Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 23

February 23

File:MonasteryofTransfiguration.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low-resolution import from Commons. Better images have been uploaded by Patrick Roque here, like File:Transfiguration Monastery (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 12-07-2023).jpg, File:Transfiguration Monastery right side (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 11-30-2024).jpg, and File:Transfiguration Monastery front with stairs (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 12-07-2023).jpg. Hosting inferior images is just no different from treating enwiki as a local image host site. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could serve some useful purpose. Likewise, the image IS used on a user page. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We only have a handful of images of this notable building. This is the only one including congregants and it is of adequate quality. It is not like there are hundreds of images, and it is of potential use, which is the standard for images being allowed under WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Indeed, it was in use for a significant period of time until the nominator removed it from the article it was being used in. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle don't you think that having many images of this single building, even if being used, amounts to enwiki becoming a file host? If there's only around 3-5 images of this building, then it wouldn't be tantamount to a file host. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3-5 images is not unreasonable at all. It allows for future editorial choice. The article on the monastery could be expanded in the future and this could be added to a number of different related geographic articles. You removed it from an article on Malaybalay for example, where it had been used for around a year prior to its first deletion on Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plagiarism and You(Tube) sreenshot of the scrips.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary image, possibly violates fair use. Although Somerton's plagiarism is described in the text, this particular graphic is not mentioned. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's also nothing in this image that is recognizeably about plagiarism or this person's channel. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with FUR. clearly illustrates where plagiarism originated and how it was used. While the graphic itself is not directly referenced in the text, its content certainly is. It's a low-res shot to be sure, but that's the nature of fair use. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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