Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8 edit

File:Music Week cover December 2020.jpeg edit

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. One non-free cover per article is standard. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way DFU (Disputing fair use), I'm disputing the claim that there is a good enough fair use reason to use this cover. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article previously showed only the magazine logo and did not include a cover image. It is not clear that there is anything particularly notable about the cover image featuring Dua Lipa to justify its fair use, no commentary is being made. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted as a standard to include a cover image from a magazine on the magazine's article. There is nothing particuarly special that would suggest the commercial opportunities for the image are being affected by its use here. It would, of course, be inappropriate for this image to be used in Dua Lipa. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2021 (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:Clash cover November 2016.jpeg edit

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. One non-free cover per article is standard. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, currently used as the articles primary image in the infobox. Unless the plan is to replace it with something newer then I see no issue with it. Salavat (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot tell what the previous cover image cover was because it seems to have been automatically deleted. Is the use of this cover image properly justified? Why not use just the [Logo image] from commons, as the Spanish language version of the page does? A cover image is not necessarily required at all. Alexismata7 has only stated the images are newer, not that there is anything special about the images that would justify their fair use.
  If you are saying the image is justified on the basis that is is better than nothing, then please restate that. I want it made clear that the next random editor can overwrite the images with more recent images for no real reason just as Alexismata7 has done. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using the Wayback Machine I was able to see a version of the Clash Magazine page from August 2020. The cover image was Clash Magazine 2011, issue 69. There does not appear to be anything particularly notable about that cover image either, and the Dua Lupa cover image does not seem to be any better or worse than the previous image.
    The first issue of Clash magazine from March 2004 featured Franz Ferdinand on the cover[1] [2](includes cover image) The Clash magazine 100th cover featured Justin Bieber[3](includes cover image). I do not like Bieber but there would seem to be a better fair use argument for using the cover of the 100th issue. (If this was about my personal preference I'd go with the covers of issue #1 showing Franz Ferdinand.) There does not appear to be any special reason to include the cover of issue 102 featuring Dua Lipa[4]. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary @Salavat: I don't see the problem with the images either, but since the IP claims that I uploaded them because I was a fan, I can commit to changing the other magazine covers illustrating other characters except for Rolling Stone. I also uploaded recent covers to Cosmopolitan and Glamour.-- Alexismata7 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple images from many different years all featuring Dua Lipa is more than a "coincidence"[5] (2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021). In the other cases Alexismata7 claims it is about having more recent covers but in this case wants a cover from 2016 that just happens to feature Dua Lipa, that's so very convenient. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (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:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg edit

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: Wrong venue. The present image is in use. Changing the image in use at Attitude (magazine) is an editorial question and best settled on the talk page, not here. If there's consensus on the talk page then the old image can be restored by any administrator. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Attitude_(magazine)#Cover_Image_2021 This was the worst instance, editor replaced an anniversary edition cover featuring Ricky Martin with a recent cover featuring Dua lipa. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, currently used as the articles primary image in the infobox. Unless the plan is to replace it with something newer (or re-upload the previous cover) then I see no issue with it. Salavat (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the primary image because when Alexismata7 changed the image the old image got deleted automatically, maybe admins can restore the previous image? The previous cover was far more appropriate to the subject matter of the magazine. Alexismata7 does not see that older anniversary cover was more notable than a more recent cover. (Read his comment[6])

Alexismata7 unconvincingly claimed it is a merely "coincidence"[7] that the images he chose happened to feature Dua Lipa. That's a big coincidence for more than 5 images, variously taken from 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Template:Non-free magazine cover "Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." and that's exactly what he's doing. His claim of fair use is entirely disingenuous. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Wayback Machine I was able to see a version of the Attitude magazine Wikipedia page from August 2020. The cover image was Attitude (200th issue) featuring Rick Martin. I'm asking for the 200th anniversary cover to be restored. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that I'm still checking this discussion when I have time, and hoping for more comments on this. I still believe the arbitrary change of cover image to one featuring Dua Lipa fails WP:NFCC#8 (and is also WP:FANCRUFT). -- 109.79.162.227 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2021 (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:Cry Macho - Clint Eastwood - Filming During COVID-19.jpg edit

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. Despite changes, still fails NFCC criterion 8. Miniapolis 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image claimed to be used "For visual identification of the object of the article." but is not being used in that way, nor is it a logo, poster, title card or other form of identification that would be useful in that way. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image is featured in this reference which is mentioned in the article. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned is not significant commentary. The use of the file is for a very minor point in the article and doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Special:Diff/1003193471 changed the commentary into a minor way, which I moved this image to the Filming section, and Special:Diff/1003212596 changed the uses of this image. Chompy Ace 21:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 per nom. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2021 (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:Life is good logo 2.png edit

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a former logo used in one article, and it is not used in the lead. As such, as WP:FU the file violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. I also have a suspicion that this image may be below the WP:TOO; and if it is, it should be relicensed. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added {{PD-logo}}. This is the only visualization of Jake on the whole page, a subject of discussion in the History section. — Jeff G. ツ 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed Jeff's incorrectly-added PD-logo (it is generally past WP:TOO if it's a character, and the template also conflicted with the non-free one), but agree with his rationale for the keep. AtomCrusher (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @P,TO 19104 as OP. — Jeff G. ツ 08:57, 9 February 2021 (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:Katy Perry - Smile LP and Vinyl cover.png edit

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. Fails NFCC #3 per consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to previous FfD discussions regarding extra album covers, this cover does not satisfy WP:NFCC criterion 3, that is minimal use. Per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an extra cover is added only if it "is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original". This cover is different from the standard edition's, but it does not replace the original as it is limited to a DTC vinyl release. HĐ (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the cover is significantly different and doesn't represent the DTC vinyl addition, it represents the widely available LP version of the album which has a slightly different tracklisting. Under NFCC3 it does satisfy minimal use as the cover is significantly different to the CD cover. LP/Vinyl versions of the album gained coverage as it was a key part of the album's rollout. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for deletion. While I generally support minimal use per the nominator's rational, I don't think it is as black and white as "there is never a valid relational for an additional cover". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: I don't pick a specific example of OTHERSTUFF. I just mentioned that there is a growing consensus of one cover only for album infoboxes. Vinyl releases are limited to certain retailers, so I do not think it is "widely distributed", and given an album is widely associated with one most specific cover (unless an alternate cover gains significant commentary), I do not see how this alternate cover for the album adds substance to the article's content, or the readers' understanding of the album (which is basically "minimal use"). I did not say, or imply, that "there is never a valid rationale for an additional cover" as you interpreted my words. I have not understood how, in your words, this cover satisfies "minimal use". HĐ (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Sorry I wasn't implying that you never think there's a good reason for additional covers - that wasn't my intention. I think I have explained why the rational has been satisfied. It's not for the original editor to convince the nominator or vice versa - that's not how deletion discussions work as I'm sure you already know. You have explained why you think it has not been satisfied - that's where these discussions are helpful for consensus. I do think the LP releases for this album where a significant part of the rollout and promotion for the release, that's why I think it was significant to include. If the consensus is established otherwise then I'll gladly accept that. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: Thank you for your clarification. As we have expressed different opinions on this matter, let us wait for other editors to chime in. Thank you for your civility and good faith, HĐ (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I normally support the idea of only one cover per album page (especially when there are similar art designs). This isn't one of those times when vastly different from the standard edition AND it was part of an exclusive version of the album. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the exclusive version be excluded from the infobox, which is supposed to cover something more universally known? HĐ (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the template documentation is not the most applicable policy. Under WP:NFCC#3 fair use images must be used minimally in an article. Also per the description of how WP:FU material is supposed to be used by Template:Non-free album cover, the album cover is supposed to "solely illustrate the audio recording in question". It does not necessarily matter whether the cover is substaintially different (and to be honest, I'm not totally sure that the album cover is all that different, anyway). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per P,TO 19104 and HĐ. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sentiments expressed by Lil-unique1 and SNUGGUMS above. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - usage of copyrighted content should be kept at a minimum. ~90% of music consumption nowadays probably happens digitally, so a vinyl-exclusive cover isn't the primary representation for an album. Thus, this part of the non-free use rationale isn't being met in my opinion: to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.--N Ø 05:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Message to coordinator @Fastily: Given that this discussion has stalled, should it be relisted to generate a clearer consensus? Thank you, HĐ (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst I'm generally not averse to having multiple covers in the case of differing versions of a single or album, this appears to just be a pre-order/DTC bonus with no other significance. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2021 (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:Dutch-Americans.png edit

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. There appears to be a consensus in favour of deletion at this time. There were at one point two keep votes, however, the initial "keep" vote was subsequently struck based on the discovery that copyright protection is a possible issue, and thus is to be discounted. Given that the only remaining "keep" was "per above rationale" (referring to the struck vote prior to its striking), it is thus weakened.

This subsequently leaves a "delete"—citing how it is not a federal map—and a "weak delete" based on copyright issues; the weak delete is by the same party who made the—now struck— "keep" vote.

Based on the above, there appears to be a consensus in favour of deletion of this file at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dutch-Americans.png. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [8] "Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990, Maps Created by: Land Management Information Center. Datanet". The Land Management Information Center (now MnGeo) seems to be specific to Minnesota, so not federal. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{PD-ineligible}}. Map is purely a representation of data, with no creative element. See references at c:COM:TOO#Maps. Wikiacc (¶) 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiacc: maps in general are eligible for copyright protection. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: only if there is a creative element, which there isn't here. Wikiacc (¶) 01:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above rationale. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The closing admin on Commons points out that this work is a derivative work of the base map, which could be considered copyrightable. Since the origin of the base map is unclear, I'd err on the side of deleting and replacing with a graphic that uses an unquestionably free base map. Wikiacc (¶) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (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:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png edit

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: convert to fair use. There is consensus that this file should be considered fair use. As such, I have replaced the PD template with Template:Non-free logo (which Template:Fair use logo redirects to). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:COM:TOO South Korea. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Wikiacc (¶) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fair use. I wouldn't classify the bit on the left as a font. It's more of a complex shape. Ə XPLICIT 00:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep because the South Korean TOO is very lenient on what kind of logo is considered original so I doubt that this logo in subject would go past the threshold, plus most graphic designers can make a logo similar to this one. —beetricks ~ talk · email 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine whether the file is fair use or eligible for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert to fair use. The logo does not contain merely "simple geometric shapes". "most graphic designers can create something like this" is trivializing. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fair use per above rationale. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change to fair use or delete. The logo on the left cannot in any way be said to be a simple shape or text. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to fair use, as others here have noted, the stylized "SM" is actually quite creatively designed, and probably above TOO. Wikiacc (¶) 00:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I don't know what TOO South Korea is like, but on English Wikipedia we follow only c:COM:TOO US per lex loci protectionis (see File:Burj Khalifa.jpg or File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg). By comparison to logos such as File:Best Western logo.svg, it is pretty clear that stylized letters fall below the US TOO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 11 March 2021 (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:Metal 2 Logo.png edit

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. There is consensus to keep at this time, but concern has been raised that it is above TOO and therefore not eligible to be relicensed as PD-textlogo. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo that could be replaced with commons image per WP:NFCC. It should only be kept if doesn't meet the Threshold of Originality (which I think it does). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure how you could replace a copyrighted software logo with a free image. I think it has enough going on to not fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: The commons image is a former logo of Apple Metal that doesn't meet the TOO. That's why I think this fair use image should be replaced by it. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a former logo then I don't think it accurately represents the product anymore. The infobox should contain the most up to date logo for identification. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the logo is just a stylized letter and is marked improperly as nonfree. It should be marked properly as {{pd-textlogo}}, which would solve the concern here as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is disagreement about where or not the logo is above or below TOO.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense as PD-textlogo. It falls well within that, as far as I'm concerned. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rotation, stylization, choice of colour gradient, etc. raise it above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2021 (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:Phuture - Acid Tracks.ogg edit

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. There is consensus to keep at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phuture - Acid Tracks.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The sample might or might not belong at Acid Tracks, but it should also comply with WP:NFCC#8, especially if there is sufficient critical commentary. Same for usages at Acid house, Chicago house, Electronic dance music, House music, and Phuture. Otherwise, the sample should be removed from at least one of the articles. George Ho (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah let's really stick the knife in re:not letting readers significantly increase their understanding of the article topic, in no way is the omission of this crappy sample detrimental to their understanding of the subject, terminate with extreme prejudice! Good job bro, keep up the good work. Acousmana (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the 1819 word Acid Tracks article establishes, this is one of the most seminal recordings of the last 40 years, and is responsible for naming the Acid house movement. I find the nom rather speciously worded and it seems that not even the most basic research (ie a google search) was completed eg he says..."might or might not belong at Acid Tracks", and then, and especially "should be removed from at least one of the articles"...ie lets pick a sacrificial lamb? Also, agree with every word written by Acousmana. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean keep in "Acid Tracks" and "acid house", or in which articles? George Ho (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, though I had been clear. I mean keep in Acid house, Chicago house, Electronic dance music, House music and Phuture. Its fundamental to the genesis and evolution of each of these. Per Acousmana, it's removal would contribute to "not letting readers significantly increase their understanding of the article topic". Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest that the sample is further added to the Roland TB-303 article, as it transformed this then moribund device into one of the most important and widely used drum machines of all time. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sample does enhance readers' understanding of the subject, if not to a great extent. HĐ (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In which article? George Ho (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. I don't think removing them from only one article is justified. HĐ (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2021 (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.

Samples at Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) edit

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 Buckley and Cohen, delete others. There is consensus in favour of keeping the versions by Buckley and Cohen. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The samples of "Hallelujah" cover recordings are used in the article. I PRODded them for my concerns: Either too many samples or files, or critical commentary of the article insufficient/inadequate to support the specific recording sample. May fail WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. The song was written and originally recorded by the late Leonard Cohen and then covered by later artists. The "Musical composition and lyrical interpretation" section (titled to this date), which uses the samples, already provides sufficient information about original and cover versions, and I've become uncertain about the necessity of the samples. Indeed, I've been no longer either certain or confident about the samples given to readers, so I assumed the samples were easy deletion cases. However, the samples are then de-PRODded, asserting that there should be a discussion of which one(s) to have in the article instead of deleting all of them.

To my current eyes, the samples are presented just to differentiate and merely identify who sang which recording, yet I am not yet convinced that the samples have increased the understanding of critical commentary. However, I may stand corrected if at least one of the cover recording samples shall be kept. Well, the Wainwright sample isn't necessary for me just to illustrate the single mirroring Cole's recording (or something like that), and I don't think Allison Crowe sample is needed just to illustrate Crowe's interpretation as a "very sexual" composition that discussed relationships, is it? Still unsure about samples of John Cole and Jeff Buckley versions, both of which have been more favored. BTW, I wonder whether a sample of the original Cohen recording would be necessary for better understanding and comparison. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original by Cohen, delete else per nom, so that the others can be compared the original. The non-Cohen recordings are barely discussed in the article. Note: the TimedText page that goes along with File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg will also have to be deleted as well, per this nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the original Cohen sample (File:Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen original 1984.mp3) moments ago. Now I'm listing the sample here in this discussion, which you assumed it was. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original by Cohen and Buckley's version, delete others - Buckley's version is independently notable and is the basis for a plenty of covers, so it serves as a good point of contrast. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original, Buckley and Cale. The Cale version is the model used by pretty much all of the later covers, lyrically and musically, including Buckley's. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctorhawkes: I recently uploaded and am listing here File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3. If you would like one of the Cale versions kept, shall you prefer the studio or live recording? George Ho (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of a muchness, but I think the studio I'm Your Fan version was first. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep original and Buckley, delete others. As per 181.115.61.86. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cohen's original and Buckley's as the best-known version. Undecided on Cale's version, but only one should stay. Delete all others. Hzh (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2021 (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.

Violence (song) cover arts edit

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 2021 April 3. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grimes and i o - Violence.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Grimes and i o - Violence (Alternative cover).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.

Miss Anthropocene album covers edit

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 original and new standard covers, delete deluxe editions --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four album covers are used at "Miss Anthropocene" uploaded by different editors: original standard and original deluxe using variants of artwork #1 (a gallery of drawings, including a winged woman doing a selfie), and revised standard and revised deluxe using variants of artwork #2 (some statue of woman stabbing a globe with a sword). Honestly, I think deluxe edition covers are unneeded and too extraneous. I would prefer either standard edition, but I don't mind having both standard editions... unless having more than one cover art goes against WP:NFCC, especially #3a and #8. No opinion for now on which standard edition, but (again) deluxe editions have to go. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC); corrected, 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep original standard and revised standard cover. The deluxe editions are variants of these. The original deluxe cover is the standard edition cover on some kind of device's screen, and the deluxe revised cover is just a shading difference from the standard revised cover. I had no idea until just now that there even was a revised cover. (I created the article and uploaded the original cover, but other editors greatly expanded the article and now have obviously posted a multitude of covers there.) Ss112 02:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original Standard cover only Admittadely, I was actually going to nominate one of these images for violating WP:NFCC, but I think I decided not to. I think only one cover is needed to illustrate the article per WP:NFCC. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which standard cover, the original or revised one? George Ho (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original standard and new standard: plenty of articles have both the standard and deluxe album covers featured on their page. I don't believe the original deluxe cover is super necessary. The original cover is the one featured on every CD and most people know the album by that cover art. The new cover arts only came out recently and indeed, until I logged on and saw a message in my inbox about files being deleted, I didn't even know new cover arts came out... either way, I think at least the standard revised cover art should be featured as an alternative cover. Граймс (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag the original deluxe cover (File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png), which you uploaded, with {{db-g7}}. Can you do that? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original standard and revised standard: Most people know the album by its original cover, but streaming services and iTunes now have replaced the original covers. Both of the standard covers are necessary. No need for the deluxe covers, they are just variations of the standard covers. - Whitevenom187 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC) sock strike --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep original standard and revised standard cover. Most people identify the album by its original cover, though streaming services have replaced it. For effective visual identification of the topic, both covers must be kept. feminist (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2021 (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:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg edit

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FREER: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion. Yes, I think so; the subject's article is rated C-Class and refers to a verbal exchange. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on talk, there is no way to describe the appearance of these three women, two of them very well-known in the UK, one of them running the country (first female PM), without showing them. And there's no reason not to show them. The exchange, with Diana Gould not letting Margaret Thatcher speak, was widely discussed and remembered. A glance at that image will bring back memories to everyone who saw it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neveselbert, I see that you've made 1,367 edits to Margaret Thatcher since 2015, more than to any other article (see edit counter). Do you want to see it deleted because you think it shows her in a negative light? Part of the interview arguably does, but she rallied toward the end, pointing out to Gould that she, as PM, was in a position to know the facts, and that in 30 years those facts would show that she was right to give the order to sink the ship. And indeed, it does appear that the ship was going to sail toward the Falklands, as the article, Gould–Thatcher exchange, explains.

The point is that this is an iconic image of a highly unusual interview, where the PM was confronted on live television by a member of the public who had some relevant expertise in the topic as a former meteorological officer. The event was inherently visual, voted in 1999 as one of Britain's top 20 most memorable television spots. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 04:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The file is part of the exchange used for identification purposes in the article about the exchange, thereby passing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8. The exchange is notable and subject to commentary, but this particular item is not, as required by WP:NFC#CS. ƏXPLICIT 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was television. As I said above, the event was inherently visual. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a historic image providing independent visual use. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. The image use is inevitably decorative and its removal would not impair readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--As a reader I do think this image adds substance to my understanding of the topic. Objectively speaking it does satisfy WP:NFCC. HĐ (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The picture encapsulates the whole article and it reminds me (as a Brit) of a TV event I saw >35 years ago, although it is so iconic that it has been repeated. The TV event justifies a) the article and b) this fair use image Victuallers (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (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:Maneater sample.ogg edit

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: no consensus. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a consensus developing here one way or the other between participants and this discussion has been open in excess of 3 months. Relisting did not resolve this issue; since multiple relists are to be avoided wherever possible and shouldn't be used as a substitute for a no consensus close, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maneater sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). Looking at those articles, I don't think critical commentary is adequate enough to support this sample, no matter how much text is there. Speaking of text, I suspect primary sources are used more than secondary ones in the sections where the sample is placed. May fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I see no critical commentary on File:Maneater (Nelly Furtado single - cover art).png. WP:NFC#CS: where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article? BTW, quoting one of most common circumstances from WP:NFC#CS, eh? That's not the only circumstance in mind. I'll quote what the guideline says also: In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance. Those shortcuts are part of WP:NPOV. And this one as well: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.

To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion. Meanwhile, the sample is used in "Music structure and composition" section, cited by MTV article that covers interviews transcript (actually, where MTV interviewed primary source, Furtado herself), Furtado's quote from the song's music distributor website, The Age article covering an interview with Furtado (but in prose form), and a sheet music. Well, being primary sources doesn't prevent themselves from being just as reliable as secondary/non-primary ones, though careful and strict interpretation is encouraged strongly. However, (re-)listening the sample, I don't see the sources discussing the specific lyrics used in the sample, and the sources briefly described the song without going too much detail. Furthermore, per WP:FREER (which supports WP:NFCC#1), the synopsis of the song can be adequately explained by free text without needing a non-free content, like an audio sample.

Now about using the sample in the "Music and lyrics" section of the album article, the section itself mentions lyrical and musical content of what the album itself contains. However, I'm still unsure whether the "Maneater" sample is necessary there for readers to understand/identify the subject of discussion. I also am struggling to figure how and why the sample is too significant to be removed from the album article. The album article already describes Furtado's approach and (change of?) direction from her previous albums. Also, the song itself is briefly and adequately described in other sections of the album article. Also, the album cover adequately identifies the album already, so why need samples there?

If you especially disagree with me, I welcome your response. Seems that I made a long reply, didn't I? George Ho (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article?

Keep the file, for the song article.

And this one as well: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.

To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion.

If we must pick only one, I'd argue in favor of keeping the sample and removing the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:56, 8 February 2021 (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:PromiscuousSample.ogg edit

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: no consensus. Unfortunately, this discussion has not garnered consensus one way or the other in its nearly 3.5 months of being open. Given the low participation and objection to deletion (thus ruling out treating as PROD), this discussion is closed as no consensus. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PromiscuousSample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album), not Promiscuous (song). If there's not enough critical commentary in either article to support this sample, and if not enough secondary sources can support this, then the sample would fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I see no critical commentary on the cover: File:Promiscuous.png. WP:NFC#CS: where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you inserted the wrong sample as part of a lead infobox, which I corrected for you. I may still have doubts about its compliance with "contextual significance" and WP:NFC#CS in either article, especially Promiscuous (song). I also have doubts about using the sample as part of the lead itself. Not just that, the sample still contains mostly the chorus of the song, which is not specifically subject to critical commentary in either article. Furthermore, either (per WP:FREER) the lyrics can be briefly described in text without needing a non-free content for further understanding, or readers can already understand what the song is about by reading the whole article without needing an audio sample. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Something must have gone very wrong with copy paste on my end, I apologize! Thanks for correcting that. I think the audio sample is more useful for identification than the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Oh... I can suggest that you think the sample's more suitable for the song article than the album one, right? George Ho (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right.

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:57, 8 February 2021 (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:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing.jpg edit

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.

This discussion has one supporter of keeping, and one of removal, so it is down to me to consider the different arguments made by the participants. The arguments in favour of keeping the content include "nobody's complained for 3 years" and "readers prefer to see it". These, with respect, have no basis in policy.

Deletion discussions do not set binding precedents, and citing other discussions is not in itself sufficient reason to delete, so I give no weight to the citation in the nomination. Instead I have looked to the later points made. George Ho has in this case made the point that free content is adequate to help the reader understand the subject of the article, and removal of this image is not detrimental to that understanding. The key word here is understanding, not (say) enjoyment. It is probably fair to say that removing the image will be detrimental to readers' enjoyment. But that is not the criterion I have to consider. The criterion is set out in WP:NFCC. NFCC#8 is not met and the image must be deleted.

If I am wrong in my assessment of the strength and policy basis of the arguments, I have also arrived at the decision to delete by another route. The inclusion of non-free content in the encyclopedia should be minimal. As such, there should be an active consensus to include it. It is clear from policy (WP:NFCCP) that it is those seeking to include or retain non-free content who must establish that the criteria are all met. No such consensus can be discerned from this debate.

As such, the outcome of the discussion is delete. As with all my deletion decisions, I have considered the decision carefully before implementing it, and I will not change it based on talk page discussion. Anyone who objects to the closure should proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and I waive all requirements to consult with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is free image File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell US vinyl.png at Commons already. The Dutch sleeve of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing", the song first recorded by American singers, wasn't used in any other territorial release. The US release used a generic sleeve instead. I'm not confident about the sleeve's compliance with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. A picture sleeve of another song was deleted without opposition. Why not delete this Dutch sleeve? George Ho (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George: I know you have a penchant for side labels, but they are redundant not only in their logos and insignia, but also in the information they include, which can already be found in the supporting infobox. When they are available, picture sleeves always enhance articles, because they usually provide an image of the artist, or in this case artists, from the era the song was released. The artwork also provides an aesthetic quality which adds depth to an article far beyond what a plain side label typically does, because they often capture the spirit of that era. When I create/embellish articles, I select images with these criteria in mind, with only scant regard for their nation of origin. One image for each major charting release is not undue, and WP:NFCC does not seem particularly applicable here. These images have remained on the article for nearly three years with no concerns raised. - JGabbard (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you still doubt an ability of a plain side label with plain, simple elements as a visual identifier of any single release, then please ask the deleting admin to relist the other image at FFD (the one I mentioned at OP). Any copy of the same deleted image uploaded without proper procedure or discussion may qualify for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Back to the Dutch sleeve itself, I still don't see how deleting a Dutch picture sleeve showing two artists (Gaye and Terell) and song title would harm the understanding of what's already understood by free content and its ability. As I see it, the song was first sung by Gaye and Terell and then covered by later artists. Most readers would think the same about the song. Just in case, I can add an available free image of Gaye, but I don't know when. (A free image of Terell ain't available like... now.) Appearance (of a picture sleeve), even when quality is aesthetic, and contextual significance are neither interchangeable nor similar to each other. To put this another way, I trust free content's ability (i.e. free text and multimedia) to help readers adequately understand what the song is. Why can't you? George Ho (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George, we have very different perspectives and preferences, and we need to be able to compromise, because I can seldom countenance the changes you propose. It's not about "trusting" free content. It is fine as far as it goes and is helpful with most things, but is limited in scope. In short, side labels are pedantic and boring, but picture sleeves are artistic and cool, frequently complementing the song. And in my experience, they are also what readers to prefer to see. - JGabbard (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's await the results of the discussion before deciding whether to compromise. Meanwhile, I'm careful about not listing one too many to FFD. George Ho (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:58, 8 February 2021 (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.

Like a Prayer (song) edit

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 12-inch cover, keep the other. Ə XPLICIT 11:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cover arts were originally uploaded under JPEG format. Then they were switched to PNG. Then the 7-inch release was favored over 12-inch one, but then the switch to 12-inch occurred last year under same filename for this reason: Replace with 12" single cover; it is explicitly mentioned on the article. Recently, I uploaded the 12-inch release separate from the 7-inch one. I'm taking them both here, so we can decide whether to keep one or both. Normally, WP:NFCC#3a ("Minimal number of items") would discourage using more than one cover art that would provide similar significant information. However, I'm uncertain whether the covers provide the same info.

If an extra cover is unnecessary, then I would lean toward the 7-inch artwork, which uses the live-action image of Madonna. As I found out, the 7-inch artwork was also used for CD and cassette releases. In other words, the image was widely used for 7-inch vinyl, CD and cassette formats. And even CD and cassette became more popular than vinyl. Anyone else. The other artwork (drawing by Madonna's brother), used for most 12-inch releases, may or may not help much, depending on how this discussion goes. However, I think eliminating the 7-inch/CD artwork would not help readers recognize the single release well. Furthermore, the drawing and the live-action image are not similar to each other, and the live-action image depicts the singer more accurately.

Sure, the 12-inch cover art is explicitly mentioned at the "Composition" section to this date, referring to her troubled marriage with and divorce from Sean Penn. However, the description of the artwork is brief in two sentence. I appreciate the drawing made by Madonna's brother and its reference to Penn, but I suspect readers can already understand description of the letter "P" detached from "MLVC" without displaying the drawing... unless I stand corrected? Furthermore, I'm uncertain whether, per WP:NFCC#8, the 12-inch artwork itself improves the understanding of the song, the article subject. If it does, then I'm mistaken.

(tl;dr) In conclusion, I'm worried about how well understood the criterion #3a is as well as #8 in this case. If using more than one cover goes against standards, then let's use the standard (live-action) artwork and ditch the "MLVC" drawing then. On the other hand, if no agreement to keep either cover art is made, and if deleting the 12-inch artwork is found to harm the understanding, how about keeping them both by default then? George Ho (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @George Ho: how are you? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue nor care about which image is used or removed, or if you want to use both, as I'm not that active here on en.wiki anymore. I do, however, favor using .png images as that definition and quality is superior than .jpg Cheers!--Christian (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 12-inch cover Not a widespread release that has replaced the original. I am fine with keeping the original though. I don't think a mention of a 12-inch release is sufficient for an alternate cover. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 12-inch cover. The current main cover is used in more release formats, per nominator. It's also used by press during its release campaign, such as in Music & Media (page 30). Bluesatellite (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2021 (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:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg edit

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. I would strongly encourage my admin colleagues to have regard to the process excerpt quoted by User:WinnerWolf99; whilst script tools make it easy to just hit relist and roll the dice for another week (or in this case eleven), that does not mean it is the right action. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "George (1956–1958)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One logo with the lion gives a good visual depiction of what the logos looked like; it is not necessary to have all of them when the changes in them were relatively minor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article that the logo is displayed in discusses the specific lions that were featured in the logos over the years. One logo with a different lion would not serve the purpose that this logo does. There is sourced discussion of George, the lion featured in this specific logo, which means it meets NFCC 8. Another MGM lion logo would not be depicting George, so one item cannot convey equivalent significant information, meaning NFCC 3a is met.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NFCC 8 is met. As for 3a, it's also met because they enhance the reader's understanding of the prose present in the article. The other lions up in the Aug 14 FFD debacle were also kept. schetm (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because if you delete this one then this one will be the only lion not to have a picture on Wikipedia. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting disscussions says,

That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

This seems to me one of said substitutes. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request close - raw !votes show 4-2 keep, but having an outstanding FFD from August is ridiculous. schetm (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per contextual significance. This should be closed already. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all prior keep !votes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2021 (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:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg edit

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. There appears to be consensus, albeit weaker than I would like, for keeping the file at this time. Given that this discussion has been open since 2 August 2020 and relisted 4 times, generating limited further discussion, and due to the fact that relisting further would not be a benefit and violate WP:RELIST, I am closing this discussion as "keep". The other probable outcome that I can see from this would be "no consensus", which WP:RELIST states relists cannot be used to avoid. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for deletion as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "The article only uses this for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation, which can be portrayed by text alone." Both were disputed on the files' respective talk pages. Listing here for further discussion as a neutral party. Pinging Fred Gandt and Buidhe. Ə XPLICIT 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current fair use rationale is, "Anna Marly's original version of this song is starkly different than Cohen's, the version that is most well known. To properly understand how Hy Zaret's interpretation altered the song, the excerpt is of a particularly significant verse compared by sources, which will feature in the article along with an excerpt of Cohen's version for reader comparison, while reading the sourced textual comparison." If there is any musical, contextual value based on sourced commentary, it needs to have that on both the file description and in the article. Otherwise this should be delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently 3:30am for me, and I am heading to sleep very shortly: Anna Marly didn't record her performance until 1963 (around 20 years after live performance on the radio and subsequent publication as sheet music) and whilst much has been said about Cohen's version, little has been said about Marly's, with most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts. I have included as much relevant sourced discussion of the musical style Marly and Cohen applied to their respective performances as seemed appropriate in the article, but am limited in what can be said about Marly's, as the only recording is somewhat out of time from most source's focus; Marly's recording stands more as an example of what would have been heard 20 years earlier on the radio, with few sources having anything to say about it, because they're more often talking about the broadcasts 20 years hence.

I applied a great deal of effort to avoid cruft and original research while working on the improvements to the article (every statement is sourced, most sources are high quality, and almost nothing is relatively trivial) and may have previously dismissed, as useless or from a poor source, some further discussion of the style Marly applied in her performances and recording, and request some time (at least a few days) to go through all my research again.

I must also request that if the greater concern regarding the fair use of these excerpts is how they're documented (how I filled out the declaration) and not their application, please simply correct the documentation; this is a collaborative project after all, and although I tried my best, if improvements can or must be made, I welcome them. [I]t needs to have that on both the file description and in the article strikes me as a problem with the declaration more than with the files' use or existance; please help correct the issue instead of calling for deletion for technical reasons. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts, that would indicate that the musical qualities are not as significant and that text alone could convey the same information. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should come as no surprise that a song with words written by one of the most prominent members of the French Resistance, composed and mostly broadcast during World War II, with a subject matter entirely about the circumstances of the time, should have most interest in it be focussed on the circumstances and message of the words. For sources to deconstruct the sound of the recording (as an example of the live broadcast performances) would be to trivialize the importance of the song. Much has been said about Cohen's musical interpretation of Zaret's adaptation, because it is fundamentally a pop song, and the musicality of pop songs is respectively a lot less trivial. The article contains sourced commentary about Cohen's sound, because sources consider the weight of the musicality to be high enough to discuss, but I am not at all surprised that sources don't go into detail about Marley's musicality much (although, as said, I will reexamine this) as it was far from what would normally be called a pop song, and its message and raison d'etre are rightly given far greater weight. This state of one version being considered differently than the other by the sources that examine the songs, and to an understandable degree, that the sources are themselves quite different in nature, does not change the fact that both are musical, and by that measure, substantially different. Many sources compare Cohen's to Marly's versions, demonstrating a wide interest in how they differ; the difference between the songs is clearly considered important by those who've examined them, but it should be expected that whilst Cohen's is discussed as a pop song, Marly's is not.

A significant problem I personally had and have in fleshing out the article, is that a vast amount of the sources that might be useful for Anna Marly are in the French language, and although Google Translate helps with some I found online, there are many books, including one I bought for research, that I cannot translate; there may be vast amounts of information about Marly's musicality in the book stacked only metres away from me, but I can't understand it. I did reach out for help, but was quite disappointed by the far from enthusiastic response. Even more difficult to understand/translate for me, are the multiple radio broadcasts still available to listen to online, that are also in the French language; this for example was easy to find, appears to be focussed on her musicality and role in the Resistance, and is entirely in the French language, so I have almost no idea what is being said.

I will need time to see what I can find, but strongly disagree that any further information about her musicality is required to satisfy the requirements for fair use of these excerpts. I wasn't flippant in my uploading of the excerpts, and am sure the points of WP:NFCCP are satisfied; please confirm if it is only point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" that you're concerned about? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it @Buidhe:, could you please answer my question above? Cheers.

I have found some references with more specific focus on Marly's musicality, including a German university resource (luckily in English) which directly states exactly what the comparable excerpts are intended to demonstrate: "The melody and chord structure is considerably different from the original."^[1] Another article with a focus on acoustic guitar states Cohen "re-worked" the song,^[2] but there's really not much else, so it's a bit junky, and a reference already in use (the Independent obit.) mentions "she learnt to play with feeling and invention"^[3] which is also a bit lame with this discussion's specific regard IMO.

Please continue to bear with me while I work on this. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)
^ acousticguitar.com
^ the Independent Marly obit.

I don't find any of this convincing so far. Contextual significance is not met if there is only brief mentions of aspects of the song that are not lyrics, because it has to significantly increase understanding. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would a reader understand that the by far most well known version is significantly different to the original it is based on, in more ways than just the language, without describing that difference? They clearly wouldn't, which would be a disservice to the readers and actually misleading. Without making clear that the version widely acknowledged as definitive is musically unlike the original, no reader could be expected to guess. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add anything more to my side of this dispute; it's sadly not a discussion. It was never the intention that [t]he article only uses [these two files] for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation; honestly there would be little point to that beyond some kind of "told ya so" demonstration of the facts as described in the nearby text. The files were always intended to enlighten readers to the huge difference in sound/texture/feeling "musicality" (I dunno) that became the effective default after Cohen's Zaret's, compared with the true original. The musicality of Marly and Cohen (in particular) are (and were before my recent addition of extra details) discussed as and where appropriate, to what degree is reasonable and within the scope of what good sources are currently available; Marly's artistic talents, including her guitar playing and whistling are described where fitting, and the musicality of Cohen's cover is discussed to a greater degree, also where fitting. This dispute did help to highlight that the article was lacking sourced textual discussion of that difference, but I have (at least to a fair degree) solved that omission. Thanks to Explicit (talk · contribs) for recognising that the files' use is linked and listing them here together. I can see no way that the use of these files, in the capacity they are currently used, is a violation of fair use, or any current alternative way to make clear how utterly different the original is to everything post-Zaret. I was about to go on, and on, but I feel as if I'm barking at a wall, so that's that unless some discussion or a decision is forthcoming. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like we have a consensus right here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. It seems there is "sourced commentary" on the music, but not very much. However the musical differences seem to me very considerable (by my listening to the clips) and the reason that the lyrics are remarked on more than the music is likely to be that books can't address the musical aspects without using technical commentary that may be inaccessible to the reader. The lyrics can be directly discussed in words. My understanding of the musical differences is significantly (indeed greatly) increased by the clips in a way that would not (for me) be possible with textual discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - critical commentary exists. schetm (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2021 (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.

Several Images of mass shooters edit

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: no consensus. Unfortunately, after (just) over 9 months of discussion and 4 relists, no consensus has been reached about which way to go with this batch and no agreement among the "keep" !votes of which ones to keep. Given the timeframe involved, that further relists should be avoided per WP:RELIST, and the lack of significant recent participation, I am going to go ahead and close this discussion as "no consensus". TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of fair use images of mass shooters who are not notable enough to support their own articles fails WP:NFCC#8. Similar deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 5#File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg have all resulted in delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png in 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers and File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png in 2019 El Paso shooting and Delete all others since these four clearly having enough article prose/sources in their respective articles to have their own articles, thus passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator made zero notifications about this discussion as required by WP:FFD: The uploaders of the file were not nominated, deteleable file captions were not added to the files in use in articles, no article talk page notifications and no related WikiProject notifications were made. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator needs to follow the rules. Also the file File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png has previously been reviewed and nominated for discussion and was subsequently kept. Keep for all listed images as per above and below. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 6#File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the four images listed above by Aspects. There does appear to be enough coverage of the individuals in question to warrant a stand alone article be written about them. Ideally that would seem to be the best thing to do, but perhaps for editorial reasons the relevant content has not been WP:SPLIT off into separate articles about each person. If someday individual articles are created, then the image should be removed from the corresponding event articles. Delete the remaining images for essentially the same rationale. The physical appearance of none of the individuals involved seem to be relevant to the actual event or seem to be something that actually requires the reader see a non-free image to understand what is written about the events. Three of the photos are being used in the main infobox of the event article (101 California Street shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids mass murder and Hartford Distributors shooting) which is not appropriate at all for such an article. The other photos are used in "Perpetrator" type of sections which really don't require a non-free image to be used any more than a "Victims" section would require non-free images of individual victims to be used. Moreover, some of the photos have nothing to do with the event at all and were taken years prior to the event which makes their contextual relevance per WP:NFC#CS even more suspect. Out of the remaing photos, File:Clarence Bertucci.png and File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg might be possible to convert to WP:PD (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}), either because of their age and lack of copyright notice or because real provenance since it seems unlikely either of the sources cited for those images are the original sources of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the surveillance screenshot of the perpetrator with a gun as lead image of 2019 El Paso shooting. Even as an offensive material, it's still encyclopedic. Furthermore, it well illustrates the topic and the perpetrator's involvement. Deleting the image would deprive readers from primarily visualizing his involvement in the Walmart incident.
On the other hand, delete image of Micah Xavier Johnson from 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. The split proposal failed (Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section), and I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image, no matter how large or enormous the "Perpetrator" section is. His ethnicity/race is briefly described. The article is more about one event than about the perpetrator himself. Deleting the image wouldn't affect how the article can adequately tell readers about the whole event.
For the same rationale above, also delete the one used at 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers#Perpetrator, which merely illustrates the perpetrator's appearance in a video.
Also, delete all others, including (especially) File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg, whose appearances wouldn't impact the understanding of the tragic 1984 massacre and all other incidents. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png in 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers and File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png in 2019 El Paso shooting and Delete all others since these four clearly having enough article prose/sources in their respective articles to have their own articles, thus passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)"
I agree. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep all images: "Not notable enough to support their own articles"? OK, (1) WP:NFCC#8 doesn't bring up anything about people that are or are not the main subject of the article. (2) Most of these "shooting of" or "death of" articles involve the killers and those that died being the starring roles in these stories, which is why they satisfy the "Contextual significance" part if anything. Simply put, invalid deletion nomination with rationale that misreads non-free policy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the lettering of the policy, per WP:NFCCEG, the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording, matters as well. Also, WP:NFC#CS clarifies the meaning of criterion #8. I don't see how, except the surveillance screenshot, all biographical-looking images comply with the spirit of the policy (or policy's spirit?). The images are merely there to show readers visual appearance of the perpetrators, but I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events, especially when stand-alone articles of the perpetrators haven't yet existed. NFCC guarantees allowance of non-free content, but even following the NFCC doesn't prevent those images from failing to be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used.
To put this another way, free content has been always expected to provide adequate information about article subjects, but non-free content can be allowed if most likely free content isn't adequate enough. Sadly, in this case, I fail to see how those images qualify as "allowable" per rules, and I fail to see how free (text) content (about a tragic event, most likely) is inadequate. Furthermore, many other images of other perpetrators have been deleted, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used... or deleted into question. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events" I'll tell you how they do; those articles aren't only about those tragic events; the parts around them and combine them together are major topics as well; it's just the tragedy is the primary topic and what the article is named after.

"many other images of other perpetrators, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used." (1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (2) They probably shouldn't have been deleted if they're like the ones in this discussion. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, open/free content already suffices, and a tragic event is already tragic enough while reading open content. I don't think a non-free image of a perpetrator would make any difference to how I can understand a tragic event. I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events. Almost every "Perpetrator" section (or similar) already tells me and most other readers as much about a perpetrator as it could/can. The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary). How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted? Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events".... Wuuuuuuuuut??????? With all due respect, I don't think you're most readers, then. The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.

"The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary)." Double Wuuuuuuuut??????? George, text alone doesn't do a good job of presenting the full picture. That's why we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.

"How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted?" You've clearly never heard of things that speak for themselves. He's the effin perpetrator! You know, the cause of the tragic event the article is about. That alone makes it too significant for deletion.

"Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles?" This should go without saying; text can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.
That would be true for non-free images that are used in existing biographical articles of perpetrators, who I predict will have been (already?) condemned or resented for their crimes for years and years (if not centuries or millennia). That would be also true for a perpetrator image that is either licensed as free (to share, distribute, commercialize, and use) or released into public domain, like the one at Orlando nightclub shooting#Perpetrator and a biographical article about him. No matter how you argue, I'm still remain unconvinced that a non-free image of the perpetrator is needed for a tragic incident article, but a free image may be more suitable if found.
we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.
"best picture" is not the same as a more allowable, appropriate, and suitable image, and even a "best picture" may not meet the project's standards and would be potentially deleted.
text can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them.
You may have a point about text and visuals of the event and the difference between them. However... well, if I want to provide direct visual of the incident, either I have to use the least offensive but suitable image of the incident that occurred, or if I use an offensive image, I must prove the usage as "encyclopedic" and follow the "principle of least astonishment" (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). Otherwise, I think omission of an image (in a lead or anywhere else in the article) would be most suitable status quo... right until a more suitable image of the incident is found. Also, a perpetrator and an event can be... well... related but are not similar to each other physically and obviously. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Due to lack of clear consensus. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysticair667537: I undid your NAC closure/withdrawal. Please be patient with an upcoming decision by an admin, who has tools to delete any one of them. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a certain amount of overzealousness here. Properly tagged fair use images are not a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You meant, "keep all", or which ones? George Ho (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to debate them all individually, but was notified because I uploaded Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg. Personally, I'm not seeing a huge WP:NFCC problem here, and this image seems to have survived previous debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I couldn't find past FFD discussions on the Scott Evans Dekraai mugshot. The only FFD discussion about the mugshot is this mass-nomination listing. And I couldn't find the past discussions about the image at Talk:2011 Seal Beach shooting. When and at where was the image last discussed? Or which image you were referring if not the one you uploaded? George Ho (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wasn't the Dekraai mugshot but I do remember having similar debates about this in the past. It's clear that some people don't like having images of perpetrators with fair use rationales.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but your vote will have remained unclear (not just to me) until you specify which image(s) shall be kept. Alternatively, you can strike your own vote out (but leave your comments as-is). George Ho (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most, unless files have been previously subjected to a deletion discussion & were kept. Non-free photos of nn perpetrators or victims certainly do not meet WP:NFCC#8, which requires that an omission of the image be detrimental to understanding. Some of the above files are of subjects still alive, so do not meet the "irreplaceable" criterion either. Such images are routinely deleted, e.g. here are some that I nominated myself, in similar circumstances:

The images appear to be used in related articles for decorative purposes only. I'm surprised at the overwhelming "keep" votes here, honestly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I agree with K.e.coffman above - in fact I feel in a lot of cases it's (probably unimtentional) glorification of the pepetrators. These serve no encyclopedic purpose, and we do not need non-free-use images of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 March 2021 (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:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg edit

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very detailed fair use rationale on the image description page - that should cover the nom's concerns. schetm (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's the article content which the non-free use should reflect, not what's written in the nfur. This file is being used in three articles and the problem with this nomination is that it's not clear whether only some or all of those uses are problems, and I think it's important to asses each use separately. History of BBC television idents has 25 non-free files being used in it, which I think is the most of any current article. To me it seems like a sort of a "discography for BBC news indents" with lots of redundant content that can be found in individual articles. To problem with non-free files being used in multiple articles is that not all the uses are equivalent so just !voting delete or keep without specifying which uses implies that all the uses are equivalent. There's nothing in relevant policy that states that a file can only be used in one article or one time; policy does, however, require us to minimize non-free use as much as we can and that might be something worth discussing with respect to not only this file, but all the files used in the ident history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might not be, but your original post doesn't distinguish between the different uses in different articles; this is another problem with the kind of mass nomination of files that you did. It's not clear whether you're suggesting that all of the file's non-free uses aren't compliant or just some aren't compliant. For example, the use in BBC Two '1991–2001' idents might actually be OK since the article itself seems to be particularly about this former ident or the series of idents it was part of, i.e. it's used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in a sense; so, that's not really a case of WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The uses in the other two articles are not so clear, but the one in BBC 2#Presentation seems like it could be OK depending how redundant you think the content in that section is to the 1991-2001 history article. The use in the more broader BBC indent history, on the other hand, article seems unnecessary in my opinion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Anyway, the point is that this is a file with three uses and some of these uses might be OK. This makes this particular discussion a bit more complex than perhaps some of the other files you nominated and thus this file shouldn't have been bunched in with all the others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove from BBC Two '1991–2001' idents where it lacks sufficient critical commentary. The rest are fine. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - request a keep or no consensus close per WP:RELIST which states that "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure." There are already two !keep votes. Absent a further !votes, either way, another relist of a discussion from August seems highly improper. schetm (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2021 (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:Madonna - get together.ogg edit

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. There is a weak consensus leaning towards keeping the file at this time. Given that this discussion has been ongoing since November and has not received any recent participation since March (18 days ago), I am going to go ahead and close this as "keep". TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Get Together (Madonna song)" was de-listed as Good Article. Particularly, one commented that the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. I PRODded the sample for that reason, but then the uploader de-PRODded it, so I'm taking it here. Furthermore, the "Composition" section of the article, even with improvement on caption, even neither sufficiently supports the sample nor is difficult to understand without the sample. I struggle to figure out why the sample is necessary for illustration unless it's about either recognition or trying to compete with websites providing music samples, like Amazon, AllMusic, and iTunes/Apple Music. IMHO, neither mere sample recognition nor competition with third-party websites would help the sample adequately comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8). Furthermore, IMHO even references to other songs (explicit or implicit) don't make the sample necessary and significant. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sample illustrates how the song sounds like, which is its main purpose. I doubt one can imagine how a "tripping vocal melody" sounds like without help from an audio file. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Stating a lyric and an offhand remark about the song from the Pitchfork citation, as well as limited sourced information about the composition, does not warrant the sample nor meet the criteria for WP:NFCC, as it would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that there isn't enough information on the composition, but deleting the audio file (which clearly adds to the understanding of the composition), would actually help somehow? Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The audio file cannot just merely identify the song or the composition, and it cannot serve as just a sample for anyone to try out and just walk away as customers do in stores. Instead, the information provided by the clip must be also too valuable or too significant for deletion and well supported and emphasized by reliable sources. The chorus clip, however, doesn't provide any info with any value or significance to the article. Rather it distracts readers from learning what the article says about the song. (My further reply below. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)) Furthermore, the caption can be suitable as prose, or maybe the caption doesn't increase understanding. Moreover, the sample also would be more suitable at a music-oriented website. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that I should have cited WP:FREER as another reason for deletion. The image may also be replaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could never convince me that "[the clip] distracts readers from learning that the article says about the song" since it is by far the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard on Wikipedia for something to be deleted or kept and I can't actually believe it you are thinking that is a real argument. I'm almost at a loss of words. No audio can be replaced by text, no matter how well you would explain the composition, since the vast majority of people don't know music theory and it is, actually, the audio segment that proves to be the most helpful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the clip doesn't distract, then the clip may have attracted users, especially those not willing to read the whole article but rather try out the sample themselves as if it is provided by any music website. I'm pretty sure that free text content is adequate enough, and "music theory" isn't the subject of discussion, is it? Furthermore, I don't think an audio file is necessary to identify either the critical commentary or the article subject. If any of my arguments sound ridiculous to you (or anyone else), then I don't know how else to convince you. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you didn't know @George Ho:? You can let an admin know this conversation started 2 months ago and nobody's brought any new arguments in over a month. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Very) long patience would be my best suggestion. If you want, please request closure at WP:ANRFC. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two votes to keep and one to delete [a vote which, I might add, never got a response from the actual voter following my question], I think you have a moral duty to let an admin know, since you've started the whole "conversation". Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't (try to) push the deadline, all right? A long wait is no big deal to me. In my experience, it often happens to other FFD listings of cover arts and music samples. I don't wanna rush things further to admins. BTW, the other "keep" cited you basically without any other rationale. Whether the argument holds weight is up to closing admin. We should both wait and wait and wait... and so on. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Push" the deadline when the conversation was started in November 2020? Maybe There is a deadline. Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary about demand more from admins who spend their own lives doing other things besides the project. Also, replying to your further demands is increasingly tiring. I (again) insist you go to WP:ANRFC to make a request already. BTW, that essay you were citing refers to collection of knowledge; Wikipedia:There is a deadline refers to sourcing and verification. How about either Wikipedia:Don't panic (essay), Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress (essay) or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service (explanatory supplement to WP:NOT)? George Ho (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiring"? I would think it's more tiring going around trying to delete everything you lay your eyes on. Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Alecsdaniel. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief clip to illustrate what the song sounds like is acceptable under fair use to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. P-K3 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2021 (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:Aint Nobody.jpg edit

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. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally PRODded the cover art early this year because I didn't think it would meet WP:NFCC#8. However, it was de-PRODded under an assertion that it passes NFCC and that the notability of LL Cool J's interpolation of "Ain't Nobody" wouldn't be well understood without the cover art. On the contrary, I thought a free image of the artist who did the interpolation would be adequate enough.

This cover art displays primarily the eponymous characters of Beavis and Butt-Head but as part of virtue of the branding, marketing, and identification information conveyed by the cover art. I appreciate the graphic artist and distributor's efforts, but I'm unsure whether the cover art is necessary to help me understand the original song by Rufus and Chaka Khan and the hip-hop interpolation.

I can already understand what critical commentary about the interpolation conveys without the cover art. Furthermore, I can adequately understand the interpolation's chart performance in some areas of Western Europe, upper North America, and New Zealand. Even I can already understand the hip-hop interpolation's potential notability, despite not having its own stand-alone article. I still don't understand why the notability of LL Cool J's cover version would be lost without the cover art. There have been already other cover versions since versions by Rufus and Chaka Khan, so I don't understand why the Beavis & Butt-Head cover art is necessary... unless it's merely about visual identification of the product? --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: The cover art also contains song title and artist's name, but those don't ease my concerns about the cover's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. There are six notable versions of the song with seven files in use in the article, with the original version having two files. By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions, I feel that all of the files pass WP:NFCC. I also have never seen someone argue that a free picture of the artist could replace a fair use of a song/album cover in the article about the song/album, so I do not think this is a valid argument for the cover's deletion. Aspects (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Aspects: By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions[...] Actually, this is a test nomination out of cover arts of notable cover versions. For consistency, I plan to nominate other non-free cover arts afterwards if this cover art gets deleted. (File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is US-only free per another FFD discussion, so I won't touch that for now.) Regarding notability of cover versions, I commented at another FFD discussion where cover arts and notability may or may not connect well. To rephrase what I said there, using a very, very minimal amount of fair-use cover art has been strongly encouraged. The matter is not whether a cover version is notable but rather whether a cover art (or rather visual identification) is necessary and whether deleting a cover art would impact the understanding of the cover version, even when notable (and the notable original version).
Furthermore, I'm not gonna put a free image as part of the section's infobox but rather underneath/below the infobox. In one case, after a cover art was deleted per another FFD discussion, I then added a free image of the artist at Something's Got a Hold on Me#Jessica Mauboy version... just underneath the infobox out of respect for the infobox itself. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC); forgot something, 21:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If one example isn't enough, then what about another FFD discussion, where a section of an article no longer uses the cover art? George Ho (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC3a as multiple images are used when 1 would suffice. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm okay with Stifle, Fails admissibility, plus bad file. --Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (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:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg edit

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: no consensus. There does not appear to be any consensus at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar images using the symbols of Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (aka Led Zeppelin IV) are used at Commons, like File:Zoso-square-layout.svg and File:Zoso.svg. Local copies (File:Zzzp.JPG and File:Zzzp2.JPG) were deleted on the common assumption that those hand-drawn symbols are automatically in the PD. However, I can't be certain about its copyright status, which I shall primarily discuss.

Before transferring the vinyl's side label to Commons, we shall discuss whether the hand-drawn symbols are either no different from (i.e. inspired by or exact copies of) the symbols taken (or extracted) from centuries-old original publications or something that I find hard to describe (besides being possibly eligible for copyright). If the former, then they should be in the public domain in both countries. If the latter, then the symbols mixed with the side label must comply with both c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO UK. The logo of Edge (magazine) has been found by UK's lower court to be original enough for copyright, setting the standard bar very low and causing other UK logos to no longer be eligible. If this image is to be deemed ineligible for Commons, then other images of those symbols will be affected. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the image is to demonstrate that the "four symbols" was the actual title of the album as marketed by Atlantic at the time. The other images only show what the images are. This does not help the reader at all. SethWhales^talk 06:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the copyright status of the side label? I can assume that you view the image as non-free in the US, right? George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. 100% non-free. SethWhales^talk 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg and File:Zoso.svg. Delete File:Zoso-square-layout.svg, as it is just a square layout and not even what was printed on the... is that a vinyl or a cd? — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC) sock strike --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WinnerWolf99: File:Zoso.svg and File:Zoso-square-layout.svg are at Commons right now, but I'll undelete the local copies of those files (if they available) once we're done with the vinyl label then. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (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:Nicole Faerber.png edit

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Faerber.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

no release by the artist -- Cherubino (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2021 (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.

[1] University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)

[2] usticguitar.com

[3] the Independent Marly obit.

[1]

[2]

[3]