Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17

Canadian single of Possession (Sarah McLachlan song)

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 File:Possession by Sarah McLachlan Canadian single tracklist (back) side.png -FASTILY 08:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded one of portions of the "Possession" Canadian single release in JPEG format and wasn't sure whether the image has been adequate enough. As I figured, another portion of the specific item can help readers identify the item more. I'm still unsure, yet I replaced the JPEG image of the front cover with PNG images of both sides, which I'm listing here. WP:NFCC#3a discourages using more than one image providing equivalent significant information, and WP:NFCC#8 disallows contextually insignificant content. The back cover (or whatever you call it) I ~~prefer~~ more due to providing more info, such as the song title, artist's name, and tracklist, while the front cover displays just an image of the singer-songwriter and nothing else. I welcome other opinions. --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (see my latest comment using the following timestamp: 02:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Delete File:Possession by Sarah McLachlan Canadian single tracklist (back) side.png. Per WP:NFC#CS, only front covers are allowed. ✗plicit 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: That's not exactly what WP:NFC#CS says. It was just using normally used front covers as an example, and, to rephrase, not every article can use a front cover... Well, almost all articles use front covers because it's standard. Nonetheless, IMO the back cover provides more context than the front does. To summarize what the guideline says (guidelines can allow some exceptions via common sense), never mind examples and [t]wo of the most common circumstances, a "prominent" portion of an item should be used. However, I'm still unsure whether the front cover of the Canadian release is the "prominent aspect" that readers are seeking for. The front cover shows only an image of McLachlan, while the back cover must have helped Canadian customers identify the single more. BTW, there are other variants of the front cover, but they belong to releases outside Canada, like the American one. And McLachlan is Canadian. If what I've said isn't enough, then I should use another FFD discussion, which resulted in using possibly the back side of a single release, as an example. --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... Compare this to album Nashville Skyline by Bob Dylan. Both don't have song title and artist's name on the front. Cover art of Dylan's album is more recognizable and more universal, while the front cover of McLachlan's Canadian single was regional, and other releases used different variants of the same image. I have struck out "~~prefer~~" and have now changed my stance to "lean toward". ~~Unsure which portion(s) should be used by default in case there's "no consensus" on which to keep: either~~ just the front cover (i.e. the singer-only image) like many other song articles ~~or both portions. More likely, I guess~~ the front cover, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 07:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to speed things up, now I reluctantly decided that, if there's no consensus on either cover, the front cover (the one featuring only an image of McLachlan) shall be used by default, like other song articles. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2022 (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:Easy Lover by Philip Bailey and Phil Collins US 12-inch dance remix front 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a portion of one of US single releases to differentiate from the UK single release (File:Philip-bailey-easy-lover-duet-with-phil-collins-1985.jpg), now free to use on Commons. Actually, I did this to also replace the other US cover art several years ago. Now I'm unsure whether the cover art is irreplaceable and/or contextually significant to the song Easy Lover, despite Philip Bailey being American and the release distributed to American customers. No objections to deletion. George Ho (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2022 (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:Alexandr Rodin.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandr Rodin.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:50, 17 January 2022 (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:Arboretum white.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arboretum white.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (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:Republic of Indian Stream marker in Pittsburg, New Hampshire (1).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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Republic of Indian Stream marker in Pittsburg, New Hampshire (1).jpeg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (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:New Hampshire historical marker 1 in Pittsburg.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 ⚡ 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Hampshire historical marker 1 in Pittsburg.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This historical marker was erected in 1958, so it is in the public domain without a copyright notice.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 15:33, 24 January 2022 (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:Luther Parker stele at Pittsburg town park 1.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luther Parker stele at Pittsburg town park 1.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (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:Bozeman Pass.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 ⚡ 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bozeman Pass.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (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:Love Theme From The Godfather.ogg

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: Remove from The Godfather -FASTILY 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, this sample is of one of well-known film theme scores from The Godfather. However, I'm unsure whether the sample belongs in either The Godfather film article, "Speak Softly, Love" article, both, or neither. I'm also unsure whether each usage in the article complies with WP:NFCC#8. No objections to deletion if neither. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what sort of deletion rationale is this? It's a famous song that's iconic to the film and essential to the song's article. Go away. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go away. Isn't this harsh? Also, how is being famous enough for a sample (not the whole song) to be contextually significant and to understand the song and the film both in context? Furthermore, the song article hasn't (yet) described the composition and structure in the body. I may improve the song article, but I'm unsure whether improvements can help much. For comparison, I uploaded a sample of another (hopefully) famous song You're So Vain, which was eventually deleted at FFD without objections. I don't get the difference between both cases.
BTW, to further comply with WP:NFCC#3b and MOS:SAMPLE, I just now resampled the segment and trimmed out 14 seconds. Should be no more than ten percent of the track's overall length: two minutes and 38 seconds, i.e. 158 seconds. Even so, it still hasn't eased my concerns about its "contextual significance"... besides being "famous". George Ho (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searched for reliable sources covering the theme; still found nothing new to this date. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From just reading WP:NFCC#8 you could probably make an argument that it's not appropriate, but the common practice is that it's OK to include samples of non-free content when it is the subject of the article. This is the rule for non-free photos, paintings, sometimes videos, music, etc. So it is completely appropriate to include File:Love Theme From The Godfather.ogg in Love Theme from The Godfather. Maybe it shouldn't be included in The Godfather itself because it's not as contextually significant there (if it's not receiving commentary), but the proper venue for that discussion is the talk page. Not FfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I don't see how a talk page is usually an appropriate substitute for FFD. The audio recording is still non-free, and FFD is a suitable place to evaluate the file's "contextual significance", especially when used in more than one article. If the content heard in the whole snippet hasn't received commentary in the film article, then probably the sample is no longer well suited there. Oh, and here's also WP:NFC#CS detailing the criterion. George Ho (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It's still appropriate for the article in question. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Oh, almost forgot. About non-free samples as a "common practice", I think recent discussions may prove otherwise. AFAIK The participants in various discussions, including ones I started, seem divided about it yet are unwilling to go too rigid on samples: from last month, one from two months ago, another from same month, from December 2020. However, in this case, as you said, a sample may be okay in the song article if everyone else is all right with it. BTW, I was advised/warned about going too rigid on "contextual significance", yet I still have issues with samples, especially ones being used to merely identify songs (in portion). George Ho (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2022 (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:Big Bottom Marker.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Bottom Marker.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (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:Battle of Black Mingo marker.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battle of Black Mingo marker.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (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:Battle marker hanging rock.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battle marker hanging rock.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (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:BannowPlaque.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BannowPlaque.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:59, 17 January 2022 (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:You're So Vain - Carly Simon.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: relisted on 2022 January 26. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:You're So Vain - Carly Simon.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Brahmachari Walisinghe Harischandra.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brahmachari Walisinghe Harischandra.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:12, 17 January 2022 (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:Bratanov Medal.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bratanov Medal.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:13, 17 January 2022 (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:UKIP Scotland.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused not-fully-free file as the logo is likely above the threshold of originality in Scotland. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2022 (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:Usama Daniyal Xen BSS Award.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 ⚡ 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the certificate is likely copyrighted. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2022 (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:Tech Support Scammer Fake BSOD Virus Popup.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exact source not listed in description, as if this is a screenshot of a webpage the uploader has not provided the exact URL. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:40, 17 January 2022 (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:Spysheriff1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a screenshot of an older version of SpySheriff, a rogue security software. Within the article of SpySheriff, File:SSSS - SpySheriffScreenShot.jpg (replacement JPG file) has already been used to illustrate the interface of the malware. As both images are used to illustrate the malware's interface, and the replacement JPG file has much better quality, the nominated file violates WP:NFCC#3a, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2022 (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:Sunshine of your love 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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation, a free version is available: File:Sunshine of Your Love by Cream UK single side A.png. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded File:Sunshine of Your Love by Cream UK single side A.png as free to use (in only enwiki). Should make one of continental European cover arts of "Sunshine of Your Love" (discogs, 45cat) replaceable. Uncertain whether the European sleeve is contextually significant. George Ho (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The photo of the picture sleeve meets NFCCP contextual significance, as outlined in WP:NFC#CS for identification purposes. Also, as per WP:FREER, it also cannot be replaced by an alternative free use image. The picture sleeve shows the members of the group and has the group name in large black letters, which allows readers to immediately connect it to the group. The generic record label proposed by George only uses small print, which is quite difficult to see at the size used in the infobox. The picture sleeve graphic design also reflects a style of promotion at the time consistent with the song's association with psychedelic rock (listed and sourced in the infobox), which the generic label cannot. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding size issue, any logged-in user can change appearances of thumbnail images via preference settings. Also, any interested reader can click or tap an image to view larger size. Too bad for those logged out. Furthermore, the picture sleeve has its own release(s), and the side label has its own as well, yet they must have equivalent purpose: showing readers accurately how a specific release has been manufactured and distributed.
Regarding "contextual significance", well, maybe the German sleeve meets the criterion's first part, but how will deleting the sleeve used in German and a few other countries outside the band's home country, the United Kingdom, harm the understanding of the song and its releases? The Germans, the Italians, and the Scandinavians (or Norwegians) were fortunate to receive the picture sleeve. The Americans and the British (the band's people) were unfortunate to receive generic sleeves, yet they were still able to identify the song just by looking at the side labels.

Well, omitting the sleeve might deprive them from seeing a thematic edition, but readers can still understand already what the article conveys without the sleeve. Right? Isn't a free content more preferable than a non-free one per MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation? (You can argue exceptions and common sense per WP:GUIDES.) BTW, didn't I say already that Cream has been the British band? --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (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:GeorgeJungle.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FUC: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". This image is purportedly a poster/promo image from George of the Jungle (film), which is the only article using this image. The infobox uses a full poster; this file seems superfluous, provides no added value compared to the infobox image. MIDI (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (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.