- File:Babyface lovers.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
I don't know why a well-known cover art is deleted other than allegedly violating WP:NFCC#8. The original album cover is deservingly used, but almost no one knew that the image existed. It was a reissue cover art, but that shouldn't make it merely decorative, should it? No one voted for or against this image because no one was aware of the FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As a minimum, relist. Nobody can be expected to follow all discussions, and when wider attention is needed, this is a good place to ask for it. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 16:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a reasonable objection, no reason not to
relist given lack of participation. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing a clear argument that this meets NFCC 3a. Procedurally I've no objection to a relist, but it seems pointless, and given that policy was followed (though policy I'm not fond of) I'll endorse. Hobit (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion process has been properly followed; FFD process states that unopposed nominations are closed as delete. Therefore, it is endorsed pending new information or argument. I would note that NFCC#3a is likely to be the key issue here in that multiple covers would not be considered compliant with that criterion absent actual critical commentary on the alternate cover, and a strong rationale detailing why the removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the deletion process is inadequate when it has unrepresentative participation: the entire system of WP depends on control by the overall community, not cliques at special processes. Since nobody can follow all potentially relevant processes, the only practical way is to allow review on the merits to a general and widely watched place. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree process was followed correctly. But I also believe that a discussion without any participation should not have a high bar to a relist request (much as WP:REFUND works). Hobit (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hoping to pre-empt going around the circle again by asking the nominator what arguments he/she proposes to advance at a theoretical FFD which would overcome the high bar that is NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonable, though I'll note it was deleted under #8 I believe. Still 3a seems to be the main issue. I don't see the bar as high as you do, but I too would like a more clear explanation. I think that's more of a FFD issue, but don't see the point in doing this unless a reasonable argument can be made (DRV doesn't have to agree that the argument is enough to clear the bar IMO, merely that they have a rational argument--I don't know enough about the subject to see such an argument (and one may not exist...). Hobit (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the process was followed. In other circumstance such as an article, then relisting would be a sensible option. In a case such as this where the onus is on those wishing to keep to show nfcc is met, then absent some sort of apparently reasonable argument NFCC could be met (given the general observation that allowing two "similar" images is an exception not the rule), such a relisting seems unneeded. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was used in Lovers (Babyface album) (link to removal). George Ho (talk · contribs), do you have a response to Stifle's response above about WP:NFCC#3a?
If you have a good faith response, relist. If there is no response, keep deleted.I agree with DGG and Hobit that a discussion with little participation should have a low bar to relist. But I also agree with Stifle and 86.2.216.5 that the image should not be relisted if there is not a good faith explanation about why it doesn't violate NFCC#3a. Is there "critical commentary on the alternate cover"? Cunard (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: Both images look different. Original has balloons; reissue has a fireplace. Babyface smiles in original; he frowns in reissue. As for critical commentary, I could not find sources describing the reissue image. I just added "different cover" with a reference. "Contextual significant"? I am unsure how the removal affects the readers' understanding of the album, but MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation discourages extra images that are used for mere display. Readers can see a different reissue image on Amazon and iTunes without needing Wikipedia. Original cover has more value because it has never been used since Epic acquired rights to the album. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original nominator at FFD here. WP:FFD tells that 'Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.' The file was listed at FFD in November 2013 and deleted in February 2014. During that time, no objections had been raised, but there were also no comments to my original message. It seems that the process was followed, but I don't think that we should have a very high bar for relisting files when the participation is low. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whether caption notice helped a lot as discussions usually are empty. However, it wasn't added at the time of nomination. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
