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 on 2018 July 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Adolph-jentsch-stamps.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Art Quilt 06.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smoketronics ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Incorrect licensing: the copyright holder is the creator, not the person who uploaded it. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I've already tagged the commons copy. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 00:48, 24 July 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.

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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:TargetRats.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pinotgris ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work; unused. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 07:13, 22 July 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.

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 on 2018 July 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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: Keep only in Color Field, no consensus on the undiscussed uses elsewhere. OK, both the blanket keep and the deletion rationale - but especially the blanket keep - are rather perfunctory. The lengthy argument by Marchjuly is the sole one that goes in depth, so we shall go with it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and all those visual art images below... Modernist ( talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Remove from "Late modernism" and possible keep for "Color Field". File is being currently used in two articles: Late modernism#Late modernist painting and sculpture in the 21st century and Color Field#Legacy: influences and influenced.

  The non-free use in the "Late modernism" article seems pretty hard to justify per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Item 3 of the non-free use rationale provided for this particular use claims "The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image" seems like simple boilerplate language since the painting is not even mentioned a single time by name throughout the article, not even in the file's caption, and the artist who painted in mentioned by name three times. There's no real context for the file's non-free use, at least nothing which seems to required by NFCC#8. Omitting the image from the file cannot be detrimental to the reader's understanding if there's no tangible connection between article content and image; moreover, those reading the article for the first time are most likely not even going to notice that the file is no longer there. This type of decorative non-free use in image galleries is contrary to policy in both terms of how its actually written and its intent. If more substantial content related to the image can be added to the article to establish a connection between image and text which establishes how this particular image is a representative example of this type of genre or period, then perhaps non-free use might be justifiable; however, simply adding a non-free image to a gallery of other non-free images and assuming that the reader will just automatically unequivocably see it as represenative examples and understand its significance is sort of an image-type of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This might be fine for a freely-licensed/PD image or even per fair use, but WP:NFCC requires a much higher standard be met per WP:NFC#Background. Suggest remove from "Late modernism".

  The use in "Color Field" is a bit trickier to assess. The painting is actually mentioned by name in Color Field#Color Field movement as an important example of this style; however, the content is unsourced, so it's not clear whether it's a kind of WP:VNT, WP:OR, or WP:SYN. Moreover, the painting is actually being used in a later section titled "Legacy: influences and influenced" far removed from the relevant article content. I'm not sure why this is the case, but non-free content is better off placed close to the relevant content whenever possible. Perhaps the location of the painting has to do with the file's caption, but that is unsourced which means it should be treated as OR and SYN. There are multiple non-free examples given in the "Color Field movement" section, so it's not clear why this particular one is needed. The non-free use rationale provided for the use is also problematic per WP:NFCC#10c because it doesn't really clarify how this particular use of the file in this particular article satisfies the NFCCP; the rationale is basically just a copy-and-paste effort whose only real difference from the other rationales on the file's page is the name of the article where the file is being used. Whoever added the rationales to the files page obviously seems to feel that WP:JUSTONE and simply wanting to use the file in any article is a sufficient justification for non-free use, as if non-free use of this type is de-facto automatic in some way, without addressing the differences in the file's actual non-free use. Still, I suggest this use as a possible keep since this does seem to be the best place to use the file. I think the following is needed, however, to further strengthen the justification for non-free use: The rationale should be clarified better and the image should be removed closer to the relevant article content (the OR from the caption should be removed as well IMHO) with more about the painting including citations to reliable sources which clearly state its importance as representative example being added to the relevant section as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:01, 6 July 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.

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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:SIHM logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SIHMSA ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This appears to be an organisational logo, the connection between said organisation and the uploader is by no means clear on the file description page. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 14:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: File:SIHM_LOGO_VECTORISE.pdf would also need to be deleted. The explicit CC0 license and the existence of that vectorized PDF appear to indicate that it is actually an "own work" that is really meant to be in the public domain. I'm unsure, though. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Good evening. I study at SIHM and would like to give some information about the institute like no other and its professors. So, first I asked for the authorization and today I have its administrator approval to use its logo in Wikipedia. Please write me, if I should to do something else. Thank you. Asato ma sadgamaya ( talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyright materials ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Asato ma sadgamaya ( talk) 17:21, 6 July 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.

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 on 2018 July 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.