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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluetrinitydcu0.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Basique (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance for the image. Image also fails WP:NFCC#3a in Red Trinity -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Association of Catholic Nurses 0907.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catholicnurses (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious uploader's own work. Image is a low-resolution collage. No encyclopedic value either as resolution is so low. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:45, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astana - monument.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attila kz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There is no FOP in Kazakhstan, see Commons:Commons:FOP#Kazakhstan -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:48, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invalid FUR per WP:NFCC#8. Non-free media used with very little instructional value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CapacitorSchematics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jwratner1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused and low-res; have commons:Category:Capacitor_symbols many possible good ones. DMacks (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2014 (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 as F1 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water and a Flame Celine Dion single.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Max24 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Duplicate of the non-free file File:Water and a Flame Celine Dion 2014 single.jpg Ethically^Yours! 12:48, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wise news 2013.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2014 (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 - fails WP:NFCC#8. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Colonial Nations.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dakovski (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It plainly has "contextual significance". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - decorative non-free image. Adds little or nothing to reader's understanding of the three articles it's in. Peripitus (Talk) 20:46, 23 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sipora Gurung on +977 cover 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashishlohorung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2014 (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 - 'for visual identification' is not the same as significantly increasing reader's understanding - image fails WP:NFCC#8 -Peripitus (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese New Year Google Doodle 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashishlohorung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The rationale supplied was for "visual identification". I have moved the image into the infobox so that it appears at the head of the article. In addition the rationale claims that Google has licensed the work to Wikipedia. If this is correct then there is no issue. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2014 (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. Google searching is not comprehensive searching when referring to things pre-dating the internet. Also noted that this image is a derivative of other images - as can be seen on google - and the provenance is very poor - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious claim that this isn't replaceable. Photographs published before 1941 should be fine to use, and the man died in 1949. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as this is public photo should i re-upload the phot with other licence or can it be changed in here as I think this photo is fair to use in Wikipedia, at least for the article about him. Please condiser this thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why "dubious"? There may be no photos prior to 1941 (why 1941? - a twenty year old photographer taking a phpotograph at that time could still be alive today). An internet search on "Phalgunanda" with "free to share" selected produced no results. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Location Egypt-N AU Africa.svg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mohamed Osama AlNagdy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. No foreseeable use. Should be SVG. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wsav news 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2014 (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: Kept - only on the basis of the additional sourced material added by Coat of Many Colours. Neither of the last two people seeking to keep the image addressed the crux of the nomination - Peripitus (Talk) 06:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - La gare inondée (The Flooded Station) - detail.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coat of Many Colours (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3: redundant to File:Maria Helena Vieira da Silva - La gare inondée (The Flooded Station) -reduced 300px.jpg. The extra details in the painting which you see in this image are not critically discussed and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally you placed a ((Non-free reduce)) template on the page and I reverted that with the request you take your concerns to the Talk page or an appropiate forum. Why have you now listed the file for deletion? Why didn't you take it the Wikipedia:Non-free content review you post on so frequently? That would have been the appropiate response.

Regarding your remarks about critical discussion, the rationale explains the features illustrated and I have included a commented remark in the article markup for the attention of editors. The article is a stub and while I am perfectly capable of providing the necessary critical discussion (for example my start at Gardner (Cassatt) Held by His Mother), I prefer in these cases where I am not necessarily very knowledgeable or indeed may have conflicts of interest to let other established editors more able than I in the relevant field to contribute. My start uploads makes that clear with the edit remark "Article start just a stub for others to expand and fill. Feel free to revise any start material.". In this case User:Modernist is one of several editors I know that come to mind.

I ask you to undo this vexatious delete request and seek consensus for your actions in future. Coat of Many Colours (talk)

The long and short of it is, per WP:NFCC you cannot have two images when one can be used. Right now, only one image can be used. Per WP:NFCC: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale..." Until such a time when there is content, the non-free file violates WP:NFCC. You cannot provide a valid rationale for this file, without there being critical commentary about the detail. Basically, you need to have the content first, then you can upload the non-free image, not the other way around. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right. Who says you can only have one file? The forum Wikipedia:Non-free content review Stefan lives in spends a great deal of its time debating how many files you can have. What we we're talking about here is a woman artist whose work was entirely not illustrated in Wikipedia until I spent some time this morning doing just that. I really don't think it's an accident, par for the course, that it's been jumped upon by a wikipede. Plus I'm a newbie of course, fair game. One is rather busy tonight, but tomorrow I will provide the relevant critical discussion and in addition I will take the general issue to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Were you patronizing me with your "the long and short of it" (I mean if it's not sort of freudophallic tropism) by the way? I'm dead smart you know, I can read your monniker and everything. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, 1) WP:NFCC#3 says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As there is no discussion that requires the detail work, then only one of the two images is permitted per policy. I'm not saying that the detail image cannot be used, I'm saying it cannot be used currently. If there were context in the article that required the average reader to see the detail work in the image, then by all means that would be an acceptable use within policy. If you can find some content of the sort, please add it, as it would be a fantastic encyclopedic addition. 2) By "the long and short of it" I simply meant what the idiom means: a summation of the important points. I don't know how anyone can take that to mean anything else, but I'm sorry if you believe I offended you, that was not my intention. I wish you would not take what I say, as an attack, I am sincerely trying to help you understand policy, and explain how you can get the image to stay. I'm not against you, but policy is policy, and we have to have the written content to support a non-free image before we add the image. The main reason for this policy, I believe, is because there is no set time we could be waiting, and therefore we would be in violation of policy until the article was updated. Finally, I do not have a monniker, I have a name. Congrats, you found out my name and a simple google search, you will find where I live. Not too hard to do. If I wanted to hide, I wouldn't use my real name. Good luck getting this worked out. I would be more than happy to assist in any way that I can, if you wanted my assistance. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up on your monniker thing. Just being playful. I don't give a damn who you are. As for the criticism thing, I've already addressed that. I'll supply it tomorrow. Pity because there are others much better qualified than I to comment on abstract impressionism expressionism. Stefan is just jumping down my throat (whatever). Incidentally I've just been looking at modern Swedish art uploaded to the Commons. It's an outright scandal. Museum loads of work still in artist's copyright cynically uploaded as PD. Can you colour climactic believe it (there's Ingrid Bergman too of course but I always confuse him with the actress)? I've done just a little pruning, but I really do think it needs the attention of experienced experts. How on earth did that ever get past Stefan? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have now supplied critical commentary on the extra detail and so user:Stefan2's objection is no longer valid. This is a file that should never have come here. Policy about file size is not set in stone (the guidance explicitly says that). In any critical appreciation of a painting some attention is usually paid to the nature of the marks made by the artist on the canvas. An image detail providing that is thus always appropriate and I don't see why that should necessarily reflect some critical point made in the commentary. The detail provided by me was just 4.5% of the original (less than one twentieth part) and that strikes me as acceptable fair use. I can add that when we come to discuss minimality in an image of a painting, what we are really discussing is not resolution (as Stefan2 plainly imagines) but portions of the image. The question of resolution properly arises in connection with respect for commercial uses. Stefan2 surely knows by now that my project in Wikipedia is to improve its coverage of the art market and especially that of women artists. I asked him to take his concerns to the Talk page or to an appropriate forum. He did not. I happen to be exceptionally busy at the moment (my Talk page says as much). My contributions to Wikipedia represent just a hobby (whereas for him it would rather seem to be a mission pursued on a full-time basis) and this is an intrusion on my time. No-one likes to be bossed about like this by self-appointed experts and this needless and insensitive intervention by Stefan2 is just the sort of thing that disaffects and discourages aspiring editors. I encourage him to adopt a more supportive role in Wikipedia. For example when a Fair Use image lacks a rationale (or lacks some detail in it) but obviously has one, then it would be more supportive simply to provide one (or the missing detail). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She was an important abstract painter from Europe during the 1940s and 1950s whose paintings need to be seen in order to be understood by our readers...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neither image by itself can adequately show the aspects of the work discussed. The main image has been reduced in resolution, hence requiring the detailto be shown separately. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to File:Shaveit.jpg, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (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.