The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — ξxplicit 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:StifleUser talk:Stifle earlier tagged the article for dated speedy deletion under CSD F7, with the following reasons:
Criterion 3a, because multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice
Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding.
Another user declined the dated speedy deletion and User:Stifle attempted to use regular speedy deletion. As that is inappropriate, I feel the best choice is to take to FfD to resolve the dispute. Safiel (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC items 3a and 8, multiple album covers on one article used strictly for decoration with no critical commentary. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cover was previously used for standard edition pressings of the album, thus it allows readers to visually identify the album the article is about. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle's rationale. —IB[ Poke ] 22:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NTEMP. Just because it is no longer sold as a product does not make it useless to the reader. Many other album articles also have two non-free images. SSTflyer 09:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good reason to delete it from those other articles, not keep it in this one. If you can let me know which those articles are, I will see to nominating those for deletion as well. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass the standard requirements for an alternate cover. It is a very different image to the other cover; and it was used on a significant release of the record, namely the original release of the track. Therefore fulfills the requirement of NFCC #8 (and NFCC #3) -- showing this cover does add something significant to reader understanding of the topic, over and above what is conveyed by the other cover. Jheald (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2016 (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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This file already exists on Commons as File:Kosta Pećanac, 20 October 1941.jpg, and the website it's sourced to claims it is in the public domain. Unless there is a reason to doubt the veracity of that statement, the local copy should be deleted as unncessary under WP:CSD#F8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The veracity of the PD claim of the Commons file has been questioned during the Wikiproject Military history A-Class review of the Pećanac Chetniks article. This is because there is no evidence that it has been published other than on the website in question, which clearly would bring the PD status into question in both Serbia and the US. I agree with the reviewer that the PD claim of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is questionable, so I have uploaded a local version with a NFR for use in the subject article. If anything, the Commons version should probably be nominated for deletion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: is there an on-going process in relation to this? I'd like to see this either being actively discussed or indeed the Commons version being up for deletion for it make sense to support keeping this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't nominated the Commons file for deletion, but that does make sense to me. I'll do that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in relisting this, Steel1943? It's obvious that we should just mirror the outcome on Commons, and then it doesn't really matter if this remains on an old log page until Commons decides the outcome. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2:Peacemaker67 questioned the nominate file's ability to be public domain, as well as the related file on Commons being nominated for deletion. I, more or less, relisted this discussion for those reasons, as well as allowing the timing of this discussion's closing to possibly be synced with the close of the other discussion, especially considering that votes in the other discussion did not really start coming in until the discussion was already open for two weeks. That, and per WP:RELIST: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.". Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons version of this file has now been deleted as not PD (at my suggestion). This version of the file should remain here as it has a valid non-free rationale and is currently in use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC8. Can understand collaboration without seeing this not terribly enlightening image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A photograph showing a Chetnik leader collaborating with the Germans is rare in itself, and this is the only one I am aware of showing this Chetnik leader (and I wrote the FA about Pecanac and the Milhist A-Class article Pecanac Chetniks). A photograph that shows Pecanac collaborating with a Kosovar Albanian is remarkable, considering the antipathy between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs. A photograph showing him collaborating with both is of high encyclopedic value and I believe the NFR meets WP requirements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure collaboration was quite remarkable, but a reader does not need to see a non-free photo to understand that these men once stood near each other. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you were familiar with the visceral rejection of any evidence or source that shows this particular collaboration (by Serbs), you would not think so. To my mind, this is akin to the photograph of Kurt Waldheim working as an interpreter for the Waffen-SS commander Artur Phleps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 22 May 2016 (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:787battery.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: speedy delete per WP:G7. Author requests deletion in this discussion. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Okay! Feel free to delete my image, and use the one that already exists. I didn't know it was already on the commons. The Legacy (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2016 (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:After church service.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 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:DINESH CHOUDHARY.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.
No encyclopedic use. Unused photo of uploader's brother: Wikipedia is not a family photo album. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2016 (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:Albanian Support Command structure.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.
Unused. Outdated and seems incomplete. Cloudbound (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2016 (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:AlphaOmegaDelta.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 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. — ξxplicit 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between this logo and its Commons version on commons:File:ESC 1964 logo.png under the same title is the extra border around the local copy. Only question would be whether this logo is actually OK for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about logos at c:COM:TOO#Switzerland, so the copyright status in the source country is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did search the Swiss Federal Court records on logos, but all things I found were trademark related. Switzerland does require "individual character" for copyrightability, the SFC did rule that not all photographies of people satisfy that requirement but nothing on logos.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is a bit of mess on Commons when it comes to Eurovision logos due to the uncertainty of the law in Switzerland. The more complex heart and text logos (example) have been routinely deleted on Commons for a number of years due to copyright concerns. However, there isn't a clear consensus on the older logos like this one and looking at commons:Category:Eurovision Song Contest logos, they've been allowed to stay for the most part. It is however not infeasible that they could all be deleted under the precautionary principle at some point, so I would recommend keeping the local copy for now. The current licensing templates should also stay as the logo certainly is "believed to be [...] possibly non-free in its home country, Switzerland". CT Cooper ·talk 00:59, 30 March 2016 (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:TV Zimbo old logo.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: Remove ★ BigrTex 18:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a former logo for TV Zimbo. Contrary to the assertion in non-free use rationale for the file, the image is not being used as the primary means of identification as File:TV Zimbo logo.jpg is being used in the infobox. The previous logo is not the subject of any commentary in the article as is purely decorative. Whpq (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2016 (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:Televisão Pública de Angola 1.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.
Logo is being used in the article on Televisão Pública de Angola, and the non-free use rationale assert that serves as the primary means of visual identification, but that purpose is actually being served by File:Televisão Pública de Angola.jpg. This the logo of this broadcaster's channels, and is not the primary subject of the article. Whpq (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2016 (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 template used on Commons only seems to cover government works, but this appears to be something created by a political party, so Commons seems to use the wrong copyright tag. Probably below the threshold of originality, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Since it's not a government work, I'd assume that the lex loci protectionis would make it copyrighted in the United States at least, and per WP:C and WP:NUSC, Wikipedia needs to follow United States copyright law. The fact that something is ineligible for copyright in the source country doesn't make it ineligible for copyright in the United States, per [1]. For government works, that tag could maybe be interpreted as a kind of 'PD-self', so the situation is less clear than for non-government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2016 (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.
This file was originally tagged as "Do not move to Commons" by The ed17 and then retagged as "Keep local" by Magog the Ogre. Given the "However, it is now believed the image fell out of copyright on January 1, 2014." is the local copy still needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this file for deletion due to the below NFCC violations:
Criterion 3a, because multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice
Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding.
The image in question is not discussed in the article, neither received much notability form the third party media in place of the deluxe version used, which is critically and analytically discussed in the article. It is simply being used for decorative purposes. —IB[ Poke ] 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use rationale clearly states that it provides visual identification allowing the reader to recognize the work and ensure they have come to the right article - this means it passes criterion 8. And let's put it another way: let's say a reader saw a copy of the standard version of the album in a store but not the deluxe version. They would see a completely different cover when they arrived at this album's article and likely be very confused. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously here to upload non-free content to guide users? Non-free media should support the article content and increase reader's understanding of that content, not help them find out an album. The other cover present in the article is analyzed, so when our readers read that section, they see the supporting image in the infobox and understand "Oh, thats why there was controversy for the cover" or "Oh thats what the memes were..." etc. —IB[ Poke ] 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the FUR clearly explains, the covers increase the reader's understanding of the article subject as they show the artwork the album was sold with, which also helps the reader ensure they came to the right article. This is standard practice with all articles for albums, films, and other forms of entertainment. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not a standard practice, as I explained before also, Wikipedia is not here to help people identify which album cover to buy. The FUR should enhance reader's understanding of why a non-free image is used. We are strict on this and this particular cover fails WP:NFCC#3a in that respect. The article already has the deluxe cover which, as J Milburn noted below, has ample significance in terms of third party notability, this one just does not have it. As simple as that. —IB[ Poke ] 08:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to help people identify which album cover to buy. Nowhere did I say that. This benefits readers who may be familiar with one cover but not the other. If a reader has seen the cover of the physical standard edition but not the main cover, for some reason, they will be highly confused when they come to the article and see a completely different picture. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the physical cover fails WP:NFCC#8, it is not critically or discussed in terms of third party notability. Easily replaceable by words since it is essentially a pretty portrait of Madonna. Hell it is even replaceable by free image from commons. —IB[ Poke ] 16:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we excluded album covers on the basis that they are just "pretty portraits" that aren't critically discussed, then most album covers – primary or otherwise – would not be included. If we excluded covers on the basis that they are "easily replaceable by words" then there wouldn't be a point in having any non-free album covers at all on what is supposed to be a free-content encyclopedia. Nowadays, most covers for pop music albums are insignificant and not discussed by the media after their initial reveal, yet they are included. Why? Because consensus within music-related articles has indicated that they meet WP:NFCC#8 by significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
In this specific instance, the Madonna album cover being discussed is not a random, limited edition cover a la this alternate cover for the very same album, which is not included in the Rebel Heart article. It is the cover for the standard (main) version of the album in physical form. And unlike many standard/deluxe album pairings today, this cover is not simply a crop, recoloring, or similarly-designed version of the deluxe cover: it is a completely different picture with a completely different style.
As I have stated earlier, readers who might have seen the standard version cover in a physical store and not seen the deluxe version cover will be confused when they come to this album article and see a completely different artwork. Having this primary cover thus does increase the readers' understanding by the "visual identification" rationale used for all non-free album covers on Wiki, meaning it meets the NFCC and doesn't need to be deleted. Not sure how I can make my point clearer than this. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NFCC#3a fails as multiple images used when one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One does not suffice however, as there are multiple, significantly different images that represent the article subject. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable by words, big difference. —IB[ Poke ] 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. If there are multiple covers that are significant (controversy, noted artistry, etc.), then so be it, but the "identification" argument shouldn't extend to more than one image. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Identification typically doesn't extend to more than one image for albums. This is an exception, not the rule. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Chase? By default, instances of x are not exceptions to the rules about x. Asserting that something is an exception does not make it an exception. We're going to need to see an argument to support the claim that this is an exceptional case. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has been presented multiple times: if you purchase the album in a store (not on iTunes), the cover being proposed for deletion is the main (standard edition) cover for the album. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep seeing as I thought it'd be appropriate and wanted to add the album's "super deluxe" art. But after reading the arguments I'd have to say Delete. Both versions of the artwork can be described through words, plus the main one got more exposure and all the controversy and memes.--Chrishm21 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then most modern album covers need to go since most of them aren't generating controversy or memes Chase (talk | contributions) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, one cover for identification is enough. Two covers are not required to identify a said album. Readers are not dumb. —IB[ Poke ] 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of intelligence or lack thereof. This comment completely ignores the unique circumstances of how the multiple covers are distributed. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no unique circumstances. J Milburn clarified it before also, if its an extra cover, it needs such rationale to indicate its importance and addition to the article when a cover artwork already exists. —IB[ Poke ] 11:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point of cover images, as footnote 1 on the WP:NFC policy page explains, is to show how the album was marketed, branded, and associated with identifying images. This is considered to be a significant part of the knowledge of the topic an article should convey, and therefore, as the footnote states, usage is considered to satisfy NFCC #8 "implicitly" -- i.e. even without further comment. Alternate images should not be presented if they are essentially similar to the image; or if they only relate to a release of minor importance. When an alternate cover is associated with a release that is not just of minor importance -- i.e. the dominant release for a major period of time, or the original release, or a release in a dominant market -- then that marketing, branding and identifying information is similarly a significant piece of knowledge to convey about the topic, so equally passes the bar set by NFCC #8. This is the long-established consensus: to show how the album was identified is significant; and if the album was identified in more than one way, then both ways can be significant. The question here is whether or not "physical" media is still to be considered a significant format, in a download era. Comparative sales figures would be useful, and don't seem to be entirely easy to extract from the article, but I am guessing that, even today, "physical" still probably accounts for a strong substantial fraction of sales, so how the physical release was marketed, branded and identified should be continue to be considered significant, per WP:NFC footnote 1. Jheald (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is an album cover, not the single cover. Mere recognition is one thing; discussing or not discussing the image is another. Omitting this image would mislead readers into believing that the other image is the only physical front cover of the album. In contrast, there are regional front covers of other older albums. For example, Fever (Kylie Minogue album) has regional covers, but I removed the US front cover of Fever, which I uploaded, because omitting it does not affect readers' understanding of the album and its regional releases anymore and because it is the same artwork for In Your Eyes (Kylie Minogue song). Also, Highway to Hell has regional front cover, which totally meet the NFC criteria because they were used for a long time. This Rebel Heart situation is different because I see artworks for, respectively, digital and physical releases. I don't know how regional the album is unless the physical cover is not used outside the US, right? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2016 (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.
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2016+March+23%23File%3ASelena+Gomez+-+Revival+%28Official+Standard+Cover%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
