Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 1

File:Taylor Swift - Red (Deluxe).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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was discussed in Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album) and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Evidence say that this image is redundant to File:Taylor Swift - Red.png; others say it's not. As for policies, not everyone understands it very well, as they were misused in order to prove their points. "Contextual significance" is hard to understand, but this image might fail "minimal use", as it is almost the same as original in different layout. Just in case of deletion, Deluxe has big "RED" with photo of Taylor Swift as a background; the outside is red. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is does not help readers understand the album (WP:NFCC#8) and if it were important to that the deluxe version had a red overlay, readers can be told it had a red overlay without necessarily needing to see it (WP:NFCC #3a). --Odie5533 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does serve the purpose to illustrate that their is in fact a deluxe version of the album out their, and what it looks like "a picture is worth a thousand word". "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So, it in my estimation without the cover art would be greatly detrimental to knowing about the different versions of the album in question.HotHat (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be absurd, all it is is the same picture of the singer with big "RED" silhouetted letters over it. There is no increased understanding of anything for the reader there. This isn't the Virgin Killer or Yesterday and Today, where the alternate covers themselves are a part of the story. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. A simple one line is sufficient to describe the cover art. Not an important image at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Usage of the extra album section of the infobox is detailed at Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, specifically "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you better get on to deleting the MDNA deluxe album cover it violates the rule by your analysis.HotHat (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate it and I will vote accordingly. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, will you do that yourself? HotHat voted "keep" and meant that you would nominate it, wouldn't you? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both the standard and deluxe cover artwork for that album are directly discussed in the article. I would not argue for it's deletion, and I would expect that both would be kept. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Lots of articles have both standard and deluxe covers. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some do, sure, but that does not address how this particular usage is within the WP:NFCC exemption. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. The image adds little to the article; we can perfectly well understand the subject without seeing how the delux cover looks (NFCC#8). In any case, the changes are so minimal from the other cover that they could just be quickly described (NFCC#1). J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The extra cover is neither significantly different to warrant an inclusion and increase of reader's understanding, nor is it being discussed extensively in the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sorry, but the NFCC based arguments here are not compelling. There's no further infringement on the copyrights here with this image compared with the first image on the article. It's the same image, just with the arrangement of uncopyrightable text being different. To say this is a unique, second image that burdens the project with more non-free content is a real stretch. As a result, it clearly passes NFCC #3a. Further, the #8 requirement is highly subjective. Multiple FfDs have shown our readers get very confused at text descriptions of images, and are highly dependent upon imagery to make articles consumable. Further, the deluxe edition has six additional tracks. This article could be split into two articles and retain both images that way. Also of note; what the 'primary' and 'secondary' covers are is very subjective. Some countries never saw the 'standard' release, only seeing the 'deluxe' release (Canada, UK). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know a heck of a lot better than this, Hammersoft. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry you kinda contradicted yourself with "To say this is a unique, second image that burdens the project with more non-free content is a real stretch". You can clearly see that this is NOT a unique image and is a rehash of the original cover art. And your asserions about the split is also unyielding since album articles are never split based on their deluxe editions. They are always a part of the main article. Just FYI. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: And you know a heck of a lot better than to lecture me about this. I've told you several times now. I'm sorry you do not like my well informed opinion. I disagree with your well informed opinion, but you're not finding me lecturing you about your opinion and calling you disruptive for having it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By your argument, having both is like having two of the same copyrighted image (the photograph of her) on the article. This is not acceptable by nfcc #3a. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is, it's not a different image. It's the same copyrighted material. There's nothing original in the second image that isn't in the first image. (The following is not at you, but abstractly) But, no, we have to delete it anyway. We've got a second image that doesn't add any additional copyright burden to the project, but we have to knee jerk our happy way down to the altar of the almighty god of NFCC, scamming the whole way about how noble our mission is. Aren't we just a pack of happy hippie free culture movementists because we have the largest stockpile of non-free content in the world. Don't we feel good about ourselves? Nobody can look in the mirror and honestly believe that deleting this image is going to do thing one to improve the project. It's a direct detriment to the article to remove it, there's no additional copyrighted material being used, and the only miserable excuse to delete is bureaucratic nonsensical whitewash called "NFCC". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hammersoft has a decent point here. The real problem is that neither image provides any value, though. The whole concept that knowing what the cover looks like is important to understanding the contents of an album article is the root source of the problem. We've let the music article become a picture gallery of copyrighted images, and the best solution would be to delete both images from the article, not just the one.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Second image is nearly the same as the first, provides no further understanding as allowed per WP:NFCI#1 from the first cover image. Unless there is specific sourced discussion of this second image, it fails NFCC#8 and overall NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Masem said it perfectly. It's not different enough from the standard cover to warrant its inclusion. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't meet the NFCC. A good example of how it is met is Quién Dijo Ayer, where the two covers are pretty different from each other. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the second image is very similar to the first, and the differences could easily be described in the text. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 6 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.

File:7G district.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Little foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete superseded by File:Chicago Fed map.gif Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 2 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.