Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 8



File:Ralph Richardson and Merle Oberon.jpg

 * 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: at. ℯ xplicit 00:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Ralph Richardson and Merle Oberon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Bzuk ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the plot section of The Lion Has Wings against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: How can any still image ever "increase the reader's understanding of the film"? It's just an illustration of a scene from the film -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * From WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If the image does not "increase the reader's understanding of the film", then it is not needed in the film article. There needs to be critical commentary to justify the image's use in the article and the scene is not even mentioned in the plot section it is located, so why does it need to illustrate the scene? Aspects (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.