Talk:Mural of Marcus Rashford

More sources
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.espn.com/soccer/manchester-united-engman_utd/story/4433033/marcus-rashfords-manchester-mural-turning-hate-into-hope-in-fight-against-racism
 * https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/16/marcus-rashford-mural-racial-police-manchester-artwork
 * https://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2021/jul/14/hes-an-inspiration-crowds-gather-at-marcus-rashford-mural-in-manchester-video
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJqxxUD5Z7Q
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/marcus-rashford-twitter-mural-letters-b1883530.html
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/16/marcus-rashford-mural-damage-not-racist-say-police/
 * https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/tears-as-defaced-mural-of-saint-marcus-rashford-becomes-a-shrine-to-decency-20210714-p589gv.html
 * https://www.si.com/soccer/2021/07/13/marcus-rashford-mural-england-manchester-racism-euro-2020
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/marcus-rashford-mural-graffiti-protest-withington-b945597.html
 * https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-say-graffiti-marcus-rashford-21067143
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rashford-abuse-graffiti-covered-over-by-residents-qtf2n7khp
 * https://news.artnet.com/art-world/marcus-rashford-mural-1988516

Darlington mural
Different mural, but should we mention vandalism to the Darlington artwork here as well?
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rashford-sancho-saka-racist-mural-darlington-b1886087.html

Seems relevant another mural depicting Rashford has been vandalized. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
There's no need to remove all the unused infobox fields, especially those which could potentially be used in the future (dimensions, etc). Also, the URL field is not for the artist's official website, but rather an official website for this specific work of art. This is pretty standard across quality public art entries. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Until there comes a point in time when they are needed, the fields should be deleted. Otherwise it just makes the editing page an abomination to navigate comfortably. It has no names in other languages, seeing as it doesn't even have an official name. It's not in any catalogue seeing as it's a wall, it has no weight for the same reason, it's not in a museum for the same reason, there's no applicable condition or designation, it has no owner as it's street art, and it's 2D so some of the measurement fields don't even apply! Also you have removed the movement information, and the website clearly states "official website only", and it's Akse's official website, there's no mention on the template page for the official website of the piece of art specifically. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of proposed deletion
File:Rashford Mural.jpg is tagged for deletion under deletion criteria F6 - lack of non-free use rationale. he uploader can and has freely licenced the photograph but as the subject of the photo is a mural (a 2D graphic work) the content of the photograph is not covered under UK Freedom of panorama (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom) and can only be used on Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria. The addition of a valid rationale for use in this article will prevent deletion. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to fix? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer see User talk:Nthep. Nthep (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, do you know how to fix? I understand you're asking the uploader to fix the problem, but they don't seem interested in resolving the issue. But, do you know how to save this image from deletion? I'm asking for the sake of the Wikipedia entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply, it needs someone to compile and add a valid non-free rationale to the image file preferably using Non-free use rationale but the template isn't obligatory. Nthep (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The picture is the subject of the article. That is a valid non-free rationale and completely obvious.  But I have not contributed to the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP has 10 points. The rationale has to address all 10 or it fails to be a valid rationale, as described at WP:FUR. That the picture is of the article subject and adds contextual significance is just one of the ten (#8). Nthep (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)