Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31[edit]

File:Engagement.gif[edit]

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 ⚡ 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This low quality image presents largely meaningless marketing babble, and it also has a vague non-descriptive name. Its only use was in Engagement marketing, where I removed it because it was attached to an unsourced (and meaningless) sentence. See also the MS Word grammar suggestion squiggle. If we absolutely have to keep this dirge of marketing buzzwords, it could be replaced by a higher quality image. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 1 February 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:Elton John performing Ticking in 2003.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image of Elton John performing is claimed to be "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." It does nothing of the sort. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:15, 31 January 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:Office it.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely used on self-named page that was speedy deleted in 2008 (Speedy deletion of TArun chatterjee). No user edits since 2008. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 1 February 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:TArun.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely used on self-named page that was speedy deleted in 2008 (Speedy deletion of TArun chatterjee). No user edits since 2008 Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:55, 1 February 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:Thai flare.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

very poor quality and unusable in an encyclopedic way Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:55, 1 February 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:The Black Diamond Band.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

low quality image; unuseable in an encyclopedic way Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:55, 1 February 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:The Killer Bride Poster.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely the movie poster has been released into public domain and the courtesy link is to IMDB Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:56, 1 February 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:The King John School - Year 11 Prefect's Uniform.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

image is poor quality and and its use on the noted school's article was reverted Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:57, 1 February 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:Renee Asherson.png[edit]

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. Source provided.

Originally nominated by @Fourthords for daily deletion as missing a verifiable source (WP:CSD#F4) FASTILY 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a discussion is necessary, but the file in question still lacks sourcing in contravention of the tenth non-free content criterion, as it has for 4.32 years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can find Internet sources that pre-date the upload here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 31 January 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:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.png[edit]

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 February 23. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.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:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg[edit]

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 February 23. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.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:No. 5, 1948.jpg[edit]

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 all articles except No. 5, 1948. Not a single policy-backed justification was argued otherwise. Ə XPLICIT 02:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except No. 5, 1948 per WP:NFCC#8. Even if any of the other articles had sourced critical commentary on the painting (They don't.), WP:NFC#UUI#6 would apply. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An absolutely important example of an essential artistic movement and artist. Keep in all articles in which it currently appears...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except No. 5, 1948, I concur with the noninator's rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Extremely important example of an extremely important artists work. Keep in all articles in which it currently appears; and visualizes the article subject...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except for the one about the work itself. See my comment(s) below. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this image, a work by a major artist of the 20th century (one of the most important artist of all time), is fundamental to the articles in which it appears. Coldcreation (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important and extremely crucial example of a major artists work that is needed to depict an important movement in visual art. Keep in all articles in which it currently appears; and visualizes the article subject...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 2 February 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:No 61 Mark Rothko.jpg[edit]

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 all articles except No. 61 (Rust and Blue). Not a single policy-backed justification was argued otherwise. Ə XPLICIT 02:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except No. 61 (Rust and Blue) per WP:NFCC#8. Even if any of the other articles had sourced critical commentary on the work (They don't.), WP:NFC#UUI#6 would apply. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An absolutely important example of an essential artistic movement and artist. Keep in all articles in which it currently appears...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all article except No. 61 (Rust and Blue). I concur with the nominator's rationale -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Extremely important example of an extremely important artists work used to visualize the article subject...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except for the one about the work itself. See my comment(s) below. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this work by one of the leading artists of the last century is exceedingly important to the articles in which it illustrated. Coldcreation (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 31 January 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:RothkoFourDarksRed.jpg[edit]

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 all articles except Four Darks in Red. Not a single policy-backed justification was argued otherwise. Ə XPLICIT 02:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except Four Darks in Red per WP:NFCC#8. Even if any of the other articles had sourced critical commentary on the work (They don't.), WP:NFC#UUI#6 would apply. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except Four Darks in Red. I concur with the nominator's rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An absolutely important example of an essential artistic movement and artist. Keep in all articles in which it currently appears...Modernist (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Extremely important example of an extremely important artists work used to visualize the article subject...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except for the one about the work itself. It clearly contradicts WP:NFC#UUI#6, which is our current interpretation of WP:NFCC#3. @Modernist: do you have any policy-based arguments about why this use meets all ten non-free content criteria? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a work by one of the foremost artists of all time. It is extremely important to the articles in which it appears.Coldcreation (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation as well, do you have a policy-based argument? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 1 February 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.