Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25

File:Swim (Feeder EP, original release - cover art).gif

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Danleary25 (talk)

@Danleary25:. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia" and has a strict set of rules for when non-free content is allowed. How does your argument, and the duplicated ones below, address this ?. Whether or not you believe it should be replaced with text, I am sure that reader's can look at one image, with a red surround, be told that the 1996 cover had a blue surround, and not walk away from the article with significant gaps in their understanding of the topic because they read the words "the 1996 cover had a blue surround rather than the red in the 2001 release" rather than saw two images. This article is on the album not the cover. The cover is not discussed in this, and any of the below nominations, by any sources in the article. I'm not going to address all of the duplicated comments you've made, but you largely said....there are two versions so we must have two covers.... This is not a compelling argument and has not held up to scrutiny in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at each file, its corresponding article and its matching/similar file before pasting my argument. I only copied my argument on files for deletion where I thought the deletion is unnecessary, each for varying reasons. If you notice where I didn't copy the argument that was a case where I didn't feel the need to contest deletion. Admittedly, since each case is separate, some arguments are lesser than others, if I were to defend each one specifically. But my argument for saving any file here is fundamentally the same, hence the copy/paste.

Your particular argument that "This article is on the album not the cover" is something that I can not agree with because a cover is a fundamental part of most any album. More than most any other work of media the cover of a musical album is a direct reflection of the artistic expression of the artist. It is often chosen, created or at the very least overseen by the musical artist before publication. The cover is meant to work in tandem with the music contained within and to set an artistic feeling before the music is heard. Other artistic works like novels or movies do not have the same artistic significance with the cover or poster because this is often handled by the publisher or promotional department and not directly by the work's main artist(s). This being said, any article on Wikipedia about a modern music album (modern being approx. 1950s-present) is about the cover as much as it is about any other aspect of the album.

If the cover of an album is changed for some reason, then we're talking about a significant redirection for the initial artistic expression of the work as a whole, and I think that is something that should be properly expressed in the article. As a visual medium expressing it simply through words (in most cases) is not strong enough. Clearly, I'm not the first to think this since the Alternate Cover section for Album infobox exists.

Now, all this being said I admit that this argument is not as strong for this one in particular image: (File:Swim (Feeder EP, original release - cover art).gif) and a few others below. But in particular the following files are ones I strongly contest deletion for the reasons I have mentioned: File:OpenUpCensored.jpg, File:BurnThePriestst.jpg, File:Five Iron Frenzy End is Near cover.jpg, File:Marillion - marillion.co.uk (2005) Front Cover.jpg, File:Kula Shaker Peasants Pigs and Astronauts 10th Anniversary Edition Cover.JPG, File:Gorillaz Demon Days Japan.jpg.Danleary25 (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2014 (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:Doobie Brothers Midi Label.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour and a frame added) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Rearviewmirror (Black Cover).jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour, shading, some text) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Danleary25 (talk)

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:TWWL2.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (image is cropped) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 25 April 2014 (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:Regurgitator-Unit Re-Booted Green.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour, bit of text added) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Age To Age.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (soft-focus and slightly different shot of here in the same pose and clothing) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Danleary25 (talk)

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:BurnThePriestst.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is decorative. It uses the text from the existing album cover, displayed on a black background. If needed this can be covered with text alone adequately. Image fails NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:OpenUpCensored.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (image cropped to centre section, text moved) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC) This image is particularly apt to be included in the article since it is dealing with the subject of artistic censorship, and a visual aid in showing the extent of censorship is beneficial to the article.[reply]

keep - For all the excellent reasons Daleary25 puts forth and more. The alternate image is in support of sourced commentary in the article concerning censorship. Jeffreybh (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary on the difference - in fact that section has been tagged as original research since 2011. Other's reviewing the article like here have spoken about the change to the cover without feeling the need to illustrate this image cropping. How does this following other reviewer's example significantly harm reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 05:49, 28 April 2014 (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:Five Iron Frenzy End is Near cover.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour and a small change to the text) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a firm believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The differences between the two alternate album covers are described within the article, but because album artwork is a purely visual medium, no explanation in whatever amount of detail accurately instills the reader with the actual image in their mind. Also, I do not understand how it fails WP:NFCC#1 when it is not replaceable with a free alternative.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:New Order FACTUS 50.gif

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Shades of Deep Purple.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (photo from top-right section of the other cover) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Donewithcd.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Source given for this photograph of a CD. Also I can't see what having this image adds to the article, beyond a bit of eye candy. Somewhere is the photographer who owns the copyright of this otherwise utilitarian item Peripitus (Talk) 09:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I took this photo myself - I didn't think it was relevant as I don't own the content, only in some way the specific instance of it. I've changed the "source" tag accordingly. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2014 (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:Chantal Kreviazuk - Colour Moving and Still (2).jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (She's turned more to the camera, background colours changed) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Supertramp - Indelibly Stamped.gif

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (changed to black and white) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. If reader's want the B&W version rather than the coloured then the second should be deleted and this kept. Peripitus (Talk) 09:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Dbsts2.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (coloured, white border removed) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:10, 25 April 2014 (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:In Deep 4.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour changed, white band added top and bottom) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Ghost Light.gif

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to an other non-free image in the article. The small differences can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:15, 25 April 2014 (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:Marillion - marillion.co.uk (2005) Front Cover.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (different cityscape in the background, text changed, different hairstyle) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Marillion-radiation2013.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour of background changed to daylight, size of flames reduced) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Pass The Flask Reissue.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (negative image of the original) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Meleighta.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (scaling) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Meltensongs.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (scaling) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (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:KSE 2005 Cover.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour changed, text moved, image cropped slightely) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:AlexisonfireEuropean.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour changed, bars top and bottom removed) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:25, 25 April 2014 (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:The Essential Billy Joel 3.0.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 25 April 2014 (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:Writing to Reach You 2.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (different shaped treeline and more balloons) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Kula Shaker Peasants Pigs and Astronauts 10th Anniversary Edition Cover.JPG

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour changed, background changed to mostly sky) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Twister Sister - Under The Blade.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (the all have slightly different poses) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Keys To Ascension 2 Yes 2.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Demondaysgrammy.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (white background changed to black, black borders changed to white) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (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:Gorillaz Demon Days Japan.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (faces moved from the corners to inline, colour band added top and bottom) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Alan Parsons - A Valid Path (DualDisc).jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (clothing changed to white, hat removed) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Cdprg1012.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:A stroll in the pork reissue.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour, text location) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Sweetbox Jade SE.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Donovan-Catch the Wind 1996.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:All About Chemistry Sp Edition Cover.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Closer 2009.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Bridget Jones's Diary OST US Cover.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (its a crop of the image at the article's top) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 25 April 2014 (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:Meshuggah-Nothing2006.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour, band name changed to album name) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:Everyday album.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (Hillsong text added) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.Danleary25 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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:The Cult Love Omnibus.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images that is very similar to the other non-free image in the article. The small differences (zoomed out, white bit at top added) can be adequately described in text alone without impairing reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative, NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 09:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I am a believer that nothing on Wikipedia should only be described in text when it can easily (and without impairing the article) be shown. The inclusion of the "Alternative Cover" section of the infobox is meant for cases like as this when more than one main, official cover for a work exists. Since album covers are a purely visual medium no explanation, no matter how detailed, can instill in the reader the exact image in mind. Also as an article about a copy-written work no free alternative can exist, including the image with has been deemed similar, but not placed for deletion.21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Danleary25 (talk)

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:JohnBradLayfieldold.jpg

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 as F9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Image is claimed to be CC-BY-SA-1.0 yet source page makes no such claim. Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2014 (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:ExtremeRules2014Logo.png

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 as F9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 26 April 2014 (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:Dirt 100 2014 Cover.jpg

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 ⚡ 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in there is no contextual significance for the cover of this magazine. It is being used on an article about the bike in the image. Any free photo of the bike could be used to show the bike itself. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (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.