Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 27

 &lt; July 26 July 28 &gt;

File:Barbenheimer poster.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: delete. The claim that critical commentary could be added does not meet with the requirement for WP:NFCC. Whpq (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Barbenheimer poster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by CJ-Moki ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete per WP:NFCC. This poster is not even mentioned in the article let alone the subject of sourced critical commentary. Fan-made posters for Barbenheimer circulated online. is the only bit that even mentions posters but not this specific one. Removal would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article's topic (or even the single sentence mentioning posters for that matter). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This image is one of the most popular ones used on the Internet to represent "Barbenheimer", so its inclusion is appropriate. That being said, the lack of critical commentary needs to be rectified ASAP — a quick Google Search shows that sources clearly exist, they just need to be added to the article:      InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While sources existing may be good enough for AfD to keep an article, contextual significance is based on what is actually in the article, not what could be. As for your sources, 1 (said poster was created), 4 (said poster exists), 5 (fan posters exist), and 6 (doesn't even mention a poster in the prose) don't have anything that comes close to critical. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep critical discussion exists Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in the article though, which is what matters. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC as currently used.  Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -  F ASTILY   07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero sourced critical commentary in the article, lacks contextual significance to justify its use. ✗  plicit  14:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see how it doesn't pass WP:NFCC. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2023 (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:Doraemon with dorayaki.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: delete. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Doraemon with dorayaki.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Johnwxh30 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

c:COM:TOYS. ✗ plicit  14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2023 (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.