Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 25



File:NFLClock-Bears-Large.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:NFLClock-Bears-Large.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Happyman22 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Tagged {{subst:rfu}}, but the tag was removed by. This is indeed replaceable: it is a non-free photo of public domain clothes. It can be replaced by a freely licensed photo of the same clothes. Stefan2 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:EnglishLanguage.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:EnglishLanguage.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Renetus ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. I assume this is supposed to be a mash-up of the flags of the United States and the United Kingdom, but the UK flag doesn't really look like that. It is unclear how this image could be used in an encyclopedic content. The file name suggests that it is a symbol for the English language, but flags of countries are poor choices to represent languages, for a number of reasons. —Bkell (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete This was used very briefly to support a section on an "flag of the English language", but it was removed almost immediately and the section was gone by the end of the month in which the image was inserted. I have not found any evidence that this is anything but the fantasy of the uploader. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Momoiro Clover Z - Saraba, Itoshiki Kanashimitachi yo (Limited Edition, KICM-91427) 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Momoiro Clover Z - Saraba, Itoshiki Kanashimitachi yo (Limited Edition, KICM-91427) cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Moscowconnection ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all, it looks like Stefan2 is stalking me. There is an ongoing discussion here: User talk:Werieth. Stefan2 suddenly came there today to help my opponent. After I suggested that it was not fair that I was alone against two people defending a single article and proposed that the matter of additional covers should be discussed as a whole by the Wikipedia community, he nominated another file I uploaded. I think he looked through my comtributions and nominated a random album cover I uploaded. I can't explain the timing differently. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't come to the discussion at User talk:Werieth "suddenly"; I came there after seeing WT:NFC. I would have seen the discussion soon anyway since I have the page User talk:Werieth on my watchlist.
 * The matter with multiple covers has been discussed at numerous places, for example at Deletion review/Log/2012 October 12, and the policy is clear: in most cases, only one non-free cover is permitted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see where "the policy is clear". On the contrary, it seems to be unclear and different editors seem to interpret it differently. There were multiple discussions whre it was decided to let additional covers stay in the article. Yet, new covers contunue to be nominated with the same short deletion rationale. In this particular case, it may seem that the nominator didn't even read the article. And it's very easy to nominate, but much harder to defend. i think these deletions are disruptive. At least, they disrupted what I was doing. i believe that instead of attacking one cover at a time, the matter should be discussed as a whole. I will accept whatever the Wikipedia community decides to do with all alternative album covers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explain why you nominated this file soon afterwards. WT:NFC only explains why you came to Werieth's talk page (he called for other people to come to his talk page and fight me). --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The album can't be identified by one cover. It can only be identified by several covers that were widely distributed and are absolutely equal in their importance. I will elaborate:
 * The cover passes WP:NFCC cause one item can't "convey equivalent significant information".
 * The cover passes WP:NFCC cause the cover "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".
 * And the most importantly, the cover is actually discussed in the article, explaining how it illustrates the concept of the song.
 * Also, I would again like to propose discussiong the matter as a whole at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, why must this article include that exact image? per NFCC#8 its removal must be detrimental to that understanding of the complete article. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "detrimental" and it doesn't say "the complete article". It says "significantly" increase/decrease. In this case, it significantly decreases. But there's also NFCC and the footnote No. 1 at WP:NFCI that are enough to keep all alternative covers that were widely distributed. In this article, «the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys.» --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually let me quote NFCC#8 "#8 Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

- WP:NFCC


 * That footnote applies to the first non-free file, all additional files do not get the same pass. Since the imagry of the covers is not actually discussed in depth the topic is the whole article. Werieth (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but "detrimental" has the same meaning as "decreasing" [the understanding], it just sounded more severe to me. The footnote doesn't say it applies only to one file. It says "the cover art". In this case, the cover art is all the covers. The covers were conceived together, as a set. There's no main and no additional cover. They all are "the cover art". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read the dictionary. Detrimental is not a synonym for decreasing. You can decrease the understanding without being detrimental. Basically a question to ask is why does the article require said image? If the reason is the same for more than one image, the odds are the additional images are not required, even though they may improve the understanding of the topic. Werieth (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already said that 1. NFCC and the footnote No. 1 at WP:NFCI; 2. The cover is discussed in the article. 3. One more argument for the cover being necessary to identify the single: Oricon uses this cover to illustrate the single here: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even the group Momoiro Clover Z is currently identified by both images together: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand that other sites do things differently. Taking a look at Momoiro Clover Z I see just one free image. Werieth (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not discussing other sites, I'm just proving why both images are necessary. And I am citing a Wikipedia policy, not another site's policy. 2. The article about the group Momoiro Clover Z doesn't have a fair-use image because there is a free equivalent. But even if there weren't, it still could have been created any moment (see WP:NFCC), and therefore the article would have been without a photo of the group. Actually, a non-free image can be used in an article about a living person to illustrate some important point. But it's tricky. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you have yet to cite policy, you are citing guidelines. Non-free content is a guideline, Non-free content criteria is policy that I am quoting. Werieth (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cited WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please also see also a similar discussion below, at . --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No basis provided for an exception to the one-cover-per-item standard. In English-language publishing, many books have had different hardback and paperback covers, but we don't display both absent unusual circumstances. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all other similar images. User has a tendency to stick a half a dozen or more such covers in their articles in violation of fair-use guidelines. By pure chance I came upon a few of those articles, and one ANI thread later (they called my removal of them "vandalism") I found the discussion with Werieth and these nominations. See also my talk page, User_talk:Drmies. When do we start talking upload ban? How many such images are we talking about in all? Drmies (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Matchbox20.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Matchbox20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ejfetters ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused photo. It is tagged, and a Flickr page is given as the source. That Flickr page no longer exists, so it is impossible to verify the license. This same user uploaded File:RobThomas.jpg the previous day, also tagged with, and also with a Flickr page  as the source; but that Flickr page says the photo is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic, and "NoDerivs" is not free enough for Wikipedia. So I have doubts that the tag on File:Matchbox20.jpg is correct. —Bkell (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Blinkandyoumissit.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Blinkandyoumissit.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ericdeaththe2nd ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, self-created band logo. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Sergio Franchi in &

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Sergio Franchi in & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Cathlec ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Cover of a book used only in the article about the author in violation of the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Besides, the cover illustration is just a photo of the author, and there are lots of public domain photos of him. See Commons:Category:Sergio Franchi. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems I may be a victim of my success in uploading public domain photos to Wikipedia Commons. There have been no objections to the use of this photo untill I uploaded the second non-free image to the article (Which I have since agreed to remove and delete). However I disagree that the image is "just a photo of the author" (?) (more properly, the subject of the article.. not the author). It is a visual representation of his starring role in the Broadway musical 'Nine' and there are no non-free images of this event in music history. THAT is why I feel that tremoval of the the image would be detrimental... I feel that adding this image greatly improves the understanding of a major event in the life of the musician, who is the subject of the biography. It should NOT be a question of the number of public domain images I have uploaded and used, but a question of depicting a major event in the life of the artist...his appearance role in the Broadway Musical 'Nine.' Thanks Cathlec (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, the image's purpose seems to be to show that Franchi made this publication's cover and/or that he played the lead role in the musical Nine, but there's nothing in the image that cannot be conveyed by words alone. Huon (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Therion fleurs 2.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 -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Therion fleurs 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Lewismaster ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The album was published with two different covers, without indication of importance or privilege of one against the other. To choose one of them would be arbitrary and not in the spirit of completeness that the encyclopedia aims to. I think that to convey adequate information to the readers and to permit a correct identification of the album, both of them should remain in the article, which is at the moment only a Stub. Lewismaster (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lewismaster and per my comments above, at (i.e. per WP:NFCC and the footnote No. 1 at WP:NFCI). --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Tadesse Meskela meeting with Tony Blair.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Tadesse Meskela meeting with Tony Blair.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sandra.Spighel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

You don't need a photo of Tadesse Meskela meeting Tony Blair to know that he met him. This image fails WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.