Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 June 11

June 11

File:Drug Cartels Do Not Exist book 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; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fits {{PD-Text}} but unsure about the logo in the bottom right. Looking for second opinion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2023 (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:Button reflink.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image doesn't seem to need a local copy - there are only 125 uses and the system message (MediaWiki:Gadget-extra-toolbar-buttons-core.js) actually uses the Commons file, not the local one. And the Commons file is protected (cascade and simple) as it's used in their interface and widely used between projects, making the need for a local copy questionable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2023 (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:Namespace MediaWiki.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file is no longer used in system messages, and there isn't really a need for a local copy otherwise. On top of that, the Commons file is used in their interface and protected thusly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we can remove the local copy then. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2023 (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:Opelika Jane Doe1.png

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 ⚡ 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opelika Jane Doe1.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:49, 11 June 2023 (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:GB Goldmine Deluxe cover.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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#3a and #8, artwork is not required to show "significant information", and its exclusion would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article in-question. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alternative covers like this are used literally everywhere – not just this one for that article. Also, album covers that are substantially different from the original (like this one) typically pass NFCC 3, as has been held in the past. If it were essentially the same save for text, it would not have been included in the article per said criterion. Misceditor1000 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, per 3a, the standard can and does convey "equivalent significant information". Inclusion of the deluxe is not significant, nor would it increase a reader's understanding of the article (per 8). In simplistic terms, both artworks are of a blonde White woman. Any changes between artworks could be cited within article and explained with a few sentences, explaining the differences between the original artwork and the re-issue. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's two pictures of the same subject, sure, but this one is an entirely different picture and background. If it were the same cover as the original except to add "DELUXE" on it, then yeah it would certainly fail NFCC and never be uploaded. That's common knowledge.

If nominations like this were done for (nearly) every single extra album cover that is featured on nearly every album article, then I would have a harder time finding this nomination is done with a bit of double-standard. Misceditor1000 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As WP:NFC#CS states, "only a single item of non-free content" meets the WP:NFCC#8 criterion. The deluxe cover itself is not subject to sourced commentary. ✗plicit 01:25, 19 June 2023 (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.