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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mac Miller Watching Movies With The Sound Off Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koala15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Delete. Replaced by File:Mac Miller Watching Movies With The Sound Off Clean Cover.jpg.
  Two versions of the same album cover have been uploaded, where a version without a "Parental Advisory" sticker exists. Albums covers without the sticker are usually preferred (since the sticker is usually added on physically), and there's no rationale under WP:FAIRUSE or Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover that allows both files to exist. Nice4What (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: They are almost identical covers but the "explicit" cover has Miller sitting nude at the table, his convenient placement of the "Parental Advisory" avoiding any indecent exposure, while the "clean" cover has a tablecloth. If you look at iTunes [1] [2], you can notice the slight difference. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2019 (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. Technically one could call this a "keep" consensus as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Goldston01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paul venter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg and closed as "no consensus" even though the only comment seemingly in favor of keeping the file was more of an argument against WP:BDP than an argument showing how the file's non-free use satisfies WP:NFCCP, particularly WP:NFCC#1. In the time since that discussion has been closed, citations to reliable sources clearly showing that the subject of the article is indeed dead have still not be found or at least not added to the article. Searching for such sources on my own has come up empty. WikiProject Spain was asked about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain/Archive 10#Robert Conroy Goldston, but got no response. The file was removed by another editor in April 2018 per NFCC#1, but re-added by the uploader shortly thereafter. The uploader then removed Category:Living people from the article, but another replaced it with Category:Possibly living people. Whether BDP applies to the subject was discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257#Robert Conroy Goldston and the consensus was that "likely dead" and "dead" are not the same when it comes to Wikipedia and persons will only be treated as the latter when reliable sources can be cited for verification or they reach 115 years of age. The BLPN discussion also seem to state that this applies to WP:FREER as well. I don't think that FREER or item 10 of WP:NFCI make allowances for non-free use in cases where a person might be dead; so, I don't see how this non-free use can be justified unless it can actually be verified that Golston has died. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would treat this as a case as a person we know to be recluse, moreso in the sense that no one knows their fate, in which case we should allow for the non-free for identification. I do agree that BDP elements are more towards anything that BLP would be concerned with, but when it comes to non-free, to be consistent when we do allow for non-free for living persons, this type of case would allow it for people whose deaths are not yet known. --Masem (t) 15:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument sort of makes sense for me, at least more sense then simply arguing BDP is unrealistic. Generally, when we use a non-free image for a "recluse" there seems to be sufficient sourcing cited in support of the person actually being someone whose whereabouts are unknown; for example, a person on the run from the law for many years or a missing person known to have been missing for many years where citations are cited in support of such a thing. This, however, seems to be moving into into a more gray area than that in which we allow a non-free image simply because the person-in-question might only possibly be alive per Wikipedia policy. There are 4,830 entries in Category:Possibly living people. I haven't checked each and everyone of these entries, but my guess is that the same general argument could be made for many of them since they probably wouldn't be listed in the category if their respective fates were known. While I'm not trying to argue WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:DELETEALL, I think any discussion about whether interpretating FREER in this way is acceptable would be better done at WT:NFCC instead of here to see whether there's an overall consensus for another "unwritten exception" to be allowed for NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2019 (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.