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: on hold. Delete if Commons ends up as keep, or keep if Commons ends up as delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as the image was kept on Commons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This file has been superseded by File:Nirvana album cover.jpg, a higher quality file from the Commons. – Zntrip 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file you are linking to is claimed as free. However, the album artwork is copyrighted. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • A copyrighted image should not be in Commons.-5- (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest this discussion be put on hold until this discussion I've initiated at commons is concluded. --JD554 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an attempt to replace this image with a free simulcrum of the album cover, which is ill-directed since a reproduction of the image is not the origianl image itself. This image here is perfectly valid under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — To WesleyDodds, -5-, and JD554: I don't understand why you three refuse to acknowledge that this album cover is in the public domain. The album artwork is not copyrighted because it only consists of text on a black background. It does not meet the threshold of originality under United States federal copyright law, plain and simple. – Zntrip 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC

• Presumably you've seen my argument in the link above to the discussion at commons. That is the relevant place for my comments, not here. --JD554 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Unfortunately, it is not in the public domain. Anyone who thinks such is wrong. One can not replicate an image to an absolutely indiscernible extent--regardless of the simplicity--and somehow think it becomes freely usable. I'm sorry, but unless you are a lawyer or hold some form of law degree I do not think we should simply take your word for it by so sensationally stating it is not in the threshold of originality. NSR77 ^T 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a matter of opinion, nor is it a complex legal question. There is nothing original about this image; it is only text on a black square. A word, the color black, and squares of any size are not copyrighted. Perhaps we should consider other examples of public domain works, such as the Coca-Cola logo, which I think is much harder to reproduce than the image in question. Perhaps some are confused by the difference between a copyright and a trademark. Don't take my word for it, just look at some of the links I have given. Just do some research! How can you willingly edit an encyclopedia, yet exhibit an unwillingness to read some of it! – Zntrip 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Suspend I agree completely, this is not eligible for copyright. --XeroxKleenex (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to suspend this discussion pending the outcome of the commons debate, I'll agree with Stifle that we should keep one or the other, not both. My opinion is still that this is ineligible for copyright.XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you agree with me you would want this image to be deleted because there is a higher quality one. – Zntrip 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to Commons. It's just text. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WesleyDodds. NSR77 ^T 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend pending the outcome of the Commons debate. If the Commons image is kept, this should be deleted, and vice-versa. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 27 July 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.

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 Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Replaceable by File:DN-ST-82-08158.jpg. Uploader continues to remove the standard tag, pointing to a discussion at non-free content review, but I don't see anyone arguing there that this image does anything to identify the subject, nor that it is a particularly significant image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Replacable fair use disputed tag was present months ago already and has been removed by subsequent editors. I have clearly presented arguments why the image is important to the article, both on the image talk page, my own talk page and over at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg. At best no consensus over at non-free content review discussion. In my view, this image meets all criteria for fair use. Rpvdk (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly replaceable by a free image. Beside that, although it would be nice to have a better photo of the prince, it is not necessary for reader understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 09:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of repeating myself: the image definitely does add to understanding. The marriage was highly controversial at the time and constitutes a very important part of the Queen's life, not just in private but also publicly, as the prince was also very much in the eye of the public for his entire life. I realize this may not be obvious to people not familiar with the dutch royal house, but as a dutch national it's clear as day. Rpvdk (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about this image is not replaceable by the free image I cite above? (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't even see the prince's face for one? NB Prince Claus is deceased so no new image could be created. Rpvdk (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not needed for understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and agree with Stifle. Ejfetters (talk) 06:59, 5 August 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.

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street Fighter II comparison.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Jonny2x4 (notify | contribs).

• Four copyrighted images merged together which together convey no more information than a single image would. Clear failure of WP:NFCC#3a. Black Kite 09:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they illustrate both subtle and major differences between the distinct games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.60 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be clarified in the caption what "subtle and major differences" these images are supposed to show. Jheald (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main text already makes 3 separate mentions of the graphical changes, but the caption has now been updated with some examples. Arguably the biggest criticism of the SF2 games is that they are too similar to each other - this image makes clear how similar and/or different they are.

Indeed, the SSF2THDR article features a specially prepared image which simply compares two versions of one character sprite. The image discussed here achieves this, but also puts the artwork in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.60 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 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.

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: Speedy Delete F9 - Travis Clancy is a well known photographer and this user's deleted contributions show that they definitely aren't him. Black Kite 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jabee x Trvs Clancy x 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grafwurks (notify | contribs).

• Highly doubtful that author created this image, as claimed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:53, 22 July 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.

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. Rightly or wrongly, it's established practice that illustration of album cover artwork meets NFCC #8. NFCC #3a does not seem to apply, as that deals only in situations where fewer images can convey "equivalent significant information" (emphasis added), and obviously the other non-free image cannot convey the appearance of the alternative album cover. The live issue, then, is whether the illustration of the alternative album cover meets NFCC #8 in the same way as the illustration of the primary one does; in this case, the prevailing view of the editors participating in the discussion seems to be that it does. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood of Kingu - Alternative Artwork.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pyro Stick (notify | contribs).

• The fact it was rereleased with new artwork is mentioned in passing, but what the new artwork looks like is not of great importance. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Its just as valid as the original artwork. Pyro Stick ^{Haud Yer Wheesht!} 17:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the usual reason of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 - the alternative cover isn't notable in its own right or even discussed critically, and therefore the additional non-free usage is excessive. Black Kite 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - new artwork is wholly different from the old artwork; therefore adds significantly to understanding about the item, by showing how the album can be visually identified, and how a large proportion of those who knew the album would visually identify it. This satisfies NFCC#8. The other image is not similar, so would not convey this understanding, and is therefore not a substitute. Therefore this is indeed "no more than needed to satisfy the purpose identified", i.e. "minimal" in the language of NFCC#3a. Compare the largest run (10 Jan) of decisions on alternate album covers. Jheald (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I apprecaite it. This is one of my fav bands and it annoys me when people want things deleted because its not notable to them, eventhough its extrememly notable to others. Pyro Stick ^{Haud Yer Wheesht!} 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the album is notable enough to be here at all, the alternate artwork is notable. The current trend with deletions is disturbing. --XeroxKleenex (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The alternate artwork is significantly different than the original. Ejfetters (talk) 07:01, 5 August 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.