Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 1

< November 30	December 2 >

December 1

File:NickatNite10th 1.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1. The logo shown was only used for one year anyway, so it is not really needed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (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:Sandbox 2020 United States General Election Map for Lennox Theodore Anderson.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map for a fictional American election. Uploader is indefinitely blocked, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 03:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2021 (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:Sandiego California breeze March 2018.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of a non-notable rapper, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. This is the uploader's last surviving contribution. ✗plicit 03:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2021 (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:SanFelipeb.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned selfie, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. This is the uploader's last surviving contribution. ✗plicit 03:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2021 (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:Tetonclearing.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 local file as scaled-down duplicate of Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, near duplicate of File:Teton fields.JPG. Only slightly edited. ✗plicit 10:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2021 (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:Doa server screenshot debian, opera 9641.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of copyrighted website. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64 it isn't unused, it's being used on Dogs On Acid JaseW (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file used on the article is a different one. We don't need two similar non-free files on the same article. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (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:Time, Love, Memory.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 00:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The newer cover of Time, Love, Memory has been used since the article's creation. I uploaded the very first edition cover of the book to replace this newer cover. But the newer cover was reinserted for the "Reception" section, which may IMHO insufficiently support it. Furthermore, when it was released in 1999, the book won one award that same year. I think the first edition, which has more historical value, reflects that and should be minimal enough. The newer edition may be recognizable just by looking at it and because it's currently used. However, I'm unconvinced that it is necessary and that it illustrates significance of what's discussed there. In other words, the new cover may potentially fail WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right in your reasoning, but I see no harm on having both covers. New cover is more recognizable and features the main subject on it, the fruit fly. And you wouldn't find the original edition anywhere, so making the book recognizable is valuable. So I'm for keep, of course (I started the article and uploaded the file). Artem.G (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are free images of fruit flies. Even though the photos technically don't replace the newer cover, one of fruit fly photos would be a good substitute/replacement in case the newer cover is deleted. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a passer-by, but I would never bought this book if only first cover was present! Keep the good one! 86.57.255.94 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would apparently work if shopping at a bookstore or a shopping site. However, I fail to see how your argument is a valid reason to keep the newer cover in Wikipedia. Also, many other articles about books typically use first edition covers. BTW, what happen to "don't judge a book by its cover"? George Ho (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2021 (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.