Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3

Violence (song) cover arts

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 the original cover. ★ Bigr Tex 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have one original cover and one alternative cover. The original is more graphic and seemingly offensive (but hopefully, encyclopedic... unless I'm wrong): it shows a drawing of a woman apparently killing someone with a sword... unless I stand corrected. The alternative is less offensive, showing pink background and some being facing up the air with some kind of "X" on the left eye. Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Number of items, either one or both covers may be kept. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both: I don't really see a need to remove one of them. As above, many music-related articles feature both the original and alternate cover art of a song or album. It being "offensive" - hmm, I don't know about that. It's a drawing, and Wikipedia is not censored anyway... Граймс (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alternative cover per nom - since it was uploaded second, and per 3a only one should stay. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both: Although 3a states that only one artwork should be used, this is an exception as one is the original cover and the other is the current cover. See Torn (Ava Max song) for instance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are exceptions to "#3a". If either one fails 3a, then that one fails 3a. Same thing I can say about #8. Also, per another FFD discussion, making exceptions to or ignoring this project's copyright policies is the last thing we wanna do. Furthermore, per WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines, the project sets higher standards on "fair use" (or non-free) content than the US copyright law yet still strongly encourages free content. BTW, I might wanna list both cover arts of "Torn" by Ava Max for discussion... right after results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, almost forgot, per WP:NFCCEG, how non-free (or "fair use") content is used and included shall be based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. George Ho (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: From my understanding, 3a is used for artworks that won't have much significance on the article, for instance deluxe edition covers that are hardly any different from the standard edition cover. However, these two artworks have very stark differences, and since there is two artworks that were released with the song, they both should be kept. 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", but the original artwork helps to convey equivalent significant information by informing readers that the artwork has changed since the release date, which in my opinion, is encyclopaedic due to its archival value. I notice that you were also the same user who nominated the artworks with Miss Anthropocene, and my arguments are the same with the users who think the revised standard album cover should be kept. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about #3a, and your use of phrase archival value may be imply that you believe both pass #8 also. Right? Honestly, I'm unsure whether archival value is enough to justify an extra cover art. Sometimes, in my personal experience, one out of two artworks with very stark differences is kept, but that's a case-by-case basis: e.g. Should I Stay or Should I Go (FFD discussion), which was physically released and re-released long before the digital streaming era. Moreover, sometimes two covers with (somewhat) possibly similar elements can be also kept (especially by default); e.g. I Should Be So Lucky (FFD discussion where visual dissimilarity and wide recognition triumphed) and Hanging on the Telephone (FFD discussion). George Ho (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the original. If a new cover has replaced the original, I don't see why both should be kept. If, however, there is significant commentary on the original, then I'd think otherwise. HĐ (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an old thread but could benefit from further discussion as otherwise it is heading towards no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the original. It was used, at most, for four months before it was switched to the current cover, so the original is the one that requires sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Aside from learning that the original was designed by Mako Vice, I was unable to find any coverage on its design. ✗plicit 01:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per reasoning above. Sean Stephens (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2021 (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:Long Pond Studio.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 ⚡ 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free picture of a recording studio accessible to any person ([1]) and therefore can be replaced with any free picture, thus failing WP:NFCC#1. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:17, 3 April 2021 (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:Seoul Calligraphy Art Museum.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 ⚡ 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. A transferred copy was deleted from Commons based on COM:FOP South Korea. ★ Bigr Tex 22:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2021 (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.