Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 9

April 9

File:FlorenceBPrice1942.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F7 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A free version exists, not sure why there's a need for this. Jay Cubby 00:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

– uploaded by Steve98052 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused image. Uploaded to support Post.news which was subsequently deleted at AfD twice (1, 2). No realistic encyclopedic purpose to retain. Ajpolino (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:China Crosses Yalu.jpg

Seemingly PD, on Commons as File:Chinese troops crossing Amrokgang river.jpg Jay Cubby 07:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is The source of this predates publication in North Korea by 7 years (1951 vs 1958). I suspect Commons is incorrect. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ssmlt.JPG

One of picture sleeves not contextually significant to the song in question, despite containing image of the singer and song titles. The free image (File:Someone saved my life tonight elton john US single generic label.png) doesn't need to comply with NFCC just as long as it's still free to use. George Ho (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, what was the source of this image? It's also not clear where/how it was used. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sleeve was part of the German release (45cat, discogs, ebay). The image has been used as the lead image of the song article. George Ho (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I knew about the song article Someone Saved My Life Tonight. There seems to be no source at the upload page (not that it really matters, I guess). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep add link to source. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In where? The file page or the song article? George Ho (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The file page. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the image's compliance with the "contextual significance" criterion (WP:NFC#CS)? George Ho (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles about albums and singles normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted." Buffs (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to restate your arguments... or proposed rule that has yet to become part of WP:NFC.

Anyways, the cover art was still part of the German release. Neither the British (45cat,discogs) nor American single release has had a picture sleeve, I'm afraid.

Also, the main customers were most likely the British and the Americans. Those who bought the single would most likely expect a portion to accurately identify what was distributed to them, i.e. a single packaged in a generic sleeve, instead of a German one or a picture sleeve.

Of course, the vinyl labels of certain pressings contain a custom painting or drawing of Elton John from the parent album containing the song. Nonetheless, sometimes, a free image is preferable unless a non-free one is proven to be more suitable (MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation). In this case, the US label portion I uploaded in hopes to replace the German one.

If any of the above doesn't convince you adequately, then how's this: even without the German picture sleeve, a reader would already understand what the song is about and its background/origins. Well, it's Elton John's personal song... and another one of his hits. An image of him on the front cover wouldn't enhance that, IMO. Not even the German picture sleeve's way of branding and marketing the song. Same argument can go for other non-UK/non-US releases of the single, eh? In my opinion, free content available should be adequate and make non-free content less necessary, especially for "identification" that you argued about. George Ho (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I restated the consensus of that discussion as concise as I could (regardless of whether it's documented in NFC or not). Regardless of its release location, it does seem to be the most recognizable/used cover art, common for an international artist: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc Buffs (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Should've countered your argument with WP:SAIDSO earlier, but whatevs.)

Being commonly seen elsewhere outside Wikipedia still doesn't make the cover art contextually significant to the song. (WP:OTHERIMAGE, perhaps?)

Like 45cat and discogs, the first few sources you're citing are user-generated. Nonetheless, even the 45cat and discogs have details about where the picture sleeve originated. Even rateyourmusic does the same, especially for the North American release using a different custom label.

Fandom currently lacks sufficient details about the image. Even if it contains caption/details, Fandom's verifiability is somewhat questionable. Well, it's Fandom, right?

A possibly fansite even tells readers where it originated.

Why does Alamy uses the German picture sleeve (without identifying it as such) as a stock image or some sort is beyond me.

Dunno why the New Zealand charts website (specific week) uses the German cover art, despite the New Zealand release lacking one in its original release (discogs). George Ho (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained it's for purposes of identification. You state that it needs to have contextual significance beyond that. I disagree and most people agree with me. Dunno what else to tell you. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rules of Cuju - China Plus 2023.webm

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 since a freely licensed explanation of cuju can be made, and doesn't meet WP:NFCC#2 since it replaces the role of the original video. hinnk (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forthwith low res, nonencylopedic, replaceable/fails NFC. Buffs (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

File:FlorenceBPrice1942.jpg

File:Post.news logo post-share.png

File:China Crosses Yalu.jpg

File:Ssmlt.JPG

File:Rules of Cuju - China Plus 2023.webm