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: keep. No consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Dragon (Arrow).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kailash29792 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for educational reasons, no critical commentary that greatly adds in understanding over text. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Koavf, the production section of the article says, "The episode's title card replaces the arrowhead seen in previous episodes with a dragon" with a source. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kailash29792, Yes and this image isn't used to accompany that text and the text seems like it could adequately describe this without a non-free image. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - title card being used for the purposes of identification of the episode for which this article is the main subject. Such use meets WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2020 (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.

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Relist at 2020 July 1.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secret Origin of Felicity Smoak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Autumnking2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for educational reasons, no critical commentary that greatly adds in understanding over text. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf - Keep The image is a promotional image released prior to the episode which also highlights a significant element of the episode, used as per Manual of Style guidelines at MOS:TVIMAGE. It illustrates a significant alternative appearance for a member of the main cast of the series, about whom the episode is focused on/titled for, which is referred to in the body of the article. AutumnKing (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (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.

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: replace with DVD cover but no prejudice against undeletion or re-upload if used to illustrate sourced critical commentary in the article.

The debate largely centered around WP:NFCC#3a and its requirement that we use as few non-free works as necessary to convey a particular point. Taken for granted in the discussion was the particular purpose this image served: primary means of visual identification of the subject. There is consensus that per NFCC#3a, only one non-free poster should be used as the primary means of visual identification since readers only need to see one poster to know that they've reached the correct article. Participants reached a rough consensus that the DVD cover is a better option than choosing either of the two posters in this composite, but local consensus and editing may come to other solutions.

There was a side discussion on whether the posters in the composite have been the subject of critical discussion. If the article has duely-weighted, reliably-sourced, critical commentary on these posters and their relatedness, then an image like this one may satisfy the NFCC for illustrating that part of the article. However there's not sufficient discussion to say whether that option has consensus or not. If anyone wants to try that, you can ask that I undelete the file, request undeletion at WP:REFUND, or reupload the image. Until then though, the file has been deleted since there is consensus the composite image does not satisfy the NFCC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) dual posters.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No excuse for two pieces of non-free media in this article and they are not discussed critically. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's is a poster for the event, and per MOS:TVIMAGE, if an episode-specific poster is available (which this is), it can be used in the infobox, much like a television season will have a poster for its infobox, which 99% of the time is not discussed crticially either. Additionally, while it is two non-free images, they are merged into one at a small size allowable by WP:IMAGERES. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use of one of the posters would be okay but use of both posters does not pass WP:NFCC#3a as this is essentially a collage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I agree with Favre1fan93 points. At the same time, could the Blu-ray/DVD cover art be used instead? That Blu-ray/DVD cover art is one singular image that covers this 5-part episode, thus there wouldn't be a need to have two posters merged into one image representing this 5-part episode, or a need to decide which poster to keep and which to remove. --JDC808 ♫ 10:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the Blu-ray art is simply the first (or left) image used here, so in that case, I'd still lean towards this image as it represents the whole of the crossover. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to add that the nominator said the posters are not discussed critically, but they in fact are, in Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)#Marketing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DVD Cover I agree with JDC808 that the DVD cover would be an ideal image to use in the infobox of this article.  ★  Bigr Tex 00:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above to JDC808 above, the DVD cover is simply the first official poster released for the event. I don't know how they could have really combined the two for the DVD. Regardless, the two still represent the crossover as a whole, and there's analysis specifically of the second poster in the marketing section (NFCC#8). Reader's understanding of that commentary is significantly increased by having both posters in the infobox. I don't believe the second should be removed, and I don't particularly feel the having the first in the infobox and the second as its own image in the marketing section to visualize the commentary is a particularly better solution. Because the crossover consists of 5 individual episodes, and all 5 are covered in this article, the first poster was made to represent the first half of the crossover (3 episodes), and the second to represent the second half (the last 2 episodes). One of the posters cannot accurately visualize the entire crossover when each represents only about half of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, apparently it wasn't clear that I was responding to the relisting comment, "to determine which of the posters should be cropped out." I believed that it had already been decided by Fastily that only one image should be kept. If you believe that is still in question, I will clearly state that I agree that we need to reduce to one non-free image in the article.  ★  Bigr Tex 01:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fastily: I didn't realize you had added that comment in the relisting either, have you already come to that conclusion? In that case, the image should be the first poster. However, upon doing that, I would choose to move the second poster (as its own image), to the "Marketing" section because it being a second official poster for the event and because of the commentary there comparing it to the first poster. I believe doing that would satisfy NFCC, particularly #8. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And given that the reason that Fastily gives in the relisting comment is "WP:NFCC#3a violation", how does moving the image within the article not continue to be a "WP:NFCC#3a violation?"  ★  Bigr Tex 03:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My understanding of the initial listing was the fact that it was 2 pieces of non-free media combined into one image, with the nominator feeling per 3a, that one would suffice. Not that if you had the two by themselves it would violate 3a. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure how you got that from "No excuse for two pieces of non-free media in this article..."  ★  Bigr Tex 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • But you've failed to also included "they are not discussed critically" in your requote, of which I've stated numerous times in this discussion that they are in the "Marketing" section (somehow the nom ignored that). And having both appear is a significant help to the reader given the commentary of the comparing of the differences between the two posters. So if they remain as is as a combined image in the infobox, or the left image stays in the infobox and the right moves to the marketing section to support the commentary, I believe both pass NFCC criteria for inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did leave out that portion of the nomination because we were discussing WP:NFCCP#3a. That part of the nomination statement and as far as I can tell the entirety of your comment have gone back to WP:NFCCP#8. WP:NFCCP states "... media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." If there is "No excuse for two pieces of non-free media in this article..." and an agreement that having two images violates WP:NFCCP#3a, we don't need to consider WP:NFCCP#8 because it does not meet all 10 criteria.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The dual posters display the advancement and separation of the crossover's release, conforming to NFCC, as the posters are indeed critically discussed, and use of only one of the images cannot convey equivalent significant information relating to the entire crossover. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with an image of one poster or the other. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. I don't really mind which one. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2020 (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.

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: no consensus. Since nobody responded, feel free to WP:BOLDly update it yourself and tag the old version for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:KickAssComics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MacCready (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is one image made up of four pieces of non-free media. Reduce it to one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 17 May 2020 (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.

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Orientation title card.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MyNameIsASDF (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - Not the subject of critical discussion in the article (the total coverage is "The episode also introduces a new title card for the series."). Not required for the understanding of the subject of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, a change in a series' title card is useful to depict. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move it to the infobox (to replace the non-indicative non-free image currently there), where it is most useful. Kingsif (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to infobox. Title cards are important for identification and a change is useful to note when we already have previous versions depicted. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97:: The manuals of style are guidelines. The non-free content criteria is a policy. When the two come into conflict, as is happening here, the NFCC has priority. "Useful to depict" is not enough to meet criteria 8 of the NFCC, which states that non-free content is acceptable "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I don't see how the image in question meets that standard, and your comment does not address the requirement either.

  This is not just on you, but what's happened over the years is that a lot of people have taken the MOS saying best practice is to have an image in the infobox and turned it into a belief that every article is entitled to an infobox image, and that as long as an image is in the infobox, the NFCC doesn't really apply [because the MOS says we should have an image]. That's absolutely not the case. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Squirrel Conspiracy: You've nominated a lot of SHIELD related files so I don't know if responding about all of them is best here, but I will. I will say this. Regarding posters for episodes as many of these discussions are about, I do not see how there is any difference from adding one specifically for an episode than how season articles get season-specific posters. You can make the argument that any poster, be it for a film or television season doesn't support NFCC 8, but we add them, and as pointed out, the TV MOS suggest that as an acceptable non-free media use in episode articles. Additionally, if non-free media is going to be used on an episode article, I believe that if a poster is available, it is a much more valid defense of NFCC than a screenshot or other random image from the episode (as some of these discussions are about and I support deletion). Then for title cards (either episode specific, or the start of a new one for the series with said episode), again, that to me is definitely a valid NFCC use in these articles as we are discussing how new logos have been introduced. And when these title cards are vastly different from the "standard" ones for the series (which they are), that to me is a valid claim for NFCC 8 to give the reader contextual information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Use of this image clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Moving it to the infobox will not help. We are fairly tolerant of using title cards in the infoboxes of main series articles but this is not the situation in episode articles. Typically, episode articles use screenshots from the episode but even then they need to be the subject of critical commentary and many images have been deleted because they fail to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC which, as The Squirrel Conspiracy has said, is policy. It's not just policy it's "policy with legal considerations" and, as stated on the policy page, non-free content should only be used as a last resort. We in the TV project often forget that. This particular policy overrides the MOS and other guidelines and all non-free content use has to comply with it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As I suggested in my reply above, NFCC 8 can be said about any series title card, especially as you pointed out Aussie We are fairly tolerant of using title cards in the infoboxes of main series articles. It seems hypocritical that those are allowed with virtually no commentary whatsoever, and yet there is a very small amount of it here in this instance and that can be expanded slightly from the source used in article, which I believe can satisfy NFCC 8, especially since it will be the only non-free content remaining on the article. (Please note I am not stating this to say we go to all series title cards and delete them. Just trying to point this out). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment with the old infobox image now deleted, I've move this image to the infobox, and have included additional commentary about the title card in the body of the article. I once again believe this satisfies all NFCC requirements, particularly #8 now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also like to add, I have since uploaded the typeface to commons (File:Agents of SHIELD season 5 logo.png) and have switched to that image in the article, so this the version here can probably be deleted now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Secret Warriors poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adamstom.97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - Not critical to the understanding of the article subject. The promotional poster is not discussed in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHILED Who You Really Are.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD One of Us.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Aftershocks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD One Door Closes.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Afterlife.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Melinda.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Frenemy of My Enemy.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Dirty Half Dozen.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Scars.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD SOS Part 2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD SOS Part 1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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. No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agents of SHIELD Love in the Time of Hydra.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Favre1fan93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - This is a marketing poster, discussed briefly at the bottom of the article, and is not critical to understanding the topic of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:TVIMAGE, an episode-specific poster is useful to include in the infobox for the info, same as a show's season poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the majority of the time, film posters or television season poster have no commentary about them in the article, yet they are allowed. I see no reason when an episode-specific poster is used (as this is), it should be treated any differently than on a film or television season article. And in this instance, there is commentary for the poster featured in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (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.

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: no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JayCoop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The musical note of the riff was taken from (or, see one of my comments below) "Sunday Bloody Sunday", one of copyrighted songs. If that note is copyrighted and fails to comply with NFCC, then it should be deleted. However, if usage at the song article meets fair use standards, then the image's status should be changed to fair-use. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the musical note of the riff"? Do you mean "image" rather than "note"? Hyacinth (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found the term "musical notation". --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does the image fail to comply with WP:NFCC? Hyacinth (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let others decide then, which is the point of this discussion. Well, you can decide whether it is free or non-free and then whether it complies with NFCC. BTW, if not taken from the song, then maybe the riff notation is the derivative of the song. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the article talks about the riff, with sources, nothing is said about its musical characteristics other than that it's in minor (which is sufficiently explained by text) and is "the 'bone-crushing arena-rock riff of the decade'" (which is vague enough to not relate to the actual musical characteristics at all). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as Non-Free My opinion (but I went out and googled up a lawyer's opinion as well) is that this is a derivative work and therefore, while we may have a release from the uploader(s) for their work in transcription we would also need a release from the copyright holder. We should re-license under ((Non-free sheet music)), and allow seven days for a rationale to be produced.  ★  Bigr Tex 16:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BigrTex: Do you think the image meets NFCC, and do you think the usage is acceptable per WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI? George Ho (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No.  ★  Bigr Tex 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That lawyer's opinion addresses full arrangements of songs, not tiny snippets like this one, so it is irrelevant to this discussion. See my comment below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and transfer to Commons per Copyright Compendium § 313.4(C): "short musical phrases consisting of only a few musical notes standing alone are not copyrightable and cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, even if the phrase is novel or distinctive." Note that the 16 notes here do not represent 16 degrees of freedom. The repetition of the final note in each broken chord is part of a common accompaniment pattern and is not original, nor is the final repetition. So in the end we only really have 9 distinct notes, which IMO do not meet the bar, especially when arranged in an unoriginal rhythm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: What about Irish and British laws regarding the musical notations? The band U2 is Irish, and the song belongs to the band. George Ho (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, British TOO is quite low while Irish TOO is uncertain. I would keep it locally as it only needs to be PD under US law on English Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 26 July 2020 (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.

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: keep. Consensus is that the audio clip contains information that cannot be conveyed by text alone. The 30-second portion is small compared to the original full-length Larry King Live episode and is unlikely to replace its market value. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:1993 Larry King Live call from San Luis Obispo.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nice4What (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP#1. The material is easily replaceable with a quoted transcript already in the affected article. Also fails WP:NFCCP#8. The audio recording would not increase a reader's understanding of the subject any more than a quote of the transcript. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There's already an ongoing discussion about this audio file which MrX is choosing to ignore. Consensus is building that since the call in question has been analyzed and scrutinized by media, it falls under fair use. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring any discussion. It simply has no bearing on whether we should retain a copyrighted material against our policy. - MrX 🖋 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Nice4What and reasons I presented both on the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation talk page and the summary I presented when reverting your previous request for a "speedy deletion" of this file. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not about content preferences. It's about a policy that has legal implications. - MrX 🖋 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your statement in "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation". "Using a 30-second audio sample has always been qualified as fair use and has been done many times before." is incorrect. The length of the clip is immaterial if the file does not adhere to requirements contained in 17 U.S. Code § 107 or Wikipedia's more stringent fair use policy. FYI, Wikipedia's policy is audio samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the source, whichever is shorter. This sample clearly is considerably longer than 10% of the source. CBS527^Talk 21:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This file has only been used to promote content that violates WP:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How so? It doesn't mention Biden by name. Stop saying everything is a BLP violation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The content of the file itself is not a BLP violation. However, as I stated aboe, it is being used only to support -- without verification -- the unverified claim that it is a smoking gun proving that Joe Biden criminally attacked an employee 27 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's being used to show that Reade may have talked to her mother about the allegation in 1993. That's not incriminating to Biden. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom under WP:NFCCP#1. A transcript is sufficient, the audio is not required. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – as a general rule I do not agree that an audio speech file is equivalent to a transcript. It's commonly known that written words do not convey the same amount of content as spoken words, because of tone, intonation, emphasis, pauses, and so forth. A transcript loses a lot of content. So it meets #1. It meets #8 because it's been the subject of much discussion of RSes, and those RSes are discussing the audio of the call (the spoken words), and not the transcript of that call. The thing being discussed is the audio, not the transcript of the audio. The reader should be given the audio so that they understand what the RSes are talking about; without hearing the tone, etc., which the RSes hear, the reader won't have as complete an understanding of the call. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with what everyone who asked to keep the audio has said so far.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
• Keep per Nice4What. Cjhard (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Levivich sums things up nicely as to why this should be kept.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Spoken word history is history. The call is referenced by many reliable sources and the audio is paramount to understanding context. I wish we had the video version. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is not a content issue. This file has copyright problems that need to be addressed. All non-free material must adhere to Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria policy. This file falls short in several areas and currently has an invalid fair-use tag.

• 1.  WP:NFCCP#6 - Does not meet the media-specific policy, "Non-free content - Audio clips". May be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the free-use criteria are met.
• 2. WP:NFCCP#2 - Has not address how the use of the work does not infringe on the potential market value of the copyrighted work.
• 3. WP:NFCCP#10a - Source of clip is not from the original copyrighted material. Clip was taken from an unauthorized "YouTube" video. Video was neither uploaded by copyright holder nor with copyright holder's permission. Not only is this an unreliable source the possibility exists that the video could have been edited. 
• 4. WP:NFCCP#8 - Fails to explain how a video clip of an anonymous caller, about an anonymous Senator, that discusses nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment or inappropriate touching  would significantly increase a readers' understanding of the article topic. If the purpose of this clip is to somehow corroborate" Reade's statement that she told her mother about any of the aforementioned allegations, this non-free clip is not needed nor should it be used. Her statement has already been verified by her brother in several sources used in the article.

It is the responsibility of users seeking to include non-free content to provide a valid rationale for why it needs to be used. CBS527^Talk 01:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. W/r/t #6, I don't think there is a media-specific policy for audio files? I don't think #6 adds any particular requirements for audio files beyond the usual NFC 10.
2. W/r/t #2, there is no potential market value for a recording of a telephone caller calling into a talk show from 30 years ago. It's not like they're selling the recordings; it's not like a song or album. Also, the recording is already widely available on the internet for free. It's only a small snippet of the talk show itself, so it won't infringe on sales of the recordings of the talk show episode.
3. W/r/t 10a, that's a non-issue; the audio comes from a video that is so widely available, it is very easy to source and verify. There are plenty of better sources than the YouTube source, such as the The Intercept, which broke this story originally [1], or the tweet of the video that The Intercept used as a source [2], or to CNN itself (which also includes the 1993 video about 4:00 in) [3].
4. W/r/t #8, I don't want to repeat what I said above, but the purpose of the clip is not to "corroborate" Reade's statement. It's to allow our readers to hear the audio file of the call while they are reading analysis in our article of the call, so that they can hear the tone, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is the same as any historical item. We should overcome any possible technical reason for non-inclusion, as at this point fair use should surely apply. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:13, 29 May 2020 (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.

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Relisted at 2020 July 1.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more justification: the image depicts three necessarily non-free artefacts of the episode: first, the cookie. Used to support the plot description e.g. "digital clones stored in an egg-shaped object" (which can't go into more detail because of WP:OR and MOS:TVPLOT, and such detail wouldn't give the same illustration as the real thing) and the production section, which discusses the origins and ideas behind the fictional tech. Second, Matt Trent. His clothing, facial expression, body language etc. all convey the character in a way that words can't. He is the subject of discussion in the plot and detailed discussion under production, where the development of Trent's character is given a full paragraph. Third, style of the second story's location, which as before is discussed in the plot and the production.
    To specifically counteract the argument Koavf gives in the nomination, I've addressed the educational value of the image, which is not "purely for decoration" because it depicts major aspects of the work in question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. There are scenes that I think from this episode that would be more interesting (what someone's "censored" vision looks like, for example, or what the view from "inside" the egg looked like) but that would need to have sourced discussion too. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some further critical description could be added to the article but the rationale is sound. This is a seminal moment of the episode. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one seems fair Daveout (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2020 (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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - Men Against Fire.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The image is so non-descript as to have almost no context to satisfy NFCC#8 here. The claim on the rationale is that it shows the actor and body language but the actor's face is in darkness so can't identify, and there's zero expression to be read. There may be other images to be possible from this episode (eg what the soldiers think they see) but this is not NFCC#8 acceptable. --Masem (t) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll concede that I'm not do-or-die on this image, but I chose it because several professional reviewers found it to be the best screenshot to illustrate the episode—apparently I made a mistake. The reviews ([4][5][6]) each feature a slightly different image in which Stripe's pose is clearer, there is more light etc. I would prefer to use that image instead ([7]). It shows a pretty militaristic-coded setting, but if you feel that there's a better moment to illustrate the military context of the episode then that could be quite good. I'm also open to using an image of a "roach", because their design is discussed under "Casting and filming" and their meaning under "Analysis". In the case of a "roach" image, we don't have a free image of Malachi Kirby to use later down but perhaps we could obtain one. — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging The Rambling Man, who determined in August 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rationale exists and is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per MOS:TVIMAGE which states for screenshots used in episode infoboxes, "if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." But since there is no "explicit, sourced analytical commentary" that this screenshot illustrates it fails the guideline.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:36, 9 July 2020 (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.

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: keep. The consensus supports including this image. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Be Right Back.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bilorv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific reasoning: this image depicts the robotic Ash clone which is the main technology explored in the episode. If it just looks like a regular guy to you then that's something the article can't tell you with words alone—what the android looks like. If you pick up on the agape mouth, slightly confused facial expression and very subtle uncanny valley aspects to Ash, then again—that tells you what the android looks like. No free image of Gleeson would show him in this role. The image also depicts the relationship of Martha to her new android Ash, again a lot of body language clues in the image.
    Ash and Martha are of course discussed extensively in the plot but they are further discussed throughout the production, in terms of the writing, the acting and the directing. As well as specific comments in the reception about the acting and directing, and further discussion under analysis, there are specific sentences throughout the article which are illustrated by the specific frame from the specific scene that is used e.g. Unlike past episodes of Black Mirror, "Be Right Back" features a character beginning to use a technology, rather than one who is used to it. We see this in the characters' body language and the framing of the camera.
    Overall, the image has no "purely for decoration" purpose, instead both supported by specific critical commentary about the scene in question and the acting and directing, and the educational value of illustrating the necessarily non-free characters. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the actors' performances gaining critical commentary, there is nothing immediately special about the head shots of the actors here to require a screenshot of them, it doesn't impart anything that free images of the actors would do. --Masem (t) 13:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with this. Any image of the two actors separately does not show them playing a couple in the way that a screenshot of them does. Additionally, Domnhall Gleeson is not a robot but the screenshot used depicts one. Perhaps we can find Ash looking more obviously synthetic in another screenshot—we want to convey a resemblance to Frankenstein's monster or a ghost per the "Analysis". Another option that would be completely non-replaceable would be a screenshot depicting (as well as a character) one of the futuristic technologies shown in the episode like Martha's easel or laptop (though I cannot think of a good frame to use off the top of my head). — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Kingsif, who determined in January 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does, as best as a single screenshot can, establish and identify the episode in the infobox. This season of Black Mirror episodes do not have official posters, and the series as a rule does not have single episode title logos - it serves the function of these. The argument above to delete because free images of the actors exist only works if arguing that the image is there to show who the actors are, which it evidently is not. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep establishes that the main protagonist is indistinguishable from a regular human. Covered by the existing rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which can be stated by text alone, and does not need an image (that is, that would fail NFCC#8's omission test). --Masem (t) 04:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is important to show the characters that are being discussed in the article Daveout (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Daveout, Why do they need to be depicted? What cannot be adequately discussed with text? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koavf: Hi, Justin. Because a tv show (or a movie) rely heavily on visuals to tell a story. That's the heart of this type of audio-visual media. This isn't a book that relies solely on words. For that reason, I think it is important to show, visually, at least the most important character(s) or event(s) of the story. Readers could understand the gist of the story without the image? Probably. The inclusion of the image could increase the understanding of what is being described (as required by wp:nfcc)? In my opinion, YES!. Therefore it meets every criterion of wp:nfcc Daveout (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I read the article, then I read MOS:TVIMAGE. I did not expect to use it as the rationale for my !vote, but it says "...a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode. The latter may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." I find no "explicit, sourced analytical commentary" in the article about the chosen screenshot, so it fails the manual of style which I find to be a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFCCP.  ★  Bigr Tex 01:35, 1 July 2020 (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.

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: relisted on 2020 October 11. FASTILY 06:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Should I Stay or Should I Go by The Clash 1991 rerelease.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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: Relicence to free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally PRODded the cover art of Jaki Graham's 1990s rendition of "Ain't Nobody", thinking that the image is non-free. The PROD was contested because having a separate lengthy section about a charted notable cover version of a song is an assumed justification to use a cover art and to help the cover art comply with NFCC. Then I realized that I did not consider the possibility about its eligibility or ineligible for US copyright protection, though the cover art is still eligible for copyright in the UK per c:COM:TOO UK, i.e. UK's originality bar is set very low. For that reason, Introspective's cover art (another example) is locally used in enwiki instead of Commons.

Back to the single cover art, if the cover art is found ineligible for US copyright, then "((PD-ineligible-USonly)) should replace the non-free status tag. The cover art itself has just text-based logos all over: the song title, the singer's name, the shadow text, and plain purple background. A's are stretched around, but I can't be sure whether US law would consider it creative enough to make the cover art copyrightable. The cover art would sufficiently comply with WP:IUP#Image content and selection. However, if eligible for US copyright, then I wonder whether the cover art complies with WP:NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion. If unfree and then unable to comply with NFCC, then the image should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue here is the license: if it is ineligible for copyright, then the license needs to be changed and if it is eligible for copyright, it should be kept in the article as passing WP:NFCC as identifying a notable cover version of the song with its own infobox and section, the same as Diana King's, LL Cool J's and Richard X and Liberty X's version have. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point about the notable cover versions of the song, originally written by a Rufus band member and recorded by Rufus and Chaka Khan. Personally, I can already grasp what individual sections about notable cover versions convey, even without needing single cover arts to convey the "virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information". I can also see the song as part of the history of the band Rufus and Chaka Khan and numerously covered by different artists whose versions, even when successful in charts, may not have made more impact than the original version. Generally, I'm torn about whether a visual identification of the Jaki Graham single release is necessary, even when allowed per guideline, for most readers. –George Ho (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retag as ineligible; the image is merely text in a font. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2020 (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.

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. With no consensus this defaults to delete - non-free images must have a positive consensus to include. There is a weak consensus that the logo would be suitable on a page about the university's athletics department, if there were one. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhockey10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8/3. The logo is not the subject of critical commentary. It is the Westcliff University Athletics logo, not the Westcliff University logo (File:WestcliffULogo.png). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Logo meets criteria under WP:NFCCP #8 Contextual significance since the logo is one of the primary identifications for the university significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. Additionally, the logo is added into the article at the infobox parameter designed to host that particular university logo. Many universities have multiple primary logos and often intertwined with athletics uses. As WP:UNIGUIDE Template:Infobox university notes, that infobox parameter is "Use for an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic." As examples Here show, the university uses this logo significantly in conjunction with their other primary wordmark logo as primary university identification, including on major announcements such as COVID19 campus updates. In addition, universities often use athletics as a way to extend reach and branding, that relevantly connects to the use of athletics logos as many times those are more well known for general branding than other particular logos such as seals, etc... --Bhockey10 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You only get one for identification per WP:NFC#CS. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since universities often use logos like that as 1A and 1B to define their brand, that supports the inclusion for contextual significance. Per WP:NFC#CS, both provide WP:DUE Weight because the use of 1A and 1B logos balance each other as the two primary logos of the university. Other universities (often older ones) are balanced by a seal and logo. --Bhockey10 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. (emphasis added) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Before debating NFCC points, this conversation might not even be needed looking into things more. Does WestcliffULogo even fall under WP:NFCC? Is it actually a public domain of "simple geometric shapes or text" similar to University of Michigan logo or University of Miami logo? If it is a PD-textlogo, that just requires a simple edit to change license and satisfies/negates all NFCC points. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just because an infobox documentation page states "Use for an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic" doesn't mean that it's OK to use a non-free image here simply because anyone could've added (in good faith) without any bases for doing so being found in relevant policy. All infoboxes seem to have parameters for images pretty much by default with instructions to add an image, but again that doesn't make populating that parameter with a non-free image OK. Moreover, the fact that other article's might using multiple images in such a manner doesn't mean they should or that it's OK to do so in this particular case per WP:OTHERIMAGE. It wouldn't make a difference if the primary logo was PD in this case, if the use of the non-free one is still deemed to not comply with WP:NFCC. A non-free image is not automaticlally allowed if it's used together with a PD image; it's allowed because its use is deemed to comply with relevant policy. Mascot logos such as this are generally considered OK to use in articles about university athetic teams/departments or about the mascot logo themselves because in such cases the logo is almost always used at the top of the article or in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. Your argument that the same applies to the articles about the university might be stronger if you can find some sourced critical commentary about the logo itself or the university choice of branding and add that to the article. Not just links to pages on the university's website where the logo can be seen (like you provided above), but actual commentary about the logo and the university's choice of branding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The point being debated above by JJMC89 (talk · contribs) is NFCC 3, In with case the licencing behind the other is important. The issue of multiple primary logos in the university infobox was heavily discussed up to the WP:VILLAGEPUMP a few years ago and consensus concluded that some institutions that have multiple uses for their main athletic logo as one of the primary general university logos does fit appropriate rationale under NFCC since it define their brand and supports the inclusion for contextual significance. In addition Michigan, Miami, and some of the ones above, Texas Tech is another good example as their interlocking "TT" logo is a primary university brand logo as well as main athletic logo. I'll do some digging and try to pull the link to previous discussion on university infobox logos. With existing rationale on the logo, if the other is deemed text and not a NFCC, that ends this debate right here because 8 is rationalized and 3 is completely negated. --Bhockey10 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since the logo is not directly discussed with properly referenced prose, it does not meet NFCC 8 and needs to be deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That's not how WP:Logo is deemed appropriate. It meets NFCC8 because of the contextual significance as one of the primary identifier logos used by the university. The context rationale is important in the logo's space not in the article space. The argument that anything with an NFCC logo needs a detailed section in the article space is frankly, wrong. It would disqualify about every NFCC logo for on Wikipedia beyond historical brands which have notable logo histories for article space. In addition, the article does have a section on athletics and student life that does cite independent references so the dual purposes of the one in question as a primary university brand image and athletic brand image is covered. --Bhockey10 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LOGO is a content guideline. WP:NFCC is a policy with legal considerations. If they come into conflict, NFCC trumps LOGO. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is evidence provided in this discussion that this is not used merely as a sporting logo but as a logo for the university as a whole. It's important to note that WP:NFC#CS doesn't say that only one non-free item is allowed, but that only one "generally … meets the criterion of contextual significance". If an institution has two primary logos, as seems to be the case here, then it is quite possible for both to meet the criterion. Robminchin (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are misquoting. meets the criterion of contextual significance doesn't even appear in the guideline. I'm guessing that you are attempting to quote To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion., which says that only one non-free image used for identification meets the criterion. Doing an image search with File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png comes back with pages about the athletics program, but no general university pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The guideline - not policy - that is being quoted by several editors to delete this image is WP:NFC#CS. The specific section that is relevant opens with the sentence "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion." The conclusion of that statement doesn't logically follow its premise. Further, it goes on to offer a specific example where two images are indeed allowed: "For example...for identification of specific coins and currency, images of the front and back are normally used."

I recognize that this isn't a very satisfactory conclusion for many editors as it is outside of the norm to have two fair-use images in an infobox. First, it is indeed common for many US colleges and universities to make extensive use of two images, one linked to their athletic teams and one that is supposed to more broadly represent the entire institution. However, there is tremendous "bleed over" between these identities especially given the immense popularity of college sports in the United States; it would be reasonable to argue that in many cases the athletic identity is much more well known to the general public than any other. Second, I think that editors who are uneasy about having two fair-use images in the infobox would be better served by opening a discussion with the appropriate Wikiproject to clarify the issues and develop a consensus approach. In particular, think it would be reasonable to ask why college and university seals have become the primary logo used in most of these infoboxes when those images are not commonly used by the institutions or recognizable by the general public, at least in the United States. ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the delay in the RE, to ElKevbo's point and my comment earlier in the discussion, this has been heavily discussed at WP:UNI up to Village Pump policy guideline discussions then confirmed back at the Wikiproject (multiple times) such as Here. The decision from Village Pump looks to be for the WPUni to handle case-by-case since universities branding elements vary widely. In either combo, all the previous discussions have weighed that universities do use multiple main logos/images and that those images are worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia/satisfying NFCCP. A Seal plus logo workmark is the WikiProject's most preferred combo choice but many (especially newer universities) don't have and/or don't use a seal so main logo set are used, often one logo is connected to athletics as mentioned by many large and small universities above (Michigan, Miami, Texas Tech, etc...) As ElKevbo mentioned, in USA/NA, athletics is often used a a general marketing and recruiting arm of universities so athletic logo crossover is quite common into general university marketing/branding relevance and that appears to be a central point of discussion in those previous VP level and WP level discussions. The issue of two logos in the university infobox and the worthiness to have multiple logos on university articles has also passed through numerous GA/A/FA article reviews as standard/accepted practice, further confirming their fair use relevance to Wikipedia as a whole.

Also I think this got lost in the conversation but any NFCC points are negated and this entire NFCC-based conversation not even be needed looking into things more. Does the other main university branding image, WestcliffULogo, even fall under WP:NFCC? Is it actually a public domain of "simple geometric shapes or text"? If it is a PD-textlogo, that just requires a simple edit to change license and satisfies/negates all NFCC points. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not significantly increase reader understanding, probably above threshhold of originality. It might be appropriate on a separate article dealing with the university's athletic program, but such an article does not exist. buidhe 01:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No, File:WestcliffULogo.png exceeds c:COM:TOO; It would be fine without the flags/waves on the shield. Exceeds WP:NFCCP#3a. Per JJMC89's image search, it would be fine on a page about the university's athletic department, but not on Westcliff University.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:22, 1 July 2020 (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.

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. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackwattle Bay Coal Bunker, Bridge Road Glebe, 1970s SCC Archives A-0034658.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TrimmerinWiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8/1. The article subject (Coastal coal-carrying trade of New South Wales) can easily be understood without this non-free image. The are plenty of free images (already in the article) to illustrate the topic. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The other illustrations are of different places. There is no known free image of Blackwattle Bay as an operational facility, only as a ruin. It was a grimy industrial site and so not one for snapshots. I went to some trouble to obtain the use of this image (or the low resolution version of it now in use). As explained in the rationale, I got the permission of the owner of the Reproduction Rights (Sydney City Archives) to use the file but took the conservative approach of using the 'non-free' licence because, it is uncertain in what context the photograph was taken originally. I understood that it had been cleared to remain in the article, but I note that it is now up for discussion. I suggest that, since the file seems to meet all the other criteria, it should be up to the reader to decide if the image is useful to help to understand the subject.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could be used in my article for Bridge Road, Glebe Dave Rave (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFCC 8 because what the site looked like is not discussed. As a "grimy industrial site and so not one for snapshots", as TrimmerinWiki put it, there is unlikely to be such discussion in sources anyway. Dave Rave's User:Dave Rave/Bridge Road, Glebe is not a mainspace article so it would fail WP:NFCC#9, and likely the said NFCC 8 even in mainspace for the same reasons as in this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

when it gets done it won't be a user page... Dave Rave (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (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.

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Relist to 2020 July 1.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HeartcatchPreCure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SpinnerLaserz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See File talk:HeartcatchPreCure.png. The question is: If there is a non-free logo on X-TV Series. Can there also be one at List of X-TV Series episodes. I would say no, however Andy Dingley does not agree. What does the community think? Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The logo is right in the file. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That's a different article. Our scope for judging this should be at the article level, not the series.

This was tagged initially under WP:NFCC#8 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just think there is a reason that the articles in Category:Lists of American television series episodes have no non-free media in them.Jonteemil (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartCatch is a season of PreCure SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe this meets NFCC #8; the box art does little to nothing to increase readers' understanding of the list of episodes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take a look at each article of SpongeBob seasons, there are images of box arts. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There isn't one at List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes which really is the relevant Spongebob page.Jonteemil (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Look at the articles of each season. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I replaced the license, could be enough to stop the confusion. I«ias!:,,.:usbk»I 08:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus is 3 people voted Keep, 2 voted Comment, and 1 voted delete, so far. «Iias!:,,.:usbkI» 20:52, 2 June 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lawnmower Dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MatthewHoobin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meeseeks and Destroy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MatthewHoobin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rick and Morty Pilot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moist towelett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The rationale given in the caption is very thin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rick Potion No. 9.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MatthewHoobin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ricks Must Be Crazy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sd2315g86435sdsdg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Rickshank Rickdemption.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sd2315g86435sdsdg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tales from the Citadel.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MacCready (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The caption is a very flimsy excuse for non-free media that can literally be replaced with text. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 30 May 2020 (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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rixty Minutes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sd2315g86435sdsdg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No educational value or critical commentary associated with this decorative image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 30 May 2020 (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.

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: relisted on 2020 July 14. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Wedding Squanchers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diese Schandtaten Eure Schuldt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Colonel Warden (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lower quality version of commons file File:Eure Schuld.jpg. Keeping this file means that editors might add this to WP articles instead of the better quality version. buidhe 08:48, 30 May 2020 (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.