the song very briefly. I'm unsure whether the caption describing the sample is sufficient enough, so I copied the caption into prose. I also believe that the song can be well understood already in context without the sample, which may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sample is a representation of the album sound as a whole, and is included as such in the relevant One by One section. But removed it from the song article, if only to make up for you people overtly worried about copyright. igordebraga ≠ 19:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - Rot.gif

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#3b/WP:NFCC#8 violation, no prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this clip in-depth -FASTILY 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free video game clips. Using a single frame from the file would be sufficient to illustrate the creatures in question rather than using an animation with multiple non-free image frames (WP:NFCC#3). Wcam (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader. Though I'm less adamant about this one than the above, I still think using the animation is important as it captures the movement and animation style of the game's creatures, which received significant praise from critics and is discussed extensively in the article's prose. I'm not opposed to cutting out more of the frames to reduce the file size, but I still believe the animation is suitable. – Rhain ☔ 22:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single-frame JPEG or PNG screenshot should replace this GIF file. I don't see the hesitation to use the single-frame screenshot in lieu of the excessive animated clip. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, maybe both the clip itself and any screenshot of the Rots may fail WP:NFCC#8? George Ho (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 18 January 2022 (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.

Dance Again music video

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: relisted on 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dance Again Jennifer Lopez music video orgy scene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Dance again (video).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Dance Again music video Jennifer Lopez Casper Smart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg

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 Jeon Somi, and add to Dumb Dumb (Jeon Somi song) -FASTILY 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free song sample which is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The song is mentioned in the article but none of the critical analysis claimed in the purpose is present in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whpq's point was absolutely valid, however, having read through the article it was used in, it now meets WP:NFCC#8. Rain Forest (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move file to Dumb Dumb (Somi song). WP:NFC#UUI#6 guides users to utilize non-free content in the article of the subject if it exists, which it does in this case. The critical commentary should be moved there as well. ✗plicit 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, agree, I added it to Dumb Dumb (Jeon Somi song). This FfD can decide whether it should be removed from Jeon Somi or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (completely from the project) - The captions may help, but they should be in prose instead. Furthermore, I listened the sample and wonder whether the sample is needed. All I heard is content that can be easily explained in free text, even when the song's language is not English. Do readers not comprehend adequately what the song article describes without this sample? "Cutesy" melody a reader can grasp; a full song for more understanding, and a sample like this either isn't needed or wouldn't do much. However, the song is Korean, and there are free audio clips containing that language. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation, no prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 07:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NFC#cite note-3 only allows the use of image in the main infobox, not this extra image, as there is no critical discussion about the cover. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many other Wikipedia pages for musical releases use additional covers that bear significance to the release in question. For example, the page for the song I Fought the Law includes additional infoboxes for covers that were done by the other artists, and have the associated images for said covers, but does not include an image in the main infobox for the page. User:PopDisaster182 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan2, if I'm not mistaken, this is usually standard protocol for music Wikiprojects when the item in question is not notable enough for its own article, but is relevant to an existing one. Such an occurrence is usually rare, especially when the art differs this much. Only problem is, journalists would have a hard time trying to mention this in news items because their editor would most likely tell them "no shit, Sherlock" (nicer of course, but you get the idea). A more common example is in "deluxe editions" of albums where not only the cover art differs significantly, but there is new material. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The way WP:NFC#cite note-3 is witten, I think that only one image is permitted. The situation with deluxe editions is clearer. It looks similar to the child and adult editions of the books about Harry Potter, where Wikipedia only uses the covers of the child edition, so I don't think that we should use both regular and deluxe edition covers of music albums.

If the WP:NFC guideline has diverted from music guidelines, then a discussion is needed somewhere, probably at WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has to be one of these discussions somewhere but I'm not certain where it is. All I'm aware of is that this is usually considered normal, as far as I know. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject cannot decide to do something that supersedes a community-wide policy like the WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. If a WikiProject is providing guidance that isn't in accordance with a community-wide policy, it's up to the WikiProject to revise its guidance accordingly to comply with the policy or to get the policy changed. The best way to do the later is to start a discussion on the relevant policy's talk page. You might have a preliminary discussion on a WikiProject's talk page, but things will need to be ultimately sorted out on the policy's talk page. In the case of songs, it seems to be commons practice to put all of the cover versions of a song in the same article for encyclopedic reasons, even in cases where an individual cover might be WP:NSONG in its own right. In many cases, there are individual covers for each of these versions added to the article, but that doesn't necessarily make all of the additional covers NFCC compliant. I think that basically comes down to whether the assessment is that the cover art would be allowed if it were being used in an independent articles about notable cover version. I'm not sure how that applies due to the difference between "song" and "album". I guess the same reasoning could apply if the EP is deemed notable in its own right per WP:NALBUM, but in that case it might simply be better to create a separate article for the EP and then use WP:HATS to link the two articles together. Alternative cover versions used outside the main infobox are going to be harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and simply adding the file to a secondary infobox template isn't probably going to be deemed sufficient. Does the acoustic EP meet any of the criteria of NALBUM; if not, then it's going to be quite hard to justify the non-free use of its cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC#cite note-3 is just talking about a particular state of affairs that automatically satisfies WP:NFCC#8. But even if we don't think it applies here, taking a step back and looking at the #8 "contextual significance" criterion directly in this case, I think it's fair to say it's satisfied. i.e. omitting this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. I mean, the "Acoustic EP" section is basically just a little stub article embedded inside another article. If the image would be appropriate for the exact same content if it were simply moved to its own article, why would it not also be appropriate here? Colin M (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single releases and EPs are entirely different from each other. Singles promote or provide one song as the main focus. EPs, in contrast, are mini-albums providing several different songs. Also, per WP:NFCI, failure to meet those [NFCC] overrides any acceptable allowance here. Regardless of article length, unfortunately, I fail to see how deleting the EP cover can harm what can be already conveyed, especially when the EP release isn't the article's main topic. Readers can already convey and identify the EP release just by reading the text about it. Right? Its cover art can establish the identity of the EP, but I'm unsure whether the cover art is contextually significant enough to be saved from deletion. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Joel Northrup.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:GB Profile General, Jas Hitam Kemeja ungu, Menunduk.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo of non-contributor. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Anjuman Techmical Complexkhamgaon (maharashtra).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Anjuman,Khamgaon.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Arif Bahalim.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:AudiR8silv.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of car is not captured. Better alternatives at c:Category:Audi R8 (2007) coupes. Unused. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Avril Lavigne MuchMusic edit.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar crops at c:Category:Avril Lavigne in 2007. No need to import it there, usage changed to commons file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons files. Salavat (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Bangladesh (orthographic projection).svg.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to c:File:Bangladesh (orthographic projection).svg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:BaoQuocHuanChuongR.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to c:File:VPD National Order of Vietnam - Knight BAR.svg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:BBT Hotel.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low res file that looks like an animation. Considering that the uploader is (still) blocked for copyright violations, it is safe to assume that this might be a copyvio as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Guitar Master bus.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo of non-contributor. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Butch shop.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; large part of the image is also DW of likely non-free art. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Chaela Del Valle at the airport ready for vacation.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Chapel-Youth-Senior Citizen Official.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Perth Museum and Art Gallery extension.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image stated to be needed because it "[s]hows an area that was demolished to make way for the museum and art gallery's extension". The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Whpq (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Chattahippie08.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poster artworks are considered "fair use" by default, and since it cannot be verified whether this was licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. This should be treated as any other fair use file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Chino el OGT.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:BUS' wakeup.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Ellis Square Savannah.jpeg

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: File has been moved to another article. Concerns regarding the new location may be raised in a followup FfD. -FASTILY 07:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is being used with a stated purpose of "Shows the Montmollin Building, a slave market.The building in the foreground is no longer there". The Montmollin building still exists and has a free images available. The building in the foreground is not discussed at all in the article. As used and licensed, it fails WP:NFCC#8. However, the image caption asserts this is a view of Ellis Square in the 19th century, so it might possibly be in the public domain. However, there is no information provided about the image in the source to make such a determination. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to City Market article (where it should have been placed originally), in which there is sourced commentary on the building. Seasider53 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Citroen logo.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already on commons as c:File:Citroën.svg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Civil Ensign of England.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG on commons as c:File:English Red Ensign 1620.svg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Civil Ensign of Great Britain.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG on commons as c:File:Civil ensign of Great Britain (1707–1800).svg. The blue on the flag of the local file is incorrect as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG on commons as c:File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:COLLINS Yahoo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG on commons as c:File:Yahoo! icon (2009-2013).svg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Conan Peneaux.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Chipiliro.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Diet-Cap.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (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.

File:Director Victor Vu headshot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Author is MITBU as claimed in EXIF. Permission needed via VRTS. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:07, 18 January 2022 (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.

File:Betty White final photo.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. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. ✗plicit 23:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photo of Betty White is claimed to be used for "commentary on the passing of Betty White" but there is nothing in this photo that is related to any sort of commentary. There would need to be significant sourced commentary about this image in order ot be kept. As used it is decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that as she is deceased and was largely secluded in the final years of her life, especially post pandemic, no free replacement depicting her in the final years of her life in the 2020s exists and as such the photo's inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically Betty White's article, is justified. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrewieStewie:How is NFCC#8 satified with your justification and its use in the article? -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The significance is that it was her appearance at the time of her death, which is noticably different than the previous pictures taken in 2012. It gives viewers a contextual understanding of her identification throughout her life fron early in her career to the very end of her life, and as such its removal would be detrimental as the previous was from nine years prior and she was preparing to become a bit more active again briefly to ceebrate 100 year old celebrations but ended up passing away just before. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2022 (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.

File:TeamU 2014 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of ownership. Parent article Team U was deleted as a copyright violation. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (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.

File:The Morning After Memoirs book cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "own work" claim. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (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.

File:The Stampede of Life Album cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of album cover. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (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.

File:Paintings of Alexandr Rodin in Berlin.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of non-free paintings. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Germany has freedom of panorama for 2D artworks, but only for those on permanent public display. It's not clear whether these paintings fall under that category. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shall US laws be also considered? The US law would consider the paintings non-free. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2022 (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.