Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 3

June 3

File:Zhou Jiangyong pic.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 14:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen discussion due to last year's FFD's "no consensus" result. It does not meet WP:NFCI#10 probably. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 09:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the photo is currently under legal custody of China. So, it would not be possible to get freely licensed image of the subject by contacting his close ones. Hence, it should satisfy non-free file criteria. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reason you given is inappropriate. This is a ridiculous and weird reason. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 14:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is placed under indefinite imprisonment, then it is next-to-impossible for a member of the general public to make a free photo of them. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with @Hinnk:'s assertions at the last one. The rationale given directly addresses why this image of a living person would not be replaceable, and the nomination/renomination hasn't addressed that point at all other than to describe it as "inappropriate", "ridiculous", and "weird". Please address the substance of the argument. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 3 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:JanetMcIntyre1989.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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the YouTube uploader holds the copyright to this vintage video. Probable license laundering. ✗plicit 11:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is license laundering. The YouTube video gives thanks and credit to the copyright holder(s). The uploader clearly is not the copyright holder and cannot make such a release, so the license should reflect its actual copyright status. Since it is a copyrighted image of a living person who we can photograph, it is replaceable with a free image and should be deleted. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand now looking at it that it might not be the right license. Welcome to remove @Explicit on your end. Thank you for bringing this to my attention :) ArleneHerman (talk) 19:56, 3 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:Paquette cartoon 20060124.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 ⚡ 02:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not support critical discussion, only to illustrate the existence of the cartoon. It can be depicted in words but said words aren't sourced. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the nom. It's being used to illustrate the ubiquitous nature of the song. However, it is still unnecessarily gratuitous and fails WP:NFCC & needs to go. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 5 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.