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.
There is already a cover being used as primary means of identification. This alternative cover has no sourced commentary in the article about this image itself thus its omission would not be detrimental to understanding the article's topic. Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Wcam (talk) 02:58, 16 January 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.
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.
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The diary isn't even mentioned outside of the image caption let alone the subject of sourced critical commentary (contrary to the rationale). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In responds to both comments above. I've expanded the WW II section with references to the importance of the diary as a unique visual record of the war and how it helped her be recoginzed as an artist and be named the first female official war artist in Canada. I've also added more detail to the caption to explain why this page specifically is used, as it's the first page of the diary that shows her being enlisted. Viola-Ness (talk) 20:31, 17 January 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. Sorry, but it's not at all clear how or why the keep comment would address the delete one; it might be that the other file referenced there also needs deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Romanian photo is claimed to public domain. The provided explanation is actually the text from {{PD-RO-photo}}. The photo is from 1993. Under the rules of the time, the photo would be copyrighted either 5 or 10 years from 1993. In either case, the photo would be under copyright in 1996 when the copyright lengths were extended, and so does not qualify as PD. Whpq (talk) 14:05, 16 January 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.
