Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4

File:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.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: Keep only in the artist's article. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like the only use that might be appropriate would be the one in Fairfield Porter and that's ones so marginal that I'll call it a "no consensus" case default to "keep" with removal from everywhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Fairfield Porter in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the particular painting. While the use in the artist's biography is not ideal, it is currently used as the sole example of the artist's work and therefore should not be removed unless replaced by a better example, if one can be found. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in. (WP:NFCC#8) It should not be used in the infobox of Fairfield Porter since it is not an image of Porter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Western painting, History of painting, and 20th-century Western painting as unjustifiable fair use. These articles are full of free images. This painting is not needed in any of those articles where it is presented without sourced content. Keep at Fairfield Porter as an example of his work. Fair use is justified.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 8 August 2018 (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:Ralph Goings.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 most articles, no consensus on use in author's article. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like the only use that might be appropriate would be the one in Ralph Goings and that's ones so marginal that I'll call it a "no consensus" case default to "keep" with removal from everywhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Ralph Goings in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the particular painting. The use in the artist's biography is not ideal but is at least minimally compliant with NFCC policy requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in. (WP:NFCC#8) It should not be used in the infobox of Ralph Goings since it is not an image of Goings. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (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:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.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. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like none of the uses discussed here appear to be compliant with WP:NFCC mostly due to lack of WP:NFCC#8 compliance so delete it is. If people can write some sourced commentary that justifies the inclusion of the image somewhere they can ask for undeletion on my talk page or on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of its current uses discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it in the painter's article (as the sole visual example of his work) if someone were to add in-text and FUR explanation of how the painting is emblematic. Similarly, the relevant claim in Color Field should either be sourced or removed. I couldn't source the claim from a Google Books search but maybe you'll have better luck. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (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:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.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; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Threshold of originality on his square paintings? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Minimalist art for discussion regarding TOO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is below TOO, then it is okay. (I'm not willing to make that determination.) Otherwise NFCC applies, and there is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in, including Josef Albers. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (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:Riley, Cataract 3.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. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like none of the uses discussed here appear to be compliant with WP:NFCC mostly due to lack of WP:NFCC#8 compliance so delete it is. If people can write some sourced commentary that justifies the inclusion of the image somewhere they can ask for undeletion on my talk page or on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of its current uses discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. This holds through the passage copied with this image between three survey history articles. The work isn't used in the artist's article. Its use in texture (painting) can be replaced by a free use equivalent. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:00, 5 August 2018 (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:BlackGreyBeat.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. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like none of the uses discussed here appear to be compliant with WP:NFCC mostly due to lack of WP:NFCC#8 compliance so delete it is. If people can write some sourced commentary that justifies the inclusion of the image somewhere they can ask for undeletion on my talk page or on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of its current usages discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. There is no need to keep it in the painter's bio, where we already have free use examples that serve the purpose of basic identification. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in. (WP:NFCC#8) It should not be used in the infobox of Gene Davis (painter) since it is not an image of Davis and there are other examples of Davis's work in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:03, 5 August 2018 (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:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.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 most articles, no consensus on Frank Stella. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like the only use that might be appropriate would be the one in Frank Stella and that's ones so marginal that I'll call it a "no consensus" case default to "keep" with removal from everywhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except the artist's bio (where it is the only example of a particular class of his work). The other uses are unaccompanied by sourced critical commentary, and therefore are clearly not compliant with NFCC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in, including Frank Stella. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:09, 5 August 2018 (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:For Pearl.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 most articles, no consensus on Brice Marden. OK, first off merely saying "keep, fair use established" or less is not quite enough. We have strict rules on where non-free images can be used and when, and arguments to keep need to address the concerns raised. It seems like the only use that might be appropriate would be the one in Brice Marden and that's ones so marginal that I'll call it a "no consensus" case default to "keep" with removal from everywhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and all those visual art images above...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all articles except Brice Marden. Nonfree image displayed in gallery without sourced commentary regarding the individual work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, free use established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary in any of the articles the file is used in, including Brice Marden. (WP:NFCC#8) The work isn't even mentioned in any of the articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:11, 5 August 2018 (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:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.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: relisted on 2018 August 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.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.

File:Lok Sabha TV logo.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; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly the logo of a TV station and therefore cannot be released by the uploader under a free license. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relicensed as fair-use as the infobox logo of Lok Sabha TV (where it is currently used). DMacks (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, relicense to pd-logo and transfer to Commons as it is below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as PD and transfer to Commons per Commons:Threshold of originality#India "India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 4 August 2018 (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:Irabot Hijam.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: Relicense as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be the uploader's own work. It must have been taken before Irabot's death in 1951, and it was published here without a free licence before it was uploaded at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the CC-0 licence cannot be verified, we should turn it into a fair use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}}. De728631 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (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:Bridges 1.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the plot section of The Bridges at Toko-Ri against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is a filming section, but nothing there talks about the authenticity stated in the image caption and a reliably sourced sentence could be used in that section to replace the use of this image. The fair use rationale states its purpose is "This image is being used to illustrate the article on the movie in question and is used for informational or educational purposes only." The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster and a free screenshot from the public domain trailer already illustrate the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is moved to the production section and is further explained in a caption. The use of the actual combat footage of Korean War operations has made the The Bridges at Toko-Ri a classic aviation film. The image is key to the understanding of how a violent carrier launch is incorporated in the film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Filming section still does not have any critical commentary about the screenshot, about either the authenticity mentioned in the image caption or a violent carrier launch stated in the response above. As such, the screenshot still fails WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2018 (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:TransPennine Express Class 397.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The class 397 has now been built, they're just not in the UK yet. Therefore a free image could exist and this fails the replaceability test. (WP:NFCC#1) See also Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_26#File:British_Rail_Class_397.jpg -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with mattbuck and have no objections. Cloudbound (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Replaceable non-free use. (WP:NFCC#1) — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per (WP:NFCC#1) Replaceable --DBig Xray 20:26, 5 August 2018 (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.