Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6[edit]

File:Test12345.svg[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 as G2 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful and unused file. Jonteemil (talk) 02:49, 6 May 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:Tes4t1.svg[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 as G2 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful and unused file. Jonteemil (talk) 02:50, 6 May 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:File name.ext[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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. 88.208.7.204 (talk) 05:35, 6 May 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:Ridley - Super Metroid.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - Not critical to the understanding of the article. The red color scheme (an alternate not actually used in game) is only ever discussed in the thumb text of the image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The red color scheme is not canon, making the image in the Ridley article's infobox a more accurate depiction of him. Having two images of the character isn't necessary to understand the character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:22, 9 May 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:Sailor Moon taunt.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 ⚡ 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8 and 3a. Substantially similar to the image in the infobox, with the only difference being the pose. The pose is only discussed in the file thumb, not in the article proper, meaning that it's not critical to the understanding of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the infobox image could be replaced with something like this one, hitting two birds with one stone, so to speak. The current infobox image is very "busy" and difficult to discern. However, even if that is the case, I think it should be her original and most famous appearance, rather than a potentially controversial reboot of the series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:29, 9 May 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:FantasticFour49.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: Neither keep !vote addresses the WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I moved this image up to the infobox. This is the character's first appearance, and therefore a more representative picture than the 2018 picture that was in the infobox before. This is my first time participating in an FfD discussion, so if I'm doing it wrong, please let me know. Thank you! — Toughpigs (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: It looks like someone undid your edit. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the character's first cover appearance, in one of the most famous arcs in comics history. --Tenebrae (talk)
- @Tenebrae: That doesn't address that having several nearly identical depictions of the character still fails NFCC 3a. If this is the most important depiction of the character, I recommend doing what Toughpigs did - move this to the infobox and delete the one in the infobox now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's a highly important depiction of the character, but it's not a full-body image as WikiProject Comics infobox MOS specifies. Speaking objectively as possible, this would not be an encyclopedically comprehensive article without this iconic image from, as noted, one of the most famous arcs in comics history. I would note that while one may claim something "fails NFCC 3a," that is not up to any one of us to decide, which is why we rightly seek consensus, so I'm not sure such language is inherently accurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 30 April 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) 10:01, 6 May 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:Guardians of the Galaxy team in the 2014 film.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. This is used to illustrate a bullet point at the bottom of the article, so is not significant to understanding the subject of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One is a comic-book illustration of the team, the other is an expression of how those illustrated characters translate to actor, costume design and other real-life factors. They are very fundamentally different.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some more discussion on how WP:NFCC#8 is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 6 May 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:All-new inhumans promo art.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire cover is not needed. I believe it should be cropped to show just the critical elements, which is the modern character design. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 1 May 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:FF51.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This cover is important as one of comics' most iconic images, placing the character as the centerpiece of one of the single most famous comics stories ever written. Historically important and critical to include in any comprehensive encyclopedia article about the character. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tenebrae: That doesn't address that having several nearly identical depictions of the character still fails NFCC 3a. If this is the most important depiction of the character, I recommend moving this image to the infobox and deleting the one in the infobox now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not sure it's accurate or in good faith to say there are "several" other depictions or that they were "nearly identical." There are two other images. One is the infobox image. The other is a mutated version of the character that endured for a time and which is significantly different from his standard image. As well, the article could be comprehensively encyclopedic were it not to show something from the character's single most famous and important story. That said, I've certainly no objection to replacing the infobox image with this one.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 30 April 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:Isabelle Cornish as Crystal.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One is a comic-book illustration of the character, the other is an expression of how that illustrated character translate to actor, costume design and other real-life factors. They are very fundamentally different.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 1 May 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:Avengers52.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed.

An image of the same costume without the mouth covered is not necessary; prose is easily sufficient. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the FUR itself states, the image is used as the sole means of visual identification of one iteration of the comic-book superhero's costume. Comic-book heroes' costumes are an inextricable part of their visual identity. The image is from a historically significant issue that includes the first appearance of the character's new costume.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 30 April 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:TalesToAstonish56.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the ensemble depiction of the character in the infobox. Individual non-free images of each character the person has been are not necessary as the image in the infobox depicts all of them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The infobox depicts truncated, barely visible versions of multiple costumes. This image shows the first Giant-Man costume, of historical importance, clearly. Comics are a visual medium, a superhero's costume is a major part of the character, and I'm not sure how an article can be fully encyclopedic if we're not clearly showing this costume. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 30 April 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:Pymgoliath.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the ensemble depiction of the character in the infobox. Individual non-free images of each character the person has been are not necessary as the image in the infobox depicts all of them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I state above for Pym's first Giant-Man costume, the infobox depicts truncated, barely visible versions of multiple costumes. This image shows the second Giant-Man costume, of historical importance, clearly. Comics are a visual medium, a superhero's costume is a major part of the character, and I'm not sure how an article can be fully encyclopedic if we're not clearly showing this costume. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 30 April 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) 10:02, 6 May 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:Avengers no. 59 (Marvel Comics - 1968).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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the ensemble depiction of the character in the infobox. Individual non-free images of each character the person has been are not necessary as the image in the infobox depicts all of them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The infobox depicts truncated, barely visible versions of multiple costumes. This image is only clear view of the Yellowjacket costume. Comics are a visual medium, a superhero's costume is a major part of the character, and I'm not sure how an article can be fully encyclopedic if we're not clearly showing this costume. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: Is that not also Yellowjacket in File:Hank Pym striking Janet van Dyne.png? That file is not nominated for deletion, and is an even clearer depiction of the same character.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 6 May 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:Friends Characters.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: delete. No need for two non-free images showing effectively the same thing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file was speedily deleted per WP:F7. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 20 decided to send it to FfD instead. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 11:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs the picture of the series' characters. It does not violate WP:NFCC#1. There is no free equivalent. The free images of the Commons are photos of the cast in their middle age not how they looked over the show's run. The purpose of the use is illustrating the main characters not the cast. The whole idea and concept of the show are portraying a group of single people in their mid-20s and the appearance is part of their persona. This photo makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the characterizations, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The free images were half-face photos of the cast in shades! It's an ensemble cast of a famous TV show so the readers should know what the characters look like.

It does not violate WP:NFLISTS even if it's not totally supported by WP:F, there's a discussion here for WP:CON as they used (File:VanityFairJuly2015.jpg) a non-free magazine cover in Caitlyn Jenner article, not for Vanity Fair despite the Wiki's policy of non-free content that states, If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover. and it's not Other stuff exists these are WP:FA and WP:GA as Wikipedia's superior articles which could be referred as a pattern. Bionic (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned at DRV, this image is cropped from Getty Images and used by Hello magazine. Per WP:GETTY, images like this one from Getty Images, one of photo agencies, is unacceptable. Also, being an image at Getty Images implies that both NBC and Getty Images have commercial interests of this image at any size. I think using this image violates WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"). Even if the usage doesn't violate the criterion #2, WP:NFCCEG still discourages unacceptable content, regardless of their compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the argument is made that the article needs a non-free image of the cast members (an argument I disagree with), per NFCC 3a it absolutely does not need two non-free images, and of the two in the article, this one is less suitable per George Ho's comment above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I'm not David. :S But hey, at least Micelangelo's David is monumentally classic. ;) George Ho (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I've fixed the comment above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 29 April 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) 10:03, 6 May 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:Friends season one cast.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: keep. Serves as identification of the cast on set. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file was speedily deleted per WP:F5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 20 decided to send it to FfD instead. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 11:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (leaning toward "weak keep") - Could not find the exact photo at Getty Images, which uses different photos with same clothing and same background ([1][2][3]). NBC is credited by Baltimore Sun for this photo. Unsure whether NBC or its photo agency has commercial interests. I thought about leaning toward "(weak) keep" because its non-replaceability and value to convey the sitcom have potential. However, even Getty Images has other photos whose backgrounds and clothing are similar to this one, despite different poses. George Ho (talk) 03:24, 29 April 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) 10:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least one image of the cast during the period helps the article, and unlike the other one discussed, this doesn't have the photo agency hinderance. igordebraga ≠ 15:08, 7 May 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:Harry Pollitt 1925.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. The nominator's rationale has not been successfully refuted; however this may be undeleted on 1 January 2021 without further reference to me as its copyright will have expired. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as non-free: likely does not enter the public domain in the US until 2021. Because there were authors listed, this image is not anonymous, and is thus protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. This also applies in the US because of the URAA. The image was published in 1925, which means it will enter the public domain in the US in 2021 (images published before 1926). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on licensing, but I believed that this is out of copyright, the authors are photo agencies rather than individuals, and due to the manner of listing, it is impossible to say even which agency is responsible for the photograph - so despite good faith efforts, it was not possible to identify an author, and therefore I regarded it as having been published anonymously. Warofdreams talk 12:22, 29 April 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) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warofdreams: an author in copyright is always a person. That person might have either transferred the entire copyright to Illustrated London News, or alternatively retained the copyright and given permission to Illustrated London News to publish their work. It does not matter which it is, because the copyright expires with regards to the circumstances in which the work was created or first published; it does not matter who subsequently owned the copyright. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 25 July 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:Krysten Ritter as Jessica Jones.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed.

Likely also fails NFCC 1, as the depiction of the character is not substantially different from a picture of the actress (no supernatural elements - just the actress in dark clothing). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The infobox contains a comic-book illustration of the character, while this image other is an expression of how that illustrated character translates to actor, costume design and other real-life factors. They are very fundamentally different.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 1 May 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) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Tenebrae: if appearance (actor, costume design and other real-life factors) are so important, why is this not discussed in the article prose with reliable sources? Because it's not, it fails NFCC 8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WikiProject Comics MOS, extended plot and other details are disallowed in "In other media" sections. This makes the visual aspect of how the comic-book illustration translates to and compares with its real-life, flesh-and-blood depiction all the more necessarily. I've been noting a deletionist bias despite the fact photographic images are inherently different from drawn illustration, and in most cases show different versions of a costume as necessary for real-life practicalities. The expression of an illustration as a real-life flesh-and-blood person is a distinct and incomparable thing from the original, and in the overall context of an article is not copyright violation and falls under fair use. I say that as a layman and not an attorney, but unless the editors deleting these are attorneys, then their opinion is likewise only that and not absolute. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are four existing depictions of the character in the infobox of the article. There is no possible way this can follow NFCC 3a or 8. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 September 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:Ms.Marvel1.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically significant first issue. While subsequent volumes' first issues may replicate clear infobox images, I believe no encyclopedically comprehensive articles about either Carol Danvers or Ms. Marvels can exclude an image of this important issue. I also believe that proposing wholesale deletions of comic-book covers wrongly trivializes historically significant milestones that belong in an encyclopedic article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 1 May 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) 10:05, 6 May 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:Brie Larson as Captain Marvel.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The infobox contains a comic-book illustration of the character, while this image other is an expression of how that illustrated character translates to actor, costume design and other real-life factors. They are very fundamentally different.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 1 May 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) 10:05, 6 May 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:Msmarvel1.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. (This is true for both articles the image is used in.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically significant first issue. While subsequent volumes' first issues may replicate clear infobox images, I believe no encyclopedically comprehensive articles about either Carol Danvers or Ms. Marvels can exclude an image of this important issue. I also believe that proposing wholesale deletions of comic-book covers wrongly trivializes historically significant milestones that belong in an encyclopedic article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 1 May 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) 10:05, 6 May 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:Carol Danvers first apearance.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: Neither keep !vote addresses the WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8. Removing the illustration of the character's first appearance does not impact readers' ability to understand the subject of the article. Use is purely decorative. Fails NFCC 3a as there are an excessive number of non-free depictions of the character on the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically important first appearance, and the only image of her in her longtime identity as a civilian supporting character. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 1 May 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) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could go either way on the other images listed for deletion in this article but this one we should keep. I agree with Tenebrae, the image is historically significant, especially considering the way the character is being treated, and it’s the only version not depicted in the infobox image.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:13, 6 May 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:Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 1) -78.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: Resolved -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are four images of the figure in costume in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opposed the issue marks the debut of the character--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @NeoBatfreak: If you feel that the image of the debut is the most important depiction of the character, move that one to the infobox and I'll be happy to keep this one and nominate File:Prowler (Hobbie Brown).jpg for deletion instead. My point is that there don't need to be two non-free images that are essentially identical depictions of the character, but I don't care which one is used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:37, 26 April 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) 10:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - @NeoBatfreak: I've gone ahead and promoted this image to the infobox, which orphans File:Prowler_(Hobbie_Brown).jpg. If that works for you, I can go ahead and withdraw this nomination and File:Prowler_(Hobbie_Brown).jpg will be the one that gets deleted instead. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:01, 6 May 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:Frankencastle.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: Neither keep !vote addresses the WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are four images of the figure in costume in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how is his being a zombie only “slightly different” from his main style? -DrBat (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the same design with minor cosmetic changes. If you show a picture of the character in the infobox, and then say it's the same character with green skin, a gash across the forehead, and tubing in his armor, you've described the new depiction without the need for a non-free image. NFCC #8 is a high bar: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I can still understand the concept of the article, which is about the character as a while, without seeing images of him from every different depiction he's been in. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:54, 27 April 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) 10:07, 6 May 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:Dunkenkingpin.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: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are four images of the figure in costume in slightly different illustration styles/in live action; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is this incarnation being a black man not a substantially differenct depiction from his other versions? --DrBat (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "costume" for the character is "big, bald man in suit with cane", I think a picture of the actors would be suitable. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:24, 1 May 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) 10:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer and DrBat: That's a good idea Argento. I've swapped out the non-free image for a picture of the actor, and while I was at it I added an image of Vincent D'Onofrio in the Television section. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Duncan picture works. Is there a free image of D'Onofrio bald? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: There are several on Commons at Commons:Category:Vincent D'Onofrio, but they're all mediocre quality. File:The Judge 32 (15236588671).jpg or File:Vincent D'Onofrio TIFF 2014.jpg are the best ones of the bald pics. I'm fine with either route - it's your call. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:43, 9 May 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:Marc Spector 39.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: keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Moved to infobox per discussion. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 5 NFCC depictions in the article. Three of them are covers. This is the best cover. I support this and one other non-cover image yet to be determined.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I prefer this to File:Moon Knight Volume 4.jpg because it is direct frontal like that one and way earlier.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 2 May 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) 10:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - @TonyTheTiger: I've moved this image to the infobox, replacing File:Moon Knight 1cover.jpg. This image depicts the character better than the replaced one, owing to the pose showing most of the outfit. If you are fine with this change, I can go ahead and withdraw this nomination. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 8 May 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:Mr. Moon (Moon Knight).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this incarnation of the character is significantly different than his usual appearance. —-DrBat (talk) 21:33, 26 April 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) 10:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DrBat: The sole mention of this depiction is "The second persona is Mr. Knight, dressed in an all-white business suit, gloves, and mask, who consults with the New York Police Department and deals with common thugs and crimes such as kidnapping.". Is Mr. Knight a significant aspect of Moon Knight, or was this a one-off? If it's the latter, it probably still should be deleted. If it's the former, additional prose on the new variation would be warranted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:57, 6 May 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.