< January 30	February 1 >

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--we can't use non-free media like this to identify persons for whom we have several free alternatives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been here since 2007. It is of absolutely horrible resolution - so incredibly pixelated and distorted that no one could possibly make a legible copy of it to subvert copyright. It's as FUR as it gets, IMHO. Doc talk 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does in no way affect the understanding of the article, so it clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's merely your opinion - how you or anyone else can arbitrarily decide what FU image can "affect the understanding" of an article is the reason why #8 is so pathetically full of holes. A disgusting portion of a policy that should be changed. No firm rules on Wikipedia? Damned right. Banish fair usage and appropriate non-free image tagging and rationales - because it's a complete and utter joke. Doc talk 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some rules are by nature subjective, and this is one of them. You should also keep in mind that no-one arbitrarily decides things here; that is the purpose of consensus-based discussion. Stefan is merely expressing his own opinion, as you are expressing yours. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My frustration is not directed towards any particular editor. How many FA video game articles rely solely on FU images? Why do they not get challenged for removal? Politics and willful ignorance. I didn't upload this FU image, and it's one of the last I'll defend, I'm sure. Cheers... Doc talk 08:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly superfluous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From 2006, this has been drive-by tagged along with the image above it. The resolution is significantly lower than the original. There should be a better way to reach 2,000,000 edits than stripping articles of fair-use images that have been there for years. Doc talk 08:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What on earth in all of this is supposed to count as an argument for this image passing WP:NFC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What - like #8? All non-free images could be deleted on that weak basis, which is why I gave up on uploading non-free images long ago. It's a joke. Those images have been in the article for so many years, and just now an "invalid FUR" is the reason for deletion? Not a request to fix the FUR: because FUR is basically ignored as "non-free" stuff to be deleted, regardless of the rationale. I'm voting to keep it, I don't really need to explain further why: and I'm sure it will be deleted anyway. Whatever. Doc talk 08:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails several of the non-free content criteria:

WP:NFCC#1: It says that "The image [...] only [is] used to establish what the subjects looks like" but there are free photos of the subjects. For example, there are several freely licensed images at Commons:Category:Eagles (band).

WP:NFCC#8: The image doesn't affect the understanding of the article, so its removal wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the article.

WP:NFCC#10a: The image is sourced to the page http://rateyourmusic.com but it is not used on that page. The source is invalid and the file doesn't currently have a valid source.

WP:NFCC#10c: The fair use rationale must indicate the title of the article to which it refers, but the title is not currently indicated anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong on #10c: the article title is Eagles (band), very clearly listed on the image page. #2 is met so clearly with this image that it is pathetic. #1 and #8 are the most ridiculous, rule-spinning reasons to delete these images. Even heavily pixelated, shrunken, appropriately tagged FUR images have no place here; and it is sickening to me that an article that has had hem them for six years gets drive-by tagged and thrown under the bus. There are no free images of several of the band members, and certainly no free images of the band at the very different stages and lineups of their career. But even these appropriately marked images cannot be here. It sucks that #'s 1 and 8 totally control these deletion discussions, because they are so vague and open to different interpretations. Do you worst... Doc talk 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be minded to keep (though ideally the image should be replaced with a better scan of the same size that wasn't so heavily pixelated), The ultimate source is given: it's from the inner sleeve of the album Hotel California, so that seems clear enough. In my opinion, it does add to reader understanding of the topic to show what the band looked like at the height of their fundamental original success, rather than now decades later; and given the wide circulation of this picture in a key context officially issued by the band, then if a fair-use image is to be used at all, this one seems quite a good choice. Jheald (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted with a consensus of 3:2. Is that the standard for consensus to delete images? What about 3:3, tipped by the closing admin. Horseshit. Doc talk 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

While this is a great image, it's unfortunatly released under a CC-BY-NC-SA license, which is not compatable with Wikipedia's licensing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just an error in assigning it a classification; the photographer gave full rights to use the image. I don't know how to change the licensing to reflect that there is no problem in its use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Well, do you have the original email or document that granted the full rights? A WP:OTRS submission would clear everything up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion here, there appears to be confirmation that the image was in fact released under a ((cc-zero)) license, so I'd like to withdraw this FfD. (The notice should still be sent to WP:OTRS.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a different cover illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The usage exactly matches the criteria of when we accept alternate cover art to fulfill the purposes of NFCI#1. (See also discussions of Still cover.jpg versus Shaggymrloverloverus.jpg on January 24. When there is a different dominant image associated with an album, either in a key territory for the album, or that has replaced a previous dominant image associated with the album, then to achieve the aims set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 it is appropriate to show both images. This is reflected in the guidance at ((Infobox album)), the essence of which has been run past WT:NFC several times
If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included.

Showing how the album was released in the U.S. in addition to how it was previously released in Europe appears to exactly conform to that guidance. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep both covers as they illustrate two different releases of the album in different times and places and they are totally different design. Also this is fully in line with the infobox album template suggested usage and this version in particular is important to illustrate the cover used in most of the US releases as well as in the most recent CD releases (the one I own by example). On the other side the original cover was mostly used in european LP releases.Lvazquez (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a different cover illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover is necessary to identify the single. If these covers are deleted, that would destroy the article. The 4 nominations of Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku single covers seem completely random. How did the nominator choose which covers to delete? All editions are equally important. I could have put them in another order. Actually, I wanted to put them in another order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One cover is enough to identify the product. Since all but one of the covers have to be deleted, it was necessary to decide to keep one of them. If you want to use one of the other covers instead, then that's fine, but the article should only contain one cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, for Japanese releases one cover is not enough. There are 3 editions with different tracklists. Where does it say in the rules that one cover is enough? I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the identifiability of the single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unless you can find reviews discussing the different covers in more than passing or with more than just a description. WP:NFCI specificall states that "Cover art from various items [may be used] for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The only regular exception to this is the first image, usually used in the infobox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are all needed to identify the items. For example, Oricon usually uses the limited A editions to illustrate their charts. But the limited editions will be out of print sooner of later (maybe, in a few months, in a year or several years), so the cover of the regular edition is absolutely necessary for the identification of the item. (I also replied to Stefan2 below.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NFCI says "several items" but this is one item, the one that is discussed in the article, the main topic, not some other items. There is no way to decide: "The CD looks like this, the other pictures aren't needed". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Per WP:NFCC#8 the cover must be left in the article cause it increases "readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". One or two items can't "convey equivalent significant information" (I'm quoting WP:NFCC#8). This is absolutely so, therefore please don't do it anymore. I actually put a special effort in making the CD recognizable and the article useful to the readers. You randomly decided to pick the first cover and that other covers weren't needed. Why did you decide that one cover was enough and how did you pick the necessary one? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide essential information, and I assure you that this information is essential. Please don't destroy the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just want to say that my reaction may seem too severe, but these attempted deletions make me think that maybe there's no reason to create articles for any Japanese releases. This is very serious. The articles absolutely need pictures, but someone comes and says "No, 3 pictures aren't allowed, you need to pick one." There are 3 covers that are equal in their importance and are equally needed to identify the single, I can't pick one. I will now be afraid that all the covers I have uploaded will be deleted. I have created not only stubs like these, but much nicer articles. And a nice complete article about a Japanese release must have all the covers. Will people now destroy all of them because they interpret the rules as "one picture per article"? Also, in the future I will be afraid to upload images and make articles better. For example: I created the article about "Help Me!!" by Morning Musume. I decided to use the cover of the Regular Edition A in the infobox simply because I liked the cover most and I was too lazy to upload more. Biilboard Japan, indeed, illustrates the single using the Regular Edition (look, "Help Me!!" is at number 2), but Oricon chose the Limited Edition A (here at number 1). Now, I may want to upload another cover and use it as the main image. So should I be afraid that Stefan2 or whoever else decides to delete the other file? I don't want my talk page to be flooded with deletion messages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alternative cover images that are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed pass WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably). One cover may not be sufficient to show how the album has been identified, if it has been identified in different ways. If the dominant way in which the album has been identified has been different, in different key territories or different key periods, then (and only then) alternate cover(s) can be justified to fulfill the aims set out in the footnote to NFCI#1. In this case, Moscowconnection contends that no one cover can be considered primary over the others "There are 3 covers that are equal in their importance ... I can't pick one." In that case (and here I can only defer to those with the specific knowledge of the topic), if we are serious about showing how the album was identified through its cover art, then it is appropriate to show all three images. Jheald (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I see, the Limited A Edition usually sells the most and usually has the prettiest cover. The reason for their popularity is that limited editions have some bonuses and, most importantly, usually they are the ones that include tickets for handshake and autograph sessions. Since sales always plummet the next week after the release, limited editions are the ones that sell the most. But in case of the most popular artists (like AKB48 that sells over million), limited editions disappear from shelves very fast. This particular single didn't sell very well and limited editions can still be bought now, half a year after the release. So we should always leave all the covers to make Japanese CD singles identifiable. By the way, in the case of this single, Oricon used the Limited A (Brasil) Edition cover to illustrate the charts, but in the case of the next Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku's single, Oricon used the Limited A here [1] (at the 3rd place) and the Regular (Subculture) Edition here: [2] (the anime girl with big blue eyes). In the case of "Karikeiyaku no Cinderella", the Chinese Wikipedia chose the Regular (Subculture) Edition cover to illustrate the article 臨時契約的灰姑娘 (the cover that is nominated for deletion 2 nominations lower.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I mentioned in a previous deletion discussion regarding alternate covers, Japanese singles and albums are notorious for releasing multiple covers for their singles, and these releases can have anywhere from one to eight covers in total, and even more in some cases. There is absolutely no loss of information if these alternate covers are deleted, readers will still be able to understand the alternate versions exist without the need of visuals. Unless these covers become subject to critical commentary from secondary reliable sources, they easily fail WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, and their uses are unjustifiable. Moscow Connection seems a little too emotionally attached to these images. I have created a couple of articles of Japanese singles and albums (20 (Twenty), 777: Triple Seven, 777 (We Can Sing a Song!), Call / I4U, Chankapāna, Charge & Go! / Lights, Distance (F.T. Island song), Let It Go!, Neverland (song), Niji (AAA song)... need I go on?) that all had multiple covers, yet these articles are doing just fine with one image. — ξ^xplicit 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This cover actually illustrates the first A-side, while the limited A cover says "Brasil" and illustrates a B-side. I'm not "too emotional", I do believe that the article needs all three covers. They all are widely distributed and all are important. -Moscow Connection (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it fail WP:NFCC#3? It passes 3b cause the picture is low resolution. NFCC#3a is rather vague and subject to different interpretation. You interpret it in favor of deleting, which I don't think is fair. It's like, when someone wants to delete a picture, whith these vague guidelines there's always a way to be found. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My reaction is due to my seeing that there are people who may simply want to delete all additional pictures from all my articles in the future. And these guidelines allow any unfree picture to be deleted. As you may understand, this is not a very encouraging thing for me to know. I've browsed through other deletion discussions, and to a person new to the part of Wikipedia, it looks like there are people who simply want to delete pictures. I really don't understand. The rules may be interpreted in favor, why interpret them the other way? (I'm not saying this about anyone in particular. And I'm not saying my articles are good, I'm actually embarrased of what I create. I see many good writers here, I'm not one of them. But still, I want even this stub to be a little closer to being an informative article, and the covers are necessary for that purpose. If these covers are deleted, then Wikipedia readers will be denied from even seeing what the CD looks like. I find it sad.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a different cover illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover is necessary to identify the single. If these covers are deleted, that would destroy the article. The 4 nominations of Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku single covers seem completely random. How did the nominator choose which covers to delete? All editions are equally important. I could have put them in another order. Actually, I wanted to put them in another order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One cover is enough to identify the product. Since all but one of the covers have to be deleted, it was necessary to decide to keep one of them. If you want to use one of the other covers instead, then that's fine, but the article should only contain one cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, for Japanese releases one cover is not enough. There are 3 editions with different tracklists. Where does it say in the rules that one cover is enough? I used this cover in the article at first: [3]. I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the indentifiability of the single. I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the identifiability of the single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unless you can find reviews discussing the different covers in more than passing or with more than just a description. WP:NFCI specificall states that "Cover art from various items [may be used] for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The only regular exception to this is the first image, usually used in the infobox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are all needed to identify the items. For example, Oricon usually uses the limited A editions to illustrate their charts. But the limited editions will be out of print sooner of later (maybe, in a few months, in a year or several years), so the cover of the regular edition is absolutely necessary for the identification of the item. (I also replied to Stefan2 below.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NFCI says "several items" but this is one item, the one that is discussed in the article, the main topic, not some other items. There is no way to decide: "The CD looks like this, the other pictures aren't needed". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Per WP:NFCC#8 the cover must be left in the article cause it increases "readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". One or two items can't "convey equivalent significant information" (I'm quoting WP:NFCC#8). This is absolutely so, therefore please don't do it anymore. I actually put a special effort in making the CD recognizable and the article useful to the readers. You randomly decided to pick the first cover and that other covers weren't needed. Why did you decide that one cover was enough and how did you pick the necessary one? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide essential information, and I assure you that this information is essential. Please don't destroy the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just want to say that my reaction may seem too severe, but these attempted deletions make me think that maybe there's no reason to create articles for any Japanese releases. This is very serious. The articles absolutely need pictures, but someone comes and says "No, 3 pictures aren't allowed, you need to pick one." There are 3 covers that are equal in their importance and are equally needed to identify the single, I can't pick one. I will now be afraid that all the covers I have uploaded will be deleted. I have created not only stubs like these, but much nicer articles. And a nice complete article about a Japanese release must have all the covers. Will people now destroy all of them because they interpret the rules as "one picture per article"? Also, in the future I will be afraid to upload images and make articles better. For example: I created the article about "Help Me!!" by Morning Musume. I decided to use the cover of the Regular Edition A in the infobox simply because I liked the cover most and I was too lazy to upload more. Biilboard Japan, indeed, illustrates the single using the Regular Edition (look, "Help Me!!" is at number 2), but Oricon chose the Limited Edition A (here at number 1). Now, I may want to upload another cover and use it as the main image. So should I be afraid that Stefan2 or whoever else decides to delete the other file? I don't want my talk page to be flooded with deletion messages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alternative cover images that are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed pass WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my rationale at #File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee - Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai (Rock Lee Edition, DFCL-1921) cover.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But how did you determine what cover to use? You actually vote to delete the regular edition cover, the one that will be reprinted for years when the limited editions go out of print. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a different cover illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover is necessary to identify the single. If these covers are deleted, that would destroy the article. The 4 nominations of Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku single covers seem completely random. How did the nominator choose which covers to delete? All editions are equally important. I could have put them in another order. Actually, I wanted to put them in another order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One cover is enough to identify the product. Since all but one of the covers have to be deleted, it was necessary to decide to keep one of them. If you want to use one of the other covers instead, then that's fine, but the article should only contain one cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, for Japanese releases one cover is not enough. There are 3 editions with different tracklists. Where does it say in the rules that one cover is enough? I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the identifiability of the single. I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the identifiability of the single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unless you can find reviews discussing the different covers in more than passing or with more than just a description. WP:NFCI specificall states that "Cover art from various items [may be used] for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The only regular exception to this is the first image, usually used in the infobox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are all needed to identify the items. For example, Oricon usually uses the limited A editions to illustrate their charts. But the limited editions will be out of print sooner of later (maybe, in a few months, in a year or several years), so the cover of the regular edition is absolutely necessary for the identification of the item. (I also replied to Stefan2 below.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NFCI says "several items" but this is one item, the one that is discussed in the article, the main topic, not some other items. There is no way to decide: "The CD looks like this, the other pictures aren't needed". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Per WP:NFCC#8 the cover must be left in the article cause it increases "readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". One or two items can't "convey equivalent significant information" (I'm quoting WP:NFCC#8). This is absolutely so, therefore please don't do it anymore. I actually put a special effort in making the CD recognizable and the article useful to the readers. You randomly decided to pick the first cover and that other covers weren't needed. Why did you decide that one cover was enough and how did you pick the necessary one? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide essential information, and I assure you that this information is essential. Please don't destroy the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just want to say that my reaction may seem too severe, but these attempted deletions make me think that maybe there's no reason to create articles for any Japanese releases. This is very serious. The articles absolutely need pictures, but someone comes and says "No, 3 pictures aren't allowed, you need to pick one." There are 3 covers that are equal in their importance and are equally needed to identify the single, I can't pick one. I will now be afraid that all the covers I have uploaded will be deleted. I have created not only stubs like these, but much nicer articles. And a nice complete article about a Japanese release must have all the covers. Will people now destroy all of them because they interpret the rules as "one picture per article"? Also, in the future I will be afraid to upload images and make articles better. For example: I created the article about "Help Me!!" by Morning Musume. I decided to use the cover of the Regular Edition A in the infobox simply because I liked the cover most and I was too lazy to upload more. Biilboard Japan, indeed, illustrates the single using the Regular Edition (look, "Help Me!!" is at number 2), but Oricon chose the Limited Edition A (here at number 1). Now, I may want to upload another cover and use it as the main image. So should I be afraid that Stefan2 or whoever else decides to delete the other file? I don't want my talk page to be flooded with deletion messages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alternative cover images that are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed pass WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, decorative, fails WP:NFCC#3a Stifle (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it fail WP:NFCC#3a? It's a vague guideline that allows any fair-use picture to be deleted if someone really wants to. You interpret it in favor of deleting, which I don't think is fair. I interpret it in favor of leaving the cover. If you look at the covers, it's easy to notice that they are completely different, therefore if one cover "conveys" "significant information", three covers convey roughly three times the amount of information. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my rationale at #File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee - Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai (Rock Lee Edition, DFCL-1921) cover.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you actually vote to delete the regular edition cover, the one that will be reprinted for years when the limited editions go out of print. The cover is essential. I'm not "too emotional" as you commented above, I do believe that these deletions are senseless, destroy the articles, and discourage me personally from creating better articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a different cover illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover is necessary to identify the single. If these covers are deleted, that would destroy the article. The 4 nominations of Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku single covers seem completely random. How did the nominator choose which covers to delete? All editions are equally important. I could have put them in another order. Actually, I wanted to put them in another order. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One cover is enough to identify the product. Since all but one of the covers have to be deleted, it was necessary to decide to keep one of them. If you want to use one of the other covers instead, then that's fine, but the article should only contain one cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, for Japanese releases one cover is not enough. There are 3 editions with different tracklists. Where does it say in the rules that one cover is enough? I used this cover in the article at first: [4]. I assure you that if the covers are deleted, that would destroy the identifiability of the single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unless you can find reviews discussing the different covers in more than passing or with more than just a description. WP:NFCI specificall states that "Cover art from various items [may be used] for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The only regular exception to this is the first image, usually used in the infobox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are all needed to identify the items. For example, Oricon usually uses the limited A editions to illustrate their charts. But the limited editions will be out of print sooner of later (maybe, in a few months, in a year or several years), so the cover of the regular edition is absolutely necessary for the identification of the item. (I also replied to Stefan2 below.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NFCI says "several items" but this is one item, the one that is discussed in the article, the main topic, not some other items. There is no way to decide: "The CD looks like this, the other pictures aren't needed". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Per WP:NFCC#8 the cover must be left in the article cause it increases "readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". One or two items can't "convey equivalent significant information" (I'm quoting WP:NFCC#8). This is absolutely so, therefore please don't do it anymore. I actually put a special effort in making the CD recognizable and the article useful to the readers. You randomly decided to pick the first cover and that other covers weren't needed. Why did you decide that one cover was enough and how did you pick the necessary one? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide essential information, and I assure you that this information is essential. Please don't destroy the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just want to say that my reaction may seem too severe, but these attempted deletions make me think that maybe there's no reason to create articles for any Japanese releases. This is very serious. The articles absolutely need pictures, but someone comes and says "No, 3 pictures aren't allowed, you need to pick one." There are 3 covers that are equal in their importance and are equally needed to identify the single, I can't pick one. I will now be afraid that all the covers I have uploaded will be deleted. I have created not only stubs like these, but much nicer articles. And a nice complete article about a Japanese release must have all the covers. Will people now destroy all of them because they interpret the rules as "one picture per article"? Also, in the future I will be afraid to upload images and make articles better. For example: I created the article about "Help Me!!" by Morning Musume. I decided to use the cover of the Regular Edition A in the infobox simply because I liked the cover most and I was too lazy to upload more. Biilboard Japan, indeed, illustrates the single using the Regular Edition (look, "Help Me!!" is at number 2), but Oricon chose the Limited Edition A (here at number 1). Now, I may want to upload another cover and use it as the main image. So should I be afraid that Stefan2 or whoever else decides to delete the other file? I don't want my talk page to be flooded with deletion messages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alternative cover images that are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed pass WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my rationale at #File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee - Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai (Rock Lee Edition, DFCL-1921) cover.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The cover passes WP:NFCC#3 and I commented above that the whole series of attempted deletions seems senseless, there are two covers of regular editions are being proposed. People actually designed several covers to illustrate different aspects of the release. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of publication. This looks like a family photo, so it is likely unpublished. It says that the photographer died in 1975. The copyright to a unpublished photo by an identified photographer expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, but the photographer has only been dead for approximately 40 years. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in both articles, so fair use is no option. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... Will it be deleted? If yes, can I uploaded it again after the article about Nicolau is created? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are free photos of the person, then yes, it can be used in an article about the person, but there is currently no such article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (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.

January 31

File:Deperado3.jpg

File:Htelcal.jpg

File:Texaco13.jpg

File:Astor Piazzola and Gerry Mulligan - Summit album cover.jpg

File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee - Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai (Rock Lee Edition, DFCL-1921) cover.jpg

File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee - Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai (Subculture Edition, DFCL-1922) cover.jpg

File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Karikeiyaku no Cinderella (Subculture Edition, DFCL-1887) cover.jpg

File:Shiritsu Ebisu Chūgaku - Karikeiyaku no Cinderella (Limited B Edition, DFCL-1886) cover.jpg

File:Winblad Cuba 04b hires.jpg

File:José Maria Nicolau.jpg