< February 19	February 21 >

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 File:Call the Midwife 2007 reissue ed Orion.png -FASTILY 06:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded PNG images as replacement(s) for a JPEG file. Normally, per MOS:NOVELS#Image, the first edition of a novel or a book is most preferred. However, a book Call the Midwife didn't become notoriously a bestseller until Orion's publication in 2007, five years after its initial release. Haven't yet found a source verifying the book as the bestseller at its original 2002 release. If we wanna go by what made the book the bestseller, probably the 2007 hardcover edition, which is what I would leaning toward to help readers recognise and identify a portion of an edition more successful than original edition. However, if we wanna stick with the first edition as consistent with most books, and/or if there's no consensus on which edition to choose, then let's go for the original 2002 paperback edition. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 20 February 2022 (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: Resolved per below -FASTILY 06:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the "d" in "FfD" is "discussion", I want to start a conversation about this image. The site "Is Anyone Up?" hosted primarily non-consensual pornography i.e. images shared or taken without the consent of the person pictured. Given this, I notice the screenshot contains sexual images of a woman in the banner, and I can only assume that these images are non-consensual, in which case we cannot republish the image. (If you need a policy rationale, under WP:NFCCP#5, the image fails "meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic".)

That the women's eyes are cropped from the image does not mean it could not be personally identifiable.

However, perhaps somebody knows the origin of that image, or has a reliable source explaining that it is in fact consensual (as a small minority of images on the website were). — Bilorv (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or alter the image if necessary) – I appreciate Bilorv's concerns about privacy and use of non-consensual content. However, one of us must download/use GIMP to pixel the woman's face out if necessary. ~~Otherwise.... Well, why bother?~~ Also, the screenshot is the only one we have to contextually identify the website, and Internet Archive excluded the website (or its domain). There's no other way for us to access the past revisions of the defunct website. According to WP:offensive material, an offensive content can be used as long as it's "treated in an encyclopedic manner" and it illustrates what the website looked like before shut down. Furthermore, omitting it would deprive readers from properly identifying the website content. However, I'm torn about the use of the exact portion. I thought about also citing WP:NOTCENSOR, but then I also thought about WP:harassment. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following your comment, George Ho. You've suggested pixellating out the potential non-consensual pornography, but seem to reject that idea. I don't know what about it is objectionable to you—my concerns would be resolved by it. My issue is not really censorship, but legal issues. It is illegal in many places to distribute non-consensual pornography. When it comes to legal issues involving images, we are abundantly cautious. Rather than consulting the law in the state(s) where WMF servers are held, it would be better to avert the problem by removing the potential content. That could be by deleting the file or blurring the image. Note also that there is a reason why Internet Archive excluded the website. — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a newer revision with her face pixelated. Is there anywhere else I must pixelate? George Ho (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've not really understood my concern, which is not that the subject is personally identifiable (I don't think they were), but that the image is non-consensual pornography. You would have to pixelate the whole image so it is not recognisable as somebody's body. Or remove it from the image in another way. Whoever this is, we have no evidence that they have consented to have their naked body published on the internet. Now I think about it, this is an WP:NFCCP#4 issue—we do not have a reasonable belief that the image was published (anywhere) with permission from the copyright holder (for instance, many images on the website were obtained from hacks). — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Images of the whole body pixelized. George Ho (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for doing that. This resolves the issue as I saw it with the image. — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary about using the sample in both Illmatic (album) and N.Y. State of Mind (hip-hop song) articles. Honestly, I really thought free text in both articles can already adequately tell readers what the whole song is about and what the portion is about. Furthermore, more than one sample in the album article is used. I'm listing just this one for now. IMO the whole portion is not contextually significant to the whole album and the whole song, and it may be replaceable by free text per WP:FREER. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of one track "Stay Together" not proven contextually significant to Brave (Jennifer Lopez album) as a whole. Text description already conveys what the whole song is about. George Ho (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant local copy of c:File:Andrew Leonard poses in front of his own Wikipedia article.jpg. ((keep local)) tag was added 5 mins after uploaded, possibly to prevent inadvertent deletion of file. cc Alf.laylah.wa.laylah --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:54, 20 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closely at just the 1970s logo from a vinyl label, all I see are a simple representation of a bell next to a target- or bullseye-looking circle. Since it's of the defunct American label Bell Records. I wonder whether it's above or below the threshold of originality. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, if below threshold, then transfer to Commons. Otherwise, it shall remain as non-free by default. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was used in now deleted article Commbox (AfD). Unsuitable for commons due to originality threshold. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe Israel's threshold of originality is that low per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel#Threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~My bad, read the stuff wrongly. Please consider this withdrawn. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't oppose deletion, though, as the logo could be considered out of scope now that the parent article has been AfD'd. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, since it was deleted as a non-notable company. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 23:59, 21 February 2022 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this image which implies it's in the public domain, yet the article it's on suggests it was taken in 1935. The source seems to be here which is/was a fan site and in no way determines if this is a true PD image. Furthermore, the original author and source are not known and no evidence of checking the copyright archives seems apparent.

Without knowing when the image was taken and where it has come from, it can't be determined to have been in existence prior to 1927. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 20 February 2022 (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 ⚡ 08:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image used in the Order of Canada article with no significant sourced commentary, nor is the image really needed to understand the topic. The usage is decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2022 (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 ⚡ 08:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image being used in Monarchy in Alberta that is not the subject of significant sourced commentary nor is it needed to understand the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2022 (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 ⚡ 08:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. House Blaster^talk 17:25, 20 February 2022 (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 ⚡ 08:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in 1917 (2019 film)#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION. File was prodded for deletion here, but subsequently deprodded here. Files was also being originally used in 1917: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, but that article was directed to the film's article in January 2021. If the article for the soundtrack is considered to meet WP:NALBUM and is recreated, the album cover would be OK to use there for WP:NFCC reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as currently used, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2022 (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 2022 February 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rflgirls.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.

February 20

Call the Midwife (book)

File:Isanyoneup screen.png

File:N.Y. State of Mind sample.ogg

File:Stay Together.ogg

File:Andrew leonard wiki-620x412.jpg

File:1970sBellRecordsLogo.jpg

File:Commbox logo.svg

File:HootGibson.jpg

File:OC-Jean.jpg

File:May23 14-QE-Alb.jpg

File:Iraq CPA.PNG

File:1917soundtrack.jpg

File:Rflgirls.jpg