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⚡ 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catherine, Princess of Wales Mother's Day Picture, 2024 - Inconsistencies.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theolaa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:GETTY point 7, non-free images from the press should only be used if the images themselves are subject to commentary in the article. This image is the BBC's analysis of another non-free image (the "Mothers' Day Photograph") which is also displayed in the article. Therefore, the article would need to comment on the BBC's analysis (not just comment on the Mother's Day photograph itself) for this to be kept. Currently, I do not see any sourced commentary on the BBC's coverage.

This image could be replaced by explanatory text in combination with the original non-free photograph, so it fails WP:NFCC#8 (not completely necessary to reader understanding) and WP:NFCC#3a (too many non-free files). ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 01:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader I do think the image makes for a better article, but I'm happy to defer to those who understand the relevant policies better than I do. Theolaa (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and @Three Sixty, the image fails the above-named WP:NFCC criteria, due to lack of associated critical commentary and the presence of other, related non-free media, in the same article. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question could the image be replicated by an editor who releases their work under CC? The BBC doesn't own the rights to the original, the crown does. But they've made the altercations as a commentary and published it as such, presumably under fair use. Could an editor do the same here? Would that image pass as fair use if made as a modification of the original? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The BBC edit is likely Commons:Template:PD-ineligible. (The photograph itself is still copyrighted as you must know.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another non-free image displaying the whole photograph is already in use in the article. Other than being redundant to some extent, it is a non-free analysis of another non-free image. Given that the BBC's analysis of the photo is not unique, there is no possibility of having a paragraph in the article that would exclusively deal with their reporting; thus, the image is not needed. Keivan.f^Talk 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. File:Catherine, Princess of Wales Mother's Day Picture, 2024.webp is in the article, and is better at explaining this. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 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⚡ 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divorce Song.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Three audio clips are inserted in Liz Phair and all three purport to have some critical commentary associated with them that justifies their inclusion as non-free media, but I certainly don't see it and certainly not in the sections where it's inserted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample fails WP:NFCC#8, in both articles in which it is used. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:12, 15 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⚡ 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:If I Ever Pay You Back.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Three audio clips are inserted in Liz Phair and all three purport to have some critical commentary associated with them that justifies their inclusion as non-free media, but I certainly don't see it and certainly not in the sections where it's inserted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:13, 15 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⚡ 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Headache (Liz Phair song - audio sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Three audio clips are inserted in Liz Phair and all three purport to have some critical commentary associated with them that justifies their inclusion as non-free media, but I certainly don't see it and certainly not in the sections where it's inserted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:13, 15 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: no consensus. ✗plicit 03:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whilst there is text in the article about the incident to which this image pertains, the addition of this image does not significantly enhance reader's understanding of the incident anymore than the text explanation of what it spelt out. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But for me it greatly enhances understanding of the incident. Taivorist (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: After reading the article, I agree with @Taivorist that having the image showing how the letters of the hidden message were laid out in the articles of the magazine does enhance the reader's understanding of subject, and so in my opinion it does not fail WP:NFCC#8. --Fhsig13 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, keep. None of the articles are actually readable minus the big letters, and seems to enhance understanding of the article by making the message clear. Maybe the cover bit to the left should be cropped further, but the right side of the image (the important part) is good IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article already explains how James May did this, I don't personally believe that this visual representation of this adds any significant understanding of the subject matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But for me it enhances understanding. I did not understand without image, that all big letters were situated on separate pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were situated always on the same position on different pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were so big, when compared with normal text, and they had another color. Taivorist (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 06:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The information about what he did is adequately described with text. The entirety of this represents one sentence in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep readers would be very confused without this image in the article. Certainly I wouldn't be able to imagine this with just the text alone. Mach61 04:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, it's a really cool image and I'm sure readers would be confused without it iff it actually was discussed in-depth in the text of the article with sourced critical commentary. Perhaps you'd like to be the one who makes these improvements to the article? :) -Fastily 03:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily Upon reviewing the article, it would seem the that entire "Dismissal from Autocar" section consists of what is now three paragraphs worth sourced critical commentary connected to the image, which I have also just added to. The section describes why and how the hidden message was created and laid out (as well as can be done with text at least, hence the need for the image), and I have also just added a blurb on how the message was detected, leading to Mays' termination. That said, and with all due respect, I am not sure what more can be added in terms of commentary related to the image itself, and moreover, I feel that what is present should suffice to make this use of the image in question compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Please accept my apologies, however, if I am mistaken in that regard. FHSIG13 ^TALK 06:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see sufficient critical commentary here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 1 April 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.