Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24

File:Sliman Mansour poster 1988.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 01:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP#8 as this image lacks contextual significance for the page about the artist. Also fails criteria #1 as the artist is still alive and continues to produce work. A free substitute to properly illustrate this article can theoretically be obtained. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is completely obvious that an example of an artist's work will "significantly increase readers' understanding" of an article about the artist. So Criterion #8 is clearly met. Criterion #1 says "no free equivalent is available", not "it is theoretically impossible to obtain a free equivalent". Lots of things are possible in theory, but that isn't the criterion. I can reduce the resolution, if that's an issue. Zero^talk 06:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such rationales have been consistently rejected in the past. Even if such a rationale was acceptable, it is not what is currently listed on the file. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usage rationale given on the page comes straight out of {{Non-free use rationale video cover}}. I don't agree that it's essentially different from what I wrote, but that's beside the point. Your task is to show that the rationale provided on the image page is insufficient, but you have not done that. You only wrote "lacks contextual significance", which is hardly an argument at all. How can a painting by an artist "lack contextual significance" for that artist? You also provided no evidence at all that a free version might be available. Zero^talk 06:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale in {{Non-free use rationale video cover}} is only intended for articles about media such as film, and is intended to be placed on files of the poster of the film or TV show. The template would only work if this file was placed in an article about some work for which this poster serves as promotional image. But this is not even that kind of poster. This work was intended as prints sold individually. The rationale you describe would need clear indications in the text of the article to justify its inclusion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - using the wrong template for the non-free use rationael can be corrected. And I disagree that a free replacement for illustrating an artist's work would be possible for a living artist as their creations would be copyrighted. However the poster here is plunked into the article without any significant sourced commentary about the poster an how it relates the to artist's style, technique or other attributes. As such, it does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2022 (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:Warsheikh-alifuto nature reserve-scaled.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim due to presence of watermark in the upper-left corner. Uploader has history of copyright issues. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2022 (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:Camels Warsheikh.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim due to low resolution and presence of Facebook-specific string in metadata. Uploader has history of copyright issues. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2022 (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 old mosque Warsheikh.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim due to low resolution and presence of Facebook-specific string in metadata. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2022 (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.