Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 18

June 18

File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.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: Deleted as a result of the parallel Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 11#File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.jpg * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a living person where other photos exist. Fair use is not permitted. GMG ^talk 12:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct Buffs (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete free image from the same event exists in article Traumnovelle (talk) 22:20, 18 June 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:University at Buffalo logo.svg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:University at Buffalo logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This is an old trademarked image that was inappropriately uploaded as a very high resolution svg format, which makes it inappropriately available for use in unapproved commercial products. Hjarvis (talk) 18:35, 18 June 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:Rina Sawayama - Hold the Girl (1st Anniversary Edition).jpeg

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: relisted on 2025 June 26. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:22, 26 June 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:Daily Mirror, 22 March 1968.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is off too low quality for anything other than the headline itself to be legible, and the headline does not demonstrate that 'Many newspapers reacted with hostility to the speech'; selective quoting would do a fine job of demonstrating this as opposed to non-free media. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the caption continues on to say and the ensuing row was covered for many days, as here in the Daily Mirror. The image supports newspaper reaction sections, and readers would expect an image in a section with very heavy analysis of press coverage.

Granted, the Daily Mirror is not mentioned in the section; the front page of The Times would perhaps make more sense. – Isochrone (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why is an image needed to convey that? A reliably sourced sentence can do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:31, 19 June 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.