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⚡ 14:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goldin Finance 117.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gustavo do Nascimento de Almeida (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There's no reason for a non-free illustration now that we can get photos of the building itself. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Once construction is complete, representations of the proposed building are no longer valid for NFCC and should be replaced with a freely licensed photo of the building, which actually exists in the article. Muhandes (talk) 06:22, 14 October 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: keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete opinions in the discussion. Whpq (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wisin & Yandel - Pam Pam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DominicanWikiEdit1996 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Withdrawn --Muhandes (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Fails WP:NFCCP#8 as it does not have enough contextual significance since it is not an identifying cover. The cover is not used to identify this product (single/song) on any platform except YouTube Music. This is actally the cover of another product, namely, the album Juntos Otra Vez, see here. YouTube Music used that cover minus the album name to identify the single, since the song appears on that album, but the cover is not an identifying cover for the single. Muhandes (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Because even thought only YouTube Music have it as a cover, it was the duo or record companies choice to have it as a cover. Also this cover does not have the words "Juntos Otra Ves" on the cover. The album "Juntos Otra Ves" does. So there's a little difference that anyone can notice. Also, if the album was ever made, the cover with the title on it would be used instead of this image. I guess I should have renamed it as the album's image in order to keep the image. I have done it for two singles from group and because it was used in those singles in multiple music streaming services, it stayed and also they were alternate covers.

DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

This does not answer the concern that the image lacks contextual significance as the product is not recognized by this image, since this image is already used to recognize the album. I'm not sure what you mean by "if the album was ever made"; the album exists on multiple outlets and is always using this cover for identification. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say by "if" referred to the fact that if a wiki page was ever made, two images would different from each other. I know the album exist. I am a huge fan of the duo and have done a lot of edits for them on Wikipedia. Anyways, I actually have another image that could replace the cover. However, it is just a picture of the single CD. But since I have seen some wiki pages of songs using just the CD or vinyl images like some of Michael Jackson's songs like Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, Rock with You, and Off the Wall have a vinyl as the image cover for the songs' wiki pages. This image is on Discogs and could be a good replacement. Also I wanted to say thanks for inviting me to discuss the situation with you about the album "Como en los Tiempos de Antes". Even though we are disagreeing about this image, we're still able to help each other in solving the other issue. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a better replacement. Since we are in agreement, I replaced the image and this request is Withdrawn. Muhandes (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Muhandes. This image is a better replacement until an image that was used for the single is found. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 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: keep. Whpq (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:NJGov profile picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theleekycauldron (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is the Twitter profile picture, but I fail to see how this is fair use. We have images in the article for the managers of the account, and this isn't a logo for the account, rather an image from a different intellectual property. The image gives no critical commentary on the topic itself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader – I would classify the profile picture of a Twitter account-based organization as its logo. We presume in good faith that they licensed said logo fairly – if not, that's not our problem, it'll get taken down or switched and we'll do the same. It's an identifiable symbol of the account, and I think it serves that purpose well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:24, 16 October 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. Whpq (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Subway Surfers screenshot on iphone October 2022.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rosedaler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused image. – The Grid (talk) 16:35, 14 October 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. Whpq (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence that this image had a Creative Commons license. A 2012 archive shows an "all rights reserved" copyright. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:45, 14 October 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. Whpq (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeJad2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pejman47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website does not indicate the GFDL or Creative Commons license. It says "Using the materials of this site with mentioning the reference is free" but does not indicate what "free" entails. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 15 October 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.