Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18

File:MacMillerFaces.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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image which was uploaded for an article but that has been redirected because it fails WP:NALBUMS. Green Giant (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've restored the article and added three more references to it, article would appear to meet WP:GNG now, which satisfies WP:NALBUMS. XeroxKleenex (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2014 (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:Mach Schau.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: Keep. As an aside, I'd like to point out to all parties involved that WP:NFCC#8 is not simply met because of "visual identification." En.Wikipedia has traditionally allowed for one cover of a work for identification purposes even when such does not fulfill WP:NFCC#8 but that multiple versions/covers require more information to justify their use. This generally applies to covers, artwork and logos. If "visual identification" were enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 then no image would ever fail it. WP:NFCC#8 was written with the intent that the text in the article supports the image, and the image also supports the text. Both have to be present to pass. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:NFCC#3a because the article (Mach Schau (album)) already has an unfree album cover (File:Mach shau HG.jpg) in the infobox. It also fails #8 because the presence of the image is not essential to a reader's understanding of the article. Green Giant (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image is of the cover of the international release of the album and it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#8 as its presence does increase readers' understanding of the article topic. In that the international release contained not only a different cover but a different track-listing. Dan arndt (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan Arndt. If an album has been released with different covers in different international territories, then all of those covers are acceptable fair use in an article about the album — we do not have any rule that an album's article may only contain its original cover in its artist's home country. Rather, we have many, many articles in which we do include one or more "alternate" album covers in addition to the original, and no reason has been provided why the international cover would be uniquely less legitimate here than in those other comparable cases. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the article had some discussion of the different album cover. As it stands the only prose mention of the international album cover is "For its release outside Australia, under the Acadia/Evangeline label, Mach Schau was given new cover art". All that an uninformed reader needs is a reference link to the source of the alternative cover where they can view the album cover. It doesn't need to be hosted on Wikipedia and its absence would not result in a reduction the readers' understanding of the article topic since the cover has such sparse text devoted to it. The more important point is that there were some different tracks on the international version, something adequately covered by the listing at the bottom of the article. Green Giant (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Containing extra discussion of the alternate cover, as nice as it would be, is not a condition of including a cover image in the album's article. The only condition that an album cover has to meet is that it provides visual identification of the topic. The article as written doesn't contain any text content about the cover you're not trying to delete either, so why should an alternate cover from a different release market have to meet a higher inclusion standard? Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dan arndt. Additionally, new information in the article indicates that the listed file is actually the earlier, i.e. original, version of the album's artwork. It has consequently been moved to the primary position in the infobox. However both versions should still be kept as being different from the other and each helps identify the album for readers residing in different markets. I agree that descriptions of each version's content should be added to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that the article has been expanded but nothing more has been added about the album cover. Is there any information about why this cover was chosen or who designed it? What does the image show that can't be conveyed by words? These are the sort of things the prose needs to justify having two cover images. Green Giant (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nice as such content would absolutely be, it is not a requirement for inclusion of a cover image in an album's article. Visual identification of the topic is the only fair use condition that's required for an album cover — sourced text content about the cover, as valuable as it is to include such material whenever possible, is a bonus rather than a basic inclusion requirement. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with Bearcat and shaidar cuebiyar, the images provide a clear and direct visual reference to both the domestic and international releases of the album and should both be included in the article on the album.Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No discussion of the album cover falls under WP:SOFIXIT, not delete. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct. If an image violates WP:NFCC#8, then it must be taken out of the article until the article has been fixed. See WP:NFCCE: If the concern isn't fixed within 48 hours after pointing out the error, the file has to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Visual identification of the album cover fully satisfies WP:NFCC#8 right on its face. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2014 (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:Alvin Singh COPE AGM.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a politician whose article was deleted for failing WP:NPOL; as the most substantive claim of notability in the article was an unsuccessful candidacy for political office at the municipal level, there's no realistic prospect of the article actually being recreatable with better sourcing at the present time. It can certainly be reuploaded in the future if circumstances change, but at the present time there's no immediate or sourceable prospect of this being usable anywhere. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've added to Commons. XeroxKleenex (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alvin Singh COPE AGM.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (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:EvergreenStateCollegeSeal.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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Also, the seal is only to be used with permission on official school documents. RevoltPuppy (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't need the college's permission to use the seal and we've standardized on using it in the university infobox. I've also replaced it in the college's article so it's no longer an orphan. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now used, necessary for identification of the college. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2014 (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:JosephLoeffler3.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes unused copy at File:JosephLoeffler.JPG. Photos of musician not notable outside of his short time playing with Chevelle. Parent article has been redirected to the Chevelle article, no need for these photos. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a terrible picture. While it's possibly suitable for the Commons if he's even remotely important, I'd prefer to have something better than that picture if it's getting transferred there. XeroxKleenex (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (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.