Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:05, 17 August 2009

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

File:Alive single.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alive single.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lovelyshopper (notify | contribs).

Incompatible information; self-made album covers either aren't real album covers or aren't self made. OR, possibly UE. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:14, 27 July 2009 (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:Actor Ricky Dominguez .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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actor Ricky Dominguez .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scott57 (notify | contribs).

Delete: orphaned image dependent on article previously deleted 8 times per Ricky Dominguez. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Dominguez. ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned. (After 8 deletions I should think the article title would be salted.) —teb728 t c 07:21, 27 July 2009 (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:Ami in 2008.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ami in 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Atkint (notify | contribs).

Delete: orphaned image dependent on previously deleted article (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Sands Brodoff. ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2009 (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:AoifeMadden.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AoifeMadden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Worldbeats (notify | contribs).

Delete: orphaned image dependent on deleted article Aoife Madden. The image is an uncropped version of the subject's portrait on her website [1]. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2009 (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:Jaynemansfield2.jpg

File:Jaynemansfield2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

Jayne Mansfield uses 7 non-free images, 5 of which violate WP:NFCC. Insofar as the purpose of this image is to show how she looks, it is replaceable by free images already in the article. Insofar as the purpose is illustrate the fact that she was a Playboy Playmate, that can be discussed fully in plain text. The image does not significantly increase readers’ understanding. —teb728 t c 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Playboy pictorial and an earlier pictorial of Marilyn Monroe were part of the emerging trend that gave birth to the large-breasted feminine ideal and men's magazines like Rogue, Nugget and Dude.^[1]^[2] It has been conjectured that Playboy was a pioneer in starting an American "breast fetish" which has exaggerated the importance of large breasts,^[3]^[4] as well as both Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe, featured in the early issues of the magazine, played a significant role in the process.^[5] In July 1963, her naked pictures were printed with a description that went, "enjoying the luxuries of a bubble bath and a double bed".^[6] The pictorial titled "The Nudest Jayne Mansfield" was banned, and Hugh Hefner, the publisher, was arrested by Chicago Police. The trial resulted in a hung jury that votes 7 to 5 for acquittal.^[7] In the Lee Siegel novel Who Wrote the Book of Love?, the character Lucky Lee turns the issue of Playboy into a bribe to meet a girl.^[8] Since that Jayne Mansfield fiasco, Playboy was scrutinized by the Customs Department issue-by-issue till 1967, and they found 51 issues out of 51 objectionable.^[6]

Why and how such a well covered piece of art (if photography is considered as an art form) can be discounted as an historically insignificant material? Why and how the impact shall be assessed by the reader without the image? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That text could be included in an article without any need for an image to illustrate it. Indeed this particular image does not particularly illustrate that text. The use is purely decorative. —teb728 t c 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the image appears to be decorative, but if it can be part of the article and discussed then keep. Ejfetters (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JayneFamily.jpg

File:JayneFamily.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

Jayne Mansfield uses 7 non-free images, 5 of which violate WP:NFCC. Her family is described in plain text; no image is needed to illustrate it. This image does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of any of the articles where it is used. —teb728 t c 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is absolutely no "law" that says "thou shalt not have multiple non-free images in the same article", it seems to have offended the deletion proposer mightily. I just want to remind one small thing - that image is also used in the article on Jayne Marie Mansfield, where there is just one image. And, that image contains two dead people and a very young Jayne Marie. I don't know how we are proposing to replace this one there. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is a “law” that says thou shalt not use non-free images unless they significantly increase reader’s understanding. WP:NFCC#3a does not imply that an article is entitled to use one non-free image. There is no more need for this image on Jayne Marie’s page than on any other. Although the fact that there are seven non-free images doesn’t prove anything by itself, it suggests that you have gone overboard in including them, and that suggestion is reinforced by the weakness of your replies here. —teb728 t c 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I am not good at legal arguments, and I shall always show a "weakness" there. If the "law" wins over the "spirit" then so be it. I can only help with research and improvement, not argumentative diplomacy or diplomatic arguments. You win. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a reason to believe that there's bad faith involved. Pity. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is the relevance of that comment supposed to be? —teb728 t c 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Since these nominations one of the files violating NFCC, File:Jaynemansfield.jpg‎ (not nominated here) was speedily deleted. And two others, File:ShakChaikMe.jpg (nominated below) and File:JayneFamily.jpg (this file) were removed from Jayne Mansfield. This file, however, still violates NFCC in two other articles. —teb728 t c 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely decorative use of non-free use image, the other subjects are not notable. Ejfetters (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg

File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Philbertgray (notify | contribs).

Jayne Mansfield uses 7 non-free images, 5 of which violate WP:NFCC. Insofar as the purpose of this image is to illustrate the Mansfield/Hargitay marriage, the marriage is described in text, and no image is needed to illustrate it. Insofar as the purpose is to illustrate History of the bikini, there are already plenty of free photos in that article. Insofar as the purpose is to identify Miklós Hargitay, surely there must be a free image of him somewhere (although I don’t specifically know of one). If this image must be kept to identify his article, can we get a decision here that it should be removed from Jayne Mansfield and History of the bikini? —teb728 t c 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Mansfield and her husband Miklós Hargitay toured for stage shows, she showed a fair amount of skin in the leopard-spot bikini she wore for her stage shows.^[9]^[10] Kathryn Wexler of The Miami Herald wrote, "In the beginning as we know it, there was Jayne Mansfield. Here she preens in leopard-print or striped bikinis, sucking in air to showcase her well noted physical assets."^[11] Her leopard-skin bikini remains one of the earlier specimens of the fashion.^[12]

Why and how such a well covered piece of art (if photography is considered as an art form) can be discounted as an historically insignificant material? Why and how the impact shall be assessed by the reader without the image? And, how did it boil down to - "Insofar as the purpose of this image is to illustrate the Mansfield/Hargitay marriage, the marriage is described in text, and no image is needed to illustrate it" - these antiques are big part of the subject's life and career. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you have now stated what the purpose of the image was supposed to be. “Illustrating the marriage” was my best guess based on the article, and the non-free use rationale gives no clue. But even with the clarification, that purpose (all but the word “Here”) could be achieved in plain text without any need for an image to illustrate it. Notice that it is understandable here without an illustration. —teb728 t c 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If no free image exists to use for identification of Miklós Hargitay, the first image here would be more suitable for identification than the subject of this FFD. —teb728 t c 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShakChaikMe.jpg

File:ShakChaikMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

Jayne Mansfield uses 7 non-free images, 5 of which violate WP:NFCC. Her release of the album is described in plain text, and no image is needed to illustrate that text. The image also identifies the album article, Jayne Mansfield: Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky & Me. If it must be kept to identify that article, can we get a decision here that it should be removed from Jayne Mansfield? —teb728 t c 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An amazingly funny move that looks suspiciously like a vengeful bad faith attempt to delete images for whatever personal reason. The stated image has been removed from Jayne Mansfield article, though it stays on Jayne Mansfield: Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky & Me article. It is perfectly valid as per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Removing image from one article, while it can be perfectly retained in another is not a subject to be discussed here. Proposing a deletion is not even consistent with the proposal that "If it must be kept to identify that article, can we get a decision here that it should be removed from Jayne Mansfield". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are more aware than I of the FFD process. There ought to be a process somewhere to get a definitive decision that the use of an image violates NFCC on one article even though it must kept for use on another article. If FFD is not the place, perhaps someone can say where; WP:NFCR is definitely incapable of making such a decision. (Just to be clear, this image was in use on Jayne Mansfield when I made the nomination; you removed it 5½ hours later.) —teb728 t c 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a reason to believe that there's bad faith involved. Pity. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is the relevance of that comment supposed to be? As I understand it, that edit says that you had made a false accusation of vandalism in a content dispute. If you have a problem accepting WP:AGF, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. —teb728 t c 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I suspect seriously that bad faith is involved. If someone goes around making accusations about an editor on the basis of an edit summary auto-generated by WP:Twinkle and then another comes to validate the accusation, perhaps we are forgetting that WP:AGF pretty specifically advises to demonstrate good faith. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am more confused than ever about what point you are trying to make in this subthread, but since it apparently has nothing to do with this FFD, I will continue the discussion on your user talk page. —teb728 t c 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there is now no reason to think about deleting this file, I hope to get a reply to the question of whether FFD can decide to remove a file from an article without deleting the file. —teb728 t c 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sorry to have put the references for Jayne Mansfield images here. But, this was the only way I could do it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Martin Halliwell, American Culture in the 1950s, page 42, Edinburgh University Press. 2007
^ Barbara Klinger, Melodrama and Meaning, page 53, Indiana University Press, 1994
^ Robert T. Francoeur, Becoming a Sexual Person, page 95, John Wiley and Sons, 1984
^ Carolyn Latteier, Breasts: The Women's Perspective on an American Obsession, page 117, Haworth Press, 1998
^ Patricia Vettel-Becker, Shooting from the Hip: Photography, Masculinity, and Postwar America, page 107, University of Minnesota Press, 2005
^ ^a ^b Barbara Sullivan, The Politics of Sex: Prostitution and Pornography in Australia Since 1945, page 78, Cambridge University Press, 1997
^ Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner, Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon: the Case Against Celebrity, page 153, John Wiley and Sons, 2004
^ Lee Siegel, Who wrote the book of love?, page 229
^ Staff Correspondent, "The bare facts at last, all those hours at the gym will pay off with spring's slightly skimpy fashions", Miami Herald, page D1, 1986-03-12
^ Dorothy Kilgallen, "Jayne's Touring Strawhats in Bikinis", Washington Post, page B11, 1964-07-22
^ Kathryn Wexler, "Old-time eroticism: When bikinis really mattered", Miami Herald, 2006-04-19
^ Jennifer Steinhauer, "In, Damned Spot!, New York Times, 1997-05-11

File:JHB.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 --B (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JHB.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by D C McJonathan (notify | contribs).

Replaceable drawing of a guy. Either some wikipedia should make a free drawing, or some effort should be made to find a non-free picture of this guy, since he was 58 in 1923 (maybe this image is PD, but we need better source information (all we have for now is the blog/wiki findagrave)). Damiens.rf 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the artist died 90 years ago the painting should be in Public Domain. If someone would use the proper tag it would be greatly appreciated. Doc ♬ talk 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found what I believe is the proper PD template and added to the image. Doc ♬ talk 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't remove the deletion tag next time. Now we need a real source to be sure it's a painting by Fred Yates as stated. FindaGrave is just a blog/wiki, and not a reliable source. The other link given doesn't take me to the image. Can you help on that? --Damiens.rf 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can cite a book in which it is published and identified as a painting by Fred Yates during the period he was in the Lake District. Where should that be placed? It was a fronticpiece in JHB's autobiography "Memories and Reflections" published in 1955 which is in the article's Bibliography. It had also been identified on the School's webpage, which is why that was listed originally. Doc ♬ talk 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait a minute! As noted by Rockfang bellow, why do you say the artist died 90 years ago? Which artist are you talking about? --Damiens.rf 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - In this edit {{PD-Art}} was applied with an edit summary of Public Domain - artist dead for 90 years. If I interpret this correctly, that edit summary is implying that Fred Yates died at least 90 years ago. According to his his linked article he died in 2008. The license says: "...this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923...". This seems unlikely as Fred Yates would have been roughly 1 year old at the time. Is there something I'm missing here?--Rockfang (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit more clarification? According to the ODNB entry for JHB there was a painting done in oils by Yates completed in 1921, (which I guess is where the 90 years ago hails from) ODNB says the image was photographed and reproduced in Wake and Denton's book on Bedales School and then reproduced again in Brandreth and Henry's, book of John Haden Badley.Tmol42 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were no Yates in 1921. --Damiens.rf 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, either the painting was done by a different Yates other than this one, or, wikipedia's birth and death dates for Fred Yates are way off. I'm leaning to the dates being correct as they are sourced, and noone has cited a source saying otherwise. Keeping this in mind, if Fred Yates did indeed make the painting then the license {{PD-Art}} is invalid.--Rockfang (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The solution to the confusion. There are two Fred Yates. The FW quoted above was not connected to JHB and did not paint this portait. Here is a link to the biog of Frederick Yates b. 1854 d. 1919. He lived the latter part of his life in Rydal Cumbria which is where JHB took his holidays and met FW in the latter days of his life Here. This means the painting must have been at least done before 1919.Tmol42 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the artist then was Frederic Yates. His article credit him with a portrait of John Haden Badley. —teb728 t c 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The confusion has been cleared. This is in the public domain.--Rockfang (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That is correct, if you look back to the original link to Fred Yates under the portrait it linked to the article Frederic Yates. This was removed when the image was nominated for deletion. Every quote I've seen in print and online always refers to him as just Fred Yates. That is how he was known, so I believe that is the way the name should display, but link to the correct painter as it was done Doc ♬ talk 21:19, 31 July 2009 (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.

Wise Children draft images

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: deleted per G7 Skier Dude (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete all four of these images. A much better image located on the article Wise Children has made them obsolete Francium12 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wisechildrenfamilytreegif.gif

File:Wisechildrenfamilytreegif2.gif

File:Improvedwisechildren.gif

File:Finalversion.gif

Novice uploader requested deletion in edit summaries. I have tagged them {{db-g7}}. —teb728 t c 21:28, 27 July 2009 (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:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Craigclarke (notify | contribs).

FAils WP:NFCC #8. It is not necessary to see this screenshot to understand that the subject participated in the Little League World Series. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is necessary because it shows what he looked like as a kid, his postition and his number. --Mets4117 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (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:Madonna Confessions Remixed.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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow (notify | contribs).

"Purpose = To advertise", G11 speedy declined, Blatant, admitted, spam attempt WuhWuzDat 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already tried to speedy delete this file, but the deletion was already declined by User:Jclemens. See Revision history of File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg PopMusicBuff ^talk 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A declined speedy does not rule out the use of other forms of deletion. WuhWuzDat 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already declined your deletion request, so I dont know what you plan to gain from reporting it here. Anyways, I don't really see how this is "advertisement" or "spam". I uploaded a file to be used on this Wikipedia page in accordance with WP:UL for the section "The cover of an album or single" PopMusicBuff ^talk 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the page, you stated that the "Purpose of use" was "To advertise Madonna's album Confessions Remixed", this is a clear violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. WuhWuzDat 19:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that's what any cover art for any album or single does; it advertises the music in a way that is visually appealing to its marketing target. This doesn't fall under CSD G11 PopMusicBuff ^talk 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD is no longer relevant, this is a separate deletion process. WuhWuzDat 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was right about to change that just now to WP:NOTADVERTISING as I just realized that now. But there were conflicting edits. PopMusicBuff ^talk 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple covers are used when one would suffice. — Σxplicit 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essentially it's a different album, with quite different cover art. Therefore the other cover does not suffice -- this second cover does indeed improve reader understanding, by showing them the identifying (different) cover art for this different album, and allowing them to identify it. That is fully in step with the guideline at WP:NFC on what is permissible. Jheald (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the file uploader removed the other cover art, and replaced it with this image of the alternative cover very recently. WuhWuzDat 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't realised that. Okay, let me modify my !vote to keep either File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg or File:ConfessionsRemixed.jpg but not both (unless a very good case can be made that the second cover was in its own right a significant release).

Someone should probably also check with Explicit (talk · contribs), as to whether removal of the first image has satisfied their objection too. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus as to, out of the two, which one is the cover that should be preferred? Jheald (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the "advertising" concerns I expressed above, I would prefer to keep File:ConfessionsRemixed.jpg, and delete the other. WuhWuzDat

Seems to me that's a side issue. If it's of concern, just replace the rationale with a standard template {{Album cover fur}}.

Keep: You can barely read the artist or the title of the album for File:ConfessionsRemixed.jpg. And you certainly can't read whatever's written underneathe that. With File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg, the artist and album title are legible. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg is a BOOTLEG cover from a BOOTLEG website. The album was only released in 12" Vinyl and never on CD! File:ConfessionsRemixed.jpg is the proper cover of the vinyl album, so this should be used. JWAD ^talk 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a genuine cover, then it should be deleted for that reason; if it is, WP:NFCC#3a applies. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against deleting the other cover if preferred. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both covers. Badly fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (EDIT): I wasn't aware that this was a bootleg site, it seemed pretty legitimate. I added that image after another user added that track listing from this 'bootleg' to Madonna Confessions Remixed section. I am up for someone speedy deleting it anytime (I've tried once and another user tried once already). PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to speedy delete it once again for WP:FAIR#2, WP:FAIR#3a, WP:FAIR#5, WP:FAIR#7, and WP:FAIR#8. PopMusicBuff ^talk 03:56, 5 August 2009 (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:1973 - Bad Weather (Alternate Cover).png

File:1973 - Bad Weather (Alternate Cover).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

This cover is basically the same as the other, and is not discussed in the article. The use of this non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1970 - Everybody's Got The Right To Love (Alternate Cover).png

File:1970 - Everybody's Got The Right To Love (Alternate Cover).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

Alternative cover is not discussed, nor is it of any importance. Use of a non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This cover is quite different to the other. If a caption were added, to say when or where this alternative cover was used, i.e. clarifying whether it was widely distributed and/or replaced the original, then an argument could be made to keep it. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A caption would not be enough. In order to pass WP:NFCC#8 it probably would need (sourced) critical commentary discussing the cover(s) in a way that showing the other cover was needed for readers' understanding. —teb728 t c 23:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Showing the identifying cover of a sufficiently significant release or re-release is in itself considered to add significantly to the understanding a reader gets from the article. See eg the largest run (10 Jan) of decisions on alternate album covers. Jheald (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UpTheLadderToTheRoof.jpg

File:UpTheLadderToTheRoof.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DanMan869 (notify | contribs).

Alternative cover is very similar to the original, and adds little to the article. It is not discussed. The use of this non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1969 - Someday We'll Be Together (Alternate Cover).png

File:1969 - Someday We'll Be Together (Alternate Cover).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

Alternative cover is not discussed and does not seem to be of importance. The use of this non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This cover is quite different to the other. If a caption were added, to say when or where this alternative cover was used, i.e. clarifying whether it was widely distributed and/or replaced the original, then an argument could be made to keep it.

File:Booty Luv - Boogie 2Nite (iTunes cover).png

File:Booty Luv - Boogie 2Nite (iTunes cover).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

The third non-free cover used in this article. This alternative cover is not discussed, nor is it of any obvious importance. It is not required. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alternate non-free image is being used when one is suffice. — Σxplicit 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Random1 terrence.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Random1 terrence.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mcmean (notify | contribs).

Had been tagged as {{di-no fair use rationale}}, but I declined because it does have quite a bit of information. However, I don't think that this is enough information; it doesn't address all of the WP:NFCC concerns, and the "representative" clause is unverified. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:40, 27 July 2009 (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:Manchester, Maryland Town Seal.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 as G7 by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manchester, Maryland Town Seal.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mopenstein (notify | contribs).

I uploaded a poorly made SVG file and cannot correct it, should be deleted Mopenstein (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy deletion, it's gone. WuhWuzDat 22:00, 27 July 2009 (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:Dq5.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: deleted because the image is orphaned and the talk page discussion seems to favor the other one. This should not be used as a precedent against rekindling the discussion if there are still outstanding issues. --B (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dq5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Megata Sanshiro (notify | contribs).

OB 24.58.239.42 (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with DQ5BoxArt.png which is better quality and in a PNG format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.239.42 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion had been started and is still ongoing at Talk:Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride#Box Art. 24.58.239.42 seems to be incredibly zealous in attempting to force the deletion of the image rather than continue to discuss and talk peacefully. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guideline is clear on this; "If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." If there is a genuine problem with the file type or quality then replace with an appropriate one from the same region. Someone another 12:40, 28 July 2009 (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.

[1] Martin Halliwell, American Culture in the 1950s, page 42, Edinburgh University Press. 2007

[2] Barbara Klinger, Melodrama and Meaning, page 53, Indiana University Press, 1994

[3] Robert T. Francoeur, Becoming a Sexual Person, page 95, John Wiley and Sons, 1984

[4] Carolyn Latteier, Breasts: The Women's Perspective on an American Obsession, page 117, Haworth Press, 1998

[5] Patricia Vettel-Becker, Shooting from the Hip: Photography, Masculinity, and Postwar America, page 107, University of Minnesota Press, 2005

[Sullivan-6] Barbara Sullivan, The Politics of Sex: Prostitution and Pornography in Australia Since 1945, page 78, Cambridge University Press, 1997

[7] Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner, Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon: the Case Against Celebrity, page 153, John Wiley and Sons, 2004

[8] Lee Siegel, Who wrote the book of love?, page 229

[9] Staff Correspondent, "The bare facts at last, all those hours at the gym will pay off with spring's slightly skimpy fashions", Miami Herald, page D1, 1986-03-12

[10] Dorothy Kilgallen, "Jayne's Touring Strawhats in Bikinis", Washington Post, page B11, 1964-07-22

[11] Kathryn Wexler, "Old-time eroticism: When bikinis really mattered", Miami Herald, 2006-04-19

[12] Jennifer Steinhauer, "In, Damned Spot!, New York Times, 1997-05-11

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 ====[[:File:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg]]====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the discussion was: '''Delete'''; deleted by {{admin|B}} [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)<!--Template:Ffd top-->[[Category:Archived files for deletion discussions]]
 :<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">[[:File:{{ucfirst:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg}}]] ([{{fullurl:File:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:[[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 27#File:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg]]}}}} delete] | [[File talk:{{ucfirst:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:Craigclarke#File:Variteklittleleagueworldseries.jpg listed for deletion|Craigclarke]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Craigclarke|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span> | [[Special:Contributions/Craigclarke|contribs]]).
 *FAils [[WP:NFCC]] #8. It is not necessary to see this screenshot to understand that the subject participated in the Little League World Series. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]'''  <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 :I think it is necessary because it shows what he looked like as a kid, his postition and his number. --[[User:Mets4117|Mets4117]] ([[User talk:Mets4117|talk]]) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ffd bottom--></div>
 ====[[:File:Madonna Confessions Remixed.jpg]]====