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 ⚡ 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article has no commentary about this specific collection. Therefore, I don't believe this non-free image qualifies for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. The image possibly fails WP:NFCC#10 as well, since multiple sections of the fair-use rationale were left blank. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even if commentary was added, I see no reason why this image is necessary to have along with the infobox image. Excessive use. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 02:58, 12 March 2024 (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 ⚡ 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic logo being used in the article of a specific season, in violation of WP:GETTY point 14. Nothing in this logos specifies that it's a specific logo for the 2024 season of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, the logo is not specific to the season at hand, so the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as well. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (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 ⚡ 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic logo being used in the article of a specific season, in violation of WP:GETTY point 14. Nothing in this logos specifies that it's a specific logo for the 2023 season of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, the logo is not specific to the season at hand, so the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as well. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (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. ✗plicit 23:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Front display of product related to subject of discussion unneeded. Cover recording of someone else's song by another band wasn't successful much. Lacks contextual significance to the whole song. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: Per nom, the image fails WP:NFCC#8.~~ -- Fhsig13 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is relevant in the context of the cover version, which is the section of the article where the image sits. This is common amongst articles where a cover version has been released as a single by another band. 81.110.169.252 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No problems that I'm aware of with including non-free images for cover songs so long as the cover itself is notable, and between its charting and the I, Tonya inclusion, I don't see why it wouldn't be. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon further review, I am striking my original delete vote, as I now feel that this image warrants being kept as identification of the most notable cover of the song, and also due to its' inclusion in a well-known film. -- Fhsig13 (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: 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 04:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of a class of ferry that has yet to be built used in the BC Ferries article. The lack of an image of one type ferry which has yet to enter service does not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with your assertion that the lack of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic, as BC Ferries vessels differ greatly from one another, even within the same class of vessel. Without the image, the reader is left to assume what "New Major Vessel" refers to, as by looking at the fleet roster and route patronage statistics (once those are visible again), one could define "Major" in a few different ways. I feel that the image adds necessary context to define where the new class of vessels will fit in the fleet, and by comparison to the photos of existing vessels, could indicate to the reader what routes the new ships could potentially be used on. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As a rationale to support the deletion of this image has yet to be provided, obviously aside from that of the nominator (which I believe to be erroneous), I am recommending a Speedy Keep, per WP:CSK points 1 & 3. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NFCC#8- the image doesn't significantly enhance the article (it only improves it a small amount), not least because there is almost no text about the new ship itself anyway, only 1 sentence. Which is a similar reason to why lots of the ships listed there don't have images. Also goes against the general guidance of WP:NFTABLE The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered. Definitely not speedy keep eligible, since a rationale has been given (and Fhsig13 not liking the rationale is different to none being presented). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 I strongly disagree with your rationale as more information will be added about the new ships as it becomes available, and so the necessary critical commentary will be enhanced over time. As of now, however, the artist's rendering contains almost the entirety of what is publicly known about what the service of new ships will entail. Hence, I feel that without that image, necessary description would be lacking and the reader would be left to question what role the new vessels will play and where. I also feel that the short amount of text available at present would not adequately convey that information, since BC Ferries has changed their vessel classes and the roles of the vessels contained therein repeatedly since the last time any of their large routes received a new vessel order of this magnitude. Secondly, the lack of images for those other ships named in the article is not an issue of their notability, but rather the availability of images overall. No free images of those ships exist at this time, and the non-free equivalents I uploaded instead were determined to be replaceable as the ships they depicted already exist, unlike the one pictured in the artist's rendering (which has yet to be built). Lastly, I only recommended WP:SK because, at the time, the discussion had passed into WP:FFDO and no deletion rationale had been provided aside from that of the nominator, which I felt (and still feel) is erroneous. Consequently, an erroneous nomination would be grounds to suggest that the image be speedy kept, under WP:CSK point 3. I only referenced point 1 as I had thought that an erroneous rationale was equivalent to there being no reason for deletion at all. Please accept my apologies if I was incorrect in my interpretation of that criterion. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical commentary may be added over time, but it isn't there right now. So right now it fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 But we can't add critical commentary that doesn't exist, so I think that should render WP:NFCC#8 moot until we can. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not how image policy works. It needs to meet all NFCC to be kept, and if it can't meet point 8 right now, then it can't be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 I have just put some work into the article, beefing up the section on the new vessel with as much sourced, critical commentary as I could. I'm not sure if it'll be enough, but unless others can track down more information that I could not, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot more out there. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is an artist rendition of a future vessel. No hint that the vessel is cancelled yet. Also, WP:NFGALLERY applies; the image is used as part of the gallery, usually of free images (of existing or past vessels). Using the image until the vessel's actual release may neither be what the project is striving for nor comply with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho I don't think WP:NFGALLERY applies here as the image is being used in a tabular list, not in a true gallery. Furthermore, this image is the only image in that table, so I don't think it would fit the definition of a gallery on that basis either. As for the project, I think identification of the vessel is what it would be striving for, in a section of the article dedicated to the purpose. As for the WP:NFCC criteria, I have detailed above why I believe the image passes them. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a "tabular list" not a "gallery"? Can't any chart or table be a gallery to you? Also, that section is for future vessels; the table of the other existing vessels holds free images. Moreover, the article subject is about the company making vessels, not about just one vessel. Do you expect readers to jump into the article to seek just images of vessels? George Ho (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that the term "Gallery" in this context only referred to the actual template-based galleries found at the bottom/end of many articles, as that is what Wikipedia had dubbed a "Gallery" for its' use. As for the subject issue, I feel that since the subject of that section is "future vessels", an image of a future vessel, used to identify it, makes a lot of sense. Please accept my apologies if I am misinterpreting those definitions at all. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2024 (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: Relicense as PD. Whpq (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP 3a. There is another non-free image in use in the infobox for Harry Gifford. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Secondly, I believe that it also fails WP:NFCC#8, as there is no critical commentary in the article that refers to the caricature. As a result, this image is completely unnecessary to article, since there is already a photograph of the subject in the infobox. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as public domain per C:COM:UK. Assuming the data in the information template is correct, an anonymous work published in the UK in 1901 would be in the public domain. - Eureka Lott 19:01, 16 March 2024 (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 ⚡ 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP 3a. There is another non-free image in use in the infobox for Billy Dingsdale. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Secondly, I believe that it also fails WP:NFCC#8, as there is no critical commentary in the article that refers to the caricature. As a result, this image is completely unnecessary to article, since there is already a photograph of the subject in the infobox. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sourced commentary on the image itself, as mentioned above. Note that I've also relicensed the infobox pic as ((PD-US-expired)); it appears to be out of copyright this year. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 03:41, 12 March 2024 (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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is currently under a claim of fair use. However, I believe that it might be below the threshold of originality in the US and Japan, per c:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America and c:Commons:Threshold of originality#Japan because it contains only solid-color text with a slight color change on the A. Therefore, it could possibly be in the public domain per ((PD-textlogo)). Thoughts? ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 21:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Public Domain: After doing some research, I think that this logo falls below the threshold of originality, as it only consists of English text and Japanese characters. Based on this, I recommend re-labelling the file as PD, per ((PD-textlogo)). -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicence and move to Commons. I'm experienced at relicensing simple logos and this is a clear case where ((PD-Textlogo)) applies.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2024 (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 ⚡ 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a sculpture. Photos of non-architectural works are not permitted by freedom of panorama in the United States. The description page says that the sculpture was made by a "John Fitzgerald", but the image was uploaded by "Mattk314". The image needs evidence that the sculptor gave proper permission; otherwise, it should be deleted. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 22:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete: This image meets criterion WP:F5 for WP:SPEEDY, since it is orphaned.~~ -- Fhsig13 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, this image is freely licensed, and so my previous rationale does not apply. As such I am striking my original vote and changing it to recommend a regular delete, as per the nominator, the image would not be permitted for use in this manner, under c:COM:FOP US. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2024 (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.

March 11

File:Tremors - Attack Pack DVD Box.jpg

File:2024 International League T20.png

File:2022–23 International League T20 logo.png

File:Siouxsie Passenger.jpg

File:BC Ferries Major Vessel Artist's Rendering.jpg

File:Harry Gifford - Barrow- Caricature.jpg

File:William Dingsdale - Warrington.jpg

File:Logo of Aichi Institute of Technology.gif

File:Amoeba sm.jpg