Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 9



File:Directed by The Wachowskis Sense8.png

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Directed by The Wachowskis Sense8.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by WanderingWanda ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is an invalid piece of non-free media: it doesn't depict the article subject. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought The Wachowskis could be considered not just two people but also a kind of brand, and that a directorial credit could be considered a representative image of that brand. But I don't feel strongly about this and I knew it was a slightly unusual use of non-free media. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:NFCC justification.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject are two people and could be replaced by an image of the two individualsWP:NFCC, and there is no content in the article support the uploader's contention the two are a brand, so the usage also fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A discussion on the talk page determined that, currently, there are no free-to-use images of the two that would be appropriate to use as the lead image. Again I don't feel strongly about this, but I guess I don't understand why it's appropriate to illustrate the television show Cheers with a TV title that says "Cheers", but you can't illustrate the directors The Wachowskis with a TV title that says "Directed by The Wachowskis".Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (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.

File:Russian Doll promo poster.png

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Russian Doll promo poster.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by AgWoolridge ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Textbook failure of Non-free content. Not a word of critical sourced commentary on the cover art and logo already serves the purpose of identification at the top of the article. Also not necessary for visual identification. Sebastian James (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: there may need to be a broader conversation about whether TV articles should use logos or posters as lead images (the MoS currently recommends posters but it feels like logos have become more popular.) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, but a lot of posters have already been deleted, most recently this one because of the same reasons above. Sebastian James (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  for their opinions. Sebastian James (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not in the infobox, so it's clearly not used to identify the topic Russian Doll. For whatever else reason it's supposedly used,it doesn't have the necessary sourced critical commentary; it's purely decorative. I don't really care whether TV series articles use a logo or a poster; I don't have the expertise to tell which is more representative. But only one such image can convincingly be used to identify the topic in the infobox. The rest need critical sourced discussion in order to qualify. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete thanks for pinging me. I would say to delete because it is not on the infobox as stated on the rationale, and also the article does not state anything about the appearance or content on the poster, therefore not being used for critical commentary. -- 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞  🗨️ 🖊️ 23:57, 11 April 2019 (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.