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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obrigheim Pressblech.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbachmann (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obrigheim Pressblech.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2021 (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⚡ 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obsidianjeep.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skidz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obsidianjeep.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2021 (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: Resolved -FASTILY 22:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luca (2021) poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MinionsFan1998 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image at high resolution. Dominicmgm (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The bot has already done its job. All that's left to do is to add the image to Draft:Luca (2021 film). Dominicmgm (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a bot has already reduced this image to a reasonable size. @Dominicmgm: ((Non-free reduce)) can be tagged to the page to request image size reduction. There is no need for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, DatBot has addressed the resolution issue. Wikiacc (¶) 02:17, 26 February 2021 (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⚡ 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potent Cannabinoid HU308.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MightyMaven (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Chemically incorrect (note site on left ring where the right ring connects to it) as compared to commons:File:HU-308.png. The latter matches PubChem, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (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. ✗plicit 00:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IndianBio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Almost similar to the JPEG version deleted per previous FFD discussion. However, I asked deleting admin about the two. In response, as I was told, WP:G4 isn't applicable due to different color saturation and different brightness/contrast.

I wanted to nominate the image for deletion when it was uploaded in November 2017. However, I initially feared backlash from either the uploader or the Madonna fanbase. Nonetheless, non-free sleeves/covers have been deleted per previous FFD discussions for failing either WP:NFCC#1 and/or WP:NFCC#8. Freer alternatives have been available for use, and deleting a sleeve when a free alternative is available would not affect understanding of songs.

In this case, there are freer images of the single "Holiday" at Commons, like File:Holiday by Madonna US vinyl.png. An overseas picture sleeve would then be replaceable and/or no longer be "contextually significant", even when attractive (or exciting) to readers. Also, freer images of Madonna, especially in concerts, are used in the article. I don't think a non-free sleeve is necessary to identify the singer who recorded the song or the single release (in context), is it? George Ho (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC); oops, 19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The vinyl label is not the same as artwork cover. If it's the case, then all of other singles artwork should be deleted and substituted with their vinyl labels. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you disagree with the outcomes of past FFD discussions (one, two), then please use the DRV process. Anyways, I'm not arguing about the general matter of vinyl labels vs covers; just this image, and I'll nominate other similar images in another time. As I can predict, the outcome of this discussion will be similar to those discussions, but then I could be wrong. --George Ho (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost forgot, the understanding of the song "Lucky Star" (mistaken previously as "Holiday") is already understood by free textual content, and the free vinyl label (File:Lucky star by madonna US 7-inch vinyl.png) is already sufficient enough to identify the release itself. How can deleting the picture sleeve affect the understanding of what can be already understood by reading the whole article? George Ho (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One cover image is acceptable per article by long-standing consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NFCI (or WP:NFCCEG), even an "acceptable" non-free image may still fail NFCC, and even failure to comply with NFCC and the spirit of it may override any acceptable allowance here. Also, the replaceable (non-free) cover image may still be unacceptable, but then... Well, it's a guideline that can be best treated with common sense and allow applicable exceptions, but copyright laws can't be ignored, can they?

  Back to the image itself (again), I don't know why the deletion of an overseas picture sleeve would affect the understanding of the song and its single release(s). The song can be still understood by reading the whole article without the non-free cover image. One free vinyl label of the US single release, which lacked picture sleeve at the time, should be sufficient enough for me... and others if they can handle it well. George Ho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You compare apple to orange. Sorry, but vinyl label is not a substitute of artwork cover (unless the latter is unavailable). And the U.S. statistically is not even Madonna's biggest market, she's a global recording artist, so the overseas cover does matter. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An overseas cover may matter to overseas fans (maybe because... it's appealing?), but it also is subject to NFCC. An image being deleted wouldn't affect the understanding of the song itself and its status as one of Madonna's global hits, would it? And I don't think NFCC has considered an image's appeal to readers as one of criteria, has it? George Ho (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One cover is allowed in WP:SONG articles. I said it again and again that vinyl label is not the same as cover artwork. It would definitely affect the understanding of the single because it did have cover artwork, and the single was first released outside the United States in 1983 (the same time as "Holiday" being released in the US). I rest my case, whatever the consensus I won't reply no more. Regards. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being "allowed", again, still won't overcome failure to meet NFCC. Re-reading the article, the song performed poorly in 1983 but then charted successfully the following year worldwide. Furthermore, the original (unsuccessful) British release had Madonna wearing her sunglasses. Besides success outside the US in mid-1984, the song also performed better in North America later that year. If overseas success matters more, then... I guess we can stick with the listed cover art. However, let's not deny the singer's and song's origins and the fact that the successful American release lacked a picture sleeve. I still would favor using a label of the US release, but I'll respect your opinion and wishes then. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2021 (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⚡ 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park077.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrbillybob (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete, fails license review: image not found at source website, and moreover, website is copyrighted. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of permission. The Wayback machine has an archive from Jan 15, 2008 which shows the site with a copyright notice. -- Whpq (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2021 (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.