Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18

File:Cheap Trick Mighty Wings 1986 Single Top Gun Japanese.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 ⚡ 09:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not really that necessary. Alternate is not needed Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 02:33, 18 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:GE9X cutaway.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. Was nominated for failing WP:NFCC#8, which neither 'keep' !vote addresses. -FASTILY 07:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this fair-use image (used in General Electric GE9X) fails WP:FU criteria #8 for contextual significance. Configuration details specific to this engine are almost invisible at this low resolution. What is visible (the main configuration and layout) is not at all specific to the GE9X. We have plenty of images of similar engines available to show a fan, compressor, turbine arrangement, including the GE90 from which this engine has been developed. Now that we have a free photo of the actual engine as a lead image, there is no need in my eyes to keep GE’s non-free version. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exterior picture of the fan does not show the engine config. A free picture of a cutaway could be taken in a museum/airshow to illustrate its config, like in Pratt_&_Whitney_Canada_PT6#Design, but no engine cutaway is on display and could replace it. The low resolution is due to the mandatory resize, the original does show each stage, in a different config than the previous GE90 (3LP+11HP vs 3LP+10HP or 4LP+9HP compressor) with no cutaway anyway, and the relative size of the parts is not the same (the GE9x core is relatively smaller). It seems to me an interesting fair use usage of a promo picture, not available by other means right now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original image is super interesting — we can make an external link to it. But as it stands now in the article, it brings nothing that can’t also be seen in many other free images we already have. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Marc Lacoste: said, there aren't any free images of a cutaway of the GE9X because there aren't any on display in museums or public places for people to take pictures of. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and Marc Lacoste above seem to refer to criteria #1 (no free equivalent). I am talking about criteria #8. See WP:NFC#CS. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 30 March 2019 (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) 08:15, 7 April 2019 (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) 05:36, 18 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:Itm2a CCDS report.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) 01:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Itm2a report.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 21 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:White Star Class 379.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) 01:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use. As a user with knowledge on trains, I am quite aware that Class 379s were never in this livery and there is no such railway company as "White Star" so this file is useless. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 21 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.