Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7[edit]

File:2003 Austria 100 Euro Painting front.jpg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image's fair use rationale is for another article completely, and in the only article this is used in (Gustav Klimt) the lack of this image would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). This had been CSDed, but was reverted by another editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2015 (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:Lifesave raft alternative3219304 blank.jpg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely poor quality image, not used anywhere and from a user with history of uploading copyright violations. Otterathome (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is not a copyright violqtion as it is too simple, but one could delete for the other reasons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (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:Iggy Azalea - Trouble (feat. Jennifer Hudson).png[edit]

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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 23:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cover is claimed as fair-use as a single cover, but no single has been released. (It was posted to the artist's Instagram account, but with no indication that it will be used as a cover.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art was presented as the official artwork during a presentation/performance by the artists of the song on national television, and reposted on the same article by the artist's official label on their social media accounts/official website. All of this is linked on the source for the original uploaded image. Whether the song is released as an individual single digitally and distributed to radio or not, this is in fact the official cover art for this track. — Ignorantart 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say that this is a single cover, nor is there any retail release of the song that uses this cover. The FUR says that the file is used for identification as the single cover of the work. If it hasn't been attached to any single release, then the FUR does not apply as it's not helping the reader identify the song. If the FUR doesn't apply, the file should not be on Wikipedia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was replying to you mainly on my User talk page and didn't notice your answer here. The link on the original source shows a performance of the song where it's presented as the single and where the track cover is unveiled though, isn't that enough evidence that this is the official artwork of this song? Plus also as I mentioned on my talk page, the single cover is also on AllAccess.com's website, provided by Azalea's label as well and confirming it is the single's official artwork. I haven't included that link on the song's wikipedia article nor on when I uploaded the original image because registration is needed to view the page, should this source be included instead then? Thanks in advance for your help again. — Ignorantart 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is official, the FUR for "identification" still fails since there isn't a CD single or digital single that uses the artwork. In other words, there's no actual single for a reader to be able to visually identify. (Unlike say, an album cover, where a reader might have seen the CD in a Walmart and will need to identify the cover as the correct artwork upon reaching the article.) WP:NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding," and I don't think this cover - real or not - meets that criterion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a post-album release single, which means they may not put out this single track individually on digital stores with this cover because it's already available on the main version of the album it's a part of (Reclassified, that came out in November). However it did get some sort of radio release for it to be listed on the AllAccess.com website for both Mainstream and Rhythmic US radio formats. And the image being used next to this single's info is this cover so it is at least somewhat clear the artwork is being used officially as this song's artwork to identify it in certain platforms (like for radio programmers, etc). Jimmy Fallon also used it on his show to identify and promote the single before their performance last week. I feel like the problem is more the fact that "Trouble" has been announced as a single several times by the artist and certain other identities, there's been promotional performances, a video was shot and will be released on Vevo, there's even an official cover art but there isn't a clear single digital release yet (like on the iTunes store or something), right? Because that might not happen (we're in the digital era, some singles don't even get an official cover nowadays let alone get a physical release), unless there's a remix package for the track coming eventually, however it should still be allowed to be featured on this single's article page as it has been associated with the track release before as demonstrated with the radio and performance thing (shared by the artist's record label) precisely for "identification". — Ignorantart 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of excuses; Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and should only use non-free material when absolutely necessary. This is not a case where using non-free content is absolutely necessary. If it is, please enlighten me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ignorantart. Pretty obvious that it is the singer cover as Iggy Azalea posted it on her official Instagram. You get get record companies saying "This is the official single cover, okay everybody?!". Please, a little common sense goes a long way, but I appreciate that not everyone is ordained with such a thing. — ₳aron 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azalea posted this image on Instagram, but nowhere in her caption did she say this was the single cover. Nor did the record label. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But nowhere does it say it's not. Even a primate would be able to tell that this is the official artwork. — ₳aron 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Find a single release (a purchaseable single) that uses this artwork. And stop the personal attacks immediately. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use that manner of tone ordering me to do something. You don't need a purchasable (I assume you mean digital/iTunes) release to confirm artwork. Azalea posting this artwork for this single on her verified Instagram quite clearly shows that it is the intended artwork. — ₳aron 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she just posted it on Instagram, then the FUR saying that the album cover helps readers identify the work is invalid. If there's not a purchaseable product they could recognize, there's nothing to identify. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't live in those times anymore. Things are not done so black and white. — ₳aron 09:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's besides the point. How does including this non-free file help readers identify the song discussed in the article? There's no single on iTunes or sold in record stores that readers would be able to recognize? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely the point. You don't have to release a song to iTunes to make it an official single nor to see what the official artwork is. It's ridiculous and trivial. You're just being a nuisance and it's taking up a lot of editors time dealing with you and your proposals/opinions/requests which are superfluous. Spend your time improving Wikipedia, not causing instability. — ₳aron 18:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you still fail to understand is that with no single released to retail, there is no product for the reader to recognize and associate with the song, thus the FUR does not apply. Keep your uncivil comments to yourself. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you still fail to understand is that no one here is in accordance with you. It doesn't matter if a song is not released to retail, artwork is artwork. — ₳aron 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is this artwork helping readers identify a single release, though, or is it just here for decoration? That is the main question here. If it's simply decorative then it has no place on a free encyclopedia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you listening to yourself? It's obviously not for decorative purposes. Artwork indicates single release to most readers. — ₳aron 12:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Release" involves placing a product on the market for sale. This song may have been promoted to radio, which makes it a single, but as it has not been released as a commercial single, the cover is not helping anyone identify the work. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chase it is common sense that the artwork helps identify with the work, why would Iggy Azalea and her label go through the effort of making one then? The song is available to buy on iTunes, whether it is with that artwork or not yet, it is obvious Azalea and her label released the artwork so that it would help identify the song as a single. You should be having this argument her label, if you feel so strongly about your POV. You come across as very much misinformed, no offense. Cool Marc 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the song is not available to buy with that artwork, then the artwork is not essential to a reader's understanding/recognizing of the work, and thus there should not be a cover. WP:NFCC only allows us to use non-free work in certain instances and I have clearly explained how this file violates both that and the FUR currently used. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate WP:NFCC. You are the only one who thinks that and with a very misinformed logic. I've just had a look at your contributions, and you seem to be a problematic editor solely involved in arguments with numerous other editors, nonsencical disputes and bogus deletion proposals. Give it a rest already. Cool Marc 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how its inclusion significantly enhances a reader's understanding of the song. Also, please save your (very flawed) arguments to the person. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per both Ignorantart and Aaron. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems reasonable. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 10:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single artwork does not need to appear on digital retail stores for it to suffice as one. Iggy Azalea wouldn't post it on her official Instagram account for her health either. Cool Marc 08:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Trouble.png to File:Iggy Azalea - Trouble (feat. Jennifer Hudson).png by Nahnah4 (talk · contribs) at 09:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 26 February 2015 (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.