Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10 edit

PB020813.JPG edit

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. To be moved to Commons. -Nv8200p talk 13:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PB020813.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skinzfan23 (notify | contribs).

orphan; no description, so can't tell what it is a photo of. Uncia (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Qwest Center Omaha. — neuro^(talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - and so tagged - Peripitus (Talk) 06:33, 14 January 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.

PC040867.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PC040867.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skinzfan23 (notify | contribs).

orphan; no description, so can't tell what it is a photo of. Uncia (talk) 00:13, 10 January 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.

LA County Police.jpg edit

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 CSD I1. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA County Police.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MOOOOOPS (notify | contribs).

This is a duplicate image. Other image is being used on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LA_County_Police_Badge.jpg MOOOOOPS (talk) 01:21, 10 January 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.

NYC Bureau of Water Supply Patch.jpg edit

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per CSD I1. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Bureau of Water Supply Patch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MOOOOOPS (notify | contribs).

Image is a duplicate image. Other image is being used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Bureau_of_Water_Supply_Police_Patch.jpg MOOOOOPS (talk) 01:24, 10 January 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.

03 Bonnie & Clyde UK.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:03 Bonnie & Clyde UK.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer Grk1011 for this and the below deletion discussions to the text in non-free content about what is acceptable Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). - There is no critical commentary and identification alone is not sufficient to meet the NFCC requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about the album...Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peripitus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC requires that an image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, not that there is discussion of it. We explictly recognise, as item #1 under "acceptable images" in WP:NFC, that it is possible for album cover art to pass that test even without any discussion of the art. Jheald (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We explicitly recognise, as item #1 under "acceptable images" in WP:NFC, that showing the cover art used to identify an album in itself directly significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. We don't show album covers just as some sort of random decoration. Rather, we recognise that the album cover is an important part of the story of the album, and a comprehensive article needs to include it. Most albums (unlike books) usually only have one album cover, even worldwide. But where albums have 2 completely different covers, both widely distributed, and both well-known, then it is clear that each of the covers significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. Both covers form part of the understanding that an article should convey to the reader.

In this case, '03 Bonnie & Clyde had completely different covers in the U.S. and the UK. Peripitus asserts that this could somehow simply be replaced with only one. But that would not achieve the same purpose. Just showing the UK cover gives no idea of the identifying image for the album in the U.S., and vice-versa. Jheald (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NFC#Images asks this usage to be identification within the context of critical commentary. Barring critical commentary of the secondary covers, this is not met. We could extend this argument to sound samples from a given album, and by the logic your gathering from WP:NFCC #1 assert that it's acceptable to have sound samples from every song on the album. I don't think this is what it is intended. The idea is to include only as much fair use content as absolutely necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some misunderstanding on "critical commentary". Being that the entire page is about the album, there is or should be sufficient information. Now I think you are looking at it the wrong way. We don't need commentary about the image, rather of what it portrays. For example, a non-free image of a person may be included because she wore something that caused an outrage. The commentary of the image is not of the image itself, but of the subject. You don't see "the image was important because it was taken by such and such a photographer". You are requesting that the commentary be written in a way that is never done, even on cases where non-free images are allowed without controversy. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grk1011 is correct. The acceptable use reads: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The present text was adopted precisely to settle this question. What it demands is the image is used in the context of critical commentary of the item (i.e. in this case, of the album - which the entire article qualifies as), it does not require critical commentary of the image. If you look back in the archives of WT:NFC to when the language was present adopted, you will find it was agreed explicitly to settle this point. Jheald (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peripitus has indicated that there are over 5,000 albums with alternate cover images, and he wants to remove all of them. [1].
- Reponse to Comment - that is a misrepresentation of what is said in the diff noted. I stated that AWB told me there were over 5K to look at. That is 5K articles using the "alternate cover" template. Many of these have no image, have sourced commentary or are no issue for other reasons - Peripitus (Talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before proceeding with deletions on that kind of scale, there needs to be much wider consultation on when alternate cover images do or do not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Input from only six editors is simply not enough to assess the balance of consensus. I therefore suggest that these IfDs should be suspended pending a wider consultation process. Some discussion is already underway at WP:ALBUMS. I suggest that that discussion should be more widely publicised, and instituted as a formal centralised discussion. Jheald (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm tired of chasing around Peripitus from entry to entry writing what I just said or answering something I said the day before. Originally, I copy/pasted my response to each related entry, but it's ludicrous to think that "oh that one will be deleted because I didn't repeat something I said in the entry above it". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is now discussed in the article.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that's not sufficient (although it was the stated reason for deletion), then how about just on normal WP:NFC criteria: criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image, two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not discussed in any meaningful way...there is just a mention - you've added the single line where it featured an album cover distinct from the U.S. cover. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, this is irrelevant. The requirement is not for the cover to be discussed, it is for it to improve reader understanding of the topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: not required for the photo itself to be discussed. The album, the item portrayed by the image, is discussed as per guidelines. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:15, 20 January 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.

Latoyatellme1.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latoyatellme1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhythmnation2004 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I agree that the image identifies the album. But that's not what is currently being debated. What is being debated is whether the image (1) constitutes excessive use of copyrighted content, whether it (2) significantly adds to readers' understanding, and whether its (3) removal would be detrimental to that understanding. Unless you can explain why 1 and 2 can be answered in the negative, and 3 in the positive, then the image should not be used here. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails NFCC 3a and 8. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think anybody above has actually read the page it's used on, the article (Ain't Nobody Loves You) Like I Do.

This image, for "(Tell Me) She Means Nothing to You at All", was for the B-side released in various territories as a completely different disc, with different content. Therefore, explicitly okayed by WP:NFC Acceptable Image Uses #1. Jheald (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:18, 23 January 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.

Maria Magdalena 93.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Magdalena 93.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europe22 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above. Jheald (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cover is very different. (See article (I'll Never Be) Maria Magdalena). Jheald (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:10, 21 January 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.

ItsNotMeTalking-Original.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ItsNotMeTalking-Original.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cover is very different. (See article (It's Not Me) Talking). Appropriate to show this, which was the original cover, as well as the more successful re-release cover. Jheald (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, it would be a good reason to keep the image. Do you have a source for that? Can you add it to the article? If there's discussion of the image, there would be no question. -Freekee (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:08, 21 January 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.

(miss)understood.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:(miss)understood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alessgrimal (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above. Jheald (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CD-DVD cover is quite different to the CD cover. (See article: (Miss)understood). Jheald (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per NFCC#1 - how about the text "For the CD+DVD release mostly the same artwork was used, with her face partly covered by her hands" - Here the image is replaced by a free piece of text - Peripitus (Talk) 07:45, 25 January 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.

Britney Spears - YouDriveMeCrazy.jpg edit

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 because it's a non-free image that can be replaced by text (identical to other cover except it has "The Stop Remix!" tacked on the title). --Sherool (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Britney Spears - YouDriveMeCrazy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover (almost identical to this one) and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image, especially as it is so close to identical to the lead infobox image- Peripitus (Talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually look at this one before I voted...We have to draw the line somewhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this alternative cover is virtually identical to the main cover, so obviously doesn't add significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above.

Delete - not sufficiently different, per Phil Knight. (See article (You Drive Me) Crazy) Jheald (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is now discussed in the article.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)k[reply]

The only mention is the sentence That remix featured its own album cover. The image could be replaced by the text The remix's artwork was largely identical to the original release with the added text "The Stop Remix!" - The current one fails NFCC#1 as well as it is replaceable with text only - Peripitus (Talk) 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously? This is the same image as already in the article but with the addition of a subtitle. Use one or the other, then note the singular difference in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#3 & 8 handily. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:20, 21 January 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.

FOB Live Phoenix DVD.jpg edit

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 non-free image providing no significant infromation not already present (DVD cover identical to already used album cover). --Sherool (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FOB Live Phoenix DVD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Madblast (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover (almost identical to this one) and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After actually looking at it, no. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically the same image. (See article Live in Phoenix) Jheald (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the context of a similar image, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same image, different shape. -Freekee (talk) 05:38, 23 January 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.

Nsync german cover.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nsync german cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boborato (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover is very different. (See article: *NSYNC (album)). Also, this the German cover was the original cover, before the band broke very successfully in the US. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald. It being the original cover significantly increases a reader's understanding of the history of this album. -Freekee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 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.

Radio cov.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio cov.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikipedian boy (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual discussion of the album cover differences or this album cover itself, the image fails WP:NFCC. There's been a recent trend of putting every album cover an album's ever been released under onto the article about that album. This is excessive and unwarranted. We don't do it for books that are re-published, and I see no reason to do it for albums either unless there's a clear reason why the inline text requires it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not required - see above. Jheald (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cover is very different. (See article ...on_the_Radio_(Remember_the_Days)) Jheald (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:50, 25 January 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 Mr T Experience And The Women Who Love Them Special Addition cover.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Mr T Experience And The Women Who Love Them Special Addition cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IllaZilla (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Keep pending wider consultation. Cover is pretty similar. (See article …And the Women Who Love Them). I'd prefer to see the results of wider consultation first, before taking this one further, to see more discussion of whether this is the kind of difference Wikipedia should be documenting or not. Jheald (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the context of a similar image, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:50, 25 January 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.

Phobia2.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phobia2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Asterionix (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cover, branding, and everything on French release is very different. (See article: …Phobia). Jheald (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:07, 21 January 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.

LiveAtTheMarquee.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *The article actually does discuss that for this album ...Twice Shy the record company released a limited edition version as a double CD and LP set. The second CD/LP was titled Live at The Marquee, and included a full live album. This is the cover art for that issue and thus it's purpose is the same as any other album cover art or alternate cover art, includes helping the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Jeffreybh (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes is does mention that there was another release, as many albums have, but this does not automatically justify another copyrighted image. What it does not discuss (in any way let alone a sourced way) is the artwork on the re-release. It must be shown that this image cannot be replaced by text and that it significantly increases readers' understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. While there were two releases, and the article mentions that, nothing would seem to require a second copyrighted image to be used. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Closing admin note. This is the second comment by this editor in this debate Archivey (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon. I messed up on that one. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essentially the cover for a completely different LP. (See article …Twice Shy). Perhaps take out of the infobox, and move directly to the section discussing this, the European-release companion live LP. Jheald (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald - not an alternate cover. I moved the image to the text section as suggested. -Freekee (talk) 05:57, 23 January 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.

Battlelore-WhereTheShadowsLie-ALt.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battlelore-WhereTheShadowsLie-ALt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thineus11 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Existence of alternate cover artwork is a fact itself which requires illustrating. Use of this image is in context of the article, is correctly licensed and provided with an adequate fair use rationale. whether or not it adds to so called ‘significant understanding’ will vary from person to person and is purely subjective and not a reason for deletion on the say so of a single editor. Removal would harm article.Archivey (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Related, but substantially different cover. (See article: …Where the Shadows Lie). Article would benefit from saying when each of the different covers was used; but that's not a sufficient reason to delete. The knowledge of the different cover still contributes significantly improved understanding of how the album was identified. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:07, 21 January 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.

0-12revolutionreissue.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:0-12revolutionreissue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rwiggum (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image, as is listed underneath, is the cover for the re-released version of the album. I don't see how this does not comply with fair use, as it is still a cover for the album, and it is explained as to why it is there. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't comply as there is no discussion at all about the image, within the article. To keep an image it must meet all 10 of the WP:NFCC requirements and, in general, for point 8 (significantly increase readers' understanding) there must be commentary about the image by independant third-parties within the article - Peripitus (Talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a regular non-free image of your favorite celebrity like I said. With an album cover there is no "critical commentary" about the album, rather the album is used to identify the work since the page cannot do that effectively on its own. By not having the image, there is a detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but since the removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article, the image still fails WP:NFCC#8. The rationale is a boilerplate text and is not specific to this use of the image, also possibly failing WP:NFCC#10c. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the removal of the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article (the reissue), it passes criteria 8. There would be no way to effectively identify the reissue without the image, its cover. Its the same case with the original release's cover. If it has an invalid rationale, then one can be typed up, no problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cover is very different. (See article 0:12 Revolution in Just Listening). Jheald (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:55, 21 January 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.

Jewel - 0304 - Europe.jpg edit

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

File:Jewel - 0304 - Europe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The European cover is notably different. (See article: 0304). Jheald (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:56, 21 January 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.

Ciara 1,2stepcover.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciara 1,2stepcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover (mostly identical to this one) and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the context of a similar cover already included, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Keep pending wider consultation. While based on the same underlying photograph, the treatment is substantially different - cropped to a tight close shot, rather than a more distant mid-shot, giving a rather different feel. (See article 1, 2 Step). I'd prefer to see the results of more consultation before progressing this one further, to see wider input on whether this is the kind of difference Wikipedia should be documenting or not. Jheald (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:56, 21 January 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.

Zuspaetmaxi.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011, it does give additional information and illustrates the second version of the single, which is completely different from the original single. Anrod (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:00, 21 January 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.

Cherry Poppin' Daddies - Zoot Suit Riot (Japan LP).jpg edit

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: deleted, although the keep's are in the majority it seems they have just copy & pasted the same argument to every ambum cover discussion on this day indiscriminatively, and everyone else seem to have given up commenting on every single one. As noted by Freekee however this alternative cover is identical to the main one except some Japanese text have been added to the side, so same situation as the more commented on #Britney Spears - YouDriveMeCrazy.jpg and #FOB Live Phoenix DVD.jpg cases above where the consensus clearly was to delete alternative covers where the main artwork is idetical to the "main" version and the only difference is added text or different dimentions. --Sherool (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry Poppin' Daddies - Zoot Suit Riot (Japan LP).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by UnhandledException (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only difference between the US and Japanese covers is the addition of Japanese text along the side. I do not believe this enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. Text can certainly convey that the album was released in Japan. -Freekee (talk) 02:21, 24 January 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.

1,2,3 Soleils us.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1,2,3 Soleils us.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Waseem7 (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:03, 21 January 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.

10HroniaMaziIt'sDestiny.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:10HroniaMaziIt'sDestiny.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Greekboy (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the article it says its the re-release cover and the re-release is discussed. The image passes NFCC#1 as there is no free alternative to illustrate the cover of the re-release. It identifies the re-release of the album, and is just as important as the original cover. This is why we have the alternate cover section in the infobox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to significantly increase readers' understanding that we have another copyrighted image - almost identical to the one in the lead ? This image is not discussed in the article but is simply decorative - Peripitus (Talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. Any cover of the album which is different can be there and this is a longstanding practice, its not like there are only a few articles; it is widely accepted. With your point of view why have the original cover too. I can see if it was the same cover in maybe a different shape, but this cover also has the re-release title on it. The page used to have two infoboxes with one cover in each, so the combined infobox needs both covers. Also please do not use bold as it is improper talk page etiquette. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps a longstanding practice but is also a breach of the clear rules we have to host copyrighted material. Can you please say why the article must have two images - just because it was released with two covers is not a compelling reason - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it should have two for the same reason it should have one. Its not really excessive since it is a different cover and increases the readers understanding in the same way that the original cover does. I would also like to highlight its non-free use rationale as drafted by wikipedia itself through consensus: The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the packaging of the music would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready for my final vote, see below. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The image simply does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes non free criteria as written in its rationale by the Wikipedia:Non-free content. Greekboy (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. An excerpt from the rationale is provided by my last post. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing for same reasons Girk outlines above. There are a number of these alternate album art images Stifle has nominated as IFD here and I would argue that all should be kept for the same reasons. Jeffreybh (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a longstanding convention here that an album may have a single image without justification of its significance for readers. For any additional images there needs to be a good justification of why we host a copyrighted image. The Non-free content criteria requires things that have not been argued here - specifically that it is shown how each image meets each of the 10 non-free criteria points. Arguing that, just because there was an additional release we must host an image is not the intention of the criteria as the same argument applies to each and every release of a book, movie, TV show or other work and there is virtually no limit to the number of images that would be hosted. The template documentation is clear where it states However, please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria.. Where is the sourced commentary from independent third-parties about this image ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's called the page. Should I move the image down to where it talks about the re-release? That's pointless, it does the serves the same purpose where it is. What type of "critical commentary" is missing? The album cover photo was taken by so and so and first printed upon a cd in some year? Your argument does not make sense. Like I said, it passes all 10 criteria, and I'm one of three that agree. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See The_White_Album#Sleeve for a demonstration of how this critical commentary works. Here the image is discussed, though not in a sourced way, or Virgin Killer where the alternate cover is discussed in a sourced way. In each case the image is required for the text to have its full impact on readers. If there were this type of discussion about the additional image we would not be having this deletion discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, it clearly passes all 10 criteria. Your issues, 3A and 8 have been explained: the original release image cannot convey the re-release and it significantly increases the readers understanding by further identifying the topic. In addition, information about the subject of the image is the topic of the page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the context of a similar cover already included, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it may be similar does not matter because the original release cannot represent the re-release. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reading the rationale for the image, which seems to have been drafted by wp:non-free content itself, it appears that it is in fact permissible. I double checked the 10 criteria for inclusion and feel that the original cover cannot represent the new edition as well, even though it is similar. By not having the cover, the "understanding" of the new edition would be diminished simply because the average user may believe that the same cover is used again. The fact that it is a different shape instead also makes it different. Imperatore (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:01, 21 January 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.

Moby18DVD.jpg edit

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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moby18DVD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).

Alternate album/DVD cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album/DVD cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope that this doesn't turn FFD into a pantomime of "oh yes it is" and "oh no it isn't", but I will try to post clearly and cogently. In the argument that Grk1011 has posted to a very large number of FFDs today, he argues that the omission of the image would be a detriment to the understanding of the re-release. That's fine, but the article is not about the re-release of the album — if there were a separate article (or even a specific section in the article) discussing the separate release (as distinct from just providing a track listing), then there may be more justification. This file, however, is not only almost identical to the primary infobox image, but is also simply the cover of the release in a different format. There can be no justification for using both images (although File:Moby18BSides.jpg might be the better one to delete). Stifle (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one I will let go, the cover is only elongated... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:21, 13 January 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.

Spice1-187HeWrote.jpg edit

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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spice1-187HeWrote.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flesh-n-Bone (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra one, without sourced commentary on the image, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those wanting to keep the image have not looked too closely. This image is just the rear of the initial release (I missed this too admittedly) - There is no argument above that we specially need the front and the rear image of the release to clearly identify it - Peripitus (Talk) 07:52, 25 January 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.

U2vid zootvld.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:U2vid zootvld.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover (almost identical to this one) and this extra image, without sourced commentary on the image itself, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by User talk:Grk1011 Archivey (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the image is close to identical to the first one - how does having two close to identical images meet any of the NFcC requirements ? - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 25 January 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.

Zhizn Vo Slavu.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zhizn Vo Slavu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Óðinn (notify | contribs).

DVD cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra image, without sourced commentary on it, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why else is there the Template:Extra album cover 2 if not for this? Óðinn (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is there to allow extra album covers. The instructions though state However, please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria.. The template is simply to facilitate formatting, not a blanket approval for inclusion of extra album images - Peripitus (Talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a tell tale example of when to use an extra album cover. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release of the CD and the DVD. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the DVD and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the CD's appearance. Though the prose in general is lacking, it can be added to in due time. As there is just as much information about the CD as there is for the DVD, what is the reasoning for deleting it? The fact is that there are two non-free images representing two distinct things. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existence of alternate cover artwork is a fact itself which requires illustrating. Use of this image is in context of the article, is correctly licensed and provided with an adequate fair use rationale. whether or not it adds to so called ‘significant understanding’ will vary from person to person and is purely subjective and not a reason for deletion on the say so of a single editor. Removal would harm article. Archivey (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:03, 21 January 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.

Alice nine - Zekkeishoku.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice nine - Zekkeishoku.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Souryoku (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra image, without sourced commentary on it, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per argument presented by user:Grk1011. Archivey (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In rebuttal for much of the above. The image can be replaced with the simple text "for the limited edition release the original artwork was mostly kept, with the background changed to red and the fish to butterflies" - free text replacing a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 07:50, 25 January 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.

Zaman cover 2 d.jpg edit

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--Aervanath (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaman cover 2 d.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blytonite (notify | contribs).

Alternate album cover that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Article already has a copyrighted album cover and this extra image, without sourced commentary on it, fails: NFCC#3 as excessive use and NFCC#8 in not significantly increasing reader's understanding. Image is simply decorative use of a copyrighted image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. One image simply cannot efficiently identify the release and its re-release and/or other edition. The omission is a detriment to the understanding of the re-release and/or other edition and would certainly affect the ability to distinguish it from the original release. Most if not all album covers are not described on the page so that argument is irrelevant, especially since the entire article is dedicated to the album. This is not a picture of your favorite celebrity where you need to say why that specific image is important, no free image could be created and if you read the image rationale that was written through consensus by Wikipedia:Non-free content, it cannot possibly be a violation. Deleting this image would be going against consensus as it currently stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the risk of turning FFD into a pantomime of "oh yes it is" and "oh no it isn't", I would like to explain why my colleague Grk1011 is mistaken. In the argument that he has posted to a very large number of FFDs today, he argues that the omission of the image would be a detriment to the understanding of the re-release. That's absolutely true. However, the article is not about the re-release of the album — if there were a separate article (or even a specific section in the article) discussing the separate release, then there may be more justification. The key way of identifying the album which is the subject of the article is by its name. There can be no justification for using three non-free images in this article. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously given time, more information about the album's re-release will be added as a re-release does not deserve its own page since its background and crucial information is so intertwined with the original release. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Argument and clarification put forward by User:Grk1011. Archivey (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very different covers. (See article Zaman (album)). Most re-issues don't change the cover. Where an album has been issued with a later changed cover that is substantially different, in my opinion this is a significant fact about the album, and the article does "significantly improve the understanding of the topic of the article" if the re-issue cover is shown. This is part of what a article on the album should cover. Jheald (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:05, 21 January 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.

Analeigh09.jpg edit

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 I8 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Analeigh09.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RevDan (notify | contribs).

States "there is a problem with the declaration, because robert did not explicitly state which Creative Commons License he was releasing the images under". That was almost a month ago, this image is licensed without a proper OTRS verification, and the uploader has had sufficient time to verify. — neuro^(talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I dropped the ball on getting this matter resolved with the photographer, I sent him an email today, please allow a few days for a response. -RevDan (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response today, from Robert Dahey, which states explicitly, that the images are released under Creative commons share alike 3.0. I forwarded it to permissions@wikimedia.org and OTRS-Ticket#2008121510014929 should be updated shortly to reflect that. -RevDan (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've received this now, so the image can be kept. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is resolved, the tag should be removed, and the case closed -Misty Willows (talk) 18:16, 12 January 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.

49ers_helmet_logo.png edit

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 ⚡ 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:49ers_helmet_logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718_Bot (notify | contribs).

In the context of File:San Francisco 49ers logo.svg, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 10 January 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.

600_DH_9A.jpg edit

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 ⚡ 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:600_DH_9A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcorian (notify | contribs).

If the image is non-free, then doesn't add much beyond the free image used in the infobox. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 10 January 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.

Sheet1 Chart 3.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet1 Chart 3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stabs79 (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, no target article or use in summary Skier Dude (talk) 22:04, 10 January 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.

ShefamrMap.PNG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShefamrMap.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by M5Power (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, text thereon almost illegible Skier Dude (talk) 22:05, 10 January 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.

Sheet4 Chart 2.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet4 Chart 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stabs79 (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, no target article or use in summary Skier Dude (talk) 22:05, 10 January 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.

Sheet2 Chart 2.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet2 Chart 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stabs79 (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, no target article or use in summary Skier Dude (talk) 22:05, 10 January 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.

Sheet2 Chart 1.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet2 Chart 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stabs79 (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, no target article or use in summary Skier Dude (talk) 22:06, 10 January 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.

Sibo.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:18, 10 January 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.

Shock wave pressure diagram.gif edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shock wave pressure diagram.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AKAF (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:18, 10 January 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.

Shopping map.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shopping map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guucancat (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:20, 10 January 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.

ShortOctaveOnC.PNG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShortOctaveOnC.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Opus33 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, superseded by .svg version Skier Dude (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've restored the link to the original PNG version, which has better graphic quality. So please don't delete it. Thanks, Opus33 (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.

Shqipethangorignalsample.ogg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shqipethangorignalsample.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PreemiumX (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:22, 10 January 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.

Shqipethangremixsample.ogg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shqipethangremixsample.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PreemiumX (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:23, 10 January 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.

Shuch.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, possibly intended for H. Paul Shuch, otherwise UE Skier Dude (talk) 23:24, 10 January 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.

Shungas empire of magadha.GIF edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shungas empire of magadha.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vastu (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:24, 10 January 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.

Sic logo.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sic logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zikomadrid (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:25, 10 January 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.

Sibnarayan Ray 1 2006.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sibnarayan Ray 1 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Faizul Latif Chowdhury (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:26, 10 January 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.

It has been crazy to delete the photo of Sibnarayan Ray. I had uploaded it. Why was I not consulted? Many newspapers and magazines have already used this photo from Wikipedia. This is the only photo available. I myself took it in his residence in Calcutta. This is anarchic indeed. - Faizul Latif Chowdhury, 21 January 2009.

Sibo.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:26, 10 January 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.

Short Satellite.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short Satellite.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TraceyR (notify | contribs).

orphaned, badly cropped screenshot, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:28, 10 January 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.

Shs2.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shs2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vonbloompasha (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:32, 10 January 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.

SialkotMap2.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SialkotMap2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yaminjanjua (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:37, 10 January 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.

Side.png edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Side.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Batmantheman (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:38, 10 January 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.

Sidebar changes.pdf edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidebar changes.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gatoatigrado (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:39, 10 January 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.

Sidon district1.png edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidon district1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FiveRupees (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:40, 10 January 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.

Siemens Landline Phone.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siemens Landline Phone.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chaitanya.lala (notify | contribs).

orphaned, badly cropped Skier Dude (talk) 23:41, 10 January 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.

Sig2.GIF edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sig2.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RCoyle (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its a signature not a map but without a description the image is never going to be used here - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 14 January 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.

SigP226wM3.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SigP226wM3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jtoy1606 (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:41, 10 January 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.

Sigmoid.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned graph, possibly intended for Nonlinear sigmoidal curve, otherwise UE Skier Dude (talk) 23:46, 10 January 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.

Sigmoid2.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sigmoid2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CraigNGC (notify | contribs).

orphaned graph, target article/encyc. use unclear (sigmoid wave?) Skier Dude (talk) 23:47, 10 January 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.

SialkotMap1.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SialkotMap1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yaminjanjua (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:48, 10 January 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.

Signaling pathways of TLR4 again.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signaling pathways of TLR4 again.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Subclavian (notify | contribs).

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:55, 10 January 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.

SignatureCasimirHeymans.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:55, 10 January 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.

Signal splitting and traced-rays.gif edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signal splitting and traced-rays.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Solterdisp (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:55, 10 January 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.

Silentium02.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silentium02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ShadowOne333 (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:56, 10 January 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.

Silentsleepermiddle.JPG edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silentsleepermiddle.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lifeofadaydreamer (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:56, 10 January 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.

Silentsleeperosold.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:56, 10 January 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.

Silicone rubber keypad example 2.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silicone rubber keypad example 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John Peter Hall (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:57, 10 January 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.

SilkRoad-wiki.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SilkRoad-wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kosigrim (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:57, 10 January 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.

Silly plaque.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silly plaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Poposhka (notify | contribs).

orphaned map, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:58, 10 January 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.

Silvano.jpg edit

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, possibly intended for Silvano Maffeis, otherwise UE Skier Dude (talk) 23:59, 10 January 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.