Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 9



File:Everything Trump Touches Dies.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 ⚡  06:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Everything Trump Touches Dies.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Zackmann08 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete per WP:NFCC. The cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the article subject (Wilson) and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has an infobox for this book as part of a section that is half about this book. The former stand-alone article about the book (Everything Trump Touches Dies) was merge/redirected here, so now this location is the primary place this book is discussed, which I think fits the Section rationale. The article content about this book (vs his non-book works) could be made its own section to more strictly match the non-free rationale wording (infobox at start of section). Or else the infobox itself should be scrapped, since it's just one of many writings by this author. We should get User:JFG's input regarding this seemingly unexplained merger here. DMacks (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the infobox and delete the resulting orphaned image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Nonfree book cover may be used as an identifying image only in the article whose principal subject is the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a universal consensus, seeing as how there are several Use for other general types of uses (including one specifically documented as "a section devoted to the book"). DMacks (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may not be a "universal" consensus (very little is) but it's a well-established policy consensus. See WP:NFCI fn 1 snd the extensive discussions leading to that outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused...this is a cover of a book, for an article-section that is specific commentary about that specific book. That's what the rationale says. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy allows the use of such an identifying nonfree image in an article whose primary subject is the book itself, not in a section of an article whose subject is broader, particularly the author's bio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on that reading of the policy and its consensus implementation in infobox. DMacks (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the editor who did the merger does not respond in a day or two (I left them a user-talkpage note), I intend to undo it. That would leave us squarely in the stricter NFC1 interpretation, as it would be an article specifically about the book. DMacks (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. It's been a while since I merged this; I had to look through archives. Basically the book article had only a couple lines, so it was a case of WP:PAGEDECIDE. I have no opinion regarding the image, but I do agree the infobox is superfluous. I also feel this particular book would fail WP:NBOOK despite having been a best-seller for about a week, but I haven't researched it much. — JFG talk 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's current use for identification in a section fails WP:NFCC. If the book is split back to its own article, then its use fro identification where the subject is the primary subject would be okay.  No comment on whether the book itself is notable enough for its own article -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (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.