Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3

File:Chapel of the Holy Shroud Altar Under Construction.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. Per Template:FoP-USonly, Italian FoP is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chapel of Chapel of the Holy Shroud Altar Under Construction.jpg FASTILY 22:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems historically significant enough, and free. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale has nothing to do with the reason I nominated the file. There is no FOP for buildings in Italy -FASTILY 08:01, 12 April 2019 (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.

Xbox avatar files

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 May 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 -FASTILY 08:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive (WP:NFCC#3a) non-free content that is not the subject of sourced critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way excessive -- Whpq (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failes Wikipedia:NFCCP #8 --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:52, 8 April 2019 (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:2017 johzvsroyal.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata shows the image has been copied from Facebook. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 04:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the uploader's copyright violations on Commons, and the EXIF showing this is from Facebook, the claim to being the copyright holder is dubious. -- Whpq (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2019 (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:Turbo Launcher.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the photo wallpaper is freely licensed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's also an orphan, FWIW. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned non free file that was licensed as own work but isn’t. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 01:42, 4 April 2019 (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:1910 Jack Pease.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This file already available with higher resolution on Commons (c:File:1910 Jack Pease.jpg). I believe there's no reason for us to keep using the low resolution version. --AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would delete this as a replaceable low resolution file. The commons image was most likely made from the higher resolution tiff file at the LOC. ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2019 (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:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's file with higher resolution on Commons (c:File:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG). I believe there's no reason for us to keep using the lower resolution version. --AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The choice of file and resolution is a matter of editorial discretion. As the file is used for a variety of articles of high quality, we should leave well alone to minimise disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace The Commons version is a lot clearer. The file names are the same, so disruption should be minimal to nil. Why not make things better? Sario528 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace It looks a lot better, and a thumbnail of this would look at lot better than the current Wikipedia version. Abzeronow (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no reason to keep this lower quality version given the existence of a better quality image at Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2019 (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.