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. "Keep" !votes don't actually address WP:NFCC policy. ✗plicit 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Faith16 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".

However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art detriment the understanding of the topic in question? Do both cover arts convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this discussion. Deleting this will cause a disruption of detriment the understanding of the topic in question, and both covers provides both the same and the different facts. This is an alternative cover so it can't violate both criterions. The song is also inadequate without the American one, cause this is a country-specific cover, and specific covers are distinctive with global versions. This image was also displayed in a correct place. Kys5g ^talk! 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Imagine the article where it is used exposes to an American reader, and the reader compares its cover with the global one, and sees both covers are distinctive, would the reader understand? Heck no! Because it's missing another cover! If so, then will the global cover be subjected for deletion in the future, citing the sourced commentary and crucial identification? Kys5g ^talk! 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "sourced commentary" and "crucial identification" are two common circumstances, not absolute. That depends on due weight and balance.

  Because it's missing another cover! Please be careful of circular reasoning in your arguments. The WP:AADD and WP:AAIDD essays should help you learn how to make your arguments count. George Ho (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and Wikipedia is not a repository, i.e. not a project to hold media content that lacks "encyclopedic context" to justify usage. It's not Discogs or any other sort. George Ho (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the image illustrates the credit differences mentioned in the article. Morrissey4Prez2024 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fastily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:05, 28 May 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: Resolved, offending revision has been replaced -Fastily 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabrina Spellman (Melissa Joan Hart).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Part of this image appears in Getty Images. Violates WP:GETTY... and WP:NFCC#2. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as press photo and no free equivalent (the person depicted is still living) Kys5g ^talk! 09:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a promotional photo, but whatevs. George Ho (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Image has been replaced with the promotion still of the final season.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but the newer photo also appears in Getty Images. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Trying to find other photo you uploaded recently in supplier websites, but hard to find in them. Photo might still have potential commercial interests, but that's not the main issue (yet). I can see just Melissa Joan Hart in her ordinary clothes, and I don't know whether that illustrates her character much. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was fro. The Facebook page promoting final season NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That picture OK? NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I favor the magic-finger screenshot I uploaded more. Neither of the cat-less (or Salem-less) revisions you uploaded did much for me. George Ho (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That pic is OK? NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Any picture that is non-free that depicts a living person is absolutely not OK, man. Delete it. Melissa Joan Hart is still living. Don't forget there are many pictures of her on Commons, especially this Commons category. Kys5g ^talk! 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An image of a depicted character, live-action or not, is totally fine. An image of an actor or actress depicting a fictional character is treated as acceptable only for substantial text about the character, like an article. George Ho (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that was from the show's Facebook page

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FaceTime screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hajoon0102 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The entire software is copyrighted, but this is a screenshot containing nothing complex for copyright with some text and simple icons and shapes. An ineligible portion of the entire copyrighted content isn't copyrighted. Kys5g ^talk! 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to {{PD-simple}}. I agree, the design does not meet the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 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.