< March 26	March 28 >

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr does declare CC-BY-2.0, but the flickr account is that of the subject not the photographer. There is no evidence the photographer has made any such license-release. Other files tagged "Alejandro Silva" on flickr have more-restrictive licenses. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2020 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being of low resolution, the image appears to have been altered to include a sunburst or lens flare effect that obscures the subject and renders it an unsuitable image for encyclopedic purposes. This is a notable monument, for which many high-quality, freely-licensed images already exist. — AJDS ^talk 05:01, 27 March 2020 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Painting is mirrored for no apparent reason (original: [1]). Also falsely uploaded as non-free, should of course be PD-old. Correctly oriented copy already exists at File:Kolokotronis01.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 27 March 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Ebba Grön 1978 - 1982.svg on Commons. Not eligible for WP:CSD#F8 due to different file formats and for images not being similar enough. Ə XPLICIT 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2020 (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: Deleted by @Explicit -FASTILY 00:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the files listed here are about to be removed due to violating criteria #8 of the WP:NFCCP, which states that "the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". I asked the person who nominated the files for deletion to clarify on why here, but only got a vague response stating that they do not agree with the inclusion of two covers on the same page. This contradicts Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, which states that "an alternative 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". Although the template also states that the covers need to be that "the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion", the first two songs' album article provides sourced information on the German release, which are the first two files listed.

In regards to the files for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart", both songs were initially released in Germany, which peaked on their charts at numbers ten and four respectively. After the re-release of both songs in the US a year later, they peaked at number thirteen and fifty-nine on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart respectively. Readers who were unfamiliar of their start in Germany would presumably be unaware that both songs had a major presence there, which would meet the requirements for criteria #8, as they would recognize the exclusivity and popularity in Germany through the cover art. Although I am able to gather sources for the group's US expansion, I am unable to find many sources for their German debut, as most of them are found on magazines and newspapers published over twenty years ago, and are written in German, which I am unable to understand nor read.

For the "It's Gonna Be Me" file, the CD itself is stated to be a limited edition cover, which has been confirmed by Amazon, as well as WP:UGC sites such as Discogs and eBay. Although they aren't allowed to be explicitly referenced, the song's main album article provides a detailed explanation on the concept of the members portraying marionettes on the cover. This cover also meets the requirements for the extra album cover template, which requests for artwork significantly different from the original, as well indirectly meeting the subject of the sourced material for both the album artwork, and the cover itself from Amazon as the only source that doesn't require user-generated content.

In conclusion, the first two files were originally released in Germany and peaked at higher positions than in the US, warranting readers who are only familiar with the song's re-release to understand the origin and initial success of the songs. The last file is a special limited edition CD that depicts the band members as marionettes, similarly shown in the No Strings Attached album. Although I was unable to find sources that acknowledge the limited edition CD cover without violating WP:UGC, the album's article explains the concept of the members portraying marionettes in heavy detail, which can be potentially added as a caption. All three files meet the criteria for the album cover template, having covers that are significantly different from the original, and are widely distributed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw per this: "An alternative 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 alternative 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.". I didn't know of this interpretation. Maybe there should be a separate template for alternative covers? If it's okay I can try to make one. It shouldn't be that hard.Jonteemil (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all alternative covers – Regardless of what Template:infobox album#Template:Extra album cover says and other sources, the fact that the "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" performed well and successfully on the charts some time before the US releases helps justify using those images. Furthermore, the US special limited edition of "It's Gonna Be Me" should be also kept, despite (supposed?) limited physical availability of the product, because it illustrates part of the song's US success, though Billboard relaxed its rules of Hot 100 some time before the rise of the digital age. Let's treat those as an exception to the template rule per WP:GUIDES, shall we? George Ho (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images fail per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; additional artwork is not required to further help readers understand the intent of the article. Images do not different greatly from main image included. Simply uploaded by user to have their own preferred uploads in article. livelikemusic talk! 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire section entitled Artwork, so it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3a. Besides, one of the main points of the album is its artwork. Its a double album and shows the "two sides" to Beyoncé through its artwork. Therefore it doesn't fail either WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8. While I appreciate the assumption on my reasoning for the upload, I uploaded it to put in the artwork section of the article to give context. --Calhounmuse (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the differences of images can be explained by text, and do not need to be visually aided. 3a does apply, because the main infobox image can and does convey the appropriate information. And 8 does apply, because its exclusion is not a detriment to the article and a readers' understanding. I fail to see why this album, in particular, it is important to include them, when other articles have had multiple FfD's concerning multiple album covers. WP:NFCC exists in this case, and it should be enforced. I must also mention you mentioned #3a in this edit, when, in reality, the alternate cover (unlike the ones above) does differ. So, I ask, why does the one you removed violate, while yours significantly does not?

Looking at the discussion above, I must quote this: This contradicts Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, which states that "an alternative 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. The file above does not provide a significantly different depiction of the original; it's an image of Beyoncé with the album's title, in alternate form. livelikemusic talk! 01:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. That quote was actually helpful. The passive aggressiveness and assuming from earlier isn't, but the quote is.

I think the photos would be a nice and informative addition, but I guess they violate the rules, so have at it. --Calhounmuse (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2020 (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: Missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 00:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image was uploaded to circumvent current Commons undeletion discussion. Furthermore, OTRS as not been able to determine its copyright status under Ticket:2020031810005472. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A version of this image was previous deleted as it did not specify the source. However, now the user does and it is protected by copyrights in Nepal. File:Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with daughter Choore Maharani Dibya Rajam Laxmi wife Sita Bada Maharani.jpg. Courtesy Ping @Explicit:. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no doubt that the photograph was published in Nepal in 1930 first. ((PD-Nepal)) There is no evidence that the photograph was published in the USA or any country besides Nepal. The intended purpose of the photograph was clear - for Bhim Shumsher to have his family photographed and then for that photograph to be displayed in the offices of the state and the Nepal Museum. This practice was widely used by all ruling families of Nepal. Bhim Shumsher was an unknown figure in the USA and the USA had virtually no interest in Nepal in the 1930s. Therefore, it is just not plausible that the photograph was published in the USA as there would be little financial gain for the photographer. However, the incentives were clear for Bhim Shumsher to have this photograph published in Nepal at the earliest - to build his credibility as ruler shortly after his coronation and to be widely recognised among his subjects. The only financial or non-financial gain for the photographer was to be paid to take the photograph in a private capacity for the benefit of the Nepali state and this was the only plausible route. The intellectual property and copyright always rested with Nepal, not any other foreign jurisdiction. Hence, in light of the above evidence, it is absolutely clear that this photograph does not breach any applicable copyright laws. It should be disclosed as public domain, not under license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs2794 (talk • contribs) 16:20, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This work was first published in Nepal and is now in the public domain because its copyright protection has expired by virtue of the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002).((PD-Nepal))

Comment: This is an important photograph that in the public domain since 1930 in Nepal that shows the history of Nepal, and the citizens of this proud nation should not be denied their history, especially as there is no breach of copyright laws.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs2794 (talk • contribs) 16:20, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ZI Jony under WP:CSD#F9 with the reason: "find somewhere else" FASTILY 21:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Possible copyright violation, no permission to reuse. (definitely not own work). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:52, 28 March 2020 (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.

March 27

File:GQPortugalElieFahed.jpeg

File:Porziuncola.jpg

File:Theodoros Kolokotronis painting.jpg

File:Ebba Grön 1978 - 1982.jpg

NSYNC single covers

File:I Am... Sasha Fierce Covers.png

File:Maharaj Bhim Shumsher daughter Chhore Maharani Somgarbha Dibyeshwari Rajya Laxmi and wife Sita Bada Maharani.jpg

File:Madonna Sebastian from Kavan Tamil movie.jpg