Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 March 25

< March 24	March 26 >

March 25

File:Nat-king-cole-longhorn-ballroom BriscoeCenter byRCHickman.jpeg

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 04:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image is stated to meet WP:NFCC#8 "because the photo and its historical significance are an object of discussion in the article". However, the photo is not the subject of any sort of commentary. The seating arrangement of Nat King Coles performance is described, but this image is not needed to understand that blacks were seated at the front as the text makes this clear. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think the image is helpful to understand that blacks were seated at the front. A picture tells a thousand words.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article states that the blacks were seated at the front. That concept is already conveyed in words. Adding the picture, well.. WP:THOUSANDWORDS. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can literally describe any picture in the universe with words. To say that you can describe it with words is not a good enough reason to get rid of an image, and just as empty as saying "A picture tells a thousand words." Epachamo (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historically significant event, adds context to the article. Epachamo (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The case to use the photo would be much stronger if the article were about the appearance of Nat King Cole at the Longhorn Ballroom. But it is used in an article about the ballroom. There is nothing in the article to support the assertion that this was an historically significant event. The image is being used to support a single, unsourced sentence. WP:NFCC#8 requires evidences of significant context, and not just an assertion that it is met. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the article subject is more about the ~~restaurant~~ venue itself than what's shown in the image. Furthermore, a free photo of either Nat King Cole or Jack Ruby would be more suitable than a non-free image of a booked show, regardless of its historical value and/or significance. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC); corrected, 05:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lothal Port City.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a photo of a 2-D artwork. There is no information about the photographed art to determine its provenance. Note that this image is not used. Whpq (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Justice-League-Snyder-Cut.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Remove from Justice League in other media -FASTILY 04:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale does fail WP:NFLISTS, and cannot be used for list articles. Surveyor Mount (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surveyor Mount I'm sorry, but in what way would this image be a blatant failure of the requirements listed? I would argue that this image shows six of the main characters in this film series and may meet bullet point six of the rationale for list articles in that it shows a sample of the characters as they appear on-screen.--WuTang94 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain for Characters of the DC Extended Universe as a groups character shot for a list of characters. Remove from Justice League in other media which is not such a list article and the stated purpose "To illustrate a point in the article" is a vague way of saying "decorative use". -- Whpq (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's fair. Re-examining the language of WP:NFLISTS implied that non-free images like this might be best used in only one article, not two, and whichever article is better suited to have that image should keep it over the other one. WuTang94 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq I just added to the explanation for the rationales for both pages. See if that helps. --WuTang94 (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It just uses more words to say that the use is decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tres Hanley @ NY Fashion Week 2017.jpeg

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) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook metadata in EXIF. Doubtful own work. See also uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP criteria #8. This is image is not needed to "significantly increase readers' understanding of topic" Satanic panic. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not Fail. The image is taken from a cover to a book that is widely seen as THE catalyst to the Satanic Panic movement. It is featured prominently in the article (the top right, featured spot), and receives discussion from within the article. Seeing the cover of the book helps to significantly increase the readers understanding of the circumstances that sparked the panic in a way that words just cannot convey. Epachamo (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem for me is, its not the cover of the copy I have seen. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? Are you questioning its authenticity? Epachamo (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying it is not illustrative of all editions. If this was the first printing that would be differnet, is it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This cover was printed during the height of the moral panic, chosen by its publishers to precisely play to the fears of the moral panic that was cresting at that moment. I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia policy that says the first edition of a book cover should be preferred or even required. If it exists, please point me in that direction and I will drop my objection. Epachamo (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently used. Books get published and republished with a variety of covers. In fact, the original uploaded cover was this cover. It was later replaced with the first edition cover. Having said that, it is the book itself, and not the cover that played a significant role in the McMartin debacle. There is no significant sourced coverage about the cover of the book at Satanic panic. As such, I do not believe the current usage meets WP:NFCC#8 as one does not need to see the cover to understand the role the book played. Also, it is currently used in Michelle Remembers, but that usage fails WP:NFCC#10c. If the uploader here believes that this cover should replace the first edition cover for use in the Michelle Remembers article, then a discussion should be had to gain a consensus on which cover to use. The file history at File:Michelle Remembers.jpg will show what editors may be interested such a discussion, as well as editors from Wikiproject Books. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the cover itself is not a requirement of WP:NFCC#8, which merely states: "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There isn't an image in the universe that can't be described with words. The question is, does this image assist the reader in understanding the topic better, which is absolutely the case in this instance. Seeing a small child with Satan looming overhead surrounded by an occult ritual does more to educate the reader on the circumstances surrounding the panic than words ever could. Epachamo (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that supports this edition of the cover led to, or was a factor in the book leading to panic. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not what WP:NFCC#8 says.Epachamo (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not suitable for the book article, which is already illustrated by the first edition's cover art. (BTW, I replaced the JPEG version with the PNG one.) Not suitable for the "satanic panic" one either. I fail to see how omitting one of subsequent covers of the book would detriment readers' understanding of "satanic panic". Honestly, the article details the book more than the book cover itself, and the book cover is to me nothing more than an eye-catcher (and marketing ploy/device) for readers. Furthermore, the article is more about the "panic" itself than the book cover, and no lead image would be a better option than retaining this book cover. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, MOS:LEADIMAGE says to either use a more suitable and appropriate image to contextually illustrate the whole "panic" itself... or omit an image from the lead for the time being. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (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.