Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19

File:Revenant.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image is taken from a copyrighted book. It is not the only possible image of such a creature, it just happens to be one image. The fair use justification doesn't seem convincing to me (i.e., the "replaceable" argument is weak), and it looks like the original copyright claim should prevent reuse of the image here on Wikipedia. A loose noose (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2018 (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:Cityscape I 360.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cityscape I 360.jpg (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:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.jpg (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:Ralph Goings.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph Goings.jpg (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:Frankenthaler Helen Mountains and Sea 1952.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: No consensus on use in Helen Frankenthaler, remove from elsewhere. OK, both the keep arguments are too perfunctory. It is not enough to simply say "keep" or "free use established" when discussing a file that falls under WP:NFCC rules; you need to address the ten NFCC criteria directly. It looks like by strength of argument there is support for removing the file from all articles except the painter's, where there is reasoned disagreement on whether NFCC#8 is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of its current usages discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. Many of the uses just repeat the same section about her role as an artist or in color field but nowhere is mentioned why this work is emblematic of her oeuvre nevertheless a FUR that explains how this image is meant to depict what cannot be expressed through text alone. I wouldn't be opposed to using the image in the painter's article if someone were to add those details, but that burden is on the uploader and it has yet to be met. (If this painting launched her career, why can't that be explained in prose—what necessitates an illustration?) The painting could similarly be used in the other articles but currently lacks the justification/sourcing specific to the painting or technique cited as in the painting. And those other pages are already overloaded with cull-worthy non-free images. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except Helen Frankenthaler in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the particular painting. The use in the artist's biography could be improved but is at least roughly compliant with NFCC policy requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2018 (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:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.jpg (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:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg (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:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg (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:Riley, Cataract 3.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riley, Cataract 3.jpg (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:BlackGreyBeat.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg (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:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.jpg (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:Typewriter-eraser.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Typewriter-eraser.JPG (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:Three Flags.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 only in Three Flags, no consensus on copyright status. Well, it seems like there is reasonable argument for both keeping it non-free and relicensing it so keeping it under its current license. It looks like we have consensus for keeping the file solely on the article of the painting, as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. Remove from all articles except the article about the work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Three Flags, remove all other instances. Fails WP:NFCC#1 in 20th-century Western painting and Visual art of the United States, and violates WP:NFC#UUI§6 in Jasper Johns. ℯxplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "free equivalent" of a Jasper Johns flag painting?
  How does one "violate" (incidentally, an awfully aggressive, violent word to use in this conext: this is not a sexual assault) a guideline which sets out a non-exhausive list of examples which "may or may not be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used"? Are they guidance for the use of wise people with a modicum of common sense, or an ossified rule book applied by automatons?
  The idea that we can only include images of works by Jasper Johns in our article on him while we don't have a separate article on those artworks is laughable. Any of the works we would want to include as examples of his output will be notable in its own right, and all are in copyright. So every new article on an in-copyright artwork makes the article on the artist themselves worse? And we end up with no images of his works in our biographical article on him? Ridiculous. 213.205.240.204 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare me the semantics. 20th-century Western painting consists of several freely licensed artwork to depict the time period in painting, and the use of a non-free painting is not justified under WP:NFCC#1. Same issue in Visual art of the United States.

Yes, this is the purpose of NFCC, to minimize the use of non-free content on Wikipedia. We don't allow the use non-free album covers in articles about singers or their discographies, only in the article about the album if it exists. The same goes with book covers and their authors, movies and their directions/producers/actors. This situation is no different. I'm not seeing a single policy-based argument from your side. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you would not try to patronise me.

This image is not an album cover or a book cover. It is an important artwork that is used in four articles. Remove it if you must from Visual art of the United States and 20th-century Western painting (I'm sure your unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of guidance-as-rules will require that, although let us be clear that use in either of those articles is entirely justified, and removal of the work will make them both materially worse) but what possible replacement could you make in Jasper Johns? Once we have articles on all of his notable artworks, we have no images of his works in his article at all. Is that really what you want? 213.205.240.204 (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Three Flags. It's the stand-alone article about the painting and the file is being used in the main infobox for primary indentification purposes, so this use seems to be NFCC compliant. Remove from 20th-century Western painting#Pop art and Visual art of the United States#Other modern American movements per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. These more general articles bascially just mention Jasper Johns by name and there is really no sourced critical commentary of any kind specific to the particular painting in either article. The "20th-century article doesn't even mention the painting by name in it's own caption.) The context required by NFCC#8 is not really being provided and omitting the file from these two articles and replacing them with a link to the paintings stand-alone article would not be in my opinion detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Remove from Jasper Johns. This is the hardest of the various non-free uses to assess. The file should most certainly not be being used as the main infobox image since that should be for a photo of John's himself. However, it might be acceptable to use as an example of John's work and particular style, etc. The problem is that the work itself is just mentioned by name without any real critical commentary of it anywhere in the article, so how it meets NFCC#8 is unclear: the fact that the Whitney Museum purchased the painting for USD 1 million is an interesting bit of information, but not really a sufficient justification for non-free use and a link to the painting's stand-alone article is more than sufficient for that per NFCC#1 and item 6 of NFC#UUI. If there was some specific sourced article content which establishes this as the de-fact representative example of John's work, then it would be easier to see how non-free use might be justified. The other problem is that there are two other non-free files, including one other flag-related work, so it's not really necessary to have three general non-free examples per WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, according to the article Three Flags is not even the best known example of John's paintings of flags. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in all, free use established for this important example of the type and form needed to define the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "free use" because the file being discussed is not a "free image" in the sense of "free from copyright protection". If it was, it wouldn't be being discussed here since its use wouldn't be subject to WP:NFCC. Perhaps you meant "fair use" instead? However, simply arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE doesn't specifically address how these particular uses comply with all ten of the non-free content use criteria and the NFCC has been intentionally made to be more restrictive than the doctrine of fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Three Flags. Unaccompanied by substantive sourced commentary regarding the work itself in those articles. (Reporting the sales price is not "commentary"). WP:NFC#UUI #6 makes clear that mentioning, describing, or characterizing an image in article in not sufficient to justify its nonfree use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all but the article about the painting itself, where it serves to identify the subject. None of the rest discuss the painting in prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone will not suffice. Happy Fourth 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🎆 czar 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 48 star flag is ineligible for copyright thrice. First because it a simple arrangement of geometric shapes, second because it was first adopted in 1912, and third because it's arrangement was established by executive order, making it a work of the US government. This painting is nothing but this svg copied three times using paint. That does not constitute an original work for the purposes of copyright. That constitutes three copies of a free work, all of which are free. GMG ^talk 16:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least a modest amount of originality at hand in the depiction of these flags czar 00:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Minimalist art for discussion regarding TOO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Minimalist_art with no real consensus czar 10:06, 19 July 2018 (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:For Pearl.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:For Pearl.jpg (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:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv

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: Reduce to 10-20 seconds or similar. Consensus is clearly that the file can be shortened and should be shortened in light of WP:NFCC#3b Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file was tagged for reduction by user:Stefan2 and User:Diannaa. I reduced the length of the file to the normal 30 second clip. The uploader believes (User_talk:Ronhjones#Length_of_video) that video clip can be of any length. We need to decide what the length should be. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that it can be of "any" length. I think that the standards of a video from a two-hour film are different than a four-minute song and the clip I've uploaded is less than 1% of the length of the film and has reduced quality as well, so it easily fits the NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3b does not list any specific length, but states that An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. In this case, the discussed visual effects could be illustrated by only showing 10-20 seconds, and you would still understand how the visual effects were made. In other words, the file can be reduced significantly. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A clip of a four minute song is actually limited to 24 seconds max. A clip of a one hour radio program is limited to 30 seconds max, so the comparison between audio and video do hold out. The 30 second clip I made, does show the visual effects clearly enough. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limit it to 10-20 seconds Part of the NFCC is minimal use of non-free content, if the effect can be demonstrated effectively in 10-20 seconds, that's minimal use right there. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2018 (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:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg (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:Sanitationstrikemarker.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded under a self-claim, but the credit line is to "(Photo: Southern Hollows podcast, http://www.southernhollows.com/episodes/memphissanitationstrike)", and checking that source did not lead to a confirmation of CC style license. A clarification would be desirable, as the image is clearly relevant to the article in which it appears. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:MemphisSanitationTruckSouthernHollows.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the photographer credit to the description, as well as to source and author. Colonelinfo —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Um, is the license still correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the license is correct. I took the picture. Colonelinfo —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be changed here? I took the photo and own it. 10:54, 21 July 2018 ColonelInfo

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:CottonMillFounder.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CottonMillFounder.jpg (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:Wendbreakwr.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs specific sourcing—Creative Commons licenses require attribution of the author, and we need to know it was released under CC-BY, not under a more restrictive license. —innotata 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (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:Herringgull.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs specific sourcing—Creative Commons licenses require attribution of the author, and we need to know it was released under CC-BY, not under a more restrictive license. —innotata 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (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:Ready For It? Taylor Swift.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ready For It? Taylor Swift.jpeg (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:Rebel army-nazi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find an article for the rebel army, and there are SVGs available of the Swastika on Commons. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2018 (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:Red Bank WTC Memoral.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

too low in resolution to be of any use, 2D art is copyrighted in the US Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2018 (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:Red Pirrot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, large watermark. Superior files available in commons:Category:Talicada nyseus Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2018 (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:Red Pirrot1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, large watermark. Superior files available in commons:Category:Talicada nyseus Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2018 (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:IsthOneGatesGraph.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused graphic of questionable notability, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2018 (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:Kelly hansen.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res crop of File:Kelly Hansen and Mick Jones.JPG. Future crops should be made using CropTool to ensure image quality retention. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2018 (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:Lynz2005.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

too low in quality for realistic encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2018 (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:Forward-curved-blades.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't understand what it is" is no rationale. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per no valid deletion rationale. It took me exactly one obvious wiki-search to know that this is some sort of blower or fan design. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2018 (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:Matheran Railway Wala.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg (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:Lok Sabha TV logo.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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lok Sabha TV logo.jpg (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:Tropic Sun Theatre 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: relisted on 2018 July 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tropic Sun Theatre sign.jpg (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:SiameseKitten.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned and low-quality picture of pet, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2018 (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:Mamasiamese.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned and low-quality picture of pet, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2018 (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:Cat-eats-a-rabbit.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned and low-quality picture of pet, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2018 (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:Citrasupermarts2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable supermarket, was used in promotional userpage which was deleted long ago. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2018 (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.