The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fair use image that is simply for show, one fair use image of the infinity stones is enough. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To a degree, all images in the encyclopedia are "for show", since everything could be described in text and left to the imagination. This, however, is illustrative in a way that no text description could be. BD2412 T 00:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just thanos adding an infinity stone to his gauntlet, can perfectly be described in text form. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this image would not enhance a reader's understanding of a stone being added to the gauntlet and then Thanos getting it's power surge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. While I don't necessarily think every aspect discussed in the Thanos article needs an image, this one still conveys the represented context. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultron in What If...? stores the Stones in his armor as opposed to using the Infinity Gauntlet" can be perfectly described in text form, no need for another fair use image when they are meant to be for last resort. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd like to see the text that perfectly describes this specific image. BD2412 T 00:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, just look at the image caption in its article: "Ultron in What If...? stores the Stones in his armor as opposed to using the Infinity Gauntlet." Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image definitely enhances a readers understanding of what is happening here, since it is outside the "norm" of the rest of the article (being a "What If" story). I agree with BD2412 that text alone for this visual is not enough. More text never hurts to further justify supplementing it with a non-free image, but as it currently stands for this FfD, the inclusion in my eyes is helpful to the reader and satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image showcases the different appearance and use of the subject. Further text explanation is always helpful in the caption. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, addition of it doesn't significantly increase reader's understanding of article topic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is reasonable to have at least one image showing the "dusting" effect of the Blip, and this is as good as any of them. BD2412 T 00:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dusting effect of blip can be described in text form as well, so this image is redundant. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I feel a reader, who may not have seen the film, would not know exactly what the effect of the Blip actually looked like, though per the other discussions below, if determined that having this additional non-free image is too much (I don't personally think so), I can understand if this is chosen to be deleted over the one at the top of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image enhances the reader's understanding of the actual Blip event and its effect on a character. It compliments the Thanos snap gif. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, this image is simply here for show and does little to enhance reader's understanding of topic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having both film and comic versions for the subject of the article illustrates the precise degree to which the adaptation reflected the original material. BD2412 T 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That can be described in text form as well. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid visual juxtaposition for the reader to see how it was represented in the comics after seeing it from the initial image at the top of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This can also be used at other articles, such as Thanos and The Infinity Gauntlet for the comics appearances, and enhances readers' comparisons of the film event and the comic one. Trailblazer101 (talk)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-free image that is here for show, simply shows enactment of event, not the event itself, does little enhancement to the article it is in. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't feel as strongly about the other ones, this one should definitely be kept. It is not an enactment, it is the actual event which is the subject of the article, as depicted in the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this moment is what creates "the Blip" (and can thus be one of, if not the only, visual representation of this happening) it very much serves its purpose on The Blip, which satisfies NFCC#8. And then beyond that, it satisfies all other NFCC policies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per those above. This is the iconic image of the event, and omitting it would be somewhat like omitting the image of the Mona Lisa from our article on that topic. BD2412 T 00:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise, only 1 fair use image of the blip event, which should be this one. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I should point out that both this article (The Blip) and Infinity Stones got through GANs with the fair-use images that have now been nominated for deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the Strange one was questioned in the review of it was relevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one should definitively remain as one of the most clear, primary depictions of the subject. Following NFCC guidelines, this and the Strange dusting depict the enactment and effect of the event and compliment each other. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image from a copyrighted non-free work that does little to enhance the encyclopedic value of the only article that it is in. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: having not watched Nausicaä, I have no idea what it depicts and is clearly unhelpful. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8 since there no critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the animator's article. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; no likely use on Wikipedia as the most logical article to put this on, WHCQ-LD, was deleted at AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Commons, but can't be for obvious reasons. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two pieces of non-free media added to an article with several pieces of free media that is not discussed critically or used for educational commentary. Use of non-free media in decorative manners is opposed to WP:NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not decorative, illustrative, as it shows the band's early performative character, Booji Boy. Nomination is part of a personal vendetta by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Please don't make up stuff. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8 since there no critical commentary of the single covers to justify its inclusion in the band's article. Aspects (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Not a freely licensed file. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file. -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not in the public domain in the US as it was still not free in Malaysia in 1996. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source explicitly proving this file to be freely licensed. -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until the publication date is known, this image is not in the public domain of the US. — Ирука¹³ 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was definitely published in 2000 at the latest, as it is used as part of a book cover [1] . If someone has access to the book, perhaps additional details about the photo on its cover is available -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2023 September 2. FASTILY 03:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 03:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the image was produced in the late nineteenth century. — Ирука¹³ 13:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13 - Hello, please see: [2], it appears the original uploader has updated the file information to include the URL of the original source. Date given there by Davinder S. Toor (manager of the Toor Collection) is c.1850. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaplesyrupSushi. Is 1850 the date the image was created or published? Also I don't see the author's name to count 70 years from his death. — Ирука¹³ 18:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken in 2019. This is after 1973, not before. — Ирука¹³ 14:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 03:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c:COM:CUR Syria — Ирука¹³ 14:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to fair use it's the only current note in the article; as all published material less than 50 years old are copyrighted, any current currency would need to be fair use. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus, defaulting to status quo (non-free) -FASTILY 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this file be relicensed as ((PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain)) since it seems to be below c:COM:TOO US. Jonteemil (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. I don't agree with nom's assessment. ✗plicit 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 20

File:Nausicaa god warrior.png

File:Whcq logo file.jpg

File:Devo Jocko Homo Mongoloid.jpg

File:University of Malaya coat of arms.svg

File:Benito mussolini28.jpg

File:Jamadar Khushal Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s Chamberlain, with attendant, Company school, ca. 1850.jpg

File:9th Joint Coordination Committee Meeting Islamabad.jpg