Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 10

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

edit

Gusaling Katipunan.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gusaling Katipunan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PLM Kid (notify | contribs).
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.

V180wplate.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:V180wplate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JJJJust (notify | contribs).
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.

V180noplate.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:V180noplate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JJJJust (notify | contribs).
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.

Brad Wyman.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brad Wyman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halibut Thyme (notify | contribs).
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.

Cherryland1.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherryland1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Luke119 (notify | contribs).
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.

Angel row show .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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel row show .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marek Tobolewski (notify | contribs).
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.

French laundry l'addition.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:French laundry l'addition.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EncMstr (notify | contribs).
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.

How to love. .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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:How to love. .JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zodiacfilms (notify | contribs).
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.

TwoandaHalfWits.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TwoandaHalfWits.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Music2611 (notify | contribs).
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.

Actors Studio Cover.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. Fails non-free content policy #8 and guidelines (see Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 #8) Andrew c [talk] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actors Studio Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
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.

WithBurstyn.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. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image is not needed to understand anything in the article. There is no sourced commentary on the image. Claiming this image has any visual impact is opinion or original research. -Nv8200p talk 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WithBurstyn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
  • Image that is used to simply show a man with his student - this can be accomplished with text alone and the addition of the image does not add significantly to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their relationship is discussed in the article. The image shows their difference in age, while that can be discussed in the article, it is made more concrete when you see the visual impact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not essential to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being "essential" is not a requirement, as Stifle wrote. If it "increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding," it meets the criteria. As Burstyn is quoted at length in the "Death" section of this article as having been with him shortly before this death and during the aftermath, and this photo was taken with him a few months before his death, the image of them together would "increase a reader's" meaning of the written material and improves the article, at least a reader who was interested in the people shown. And it is obviously much more than just a "man with his student," as Peripitus wrote. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2009 (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.

AndJustice.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. The image is not needed to understand anything in the article. There is no sourced commentary on the image to support the "keep" opinions in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AndJustice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
Re: WP:NFCC#1, could find nothing remotely similar that is free. What free images are you referring to? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#1 also covers replacement with text that conveys the same message, or at least does not significantly deprive the reader of understanding. In this case the text that tells of their closeness is already in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this image, "closeness" was not the issue. The movie screenshot was included in the Legacy section alongside the text, "In 1974, at the suggestion of his former student Al Pacino, Strasberg acted in a key supporting role alongside Pacino in Godfather II and again in the 1979 film, And Justice for All." The screenshot supports the text and could not be replaced with words alone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (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.

Matm au2.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matm au2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kraft. (notify | contribs).
  • alternate cover for an Australian Limited edition CD2 that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (colour changed to purple and the image mirror reversed) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 10 February 2009 (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.

DivineMadnessVHS.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DivineMadnessVHS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pietaster (notify | contribs).
  • video cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only difference (text added to the bottom) is easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 10 February 2009 (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.

Mr A Z Deluxe.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr A Z Deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sltchocum (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (border and two bits of tape added) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 10 February 2009 (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.

BjorkHumanBehaviourEURCD.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BjorkHumanBehaviourEURCD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nekoangel16 (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate single cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (text added and the image made grainier) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (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.

BjorkHumanBehaviourUnderworldMixes.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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BjorkHumanBehaviourUnderworldMixes.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nekoangel16 (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image directly above it. The only differences (basically the colour) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (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.

Disgraceful.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; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disgraceful.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tim! (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (slipper in the centre changed to a rabbit slipper) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (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.

BjorkItsOhSoQuietUKCD2.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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BjorkItsOhSoQuietUKCD2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nekoangel16 (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (basically the background colour) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (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.

BjorkHyper-BalladUSCD.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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BjorkHyper-BalladUSCD.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nekoangel16 (notify | contribs).
  • Alternate cover that is almost identical to the already existing non-free image in the article's lead. The only differences (almost nothing visible in thumbnail) are easily described with (free) text. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text in this case) alternative Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 10 February 2009 (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.

61004893O.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 - no longer orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:61004893O.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cooltrainer Hugh (notify | contribs).
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.

GCIITA.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GCIITA.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xenovatis (notify | contribs).
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.

Mirrormanvid.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mirrormanvid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andi064 (notify | contribs).
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.

Milkrecutvideo.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milkrecutvideo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Breakinguptheguy (notify | contribs).
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.

My Mum Is Wrong.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. There is an excessive use of fair use images in Maman a tort per WP:NFCC3a, and this image also fails WP:NFCC#8. The English cover is different but there is nothing notable or controversial about it. The original French version is the identifying image for Maman a tort. Papa November and Aervanath gave no rationale as to why they decided to keep the other images so there is no kind of precedent established. -Nv8200p talk 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Mum Is Wrong.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europe22 (notify | contribs).
  • Sufficiently different cover, one would not suffice, so it therefore passes 3A. Also one cover could not possibly portray the release with the different cover. This whole issue was discussed with no consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the run of decisions at WP:IfD/2009_January_10 starting here. The record sleeve (for the International release, in English, rather than the original French song, in French) shows a very different image, for a record which in fact has quite different content. Jheald (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 3a does not require that the image be the same, just that we use as few images as possible to still convey the same significant understanding. I ask those seeking to keep this, if the image (as the rationale states) is very important and adds significantly to the article. where is a single reliable source backing this up. Claiming that these multiple images add significantly to reader's understanding without a single line of sourced text or any commentary at all that tells the casual reader something about the image is unsustainable and, in other circumstances, would fall into original research. As a casual reader, when I visit this article, I see nothing except decoration. The image tells me absolutely nothing about the subject matter at all. This image to me clearly falls under both of the nominators objections - fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image shows the reader the identifying image for the record. Identifying images of records are, in and of themselves, regardless of any commentary, considered part of the relevant significant understanding about a record that an article about it should convey, and that is why WP:NFC explicitly okays cover art where there is critical commentary on the record, without requiring critical commentary on the cover art. We went through all this, at length, at the IfDs for 10 January and elsewhere, and you just need to look in the record to see the results. This is trying to re-warm up cold leftovers. Jheald (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That explains why one cover is allowed, but does not explain why two or more would be. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It establishes that identifying images of records are, in and of themselves, regardless of any commentary, considered to convey relevant significant understanding. When a record has had two different identifying images, in different territories, are you really saying that one conveys relevant significant understanding, and the other one doesn't? Jheald (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am a reader of such articles .... what understanding do I gain by seeing this additional image given that there is absolutely no commentary of any type about the image? Your argument does not tell me what I would be missing by not seeing the image in the article. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no question that alternate images should be used in some circumstances, and this is certainly one of them. A reading of the rules that leads to virtual elimination of alternate covers on Wikipedia is overzealous and contrary to intentions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You gain the understanding of what the (quite different) identifying image was for the English-language international version of this record. Without the image, you would not know that. Jheald (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jheald's comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a lack of explanations as to why this image is significant for user understanding and how it is not excessive use. The arguments presented above work equally well for articles having a number of images limited only by the number of releases (this article has three) and the keep arguments are basically - we can have as many images as there were releases with no discussion in the article required at all. The same arguments have been tried and failed for books, characters in TV series, characters in games etc. Arguing that the simple release of another cover version creates, in itself, sufficient justification for as many images as there are releases or covers is not enough. Jheald's argument is largely that all I gain from this is an understanding of what the release looked like - . How is this significant for me to understand an article on the album. The absurd conclusion of this type of argument is that I may upload 50 covers for the Guinness book of records (one cover per year) and the simple existence of such releases is justification for their inclusion. While many of the images I nominated on the 10th were kept this does not consensus make, Jan 11, Jan 9, Jan 17 and the discussion at WT:NFC give a different view of what the image needs to meet the NFC requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jan 10 discussions are most relevant because those are the ones that attracted more participants and more discussion than all the other days combined. But note that even on Jan 11, Papa November (talk · contribs) ruled in favour of the U.S. cover for "2 become 1" simply because it had entirely different artwork to the UK version.
As to the claim that we're going to end up with 50 covers for a single article, that is a spurious and exaggerated, and a crock. Unlike books, records tend to be associated with very particular cover art, and to keep it. As Peripitus knows full well, most albums don't even have one alterate cover; and it is very rare for them to have two. Jheald (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2009 (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.

Maman a tort (12').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. There is an excessive use of fair use images in Maman a tort per WP:NFCC3a, and this image also fails WP:NFCC#8. The original French version is the identifying image for Maman a tort, an alternate cover image is not needed unless there is some commentary to support the need. Papa November and Aervanath gave no rationale as to why they decided to keep the other images so there is no kind of precedent established. -Nv8200p talk 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maman a tort (12').jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europe22 (notify | contribs).
  • Sufficiently different cover, one would not suffice, so it therefore passes 3A. Also one cover could not possibly portray the release with the different cover. This whole issue was discussed with no consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the run of decisions at WP:IfD/2009_January_10 starting here, sufficiently different covers are considered notable, and to add to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry to but and paste the argument but the image page text for this one are the same. I again ask those seeking to keep this, if the image (as the rationale states) is very important and adds significantly to the article. where is a single reliable source backing this up ?. Claiming that these multiple images add significantly to reader's understanding without a single line of sourced text or any commentary at all that tells the casual reader something about the image is unsustainable and, in other circumstances, would fall into original research. As a casual reader, when I visit this article, I see nothing except decoration. The image tells me absolutely nothing about the subject matter at all. This image to me clearly falls under both of the nominators objections - fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (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.

Malaremix.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. No community consensus that different covers are in themselves considered significant for understanding about the subject of a record. Papa November and Aervanath gave no rationale as to why they decided to keep the other images so there is no kind of precedent established. -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malaremix.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MelvinPena (notify | contribs).
  • Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images when one would suffice, and fails WP:NFCC#8 as not adding to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the run of decisions at WP:IfD/2009_January_10 starting here, and the arguments presented in those discussions, sufficiently different covers are considered notable, and to add to reader understanding. This sleeve is quite different to the other (see article Mala (song)). Jheald (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We are arguing about this image - there is no blanket exemption provided for any class of images. With no sourced commentary at all, as a reader, this image tells me nothing that adds any significant information to my understanding. NFCC#8 is aimed at readers - not writers - can anyone tell me what I gained from seeing this image in the article as I gained little or nothing. With sourced commentary, about the image itself, it may be meaningful - it's just decorative currently. Fails NFCC#3a, 8. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c as the rationale is just a cookie cutter one that has no relevance for this image. It is NOT as stated in the rationale the primary visual image associated with the work. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:49, 10 February 2009 (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.

MariahTouchMyBody.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. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no sourced critical commentary that supports the use of the image. There is no discussion of her hair, her lighting, the styling of her clothes, the setting, the combined effect of all those factors together that would make the image significant to the article. Our purpose is to help people without blatantly ripping off other people's creative work when it is unnecessary. -Nv8200p talk 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MariahTouchMyBody.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Almonopiniano (notify | contribs).
  • Screenshot is merely an image of the artist and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article, failing WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it does show here in the video, any image shows something and this adds nothing to the article for me that could not be covered by the words "In the video Carey wore a white sleeveless shirt". No sourced commentary on the image as it appears and it appears simply decorative as a result. Fails WP:NFCC#1, and 8 - Peripitus (Talk) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are lots of ways Carey could have been styled for the video - her hair, her lighting, the styling of her clothes, the setting, the combined effect of all those factors together. The image communicates that directly, communicating far more than just "Carey wore a white sleeveless shirt". It's worth noting that WP:NFC, in the section "images: acceptable use" does not require commentary on the image (unlike, explicitly, #8 "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." (emphasis added)). Rather, the requirement for a screenshot is that the image adds understanding to a film about which there is commentary - which, in the case of this video, there is, and the screenshot adds to it.
And it's worth thinking about why the line is drawn there. WP:NFC is written the way it is in order to protect our commercial re-users. The underlying question is, would our commercial re-users be able to re-use this article with confidence, knowing that the images were okay under U.S. Fair Use law? That is why "images: acceptable use" sets different bars for different classes of use to clear. In this case, the answer is clearly yes, this would be considered legitimate fair use, even for a commercial re-user of our page. And that being the case, we should stick to our real underlying purpose. Our purpose is the communication of information. This is information we can communicate, and we should communicate it. Jheald (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, our underlying purpose is to be a free encyclopedia, and that means not using non-free material when we can avoid it. And the image is hardly iconic; this is iconic. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But consider why we aim to be a free encyclopedia. WP is WP:NOT an experiment in ideology. (Oh and by the way, we're not claiming Mariah as a news image of historical importance. Read the policy. She's not required to be iconic.)
Our purpose here is practical, to help people. On the one hand any content we own or we can replace, we make sure we give to people free because that best frees and empowers them. We can't do that for non-free content. But so long it doesn't materially affect people's ability to redistribute WP, we do still try to provide appropriate, relevant, non-free content -- because people are more empowered by seeing that content, even on copyright fair-use terms, than not seeing it at all.
The key question, which entirely shapes the lines drawn by WP:NFC, is that that content must be legal to include, both for us and for commercial republishers, so that the ability to redistribute WP is not affected. This image passes that test. It doesn't benefit anybody not to include it. It also passes our criteria, (which is basically why it is legally legitimate), because informing people or reminding people about the video does improve the understanding of the topic that they come away with. Jheald (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2009 (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.

Monkeyhellingswiddling.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monkeyhellingswiddling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pugwin (notify | contribs).
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.

Congregation at Church 2.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Congregation at Church 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chrisnnr (notify | contribs).
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.

Wistow church 2.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wistow church 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chrisnnr (notify | contribs).
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.

Sajid Shahbaz.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sajid Shahbaz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sajidshahbaz (notify | contribs).
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.

Parakeet.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parakeet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sillygrin (notify | contribs).
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.

761021311 l.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:761021311 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dman j180 (notify | contribs).
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.

Princess6.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Princess6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dora bright (notify | contribs).
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.

Monster Still.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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monster Still.JPEG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bhuskey (notify | contribs).
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.

94th ARCOM SSI 1956-1991.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:94th ARCOM SSI 1956-1991.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MileyDavidA (notify | contribs).
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.

Arrangment-mohammad adil rais.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arrangment-mohammad adil rais.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mohammad adil (notify | contribs).
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.

SlottskogenBench.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SlottskogenBench.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mcphersonm80 (notify | contribs).
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.

GMA.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GMA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gilthemaster (notify | contribs).
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.

Stoa.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stoa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Misirkov (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_10&oldid=1140113517"