Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:08, 4 July 2018

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

File:Kooning woman v.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. The keep arguments are missing an explanation of how WP:NFCC criteria are met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep As with all the ones below, JJMC89 has first removed fair use templates with inadequate explanation, and then put these up here. This is not a good way to proceed. In any case, some fair uses remained, so I'm not sure what the point of "discussing" here is. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Willem de Kooning, it is reasonable to have one example of a painting mad by this artist, but the article also contains a different image (File:Woman3.jpg). Per WP:NFCC#3a, there is no need to have two paintings in the article, so one of the paintings, either this one or the other one, will have to go. All other use of the file clearly violates WP:NFCC#8: the articles are not specifically about this panting, and per WP:NFC#UUI §6, you should link to the article about the painter (or the article about one of his paintings, for example Woman III) instead of including the painting in the articles. Additionally, all of the FURs violate WP:NFCC#10c as the rationales aren't relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Willem de Kooning already contains File:Woman3.jpg (which should also be removed anyway under WP:NFC#UUI§6, since Woman III exists), so the inclusion of this file violates WP:NFCC#3. The use in all other articles violates WP:NFCC#1, as freely licensed art exist in order to depict the styles and time periods. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 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:Kline no2.jpg

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

Keep As with all the ones below, JJMC89 has first removed fair use templates with inadequate explanation, and then put these up here. This is not a good way to proceed. In any case, some fair uses remained, so I'm not sure what the point of "discussing" here is. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons:

WP:NFCC#1: This is a painting by an American painter who died in 1962. It is therefore likely that some of his paintings were published (for example by virtue of having been exhibited at an art gallery) without a copyright notice or without a copyright renewal. It doesn't say where this painting has been published or whether there was a notice and/or renewal, so we have to assume that it is unfree; however, there should be no need to accept a non-free file on Wikipedia as it should be possible to locate a free painting. — Stefan2 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
- If you can locate a Franz Kline without copyright - then load it...Modernist (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#8: The articles Abstract expressionism, History of painting and Visual art of the United States are articles listing many different art styles. They do not need to contain any non-free files; instead, they should link to articles about art styles, paintings and painters, per WP:NFC#UUI §6. — Stefan2 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
- Common sense demands that this be painting be included in all of those articles...Modernist (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#10c: It seems that the person who added the FURs didn't bother reading the FURs. The text is largely duplicated, and the FURs aren't relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the FURs should be improved - then do it...Modernist (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Modernist: Please try not to insert your comments/rebuttals into the posts of other editors as explained in the third paragraph of WP:TPO because it messes the formating and may make it unlcear as to who posted what and when they posted it. As for your comments, it's the repsonsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free file in particular way to provide a valid rationale per WP:NFCCE. The fact that you simply are just copying-and-pasting boilerplate rationales from one use to another simply changing the name of the article is something for you to fix, not someone else. It's the person wanting to use the file in a certain way who is best suited for explaining how that particular use complies with relevant policy and non-free use rationales are required to be separate and specific for each use. So, if you're unable or unwilling to do that, then maybe the file's non-free use is indeed not appropriate and it should be removed. As for repeatedly arguing WP:USC, that's not really helpful with non-free images and is bascially a WP:MEETOO, WP:JUSTONE, and WP:LIKEIMAGE type of argument. Editors are specifically citing policy when they are suggesting that this file be removed; they may be incorrect, but you need to show how they by also citing relevant policy and not just by making broad statements like "visual art needs to be seen" or "Commons sense demands" because those are not going to help establish a consensus in support for your position. So, if you feel this file being used in a particular article complies with the WP:NFCCP, please try and be specific in stating how it does using the same criterion that others are referring to in their comments. If you want to in general argue that WP:NFCC needs revising per WP:USC or whatever reason, then you should do that at WT:NFCC. This FFD discusison is about the non-free use of this image, not a discussion about whether the current policy is good or bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your comments - However my words speak clearly and correctly; visual art needs to be seen; if in your opinion changes or additions need to be made to fair use rationales - then make them...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - And once again, the burden for providing valid non-free use ratioanles for each use is yours per WP:NFCCE since you are the one who wants the image to be used in these various articles. If you strongly feel the rationales are fine as is, then leave them as they are. However, all of the rationale tweaking in the world is going to make no difference at all per WP:JUSTONE if the consensus is that the particular ways this file is being used in some or all of these articles still doesn't comply with the remaining other non-free content use criteria, and you've provided no policy-based reason to argue that they do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have stated countless times over a dozen years - these images are important, historical, and speak for themselves; they should remain in all the articles in which they appear. Your rules are interpreted wrongly in relationship to visual art. These images need to remain in place...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NFCC is Wikipedia policy established by the community; it's not any individual editor's rules. Moreover, if you've been saying the same thing over a dozen years, then your arguments have obviously not been persuasive enough to establish a consensus in favor of changing the policy to add an exception which gives special consideration to visual art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Not necessarily true. Those rules have been established by your project; by the handful of editors who function here by enforcing those rules; that have been put in place without regard to common sense and how to deal properly with the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NFCC is not a WikiProject policy or guideline; it's a community-wide policy with legal considerations. This is quite clear from the banner at the very top of the NFCC page; however, if you believe this is a case of a local consensus overriding a community-wide policy, then you can sart a discussion at WP:VP/P explaining this and see if you can persuade others to change the policy accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep in Franz Kline#Interpretation and influence as a representative example of the artist's work and conditional keep in Action painting as a representative example of this particular style of painting, but only if the context required by WP:NFCC#8 can be better met in both articles.
For the Kline article, the file really shouldn't be being used in the main infobox since the purpose of that image is the primary indentification of the subject of the article (i.e., Kline himself); the image of the painting only makes sense being used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the painting itself. FWIW, Kline is deceased so it seems reasonable to allow a non-free image of him (perhaps like this) to be used in the article as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there are no issues with WP:NFCC#1. The problem is that the painting is only mentioned by name in the files caption which is not nearly enough to justify it's non-free use. So, more sourced critical commentary about the painting should be added to the article establishes that this particular painting is representative of Kline and his particular style, and the image should then be moved from the infobox to near that content. The same can be said for "Action painting" in that it might be possible to justify this as representaive examaple of this particular style of painting; however, there is basically no mention of the painting outside of the file caption. It would probably be best to take the content about the painting found in Abstract expressionism#Action painting and move it to the "Action painting" article to better justify the file's non-free use as a representative example.

Remove from Abstract expressionism#Action painting, History of painting#Abstract expressionism and Visual art of the United States#Abstract expressionism for the reasons pointed out by Stefan2 and because simply mentioning a non-free image by name is not a sufficient justification for non-free use in more general genre/history articles per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and NFCC#8. Removing the file from these three articles and linking to or providing a hatnote to the article(s) where in can be seen is more than sufficient and would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the more general content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fair use established per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Franz Kline in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the specific painting.The use in the Kline bio is far from ideal, but it currently stands there as the sole example of his work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free use is not automatic per WP:NFCCP and the NFCCP is not the same as fair use per WP:NFC#Background. This file has multiple uses, not all of which might comply with relevant Wikipedia policy. So, arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE or WP:MEETOO doesn't address any of the issues raised here, especially since the above "keep" !votes also don't address the concerns raised aout this file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The painting is relevant to all the articles in which it is included and should stay in all of them...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with all the ones below, JJMC89 has first removed fair use templates with inadequate explanation, and then put these up here. This is not a good way to proceed. In any case, some fair uses remained, so I'm not sure what the point of "discussing" here is. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Hans Hofmann and Color Field in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the individual painting. The uses here are particularly poor in terms of NFCC policy compliance, since they typically are used to illustrate of ten lengthy, generally unsourced lists of artists characterized as important, displayed in de facto galleries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File is currently being used in seven times in six articles: Hans Hofmann, Color Field#Historical roots, Abstract expressionism#Gorky, Hofmann, and Graham, twice in History of painting#Abstract expressionism, Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts) and Western painting#Abstract expressionism.
Possible keep in "Hans Hoffman". The file is being used in the main infobox of the Hofmann article which seems inappropriate because the main infobox image should serve the encyclopedic purpose of primarily identifying Hofmann himself, and not one of his works. While I could see moving the file to the article body as an example of the Hofmann's particular style, there are already two other non-free image apparently serving that purpose which is problematic per WP:NFCC#3a. Moreover, there is no specific sourced commentary of The Gate anywhere at all in the article which is a problem because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. Of the three files mentioned above File:Hans Hofmann Effervescence 1944.jpg appears to be from an earlier period than The Gate, but File:Hans Hofmann Pompeii 1959.jpg seems to have been painted around the same time. It might be possible to justify two non-free images as representative examples from different periods of Hofmann's career, but not two painted within the same year or within a year or two of each other without any specific sourced critical commentary of either painting. Simply mentioning the painting by name twice in the article is not enough of a sufficient justification for non-free use per WP:FREER. So, I suggest remove either The Gate or Pompeii with the remaining being kept as a representative of Hofmann's work circa 1959–60.

Remove from "History of painting#Abstract expressionism", "Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts)" and "Western painting#Abstract expressionism". These particular non-free use do not seem NFCCP compliant at all. These are more general historical/genre articles with hatnotes or links to more specific articles where this file can be seen, and this seems more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:FREER. The "Western painting" articles seems to bascially summarize content found in other articles and the painting isn't even mentioned a single time by name. The same thing can be said for the "Modernism" article where the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption and the artist is only mentioned by name three times in the entire article. The file is actually being used twice in the same section of the "History of painting" article (once in the body of the section and once in an image gallery) which is completely unnecessary per NFCC#3a and fails NFCC#10c (a separate specific rationale is needed for "each use", not "each article"). There are hatnotes and links to related articles where the painting might be seen so even a single use in the "History of painting" article is questionale per NFCC#8.
Possible keep in the "Color Field" article, but remove from "Abstract expressionism". The "Color Field", like "Hans Hofmann", seems more suitable for this file. There is some discussion of Hofmann in "Color Field", but it's unsourced so it's not clear how much is WP:OR or WP:SYN. It would be better to have sourced critical commentary about the painting itself in the body of the article (instead of an unsourced claim in the file's caption) which shows how this painting not only is representative of Hofmann's work, but also of this particular style of painting. The use in "Abstact expressionism" cannot really be justified because the "Color Field" subsection appears to be just a summary of the "Color Field" article, so there's doesn't seem to be a real need for the readr to see the file here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Canticle', casein on paper by Mark Tobey, 1954.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Mark Tobey in the absence of sourced substsantive critical commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oil painting by Sam Francis.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Motherwell's 'Elegy to the Spanish Republic No. 110'.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stefan2. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Magenta, Black, Green on Orange', oil on canvas painting by Mark Rothko, 1947, Museum of Modern Art.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in History of painting, as freely licensed art exist in order to depict the history of painting, and WP:NFCC#3 in Mark Rothko as multiple non-free images are used when one would suffice. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established, very representative of Rothko's work and an important addition to the pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasper Johns's 'Flag', Encaustic, oil and collage on fabric mounted on plywood,1954-55.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Flag (painting), remove all other instances. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in History of painting, Late modernism, Pop art, and Western painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict the history of painting, late modernism, pop art, and western painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established for this important painting in all the pages mentioned above. Representative of the genre, this work "explains" much of the history of modern and pop art and the history of painting itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The file is being used in five articles, but it is actually being used a combined six times in those articles.
Keep in Flag (painting) where the file is being used for primary identification in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the work in question.
Remove from Late modernism#Pop art, History of painting#Pop art and Western_painting#Pop art per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. There's no sourced critical discussion of this painting in any of these three articles and there's no sourced content which shows that it's particularly representative of this particular styp/genre of painting. In "Late modernism", Jasper Johns is not even mentioned by name in the section where the painting is being used and the only time the painting is mentioned is in the file's caption. There are a number of artist mentioned in that particular section, but there are no non-free examples of their work being used in that particular section. In the "History of painting" article, Jasper Jones is mentioned by name three times, and the painting isn't even mentioned by name once. It's in a gallery (which is a problem per WP:NFG) with two other non-free files used as general examples, but there's no sourced critical commentary of the painting and only the unsourced claim "The innovations of Johns' specific use of various images and objects like chairs, numbers, targets, beer cans and the American flag". Same goes for the "Western painting" article: the painting is mentioned by name once in the file's caption, and indirectly referenced in the claim "Johns' use of various images and objects like chairs, numbers, targets, beer cans and the American Flag". None of this requires that this file be seen by the reader in either of these articles and a link to the file's stand-alone article is more than sufficient for each.
Remove from Pop art. The file is actually being used twice in this article which is clearly unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a. The use in the image gallery in Pop art#Painting and sculpture examples is decorative and not acceptable per WP:NFG. This particular use is also lacking the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. The other use in Pop art#United States lacks the context required by NFCC#8 (the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption); so, not only is it not clear why three non-free examples of pop art are needed for this section, but it's not clear why this particular file needs to be seen by the reader.
Lastly, the one article where the file is not being used, but where its non-free use might possibly be policy compliant is in Jasper Johns#Painting. The article describes this painting as being the work for which Johns is best known. Even though that claim is unsourced, perhaps sources can found to better establish the claim and the painting can be used as a representative example of Johns work. The problem is that there are three other non-free images, including two flag-related also being used in the article, and there's no need to have four representative non-free examples of his work in the article per NFCC#3a unless there is specific sourced commentary for each or for each particular style/techinique used in painting them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fair use established per above: One of the most important paintings of the century, must be seen. Coldcreation (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Must be seen" is a WP:LIKEIMAGE type of argument that doesn't really address the specifics of the way the file is being used. The file is being used six times in five different articles; so, it will be helpful if you can clarify how you think each of these particular uses satisfies relevant policy. Simply going around and posting the same type of "important painting...art must seen" type of argument regardless of how the file may actually be being used seems to show that (1) you're not reading the posts of those you have expressed concern about some of the non-free uses of the file and (2) you feel non-free use of such images is automatically WP:NFCC compliant anytime the file is added to any article, even if it's added multiple times to the same article. The problem with (1) is that general WP:MEETOO !votes don't really help establish a consensus either way, especially if they are in support of other !votes which also don't address any of the relevant issues associated with non-free content use; the problem with (2) is that the NFCC clearly says that non-free use is not automatic and WP:JUSTONE clearly says that simply providing a non-free use rationale also doesn't mean NFCC compliance. Nobody is suggesting that the file souldn't be seen; in fact, can be see in Flag (painting). Nobody is also suggesting that the file should be deleted; only removed from those articles where its non-free use is believed to not comply with the NFCC. If you feel the NFCC should be changed, so that the non-free use of these this type of non-free content is automatically considered acceptable in each and every article as long as somebody adds a copied-and-pasted boilerplate non-free use rationale, then the place to propose that is at WT:NFC or perhaps at WP:VP/P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marilyndiptych.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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Marilyn Diptych, remove all other instances. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in History of painting, Pop art, and Portrait painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict the history of painting, pop art, and portrait painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important work and free use established to portray pop art and the history of painting. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 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:Roy Lichtenstein Whaam.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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for use in Whaam!, but should be removed from other, more general, articles. Plrk (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Whaam!, remove all other instances. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in History of painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict the history of painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important example for the history of painting. Free use established in all cases. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 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:Guitarlesson.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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Balthus, remove all other instances. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in 20th-century Western painting and History of painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict 20th-century Western painting and the history of painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established for western painting and other paintings pages, an important example. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 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:Head VI (1949).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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Head VI, remove all other instances. Fails WP:NFCC#1 in History of painting and violates WP:NFC#UUI§6 in Francis Bacon (artist). ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 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:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in 20th-century Western painting, History of painting, Landscape painting, and Western painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict 20th-century Western painting, the history of painting, landscape painting, and Western painting. Also violates WP:NFCC#8 in Milton Avery as the painting is not subject to critical commentary. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and free use established per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasper Johns's 'Map', 1961.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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. Remove from all articles except the article about the work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Map (painting), remove all other instances. Fails WP:NFCC#1 in 20th-century Western painting, History of painting, and Western painting, and violates WP:NFC#UUI§6 in Jasper Johns. ℯ xplicit 05:10, 26 June 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:Robert Rauschenberg's untitled 'combine', 1963.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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Robert Rauschenberg, remove all other instances. Violates [WP:NFCC#1]] in 20th-century Western painting, History of painting, Late modernism, Modernism, Postmodern art, and Western painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict 20th-century Western painting, the history of painting, late modernism, modernism, postmodern art, and Western painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 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

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Richard Diebenkorn and Bay Area Figurative Movement at minimum. Rationale given for being unique examples for this visual medium. --Knulclunk (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File is being used in five articles: 20th-century Western painting, Bay Area Figurative Movement, History of painting, Landscape painting, Richard Diebenkorn, and Western painting. Even though each of these uses is separate from the other, basically somebody just copied-and-pasted the same non-free use ratianale for each (only changing the name of the article). Doing such a thing might save some time, but it doesn't provide the separate, specific non-free use rationales for each use required by WP:NFCC#10c and basically is assuming that all that is needed for NFCCP compliance is a rationale of some kind. This approach to adding non-free images to article is not helpful and seems to be assuming some kind of automatic non-free use based on a kind of WP:THOUSANDWORDS type of reasoning.

Non-free use does seem OK in the Diebenkorn article at first glance. Generally, a non-free image such as this would be allowed to show an example of the artist's work or style. The problem here though is that there is really no discussion of the painting anywhere at all in the article (its only mentioned by name in the caption) so the contextual connection between image and content required by WP:NFCC#8 is unclear. Moreover, the is another non-free example of Diebenkorn's work being used given the article, and File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No. 67'.jpg is much more tied into the article content than Cityscape I 360, so it's not clear why two examples of Diebenkorn's work is needed per WP:NFCC#3a. Perhaps more sourced critical commentary of Cityscape I 360 itself or how it is representative of the Diebenkorn's particular style could be added to the article to strengthen its justification for non-free use; otherwise, I think removing the file from the article is appropriate.
The non-free use in "Bay Area Figurative Movement", like the non-free use in the Diebenkorn article, seems like in should be OK. It could be reasoned that the painting is considered to be the most or one of most representative examples of the works created by artists discussed in the article. However, this also has the same issues as mentioned above: the painting is mentioned by name only one time in the image's caption; there's no critical commentary about the painting or how is best serves as an example of the movement's style; and there is another non-free image File:'Still Life with Cup', oil on canvas painting by Paul Wonner, 1959, private collection.jpg apparently being used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. It's not clear why two examples of this movement's style is needed, and how removing one of the two would be detrimental to the reader's understanding per NFCC#8. As with the Diebenkorn article, the justification for non-free use would be much stronger and clearer if there was actually some sourced content about the painting and why it's seen as representative of this particular movement in the article to provide the context for non-free use; simply mentioning the painter by name and assuming that in and of itself is a justification for this type of non-free use is not really something allowed per WP:FREER.
The three other articles where the file is being used are articles about a particular genre/style or historical aspects of painting in general. Justifying non-free use in these articles is going to be really hard in the first place per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. The way the file is being used in these article seems to be just as one in a gallery of other images, which is not really allowed for non-free content per WP:NFG, with maybe a single mention by name. These articles do contain freely-licensed or PD images as well, so it's not clear why this particular file also needs to be used as such. Suggest removing the file from all of these articles based upon current usage.

It seems to me that given the current use of the file, keep for "Bay Area Figurative Movement" seems the best place to use this file if more critical commentary about the painting and how it represents the movement's style can be added to the article. I could also see keep for the painter's article, except there is another file also being used as an example of his work which is much better tied into the article content; two examples don't really seem to be needed and removing that Ocean Park file from the article seems more detrimental to the reader's understanding than removing this one. Finally, I'm really not seeing any justification for non-free use in the other articles; there are links to both the article about the movement and the artist in each of these articles, and the file can be seen there if needed. The use in an image gallery without a real sourced critical commentary about the painting in any of these articles doesn't seem to be permitted by NFCC#1, NFCC#8 or NFG; so, I suggest remove from these articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in all cases, free use established for this important example. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As posted in #File:Three Flags.jpg, this file is non-free content, not "free use". It seems in your effort to save time and copy-and-paste the same kind of WP:LIKEIMAGE !vote in allow these discusions, you are mistaking "free use" for "fair use". However, simply arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE in not really a good way to justify the non-free use of any file; so, it would be helpful if you can be more specific as to how you feel each of this file's non-free uses meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria. The problem is that this has not been established which is why the file's non-free use is being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Estes.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Richard Estes, remove all other instances. Violates WP:NFCC#1 in 20th-century Western painting, History of painting, and Western painting as freely licensed art exists in order to depict 20th-century Western painting, the history of painting, and western painting. ℯ xplicit 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except the artist's bio. In each of those articles, the image appears in a gallery illustrating an entry in an unsourced list. These uses violate multiple NFCC standards/criteria. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 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]

File:Ralph Goings.jpg

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]

File:Frankenthaler Helen Mountains and Sea 1952.jpg

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]

File:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.jpg

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]

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 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]
This file is being used in six different articles. The two keep !votes above seem to be implying that each one of these uses is WP:NFCC-compliant because no specifics are given for any of the individual uses. The first "keep" !vote is bascially a WP:LIKEIMAGE !vote which simply seems to have been just copied-and-pasted from one FFD discussion to another. The second "keep" seems to be arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE, but it's not clear if "free use" is meant to mean "fair use". Simply arguing fair use is irrelevant because, as explained in WP:NFC#Background, the NFCC has been purposely made to be more restrictive that simple fair use. At the same time, trying the argue "free use" makes no sense because there is nothing "free" about this image at all, at least for Wikipedia's purposes when used in the context of copyrighted content. The six uses of this file are as follows: 20th-century Western painting#Geometric abstraction, Op Art, Hard-Edge, Color field, Minimal Art, New Realism, Post-painterly abstraction, Washington Color School, Western painting#Geometric abstraction, Op Art, Hard-Edge, Color field, Minimal Art, New Realism, History of painting#New abstraction from the 1950s through the 1980s and Kenneth Noland#Selected museum collections.
The "20th-century painting" and "Western painting" articles are basically general overviews of various different types of artwork and genres. The painting is not mentioned by name anywhere in either article (the painter Noland is mentioned by name a few times, but these are linked to the stand-alone article about him), and there is no sourced crtical commentary of the painting anywhere at all. There are other a number of other examples of this type of painting given in the relevant sections, so it's not clear why this one is need per WP:NFCC#3a since there's really none of the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8. The same can be said for the non-free use in "History of painting". So, remove the file from these three articles per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8.
The article "Post-painterly abstraction" seems to be primarily about an exhibition where this painting appeared. There is no sourced critical commentary of the painting anywhere in the article and it's mentioned by name only in the file's caption. The caption describes the painting as a "notable example of post-painterly abstraction selected by Greenberg for the exhibition", but this is unsourced, so it's not clear whether this is WP:OR or maybe even WP:SYN. Moreover, the painting doesn't have it's own stand-alone article, so how "notable" it is is also debatable. Finally, there is also another example of a painting which appeared in the exhibition also being used in the article, so it's not clear why two are needed to serve this encyclopedic purpose. Remove from this article per NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a.

The non-free uses in "Kenneth Noland" and "Washington Color School" seem to have the most potential for NFCC compliance. The painting is the only image being used in "Washington Color School", so NFCC#3a is not an issue and it's possible that it could be justified to be a representative example of this particular school's style. Once again, however, the problem is that the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption and there is no critical commentary about it found anywhere in the article. Adding specific content (preferably supported by citations) about the painting to article would better tie it into the article content and provide a much stronger justification for non-free use. The non-free use in the Noland article is problematic because the use is clearly decorative in the "Selected museum collections" section. Non-free content is not really allowed to be used like this per WP:NFLISTS, and it's not even clear in which museum's collection the painting can be found. It would be much better to move the image to the another section where critical commentary about it can be found to use as an example of Noland's style. However, like in "Washington Color School", there is no such critical commentary anywhere to be found in the article, and there is already another non-free image being used in Kenneth Noland#Career; so, it's not clear why two are needed per NFCC#3a. It might be possible that different paintings from different periods or Noland's career could be used as representative examples, but there relevant sourced content in the article making that distinction. So, while I can see non-free use being possibly justified in these two articles, I think there has to be a much stronger connection established between article content and image in order to meet NFCC#8. So, possible keep in these two articles if the NFCC#8 issue can be addressed.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 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]

File:Riley, Cataract 3.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 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]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 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]

File:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 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) 12:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except the artist's bio (where it is the only example of a particular class of his work). The other uses are unaccompanied by sourced critical commentary, and therefore are clearly not compliant with NFCC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.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 [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpgClosing options: [qDel][Delete][qKeep][Other close][Relist]|2018 July 4]]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.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:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of 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: relisted on [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of Art.jpgClosing options: [qDel][Delete][qKeep][Other close][Relist]|2018 July 4]]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of Art.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:Gustonphilip.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 [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:Gustonphilip.jpgClosing options: [qDel][Delete][qKeep][Other close][Relist]|2018 July 4]]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustonphilip.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

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:18, 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 for this important piece. Defines the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.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 [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.jpgClosing options: [qDel][Delete][qKeep][Other close][Relist]|2018 July 4]]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.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

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]

File:Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors - 7th Avenue Style.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These uses are particularly indefensible. Other, free, images of Davis's work are available and none of the uses are accompanied by sourced commentary regarding this particular work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:For Pearl.jpg

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images above...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Brice Marden. Nonfree image displayed in gallery without sourced commentary regarding the individual work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferari Fauj.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 June 25. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferari Fauj.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

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]

File:Guru (2017 film) Audio.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack covers should not be used in film articles as they violate WP:NFCC. Moreover this image also violates WP:WATERMARK. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the above, the rationale is claiming it as the primary means of visual identification for the article topic (the film) but it is being used for the soundtrack. --Whpq (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. While non-free album covers are generally allowed to be used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, they tend to only be policy compliant when they are used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album in question. Other types of non-free use typically require a much stronger reason to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. A non-free soundtrack album cover can be used in film articles, but the problem is that such files tend to be simply added for decorative purposes and are never the subject of any sourced critical commentary related to cover art itself. This particular use is no exception to thatand the file should be deleted unless someone wants to create an article about the album and use the image there instead. This type of non-compliant use probably doesn't need an FFD discussion since there is such a strongly established consensus against it, and the file could've been WP:PRODded for deletion instead. Finally, not sure if WP:WATERMARK applies to non-free images so that in and of itself does not seem to be a valid reason to delete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 23 June 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:Little Mix (Live on the Glory Days Tour).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other photos of them on Commons, most recently from 2016. Wikipedia routinely uses images which were not taken in the last 12 months, so the fair use rationale does not apply. Jc86035 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly replaceable with a free image (WP:NFCC#1). there is no requirement that we must have an image that is recent in an article about a band. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Even if there were no freely licensed images of the group currently uploaded to Commons, there's no reasonable reason to expect that one could not be created by someone attending one of th group's performances. This probably should've been tagged with Template:rfu instead of bringing it to FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 23 June 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:Fifth Harmony (songwriting).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, so fails NFCC #1; there are copyleft images of Fifth Harmony and and copyleft images of recording studios. Jc86035 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8, and the rationale is incomplete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Decorative non-free use which lacks the context required by WP:NFCC#8. Also, fails WP:NFCC#1 since the reader does not need to see any non-free image to understand where (i.e., what recording studio) the songs were recorded, and what songs were recorded, etc. This kind of information is perfectly understandable per textual content and cited sources per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete decorative use. --Whpq (talk) 22:28, 23 June 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:Saudi Amb to US with Saudi Fighter Pilots.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image nor does the lack of an image detract from the readers understanding of the claimed purpose in the non-free usage rationale of "Showcase the Saudi Amb. to the U.S.'s involvement in Saudi military" Whpq (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:49, 23 June 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:Saudi Crown Prince and Ambassador to US with Tim Cook at Apple.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image nor does the lack of an image detract from the readers understanding of the claimed purpose in the non-free usage rationale of "Show link between Saudi Ambassador to U.S. and Saudi Crown Prince, as well as involvement in technology in U.S." Whpq (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:49, 23 June 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:Saudi Amb to US at Silicon Valley meeting.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image nor does the lack of an image detract from the readers understanding of the claimed purpose in the non-free usage rationale of "Illustrate Saudi Amb. to US's involvement in Crown Prince's tour around U.S. in 2018" Whpq (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:49, 23 June 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:Saudi Amb to US in Boeing fighter jet.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image nor does the lack of an image detract from the readers understanding of the claimed purpose in the non-free usage rationale of "Highlights KSA Amb to U.S.'s diplomatic career, including in military/technology" Whpq (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:49, 23 June 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:Ruth Porat 2016.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain mark is not an acceptable release and is only to be used on photos that are in the public domain for other reasons. It is not the same as {{CC0}}. We don't know why this photo is under the public domain and previous instances of this resulted in deletion. For more information on why we don't consider this acceptable please see the Commons template Majora (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's frustrating because that they are "public domain" is also repeated on the GES website. There are also many pictures from the Department of State that would be more obviously in the public domain as government-created, but I cannot find evidence that this picture is among them. There is an alternative here, which is more clearly marked as the product of the State Dept. photographer, but I cannot find a version that isn't a very small resolution (it would be a better picture than the present one if we could). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 11 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) 15:44, 18 June 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:Wendelinuskapelle Reimsbach.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: Missing evidence of permission. May be undeleted via WP:REFUND once WP:OTRS permission is received -FASTILY 06:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referral as this is claimed as an 'attribution', but I've not found a clear statement to that effect on the page given as the source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Google translation of - https://www.pg-beckingen.de/about seems to say non-commerical use only... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that https://www.pg-beckingen.de/about/ (section "Urheberrecht") says that any use, other than private non-commercial downloading and copying, requires written permission from the rights holders. In other words, this is an unfree file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will explicitly request a written permission to remove any doubts. I will remove the image from the page it is used in for the time being. Cheers, Narwaro (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narwaro, see {{di-no permission-notice}} for instructions on how to do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 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.

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 ====[[:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg]]====
+<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
-:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg">[[:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg]] ([{{fullurl:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2018+June+18%23File%3ARichard+Diebenkorn%26%2339%3Bs+painting+%26%2339%3BOcean+Park+No.129%26%2339%3B.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] {{!}} [[File talk:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|talk]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|action=history}} history] {{!}} [[Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|links]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ARichard+Diebenkorn%26%2339%3Bs+painting+%26%2339%3BOcean+Park+No.129%26%2339%3B.jpg}} logs])</span>&#x20;– uploaded by [[User talk:Wpearl#File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg listed for discussion|Wpearl]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Wpearl|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=File%3ARichard+Diebenkorn%26%2339%3Bs+painting+%26%2339%3BOcean+Park+No.129%26%2339%3B.jpg&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span> {{!}} [[Special:Contributions/Wpearl|contribs]] {{!}} [[Special:ListFiles/Wpearl|uploads]] {{!}} [[Special:Log/upload/Wpearl|upload log]]).&nbsp;
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the discussion was: '''relisted'''<!--Template:Ffd top--> on [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.jpgClosing options: [qDel][Delete][qKeep][Other close][Relist]|2018 July 4]]. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
-Excessive non-free use, including [[WP:NFG|galleries]]. Not all uses satisfy the [[WP:NFCC#8|contextual significance criterion]]. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' and all those visual art images below...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
+:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg">[[:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg]] ([{{fullurl:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2018+June+18%23File%3ARichard+Diebenkorn%26%2339%3Bs+painting+%26%2339%3BOcean+Park+No.129%26%2339%3B.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] {{!}} [[File talk:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|talk]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|action=history}} history] {{!}} [[Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Richard Diebenkorn&#39;s painting &#39;Ocean Park No.129&#39;.jpg|links]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3ARichard+Diebenkorn%26%2339%3Bs+painting+%26%2339%3BOcean+Park+No.129%26%2339%3B.jpg}} logs])</span>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section.'' <!--Template:Ffd bottom--></div>
 ====[[:File:Three Flags.jpg]]====