Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9

File:Janet - Nutty Professor II.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has no contextual significance in a song article, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8 and (adding later) also failing WP:NFCC#3a. Jackson's image here is nothing discernible that mere words cannot be used as replacement. (Adding) There is also the case that Jackson's character's image can already be identified from the single artwork. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song was written for and appears in a film that the singer stars in. That's the contextual significance, so it does not fail WP:NFCC#8. Ss112 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No that does not make an image have contextual significance. There is nothing in the image that cannot be replaced by word so why would we require a non-free content? Just to show how Jackson looked like? That is where it fails WP:NFCC#8. The image seems more suited for the film article I would say. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does, because as I already said, her character is talked about in the article. That's contextual significance to me. I don't think what you're talking about is contextual significance, because you're just saying the image doesn't really need to be there at all. It's unlikely we're going to describe how she looked, so it's there as a visual identifier instead because her character is referenced and the song is from said film. NFCC#8 could be used against almost anything because I would say most images not being on Wikipedia are not going to be "detrimental" to a reader's understanding by not being there. We could describe most images if we really wanted to, but of course we're not really going to do that. I'm not going to continue arguing with you, because I don't see why every nominator has to argue every time somebody raises a point, as if if they don't it might not go their way. Nominators don't need to counter all of what other commenters have said. I just don't agree. I've explained why, and that's the end of it for me. Let people disagree, you don't need to argue with everything they said. Wait for others to comment. Ss112 08:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are being unnecessary hostile for no reason. This is how discussions in deletion boards go for your kind information. And I can counterpoint your assertions or comments if I don't agree with it as well. The issue is not about most images in Wikipedia. Albeit most non-free content if it can be described by word, should not pass WP:NFCC#8. That's why many times we do not have music video images or song samples if it does not pass NFCC. There is no context at all why this particular image is used other than to serve as a decorative means. Jackson's character was visually nothing different than what she usually looks like, so I absolutely don't see why an image of Jackson starring in the film is needed. I could have understood if somehow this image or the character became the inspiration for the song, but even that is not the case. Rather the article briefly mentions her playing Professor Denise Gaines in Nutty Professor II and minimum wage. Also, talking about non-free content, if Jackson's character portrayal is what you are arguing about, I will even amend my original argument to add WP:NFCC#3a. It is present as part of the single artwork. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'm being hostile when to get your way after you were reverted and told to go to the talk page, and probably because you thought a talk page discussion would go nowhere, you nominated the file for deletion instead. This really doesn't appear to be an action of good faith; this really appears done out of spite because your original method didn't work. Look at your how your own actions come off before accusing others, thanks very much. I also didn't say "you can't reply to me"—I said you don't have to keep replying to me in some attempt to disprove what I said. Yet you are. Ss112 09:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        So just cause I nominated a gross NFCC failing file for FFD, suddenly I'm acting on bad faith? Ignoring your unnecessary borderline personal attack, I'm sure admins look for strength of arguments and reasons in terms of keeping/deleting a file so kindly concentrate on that. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh please, one frame out of a film with over 160,000 frames and it's apparently such a major violation of our guidelines. I told you, I said what I wanted to say about keeping the file already. It wasn't a borderline personal attack; it was an assessment of the method in which you nominated the file for deletion after your first attempt to get rid of it didn't work. Don't tell me not to "lecture" you in edit summaries and then tell me what I should and should not be doing here. If you don't want to keep talking about the way in which you went about it, maybe try not replying to me. Ss112 10:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it is a violation when the said frame cannot pass WP:NFCC for all the reasons listed in the nomination and the subsequent responses to you. And I can keep talking about NFCC because this is a FFD, where the said policy governs us regarding what can be kept and not. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        And I disagree for the reasons I've already written about. Ss112 10:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. Image is being used decoratively. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really serving an encyclopedic purpose, no contextual significance. We don’t need the image to tell us Janet Jackson appeared in a movie because we have written record of things. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No images is required to convey the fact nominally illustrated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Whydfmlvid3.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since the rationale does not explain how this image is beneficial to the article and removal does not seem to be detrimental in reader's understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless one frame out of a music video; beneficial as it gives the reader a visual example of what is happening in the video. Ss112 10:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not I'm afraid. The image is just the face of Jackson with wild hair, which as you can see is easily replaceable by words. Does not need a non-free screenshot to visually aid the readers —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your opinion is not fact. I disagree. Ss112 10:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Never said my opinion is a fact, I'm stating my reasons for nominating and counter-arguing your reasoning. However, I don't think you are going by what WP:NFCC governs us in this respect. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You just spoke as if it were fact, not merely your opinion. That's just the thing: I don't think you are disproving what I'm saying at all. It's a visual example of what is described. Reducing the image to a "oh that's just this happening" can be done for every image. It's not really a reason, it's almost like to trying to attack what the music video is depicting. Ss112 10:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Never said I was disproving, rather counter-arguing what you believe is harmless. And the reasoning I stated was based on WP:NFCC#8, which cannot be used as argument for all images, but in this case I believe it does not pass the criteria. And what attack? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh my God I am not getting into semantics. If you don't know that arguing with somebody is basically an attempt to disprove what they're saying then I don't know why you're still replying to me. I'm not going to restate myself anymore. Ss112 10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(→) I explained why I had nominated the image, and why NFCC was failing. You mentioned its harmless screenshot, if thats the case how would its omission be detrimental to understanding of the article? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to restate myself anymore. Ss112 10:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lets see what others feel about this :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. Image is being used decoratively. -- Whpq (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Diamondsvid2.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no significance established for the image and removal is not detrimental in reader's understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless one frame out of a music video; beneficial as it gives the reader a visual example of what is happening in the video. Ss112 10:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the artist playing a musical instrument surrounded by people, is not exactly something that needs visual aiding for our readers, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. One frame or 1000 frames, a non-free content should not be used if mere words can replace the meaning. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's your attitude towards images, then words can pretty much always replace images for what we have on Wikipedia. I ask you to find an example of a frame from a film, music video or even cover art that couldn't be described. I disagree because of what I said. It is a visual example of what is happening in the video. Ss112 10:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure I can, since Jackson is the one we are discussing I can even draw an example from File:Thatsthewaylovegoes.png (WP:OSE), where I updated the rationale so that it reflects the text it cites about the artist's new image and the dancing which is discussed in the section. See, I did not nominate that image for deletion because according to me it passes the criteria. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what "sure I can" is even in response to. If you thought I said "you can't disagree", you are mistaken. I said "Disagree because of what I said", because I didn't think I needed to preface the sentence with "I". I thought it was obvious. Perhaps not—I've amended my edit. Ss112 10:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I meant "sure I can" give you an example of an image where we cannot merely express by words, which I gave above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        This arbitrary selection of screenshots from Jackson's videos on her articles just sounds like your opinion and not so much about NFCC at this point, quite honestly. I could argue that the image you just gave as an example by your own logic doesn't pass the criteria as well, but I don't do that, and really I'm just about done with this pointlessness. Ss112 10:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        By all means feel free to nominate that one for deletion then, and I will argue there for keep. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I just said I don't do things like that because it would appear to be done out of spite. Ss112 10:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(→) Coming back to the image listed in deletion, so as per NFCC#8, how do you suppose this image significantly increase reader's understanding of the article and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I'm done here. Ss112 10:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lets see what others feel about this :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. Image is being used decoratively -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the other well-taken arguments, the text being illustrated is wholly OR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:MeAgainsttheMusic.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since no contextual significance can be derived from the image and removal is not detrimental in understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Circusmusicvideo.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free WP:NFCC#8 failing image, basically a glamour shot of Spears without any contextual significance. Removal is not detrimental to reader's understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Britney Spears Radar video.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, replaceable by words and removal is not detrimental to reader's understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:LeggsCross.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Better images available at Commons:Category:Legs Cross. Kelly ^hi! 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:HTC One A9.jpeg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source appears to be https://gadgets.ndtv.com/htc-one-a9-3051 Ytoyoda (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Nokia 105 2015.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a widely available web image: https://irepair.ie/product/nokia-105-single-sim-2/ Ytoyoda (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Moto G (3rd generation).jpeg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widely available web image: https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&q=moto+g3+price+in+india&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlAEJfh1HNyz2LgwaiAELEKjU2AQaBAgVCAcMCxCwjKcIGl8KXQgDEiWMAjXyE84DjwLCA4oBH40CIMIhiyfcNt02uSHvJu0muCHAM982GjA5ye7GiTiQO6UoKK_1xTp7K2X8byxz6IHSka3-sbRR6ei5xg8fNnmxMEsf1VUq5Or0gBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBJIvcKMM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXiPD0gPnaAhXB41MKHUxEBxoQ2A4IJygB&biw=1752&bih=1106#imgrc=_ Ytoyoda (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a promotional product image provided by Motorola. It is in wide use at sites that sell mobile phones. You can see a small version of a composite image at this official Motorola support page. The claim by the uploader that they are the copyright holder dosn't seem credible. -- Whpq (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 24#File:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.jpg. ℯ xplicit 00:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

patently unviable rationale for ~~form~~ being in the public domain—larceny is not a federal crime—so not the work product of a U.S. government employee Neonorange (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment image metadata shows Corbis Corporation is copyright holder — Neonorange (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not Corbis holds the copyright, Malcolm Little was arrested by local police in Massachusetts, not by the federal government, so the specific public domain rationale used is inappropriate. I don't have a clue whether mugshots from Massachusetts from the 1940s are or are not in the public domain. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The file page analysis is plainly invalid. However, even in the unlikely event that this image was originally published carrying the required copyright notice, I deeply, deeply doubt that the copyright holder, presumably the town where the arrest occurred, filed the mandatory copyright renewal notice 28 years later. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert in the subject, but that may well be the case. I've seen other instances in which Corbis has been aggressive about asserting copyright in images that belong in the public domain. If the conclusion is that the image is free, however, I'll find a better quality version of the mugshot (i.e., one in which the card in front of Little isn't scratched out). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that particular mugshot may only be available with the scratched-out text. Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention credits it to Corbis. There are a few similar mugshots of Little (he was arrested more than once, and also photographed while in prison). According to this website, its (badly cropped) copy of Little's prison mugshot is in the public domain. Click on the image to see the attribution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Falguni Rahman Jolly.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyvio. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Meena Kumari in a screenshot from Pakeezah.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. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image which is claimed to be "integral to the section titled Career and Life", but is in fact being used decoratively with no sourced commentary about the image. Whpq (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned file is an integral part of a sub-section "Completion of Pakeezah (1956-72)" in the "Career and Life" section in Meena Kumari's article. Regarding the proper sourcing of file I have not mentioned this sub-section as it is actually a smaller part of "Career and Life". Pakeezah was not only an important film but also had an important role in Meena Kumari's life. Details regarding copyrights of image have been taken cared to the best of my knowledge for its usage in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrishchik (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the film and the role was important is described by the text (and so also fails WP:NFCC#1. What is needed to keep the image is significant commentary about the image itself. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a separate section titled "Rationale for use on Wikipedia in the article Meena Kumari" on the file's information page. I hope this serves the purpose.

Besides this, I would also like to draw your attention towards an image file "Mohe Panghat Pe Mughal-e-Azam.jpg" which is on the wikipedia page of Madhubala. This file was uploaded four years ago and comes from the same blog from which the above discussed image comes from. I too uploaded the image following the same fashion in which this file was uploaded but all these problems arose. -- Vrishchik (talk)

Adding more rationale on the file description does not address the issue. the fact that some pother article's improper use of non-free content escaped notice doe snot justify the same misuse here. I've nominated the othe rimage for deletion as well. -- Whpq (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1 as freely licensed images of the subject exist. Also fails WP:NFCC#8, as this particular screenshot lacks contextual significant. Its removal would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article, as it is adequately covered by the surrounding text. ℯ xplicit 00:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no critical commentary about the screenshot, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the actress and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the actress, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.