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.
I have yet to find a reliable source discussing various artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack. The artwork itself fails to enhance readers' understanding of the soundtrack itself, especially when details about the artworks are not yet found. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Also, it spiritually does the same purpose as the other artwork, regardless of differences between the two images, like having cast names in one cover and lacking them in the other. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#3a. FWIW, I prefer the one with cast names on the front cover, so this (other) artwork has to go. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More troubling is that I could not find an album using this "cover" on Amazon or official Warner Music store. I would suspect this image to be a fake unless I'm proven wrong.George Ho (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Firstly, there are no 'various' artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack, it's only 2. The 'Reimagined' one is a whole nother album and has nothing to do with the soundtrack album. Secondly, about the alternative cover, it does have reliable sources including, O, The Oprah Magazine & Harpo Productions for Oprah's Favorite Things list, Smule & bsaber.com and not only the alternative cover does not fail the WP:NFCC#8, it also makes a contribution to the user's understanding of the materials from the soundtrack album, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone; it reflects the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie, and not having the cast names written on the cover is not a reason since there are a lot of album/single artworks that are textless including 25, Liberation, Hello, etc. And lastly the difference between the 1st & the alternative cover; the soundtrack album was promoted and on pre-order sale a couple of months prior to the film's premiere with this alternative cover. That's why the 2017 Oprah's Favorite Things list, published on February 2017, presented the album with this cover.[1] then alongside with the film's premiere on December the album was released in full with the other cover and thence to iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc. Bionic (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying the existence of the alternative cover and confirming that the cover is a pre-order artwork. However, I still stand by the rest of my rationale. IMHO, nevertheless, even confirming the pre-order cover's existence and "the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie", which the other (widely distributed) cover also does, neither would compel me to reconsider the nomination nor sufficiently explain why removing the alternative cover is harmful to the understand of the soundtrack. I must also say that, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an alternative album cover must be not "essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc". However, to me, the alternative cover, which has not been "widely distributed", fails to be essentially different from the (other) widely released artwork. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it comes to art, 'different' could be subjective. From my point of view, it is essentially different because in terms of visual art, the imaging is unlike in nature; one is photography and the other's painting. Bionic (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFCC 3a and 8. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, 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. Though used for a couple of months and on a limited number of websites, I do not believe it has been widely distributed enough to count (and it doesn't "replace the original" – exactly the opposite is true). — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is 'significantly different' though. Bionic (talk) 16:12, 28 April 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.
File:The Greatest Showman Reimagined cover.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having the word "Reimagined" on the front cover, the album cover looks almost identical to one of other covers, making the difference between this album cover and the other image(s) very minimal at best and less than substantial. The whole title and track listing are substantial enough for readers to recognize two different releases of The Greatest Showman' soundtrack without needing this image. This image would fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially the same as the original cover with gold-theme than blue. Unnecessary as essentially duplicative. --Masem (t) 14:01, 9 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.
File:The Bartlett School of Architecture logo.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Bartlett School of Architecture logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Originally, the file was used as a means of visual identification for the Bartlett at the top of the article, but has since been replaced by a logo representing the Faculty as a whole and not just the School of Architecture. This logo no longer serves its original intended purpose and can be removed from Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Black Mirror - The National Anthem.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is possible that an image of the princess on the bridge is more seminal than this in the context of the piece. However, this is also fundamental, but perhaps needs more explanation. Certainly no rationale for deletion, just a rationale for improved discussion around the significance. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just by googling the title i was able to find pics that better represent the story\main character struggles Daveout (talk) 15:33, 10 April 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I remember there had been a better image before but regardless, this is a case where the idea of an animated blue bear being a main candidate in a major election was the subject of discussion and that was before 2016 when we got Trump; this episode's drawn more attention since. I'm not sure if this image is the best but an image involving Waldo from this episode to show that does have fair game to be kept in this article. --Masem (t) 13:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that this image is a promotional image released specifically to illustrate the episode. It depicts all the main characters, including Waldo. I replaced our previous image (something like this) with the new one before nominating it as a GA, as it lacked an appropriate fair use rationale. I also didn't like how the previous image obscured part of Waldo's face. Of course Waldo's animation and design is the part of the image that is discussed throughout the article so perhaps consensus would emerge for an image with Waldo more prominent, but my first choice is still the current image, where Waldo's face is still fully visible but we also see all of the main characters' roles in the episode from a single carefully chosen pose by each of them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 9 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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 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.
File:Black Mirror - Hated in the Nation.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:50, 9 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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one has a storng rationale for keeping, and the discussion in the rationale is repeated in sources made in the episode. The specific scene may not be of discussion, but the selection of editors to find a single shot that reflects on actors, period pieces, etc. as to meet NFCC#8 is fine here. --Masem (t) 13:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale presented by the uploader seems reasonable to me Daveout (talk) 15:03, 10 April 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.
File:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror).jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 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.
File:Black Mirror - Playtest (Black Mirror).jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:16, 3 May 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.
File:Doctor Who 1996 film DVD cvr.jpeg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a DVD cover of a Dr. Who film being used in the commercial releases section of the article. The claimed purpose is "Used to provide a concrete example of the released DVD that is discussed in Doctor Who (1996 film)#Broadcast and releases.". None of the discussion in that section discusses the DVD cover. Understanding the DVD releases is not compromised by the removal of this image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 11:39, 9 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.
File:Doctor Who Ghost Light 2013 album.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
CD cover claimed to be used for primary identification but is in fact used in a section of the article. The only commentary about the cover is a statement that the cover was changed for the reissue. That does not constitute significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:49, 9 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.
File:WesternAlumniHallBanners.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a derivative work of the banner. The banner is in focus so it is not de minimis. MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 10 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.
File:Kiran Nazish interviews Hamid Karzai.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Uploader asserts they are the copyright holder for this image which has been previously published here. WP:OTRS confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 10 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.
File:Tullybevilaqua2006.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
License on Flickr is unfree. No chance license was cc-by-sa-4.0. MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 9 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.
File:Miaolijie2006.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
License on Flickr is unfree. No chance it was ever 4.0. MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 9 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: Uncontested, PNG is generally superior to JPG -FASTILY 03:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the PNG version intentionally to replace the existing JPEG one. I tried switching the JPEG version to the PNG one. Despite PNG being more superior, my efforts were reverted. Therefore, I reinserted the PNG one rather than try again to replace the JPEG version and am taking them both here. Also, the JPEG version contains an edition saying "License for promotion only. Sale is prohibited" as confirmed here. I would have still used JPEG format for the same purpose of using PNG version, i.e replace existing JPEG version with another JPEG one of this (other) retail edition, but I figured that PNG version is more superior. Shall JPEG or PNG format be used? George Ho (talk) 19:08, 9 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.
File:The Spring Connection Suite.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Claimed to be own work but this image is claimed as an EP cover so WP:OTRS confirmation would be needed. This also is a derivative work of this, so the existing copyright needs to be considered. Conversion to fair use would not work as the image's current use is decorative. Whpq (talk) 22:51, 9 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.
File:George Marzbach is the founder of Zamalek club.jpeg
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.
historical image of (notable?) individual, watermarked, dubious PD-old-100 claim; possibly still copyrighted FASTILY 23:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 10 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.
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+March+9%23File%3AThe+Greatest+Showman+Soundtrack+%28Alternative+cover%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+March+9%23File%3AShut+Up+and+Dance+%28Black+Mirror%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+March+9%23File%3ABlack+Mirror+-+Playtest+%28Black+Mirror%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+March+9%23File%3ABaby+%28Brandy+song%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
