Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

File:T. P. Ashrafali in a protest against CAA-NRC.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uploader states "T. P. Asharafali published this image in his Facebook profile" on the file description page, but also claims own work. Unless the uploader is also T. P. Asharafali (unlikely), then this is probably a copyright violation. At the minimum, permission (via VTRS) is needed to keep this image FASTILY 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - claim of own work is likely invalid, file would not meet NFCC if converted to fair use, so this cannot be kept. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The EXIF data indicates this likely comes from Facebook, but Facebook's general licensing isn't really compatible with
non-free content given the way it's currenlty being used and the lack of clarity about it's provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2021 (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:Concord Regional Airport Logo.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally uploaded as non-free content, but subsequently converted to {{

Concord Regional Airport. The jpg was tagged with {{Now Commons}}, but speedy deletion doesn't apply because of the difference in file format. So, bringing the file here for discussion as suggested here. There seems to be no reason to keep this local version since any possible use of it should be covered by the svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2021 (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:Vixens omorashi.png

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 ⚡ 23:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:NFCCP #8. Not used for "critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Sandstein 21:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nomination. It might be possible for the cover art of the first issue of the manga, or either the video or dvd box cover art or the
OVA that was subsequently released in main infobox of an article such as this, but not a screenshot like this. A screenshot could possibly used in the body of the article if it was the subject of sourced critical commentary about some aspect of the animation technique or themes the animation is based upon, but it would need to be much more substantial than the simple statement "It contains three episodes and contains the use of BDSM and Omorashi" and a infobox caption stating basically the same even if properly sourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2021 (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.