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 to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 09:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baggy Trousers - Screen Capture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samorchard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Insufficiently supported by and not subject to critical commentary. Screenshot lacks contextual significance to subject of discussion. George Ho (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the article. Aspects (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "...Lee Thompson decided he wanted to fly through the air for his solo..." Text adequately describes what his screenshot shows. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 12:24, 20 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: Deleted by Explicit. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madness - My Girl.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samorchard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample lacks sufficient context for readers to understand the song itself. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Also, exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent limit, and one of cover arts already provides readers what the song is (supposed to be) about and how it was marketed. Thus, fails WP:NFCC#3. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 13 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: Deleted by Explicit. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Computer Society (logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use, as it's an old logo, and the current logo File:BCS logo 2021.svg does a much better job of conveying the meaning of the article. As such, fails criteria 3a of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've changed File:BCS logo 2021.svg to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) as it is almost certainly below the threshold of originality in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 13 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: Deleted by Explicit (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:BCS Cort of Arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use, as it's a former coat of arms of the organisation, but the current organisation logo is far better at portraying the information. As such, fails criteria 3a of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 13 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town of Randolph from Dome Rock.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aebarschall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Blurry, low-quality image, per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have a better image? Isn't something better than nothing? I did take a video of this view in 2020, which might be better. https://www.instagram.com/p/CEkh0uQDhCw I could post a still from that, but not quite sure how Aebarschall (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons Wikipedia has become such a widely used resource is because many editors care about the quality of the project, and do not believe that low-quality is better than nothing. I was not able to locate a high-quality image of Randolph, New Hampshire. Your video was better quality. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the image is low resolution, but it succeeds in conveying what there is to convey, namely that Randolph is mostly forest, with mountains/hills on both sides. A higher resolution image would let you see more individual trees, but how important is that? MOS:IMAGEQUALITY gives examples of what constitutes a poor-quality image; the image in question is not deficient to the extent of any of those examples. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Randolph or its residents in any way, except having visited for recreation.) Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the image? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 20 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:KUTP logo 2017.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jrnnf749nrn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not "own work" Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:32, 13 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

History contains two different images, both of which seem to be a photograph of the uploader. Permission from original photographer(s) required as they do not appear to be selfies. Was previously proposed for deletion for being unused. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 13 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:EsquireMagazineJanuary2013cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TrueCRaysball (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I just now uploaded File:Esquire 80th anniversary october 2013.png to replace this (other) cover now used as the infobox image. De-PRODded only because the 85th anniversary cover, one of my uploads I had deleted just now, didn't appease an editor who challenged the PROD tag. Alternatively, a "no lead image" option would be possible, but I wonder whether it's viable and suits readers well. If not, then let's go for the 80th anniversary cover, filled with individual photos of individual men. George Ho (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 13 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.