The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth - Fastily 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Buffalo Kill, painting by Will Sampson.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maineartists ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8, missing contextual significance. The rationale provided is incorrect as the article is not about the image itself. More crucially, the article mentions the painting but does not have a sourced discussion of the artwork itself in a way that makes it essential to include this image. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, essential illustration as the only illustration of a painting on the artist's page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per @ Randy Kryn, this image enhances the reader's understanding of the subject as it is the only example of the artist in question's work that is present in the article, so it does not fail WP:NFCC#8, in my opinion. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 10:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per history summary. Rationale was never provided that the "article is about the image itself". The image accompanies the section Artist and his work as visual reference. Section mentions the series it belongs to as well as the book it is included in. Maineartists ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Comment: I'll respond to @ Randy Kryn @ Maineartists @ Fhsig13 together:

I think we're working with different ideas of contextual significance and critical commentary, which is fine, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything, because I'm not seeing how the keep arguments hold up. Here's what I assume is the relevant text:

His artwork has been shown at the Gilcrease Museum and the Philbrook Museum of Art. Sampson created a series of paintings entitled: Escape of the Winged Mind that depicts life on the American Frontier. One painting in particular is called: Buffalo Kill; and can be found featured in the book Beyond Cuckoo's Nest: The Art and Life of William Sampson, Jr. His works have sold in auction houses and galleries, including the Pierson Gallery.

The passage mentions the painting, but there's no sourced discussion or commentary about the painting that makes it essential to show the image. It would be different if there were sourced commentary discussing the style or technique used in this particular painting, but I just want to be clear that mention =/= commentary.

@ Maineartists The rationale says The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. and describes the work as Subject of whole article. For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. I'm guessing you simply used the boilerplate rationale when you uploaded, but that text is for articles about individual paintings. You can just write a more specific rationale so no big deal--just wanted to bring that to your attention. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Comment: @ Adeletron 3030, while I understand your point, I still think that it is contextually significant to provide an example of an artist's work, when they are the subject of the article. I would agree that some sourced discussion of the work is needed to support this image being the example in this instance, as well as a more specific fair-use rationale, but I think once both of those things are achieved, the image should stand to be kept. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 21:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Fhsig13 After I wrote my comment above, I started looking for commentary on Sampson’s art, and maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but I couldn’t find any WP:RS. I started with a search for the painting shown in the file and got nowhere. I tried several searches for articles describing his art in general and didn’t get much further.

The impression I’m getting is that, for the purpose of an encyclopedia article, he is notable as an actor of Native ancestry. His artwork might have given him his break in acting, but as far as WP:N is concerned, his art is a footnote in his acting career.

It’s entirely possible that his paintings, while they may be admired and exhibited, are simply not notable enough to be a subject of commentary/discussion and it’s not essential to show the painting in the article. And the article as it’s written might actually put undue weight on Sampson’s art, actually. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 03:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Adeletron 3030, I really appreciate you taking the time to research this artist, and now that you've established that his notability stems from his acting career, rather than from his time as a painter, I agree with your original point regarding the image in question. The image does, in fact, fail WP:NFCC#8 when viewed in this context. As such, I am striking my keep vote, and changing it to Delete. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 09:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Regardless of whether Sampson was better known as an actor or a painter, there is no sourced critical commentary about the painting, or about the the style or technique that is illustrated by the painting that meets WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If this were being used in the infobox in an article about the painting itself, there would be no issue. However, it is being used in a biography article where it lacks sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Pretty clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. ✗ plicit 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth - Fastily 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Ariana Grande as Glinda in Wicked.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

The provided source ( https://people.com/movies/ariana-grande-seen-in-full-glinda-the-good-witch-costume-on-wicked-set/) does not contain the image. Also, the listed source credits similar images to SPLASH, so People is not the correct source. Also, the fair-use rationale says that this image is a screenshot of a film. This claim is false because this image is a photo taken during the filming of the movie. I don't think it's fair use. SnowPanda88 ( talk) 16:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I do not see sufficient sourced commentary on the image to justify its inclusion. Some other non-free images in this article are probably inappropriate as well. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Just changed it to a still from the trailer to solve this problem. HM2021 ( talk) 00:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted because the image was changed during the discussion after some !votes were cast.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq ( talk) 03:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Now that the image has been changed to one that better aligns with the purpose and sourcing requirements, and with the updated fair-use rationale, I think the issues with the previous image are now moot and the current image should be kept. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 08:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Fhsig13, now a suitable image. Randy Kryn ( talk) 09:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• As the uploader's rationale for deletion of this image is no longer applicable, and no new rationale for deletion has been provided, I am recommending a Speedy Keep, per WP:CSK point 1. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the original issues in the nomination have been mooted by the change in image, but stated purpose of illustrating the character fails WP:NFCC#1 as there are free images of the character available. If this is supposed to illustrate the specific instacne of the character in the film. That is literally a single sentence which does not provide and significant sourced commentary about this instance of the character that would meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Nose Class3.PNG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexthefrenchkiller ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Pointless minor modification of the original already in commons: File:Class III nose.jpg, which has some historical value. - Altenmann >talk 05:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 08:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: Upon further review, I am striking my original vote and changing it to recommend WP:SPEEDY, as the file actually meets criterion WP:F8, since it is replaceable by the Commons version. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Nose Class3.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mangwanani ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Pointless minor modification of the original already in commons: File:Class III nose.jpg, which has some historical value. - Altenmann >talk 05:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 08:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: Upon further review, I am striking my original vote and changing it to recommend WP:SPEEDY, as the file actually meets criterion WP:F8, since it is replaceable by the Commons version. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Roby the Robot.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jayscott294 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems to be a screenshot of a non-free character. [1] Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: Image most likely meets criteria F5, F6, & F9 for WP:SPEEDY. -- Fhsig13 ( talk) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.