Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18

File:Cmd picture.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. There is no evidence that this image was ever used anywhere other than the uploader's user page which was deleted as WP:U5 (Not a web host), as it was basically a marketing page for a company. Because of this, I'm not comfortable that the licensing on the image is really valid (is the uploader really the copyright holder?) nor do I feel that we need to continue hosting this image either here or at Commons. ★ Bigr Tex 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JitendraSinghTomar Photo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. OTRS has not been able to confirm permission per this. Whpq (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough time has passed and the ticket is not confirmed. Deletion is the right option here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Tower poster.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: No policy-based reasons given to retain -FASTILY 00:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper advert is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. The usage in the article and the stated purpose of "Want to show poster" do not meet with WP:NFCC#8. One might consider it for use as primary means of visual identification but this this is not actually a poster, nor is it a title card or similar item that would be typically used for identification. Whpq (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historically significant photo of a famous production in Australian TV (ie an early drama production). It is of much lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality. The photo is only being used for informational purposes. Dutchy85 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twelve poind cast.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: No policy-based reasons given to retain -FASTILY 00:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is claimed to be a historically significant photo but there is no sourced commentary about the image. Being a photo of a famous TV production by itself does not meet WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historically significant photo of a famous production in Australian TV (ie an early drama production). It is of much lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality. The photo is only being used for informational purposes. Apologies will amend the commentary Dutchy85 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting the image is historically significant is not sufficient. It needs to be shown to be significant in the article body through significant sourced commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:No Limit file.ogg

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

The result of the discussion was: Remove from No Limits (2 Unlimited album), 2 Unlimited -FASTILY 01:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously tagged with "dfu", so I'm taking the sample here. It is used in three articles: one album, one song, and one band. If any use of the sample does not comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8), then the sample should be removed from that page. IMHO the critical commentary doesn't suffice enough to support the sample, and deleting the sample wouldn't affect the understanding of the album~~, the song,~~ and the band. George Ho (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm unsure whether or not the sample is necessary to help readers understand the song. George Ho (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sample for No Limit (2 Unlimited song). There is sufficient sourced commentary in the song article to meet WP:NFCC#8. Remove the sample from 2 Unlimited, and No Limits (2 Unlimited album) where there is no commentary. These usages fails WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3a. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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