Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 22

< April 21	April 23 >

April 22

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.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 2020 May 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.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:I Want You Back NSYNC Video.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: speedy delete per WP:G7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the statement as part of the purpose of using the music video screenshot, "The screenshot accurately illustrates the description used in the article about the music video in question," the content at the section I Want You Back (NSYNC song)#Music video is too brief to justify using the screenshot of NYSNC in the original music video of "I Want You Back". Also, the words can be already understood without the screenshot, and deleting the screenshot wouldn't affect such understanding, anyway. The screenshot would fail WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation mentions images in general, not specifically music videos. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – from original uploader: I'm fine with the removing the image based on the discussion from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 20. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.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: relisted on 2020 May 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.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:The Best of Volume 1 (Silverchair album - cover art).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: Fails WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8 -FASTILY 03:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar to standard cover. No need for second piece of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How similar? It describes a different, albeit related, product, and includes the text, Complete Videology Plus Emotion Pictures. This signifies that it is the DVD album. The lower image in the infobox could be moved to a new infobox for the DVD section, which is described below the CD/cassette album of similar name. This lower image allows readers to determine that they have the group's music videos and not just their audio tracks if they used the upper "standard" image alone.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Throwing Muses bw promo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an updated photo. No need for fair use. PROD denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NFCC 1, as there are freely licensed images of the band. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tearinupmyheartvideo.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: speedy delete. per WP:G7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC #8 - there's no critical discussion of this scene or why it's significant, therefore it's purely decorative. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC8, doesn't add anything to understanding of topic. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – from original uploader: I initially added the image based on unsourced information added several years ago, which I have now removed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nisha Ravikrishnan in Gattimela.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 ⚡ 04:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a character in an Indian soap opera Draft:Gattimela. This image has been uploaded multiple times on Commons and deleted multiple times, so there's some history. The FUR mentions only the actresses page, not the show, and the show article (when not in draft space) should have the show title screen not this image. My understanding of Wikipedia's WP:NFCC is that non-free images of a living person generally are not allowed if used only to illustrate that person. That appears to be the case here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breast development in a transgender woman.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 ⚡ 04:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected WP:NFCC violation: Minimal number of items. Articles should have only one non-free image, if one or the other can convey the same information (and it can't be replaced by a free equivalent).

Free ones like File:Transgender woman breast.png exist, but it does not seem to come from a (verifiable) peer-reviewed journal source. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but because of NFCC 1, which this clearly fails, as there's already freely licensed images of the depicted topic. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rapunzel in Fairy Tale Forest.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 ⚡ 04:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, very poor quality, no encyclopedic use. Brought here as it had been nominated at possibly unfree images and I am unsure if Prod would have been appropriate. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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