Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 24



I Should Be So Lucky single covers

 * 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 - F ASTILY   01:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * File:KylieIShouldBeSoLuckyOZCover.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TheSameStar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Kylie Minogue - I Should Be So Lucky.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TheSameStar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both single covers of "I Should Be So Lucky" had been used. Then last year, the Australian edition cover was removed in favor of the international one. Undeniably, the artist of the song herself has been one of established international pop icons, and the single was one of international hits. I appreciate the reasoning for sticking to solely the international image. However, I believe that the Australian single should be used instead because Australia has been the artist's home country and the single was also a hit there. I was able to retrieve the image per undeletion request, so I can take both images here.

If one of the images fails to adhere to NFCC, then that image should be deleted. If anything, I think the international (non-Australian) cover should be deleted, despite success outside Australia, because an image is not needed to just reflect the international success of the song/single already understood by readers. Also, both images show the artist, despite different hairstyles and titling layout in both covers. Maybe others favoring the international cover would say that an image is not needed to reflect the artist's and the song's national origin. However, if removing one of the images harms readers' understanding of the single release, then why removing an image, i.e. why not keep both images as covers of "Hanging on the Telephone" have been since the FFD discussion last summer? –George Ho (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep both The purpose of the images is for identification of the article's subject by typical users. Most Australians will recognise the upper image, while the lower one is useful for others. The rights of the creator(s) of the images &/or copyright owner(s) are respected by using inferior quality and smaller size.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Cover of the international release and release in source country. They are visually dissimilar. Conforms with Template:Infobox album. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (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:Faith No More - Epic.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 ⚡  02:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Faith No More - Epic.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Balthazar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I originally PRODded the image, a cover art of the UK/European single release of Epic (Faith No More song) because I uploaded File:Epic by Faith No More US commercial cassette single.png as replacement to this image. Then the PROD tag was removed on grounds that "di-disputed fair use rationale" template counts as previously nominated for deletion. Then I de-orphaned the image by reinserting it into the article just to take the image here. The question here is whether the UK/European image complies with NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion (#8). IMHO, the PROD should have been left uncontested. One single cover would be enough, and I've not yet found sources that would help the image comply with criterion #8. George Ho (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2020 (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:Michelle Ferrigno Warren.pdf

 * 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 G11 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Michelle Ferrigno Warren.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by MichelleforColorado2020 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Wikipedia isn't the place to host resumes of candidates running for office (or anyone else, for that matter.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - completely inappropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2020 (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:Sculptures from Medina Forum of Live Sculpture.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 ⚡  02:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Sculptures from Medina Forum of Live Sculpture.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Chaosone21 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Although the photo has been released under a free license, the image contains copyrighted elements. This is a photo of sculptures in Medina (Saudi Arabia). Saudi Arabia does not have freedom of panorama. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia. The sculptures are the focus of the photo and so de minimis does not apply. Whpq (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2020 (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:Medina Art Center in the Noon.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 ⚡  02:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Medina Art Center in the Noon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Chaosone21 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Although the photo has been released under a free license, the image contains copyrighted elements. This is a photo of the Medinah Art Centre in Saudi Arabia which was opened in 2018. Saudi Arabia does not have freedom of panorama. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Saudi Arabia. The building design would be considered the equivalent of an artistic work and would still be under copyright. Whpq (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.