Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28[edit]

File:James Oliver Huberty.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, with no prejudice to restoration if the article this image was used in is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated as part of mass-nom FFD discussion that was closed as "no consensus". To me, regardless of the size of the section of the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre article, the perpetrator image doesn't add much understanding to the already tragic event that occurred. It may fail WP:NFCC#8. However, a few or several editors wanted the image kept in the other discussion, so I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The spirit of the prior discussion linked above is that the perpetrator's likeness is often immaterial to the event. Unless the likeness is itself the subject of discussion, warranting supplemental visual context (WP:NFCC#8), the likeness has no necessary bearing on understanding the topic. czar 01:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the perpetrator's likeness is immaterial to the event itself the article does not just cover the mass shooting. There's significant coverage of the perpetrator as well (in addition to the aftermath) and identifying the perpetrator significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the article's subject, given a large proportion of the article is devoted to this person. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way that article is organised, Huberty's own article could be split off at any time, and in the section on Huberty, the image is in the infobox, which would make it NFCC#8 eligible if it had its own article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Czar says, this person's likeness is not necessary to understand the event. And more importantly, there's no commentary on the photo itself or its relevance to the article. This does not seem like a compelling non-free use to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The size of James Huberty's section is almost the same size as Adam Lanza's and his image was still deleted. If his image was deleted, James Huberty needs to go too. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 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:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated as part of mass-listing FFD discussion, which was closed as "no consensus". In that previous discussion, a few or several people favored keeping the image. However, I still don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8. The 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers was already tragic enough as it is, and the perpetrator image wouldn't improve/affect the understanding, especially when deleted, even with massive size of the section about the perpetrator. George Ho (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The spirit of the prior discussion linked above is that the perpetrator's likeness is often immaterial to the event. Unless the likeness is itself the subject of discussion, warranting supplemental visual context (WP:NFCC#8), the likeness has no necessary bearing on understanding the topic. I don't see the case for including a {{infobox criminal}} in these cases either. If the perpetrator is notable, they receive their own article with a detailed infobox. czar 01:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm convinced by argument that the perp's likeness is immaterial unless there's significant sourced material directly on the perp, which is the case in this article. I'm not sure we could split off an article here, but it's close, and the photo's logically in an infobox. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 18 June 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:Santo Spirito Firenze interno.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: Unclear copyright status, converted to non-free. No comment on NFCC eligibility (should be discussed in a fresh nomination as needed) -FASTILY 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License disputed by Sennecaster with the following rationale: "cannot be PD-Italy; Italy has no FOP and this is a dervitiave copyrighted, thus being URAA". Brought to FFD for discussion. ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as original disrupter because it is definitely older than 70 years, I don't see any organization that would hold copyright and I completely misinterpreted how FOP works in Italy. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit and Sennecaster, the license is still incorrect, no? It doesn't meet the date requirements of the "simple photograph" Italian license it lists. Why is the Italian license listed at all, though? The English Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law only, so the question is what makes it available under a free-use license in the U.S. And I'm not seeing evidence of a release that would make that so. Am I missing something? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: We use the Italian license to explain why it may be out of copyright in Italy and would be okay under URAA. I have no idea how the extremely limited FOP and simple photograph works, but assuming the church is older (yes), then the image is out of copyright in Italy and URAA restored in the United States. Nice catch on that one! Still shouldn't be deleted imo, needs a NFUR though. Sennecaster (What now?) 12:00, 2 June 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:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).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: remain non-free. czar 01:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below c:COM:TOO US I think? Convert to free. Jonteemil (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The design is a crosscut saw made to rememble the letter W. Far too complex to be considered below the threshold of originality. ✗plicit 06:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free. The letter is not formed from a font, or geometric figures. It's a saw that has been reshaped to form a W. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Far too complex huh? I can't say I agree with that but oh well, not super important to me whether it's free or not.Jonteemil (talk) 22:08, 28 May 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:SharksCap.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: keep. (non-admin closure) 🐶EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 22:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be below c:COM:TOO US so convert to free? Not sure if the previous revisions too are as simple though. Jonteemil (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The design of the sharkbite likely pushes this over the threshold of originality. ✗plicit 06:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free per Explicit. I think there's more creativity involved with the logo because of the shark-bite imagery than is common for {{PD-logo}} files per c:COM:TOO United States. I also want to add that if this file is kept as non-free, then the way it's being used might also need to be discussed at some point based upon the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 5#Files in Category:Cap logos, That FFD involves 50+ similar files being used in a similar manner as the one discussed here. It seems unlikely that FFD will be resolved before this one is resolved, but the admin who closes this one might want to check and see before closing this one. Of course, if consensus turns out to be that this file is indeed PD-logo, then whatever happens in the other FFD will not apply here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free, as the specifics of the shark bite push this over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 June 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:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.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: relisted on 2021 July 26. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:O'Neill 1969 Election poster.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #8. Unclear as to how a picture of Terence O'Neill significantly increases readers' understanding of the article it's used in, the text of the poster and flag are largely irrelevant also. FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poster (1) provides a picture of Terence O'Neil in the section in which his role as Unionist leader (and it is usual, or certainly common, to provide images of historical figures being discussed), (2) it is for the 1969 NI election whose importance and outcome is discussed; and (3) it an example of standard Unionist campaign posters (all of which profile the British flag) in an article that is about unionism. I suppose there can be a discussion about how this, or any other picture, "increases readers' understanding", but I cannot see how it diminishes it, and does serve, as other images, as signposts for navigating an article. Best regards ManfredHugh (talk)

It is neither usual nor common to use non-free images of people in articles other than their own biographies, since the physical appearance of Terence O'Neill is completely irrelevant to the article Unionism in Ireland thus failing WP:NFCC #8. FDW777 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 28 May 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:Beach Boys Maharishi.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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC concerns – is it acceptable to use a non-free image to visually identify the subject of an article, even though there's no supporting commentary about the image? JG66 (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm raising this issue (with these files as examples) for discussion. These are not my uploads but I admit I am tempted to upload other non-free files that would be used in the same way in their respective articles, and would similarly lack 3rd party commentary devoted to the image and its significance. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be allowed under WP:NFCI #8 (Images with iconic status or historical importance ... which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events) and #10. (Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.) ili (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the record, David Anderle is a non-living person, but if the concern lies with the painting next to him, well, that painting is discussed in the article. ili (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is says in full there at WP:NFCI #8 is (with my emphasis added): Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. Following that link from "contextual significance" gives (again with my emphasis): 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. It's questions raised by those areas I've emphasised, especially the last point, that I'd like some clarity on, and I think we all need some clarity on them. JG66 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a notification at WP:MCQ in the hope that editors with some expertise in this field might add to the discussion here. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 07:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've since added more commentary about the painting to Anderle's article. ili (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 28 May 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.

Screenshots from The Wire[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. Participants concluded that these screenshots lacked the sourced critical commentary from independent reliable sources to justify their inclusion. Contributors in favor of deletion argued that without said analysis, the removal of these images does not create a detriment in understanding the article's text, which is backed by the NFCC policy. ✗plicit 13:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these non-free scrteenshots are being claimed to be used for identification and in most cases there is an addiitonal claim that it is mentioned in the plot. These images are not logos, title cards, posters, or other such images thatr are used for identificaiton. As well, these images are not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary and their removal does not detract from the reader's understanding. Simply illustrating plot point with no critical commentary is decroative usage. Fails WP:NFCC#8. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 16#File:TheWire28.jpg -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:NFCC#8 only states that images must show "contextual significance. 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. Additionally, the image must serve a purpose. There is no requirement of "significant sourced critical commentary". In general, each image serves to show a plot point, but we'll go through each image for you!

- Unto Others. This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode - it's linked at the bottom of the article. it depicts Herc and Sydnor interviewing Randy about the security camera, which is mentioned under the "Major Case Unit" section of the article". This is an actual image from the episode - not from any other episode. To reiterate, THIS IMAGE IS FROM THE EPISODE. By definition, this is contextual significance. There is a case to be made that removing this image would indeed detract from a reader's understanding, given that the image is illustrating a plot point from the episode. Again, significant sourced critical commentary is not a written requirement.

- Corner Boys. Well, where do we go from here?

1. This image is literally referred to in the title of the episode and article - it depicts Namond showing up to school without his uniform on and being disruptive. Under the title reference section, it states ""Corner Boys" references the terminology used to describe the disruptive students in school, and the focus taken by Colvin's group to relate to them in terms of what they know: the streets of Baltimore. The term comes from Baltimore area slang for the street level drug dealers, usually adolescent males, who literally stand on street corners and sell drugs." The image there is of three of these said "corner boys".

2. Under the Epigraph section, it states "Zenobia makes this statement in Colvin's class to back up Namond, claiming that the students' drug dealing is related to the activities of larger legitimate systems." Once again referring to the scene in the image.

3. I'll copy and paste the massive chunk of text from the "school" section of the plot which you clearly chose not to read -

Namond tells Randy and Michael about the discussion on their way home from school. When De'Londa catches her son Namond working on his package in his bedroom she angrily tells him that the police could seize their house if the drugs are found there and insists he hand the task on to a lieutenant.

Michael gets home to find that his mother has sold his groceries for drug money. She threatens to take the DSS card from him. He insists on keeping the card. The next day, when Michael gets home from the gym, Bug tells him that his father has returned. Michael is dismayed and repulsed when the man goes to touch him. He confronts his mother, telling her that she has broken her promise by allowing Bug's father to return. She is unconcerned and tells Michael that things are going back to the way they were. Michael is stunned and his mother says that Bug's father will now hold the DSS card.

The next day an energized Namond raises the hypocrisy of a system that promises to reward him for good behavior when it fails to live by its own rules much of the time; he states steroids, liquor, cigarettes and Enron as examples. Darnell points out that even Colvin's police work focused on drugs, so in a way, drugs paid Colvin's salary. Zenobia claims that the street life is just part of the larger system. Prez discusses his class's difficulty with the test with his colleagues. They reassure him that performance is low across all subjects. Hanson and Shapiro tell him he must follow the curriculum. Sampson and Hanson offer typical sage advice: Prez's first year as a teacher has to be less about the children and more about him surviving.

At lunch, Prez watches Dukie show Crystal and her friends how to shop for jewelry on the internet. He notices that Michael is despondent at the back of the class. Prez asks if Michael is okay, but Michael hesitantly declines to confide in him. Prez leaves his offer open and suggests that Michael could talk to the school social worker. Michael goes to pick Bug up after school but learns from Miss Ella that his father has already taken him. Michael runs out of the school after them. He finds Bug doing homework with his father and pulls Bug away from him.

Parenti, Colvin and the special class teacher discuss their progress. The academics are impressed with their results but have noticed that some of the children are not participating — those with deeper problems in particular. Parenti wonders whether they can convince the corner kids to take an interest in subjects beyond drug dealing.

Namond gives his package to Kenard and tells him that he is a lieutenant and warns him not to cheat him on the profits. Namond delivers his takings to his mother and she notices that he has made less than she would expect from a full package. He blames his territory, but she goes to tackle Bodie about territory."

- Know Your Place. An image of Daniels being promoted to C.I.D. colonel.

1. Let's take a look at the title reference section. "...the title also refers to Carcetti keeping the high-up police in line, as well as Carcetti being challenged by Nerese Campbell in the first budget meeting."

2. Politics section - "Carcetti, Norman Wilson, and Delegate Watkins agree that firing Burrell is off the table because of the potential backlash of his black voters at the idea of a white mayor firing a black police commissioner. Carcetti tries to coax Burrell into stepping down, but Burrell understands the racial situation in which the mayor-elect finds himself and refuses to leave quietly, claiming that he will only do so if he is fired. Instead, Carcetti tells William Rawls that Burrell is to undertake no initiative as Commissioner without clearing it through him first. He then requests two promotions: Stan Valchek to Deputy Commissioner of Administration for helping him throughout the campaign, and Major Cedric Daniels will become C.I.D. Colonel, filling the late Ray Foerster's position. Carcetti claims that he wants to give Daniels carte blanche to reform the investigative units. Daniels tells Rhonda Pearlman that there's a chance Baltimore might be able to turn itself around under the new administration. She, Carver, Greggs and Sydnor are present at the promotion ceremony.

- Misgivings. Herc gives Bubbles a grape soda, attempting to apologize after repeatedly breaking his promises to him. As a result, Bubbles seeks revenge against him.

1. Directly mentioned in title reference section. The title refers to the feelings held by various characters in the episode. Marlo's misgiving about Little Kevin led to his murder. Bodie worries about the appropriateness of his new boss's actions. Doubts spread about Randy's character lead to bullying at school. Miss Sheperdson has misgivings about the appropriateness of the special class while many teachers feel the same way about her insistence upon teaching test questions. Michael makes an uneasy decision about Bug's father. Marimow and Bubbles doubt Herc's integrity. Burrell worries about his job security while Daniels doubts the effectiveness of his new strategy. Wilson and Carcetti worry about trusting Davis. Bubbles also deliberately gives Herc misinformation about a drug bust.

2. Major Crimes section. "Thomas "Herc" Hauk visits Bubbles and tries to enlist his help in retrieving the missing camera. Bubbles is outraged that Herc is asking him for more favors when Herc has broken his promises. Bubbles again asks for help with the drug addict who has been robbing him and Herc makes another promise to help. Herc provides Bubbles with a phone and some money and instructs him to call as soon as he sees his tormentor.

Herc discusses his problem about the missing camera with Officer Kenneth Dozerman and Detective Leander Sydnor. Sydnor urges Herc to go straight to the lieutenant before the situation gets worse. Herc is worried about Lieutenant Marimow's reaction.

Herc tries to confess to Marimow and is faced with hostility. Bubbles spots his antagonist and attempts to call Herc during the meeting, but Herc ignores his calls. Marimow threatens Herc with an internal investigations division case and Herc is intimidated into withholding the information about the camera.

Bubbles becomes frustrated with Herc and decides to get revenge. He calls up Herc about a fictitious drug resupply in progress, giving Herc the license plate of a minister's car. Herc jumps on the opportunity and organizes a traffic stop. Herc is aggressive towards the minister, throwing the minister's possessions on the sidewalk as he searches his car.

- That's Got His Own". Image shows Omar cocking his shotgun while robbing Prop Joe's narcotics shipment with his crew. This was the final scene in the penultimate episode of the 4th season and had major plot implications.

Omar section: "Omar Little and Renaldo follow Cheese to a meeting with Stanfield. Cheese's jocular manner is met with stony silence from Marlo, Chris, Snoop, O-Dog and Monk. Marlo pays Cheese more than was expected and then orders a bigger shipment of narcotics. Cheese cannot promise, but tells Marlo that he will discuss it with Proposition Joe. He gives Monk a burner phone and tells him that they will call when they have the drugs. Stanfield's people are newly dubious about using phones and Cheese reassures them that they do not have to answer the call; the call itself will serve as the signal that the meeting is ready.

Omar organizes a meeting at Butchie's bar to put a team together. Butchie offers him the men who helped Omar while in jail as muscle, but Omar declines, telling Butchie that he hopes to be more subtle. His old associate Kimmy arrives and receives a warm welcome. Omar and Renaldo follow Cheese while he prepares the delivery to Marlo. Proposition Joe calls Omar as promised; Omar does not take the call. Omar, Renaldo and Kimmy tail the van to the meeting place. Kimmy is dressed as a prostitute. Cheese and his associates prepare to load the shipment into the van. Kimmy approaches one of the guards and tries to distract him with the offer of sexual favors. Renaldo's people arrive posing as painters and block Cheese's van in. Omar demands that they open the truck. Cheese reports the theft to Proposition Joe who worries that the co-op will think that he is withholding the shipment for himself."

- Final Grades. Arguably one of the greatest television scenes/episodes of all time. The image depicts Bodie Broadus immediately before his tragic death. This scene bears heavily on its critical reception, and this is arguably your worst image tag here, and 100% should stay.

1. Critical response section. "The episode received unanimous acclaim from television critics. The Futon Critic named it the second best episode of 2006, saying "David Simon did it again. He made us think these four boys—Namond (Julito McCullum), Michael (Tristan Wilds), Randy (Maestro Harrell) and Duquan (Jermaine Crawford)—could have at the very least a future and ripped the rug out from under nearly all of them. He gave us a voice in Bodie (JD Williams), who rallied against the current state of "the game," only to silence it. He gave us a saintly mayor (Aidan Gillen), only to muzzle him with bureaucracy. In the end however he did give us the "old" McNulty (Dominic West) back and the promise to fight the good fight once again. And I'm sure he'll make us believe again—and rip the rug out from under us again. And I wouldn't have it any other way."

2. Title reference section. "Although most obviously referring to the test grades received by the school's students, the title also refers to the final evaluation of Parenti and Colvin's pilot program, Chris and Snoop's evaluations of O-Dog and Michael's skills, and to the end-of-year statistics which Carcetti leaves in Royce's name." (O-Dog kills Bodie, who becomes part of the end-of-year murder statistics.)

3. Western District section. Series of events leading up to Bodie's death. "Poot Carr and Bodie Broadus visit the site where one of the bodies was found. They have heard that Little Kevin's body was found inside. Bodie becomes increasingly agitated about the unjustifiable nature of the killing of his friend. Officer Jimmy McNulty recognizes Bodie when he vandalizes a patrol car as he is being arrested by other officers.

McNulty visits the staging area and asks Pearlman how many bodies have been recovered. She reports that 17 corpses have been discovered so far. He asks Pearlman to sign off on releasing Bodie without charge. McNulty quizzes his colleagues about the case they are building. They affectionately taunt him by saying that a real police officer would feel compelled to help them.

McNulty waits for Bodie as he is released from jail and offers to buy him lunch. As they leave, Monk arrives with the bondsman and notices Bodie getting into McNulty's car. McNulty takes Bodie to Cylburn Arboretum. Bodie tells him that he is not an informant, but admits his frustration with his life as a drug dealer and Marlo's leadership. He states that Marlo expects his people to stand behind him, yet he himself does not stand behind people who work for him. He tells McNulty that the game is rigged and that he feels like a pawn on a chessboard, showing that some of D'Angelo Barksdale's teachings were not lost on him. He offers McNulty information to bring down Marlo, but openly tells McNulty that he will not give any information on any former Barksdale associate. McNulty, out of genuine respect, tells Bodie that he is a soldier."

4. Stanfield Organization section. "Monk reports sighting Bodie to Marlo and a newly released Chris. Marlo instructs Chris to have Michael kill Bodie on the chance of him being an informant. Chris tells Marlo that Michael worked for Bodie so the task should go to someone else, as Michael's first kill should be a stranger. Marlo relays the latest news about the theft of their shipment and Omar's offer to sell it back to them. Marlo mentions that Proposition Joe said Omar offered to sell it back at 30 cents to the dollar, 10 cents more than what Omar actually told Joe.

Bodie returns to work on his corner with Poot and Spider. He notices someone approaching in the shadows and Poot sees someone coming from the other direction. Recognizing Chris and Snoop in the darkness Bodie and Poot realize that the pair have arrived to kill Bodie. Poot urges him to flee, but Bodie refuses to run from his own territory. Spider runs while Bodie fires into the darkness. Poot makes a final plea and then takes flight himself. Bodie, refusing to back down from Marlo and the Stanfield Organization any longer, stands his ground and fires at Chris and Snoop, yelling to them that he isn't running away from them and that they won't put his body in an empty row house as they have with their other victims. As Bodie is distracted by Chris and Snoop, O-Dog steps from a doorway and shoots him in the back of the head. Bodie falls, and O-Dog fires another shot at the back of Bodie's head, finishing him."

I have completely and totally justified each image's reasoning and I highly suggest you review and reconsider your deletion push. Thanks bud! LJF2019 ^talk 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: WP:TLDR and IMDB is a wiki. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: WP:TLDR is not Wikipedia policy. I don't know what IMDB being a wiki has anything to do with my justification. The reason there's so much text here is because a majority of it is pasted text directly from each article, which directly contradicts Whpq's claim of lack of significant commentary. The relevant sentences for each image are italicized, in case you didn't notice. The strongest case against deletion is the last one, Final Grades, which is conveniently bolded AND italicized for lazy eyes! LJF2019 ^talk 08:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: Indeed WP:TLDR is not policy, it is my opinion. And I'm probably not alone. You said This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode which is more of argument in favor of deletion than against it, as a wiki is not a reliable source. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: If the most effort you're willing to put into reading my justification is reading one sentence and giving up, then don't bother commenting anything at all. I don't see what your comment is contributing here. If you're going to target one arbitrary part of my argument and say it's because a wiki isn't a reliable source, and ignore literally all of my other justifications, then just don't say anything. LJF2019 ^talk 09:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LJF2019: A case could be made for these screenshots (probably not a strong case per Whpq below), but a wall of text is not helping. And IMDb is also not helping. The source should include a time code, instead File:Final Grades.jpg links a YouTube video from some random user and File:That's Got His Own.jpg links IMDb. Authenticity is considerably more difficult to verify when unofficial sources are used and no time code is provided, that alone is an argument for deletion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above argument (after wading through far too much text) boils down to a case of the image supporting the plot description. It is worthwhile to look at the instructions at {{Infobox television episode}} in which all these images are used. The image parameter in bold states "There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode.". Given every TV episode article has a plot summary, clearly just supporting the plot is insufficient. So what is needed? The documentation provides the direction that images are added "typically if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in genuine need of visual support." In all of these episodes, there is no sourced analytical commentary. What sourcing sourcing exists is just a primary source of the HBO website's epsiode information. Where is the analytical commentary? -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment “Where is the analytical commentary?”

If one sentence could describe the inane way you are approaching this discussion, that would be it. Time and time again, I find myself directly addressing your argument only to have you walk around it.

Once again, your last claim is patently false. The wall of text is there because a sizeable portion of it is copied and pasted from sections of the article directly related to the analytical commentary you are begging for. When discussing Wikipedia policy, I would prefer to go off of pages that say specifically that it is Wikipedia policy. So let’s go by WP:NFCC.

You’re correct in that “an image per episode” is not a blanket allowance, but no one is making that assertion here. Nevertheless, “an image per episode” is not prohibited under NFCC so long as its need can be demonstrated.

You may or may not have a valid case for the first 5 image, but I don’t think you have a case for the image on Final Grades given that it is illustrating a crucial plot point in one of the most critically acclaimed episodes of the most critically acclaimed season of one of the greatest television shows of all time. The analytical commentary you’re looking for is all over that article. This is true for the other images, but to a lesser degree.

It’s also important to consider the quality and structure of the article in general, and what defines “significant” in terms of sourced commentary. Some articles are simply written better than others. Every article for each Breaking Bad episode is well-written enough to the point where it merits an image per episode. For The Wire, an image illustrating a crucial plot point in an episode, coupled with mentions of the scene in the plot as well as a direct connection of the scene to the title and perhaps also the epigraph, which are sections in EVERY The Wire article, are sufficient for me. LJF2019 ^talk 23:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only sourcing in the articles for this are primary source (HBO web site epsiode / script). There is no actual independent sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rationale in nomination is not convincing - the standard for non-free content has nothing to do with being a "logos, title cards, posters" (barring logos that are so simple as to be public domain, of course, like pure text). The standard is critical commentary, of which The Wire has in spades. There's a bit of a forest vs. trees issue here: if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot, but also doesn't necessarily lock down which one - any shot of Bubbles in an alleyway in season 5 might work (where they intentionally went for a different, handcam, documentary-style approach). Nominator sees this as a weakness, that this means any shot individually doesn't qualify, but this isn't correct: it just means that many shots could qualify as a representative shot of the style. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the nomination referring to title cards / logos is addressing the claim that these screenshots are used for identification. But that is secodary to the main thrust that these images fulfill the requirement for contextual significance by dint of being the subject of critical commentary. You note "if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot". I agree. If such sourced commentary were to exist. But we do not have that here for any of these images. We do not have critical commentary "in spades"; what we have in spades is plot summary sourced to HBO, a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - "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." The articles are already extremely detailed and can be understood well based on the text; removing the screenshots would not significantly reduce readers' understanding of the topics. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - images fail WP:NFCC#8. I would also suggest taking a look at LJF2019's recent uploads, including those for shows like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul where images such as this one are simply of characters sitting down without doing anything notable/pivotal to the plot. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: If you were going to choose a file as an example, I don't think choosing the one of Chuck testifying in the courtroom in one of the show's most critically acclaimed episodes is your best option. Nice try though. Did you even watch the show? Take look at the critical reception and analysis section:

1. "TVLine named Michael McKean the "Performer of the Week" for his performance in this episode, writing it was the "finest showcase yet for his fascinatingly layered performance as Jimmy's brother Chuck McGill."[5] Donna Bowman of The A.V. Club, who gave the episode an "A" rating, praised the courtroom scene, saying "it isn't just to give us the satisfaction of a courtroom drama, the neat ending where the truth comes out. The brilliance of this structure is to give us a slow-motion view of the heavens falling, an outcome methodically pursued by Kim and Jimmy, which nevertheless seems to give them no satisfaction".

2. "The episode's final scene is an homage to the climactic courtroom scene in The Caine Mutiny, in which a suspicious, authoritarian, by-the-book Navy captain cracks under cross-examination. Uproxx noted that even the facial expressions of "Chicanery's" three committee members mirror those of three judges in Caine.[9] (The film—which Vince Gilligan counts among his favorites—is also referenced in the Breaking Bad episode "Madrigal", in which Mike can be seen watching it.)[9]"

Now that we've established you paid zero attention to the arguments that were made above, let me go over it again for you:

NFCC#8 requires contextual significance. I don't know if you've watched The Wire, but I'm going to assume you didn't because you seem to have glossed over all of the "sourced commentary" that I provided from the articles the non-free content is being used in. Compare the use of non-free images in the articles of TV show CHARACTERS to the ones in the articles for episodes - they are always uncontroversial. Why? Because the the non-free content serves to identify the subject of the article.

In this same context, the non-free content is being used to identify the subject of the article - the episode itself, which satisfies contextual significance. Take into account the fact that the plot points illustrated in the actual image are literally being discussed within the article, and Whpq's argument seems less valid. I'll quote Wikipedia's File Upload Wizard - " Please remember that you will need to demonstrate that: The file will serve an important function in a particular article; (NFCC8)".

Adding the image DOES improve the reader's understanding of the article topic. For example - of those who are rewatching a show and are following the show through Wikipedia, as I often do, having a screenshot from the episode helps readers quickly identify what episode the article is talking about, by presenting, for example, an important scene from the episode. Omitting it, therefore, would be a detriment to that understanding. LJF2019 ^talk 18:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 is a two-pronged test. One part is to show that the reader's understanding is improved with the presence of the image - this test nearly always is easy to demonstrate. The test that is harder to show is the second part : that the reader's understanding would be harmed with the absence of the image. In the past, the average use of a random screenshot frm a TV episode in the infobox just to serve to identify the episode has been rejected because this fails the second test; most episodes can be understood without the use of such a screenshot. However, in cases where there are specific scenes that have been critically discussed and where the visuals would be helpful, then we would allow those screenshots. For example as a positive example, the screenshot used in Worlds Apart (Fringe) is of such a case. Now while I can't speak that well to the Wire as to specific scenes, I can speak to Better Call Saul and question the choices there. Eg to pick one, Bad Choice Road is not a scene discussed in depth in comparison to the confrontation later in Kim's apartment, and while as a editor looking for a visually stimulating image, that image you uploaded is more interesting than three people standing in an apartment, it fails NFCC#8 because that scene is not a subject of discussion and fails the second test of NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LJF2019: The images in each article NEED to pass NFCC#8 – if the image was removed and it wouldn't affect a reader, it shouldn't be added. Describing it here won't do, and should be explained in the article in length. Take the image for "Full Measure", where the scene was analyzed by critics for its significance on the character development of Jesse Pinkman. Or the one for "Face Off", where the visual effects on the death of Gus Fring earned the episode an Emmy. For "Chicanery", an image is not necessary. For #1, an image of Michael McKean is already provided and can be used to state that his performance was praised. The excuse that it helps readers know what episode they're reading about is not a reason to include it. Articles with unnecessary images include "Gray Matter", "Seven Thirty-Seven", "Down", "Over", "I.F.T.", "Más", "Sunset", "Kafkaesque", "Fly", "Abiquiu", "Open House", "Shotgun", and "End Times". The plot section can explain in detail a pivotal scene and if an actor's performance was praised, a free image of them can be provided instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Describing it here won’t do? I’m quite literally copying and pasting content FROM THE ARTICLE into this discussion. Most of the images I’ve provided are from those scenes, and you conveniently chose the Chicanery picture as a perfect example. The picture is from the courtroom hearing and I copied and pasted content from the article describing that scene.

Yes, of course they NEED to pass NFCC#8. My argument is that they DO, even if it’s at the very minimum. I can make an argument that your removal of the image from the Smoke episode of Better Call Saul greatly detracted from my understanding of the episode. Having that image there allows me to easily identify which episode that was. “Ah yes, that’s the one where Jimmy’s at the church after Chuck dies”. Instead, after you removed it, I have to read the plot to figure out which one that is. I’m the only person speaking up about this, but like I said, the other 99% of people are lurkers/readers who are following the list of episodes as they watch the series. There is more than enough rationale for these images to stay. LJF2019 ^talk 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LJF2019: That's literally the problem with all of your uploads and how they tackle copyright issues. Having visual bookmarks for every episode does not pass NFCC#8 and does not make a valid reason for including all of those images. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: They aren’t “visual bookmarks” when they are meeting NFCC#8’s requirement of contextual significance and sourced commentary. At this point the discussion is deviating from The Wire screenshots to my other uploads. Focus on the files I’ve uploaded and look at the rationale I provided. NFCC#8’s requirements are more than met. It baffles me as to why people seem to be drowning that out. READ THE TEXT. All the commentary for those Wire episodes directly relate to the image and the episode, satisfying NFCC#8. Have you watched The Wire? LJF2019 ^talk 01:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Having that image there allows me to easily identify which episode that was." That is what we call a visual bookmark. The sourced commentary has to be included in the article where the image is located with reliable sources to pass NFCC#8. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A nit: if we are talking an infobox image, the sourced commentary is sometimes hard to include directly with the image, at least without having a superlong caption. But there should be enough to clue the reader where they may find more about why the image is important (and for us, where NFCC is being met). But it definitely needs to be sourced commentary and not what image an editor thinks is essential for the reader to identify the episode. --Masem (t) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think any of the images here pass NFCC#8 as they do not sufficiently identify the episode, nor are they the subject of sourced commentary. I'm convinced of this, so please don't ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 09:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexis Jazz. A wall of text is not going to save these images, it either does or does not. I also don't need to be pinged with saying otherwise. – The Grid (talk) 22:03, 23 June 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.

Other cover arts of Ain't Nobody[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: keep. ✗plicit 13:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of cover arts of Ain't Nobody was deleted per other FFD discussion (recently closed), I think now is the time to review other cover arts' compliance with NFCC. Well, the cover versions by Diana King, Richard X vs. Liberty X, and Felix Jaehn featuring Jasmine Thompson were successful especially in music charts. However, I don't think cover arts of subsequent versions of the song are needed, are they? The song was originally recorded by Rufus and Chaka Khan. One image of that original release would be enough. The song would be already understood without the cover arts that I'm listing here, and deleting them wouldn't affect such understanding and notability of the cover versions, methinks. In other words, like the one deleted in other FFD discussion, those cover arts may fail WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). George Ho (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would understand if they were multiple releases of the artist Chaka Khan herself. But I don't see any harm in having cover arts of the song if they are completely independent of the original artist. Saying it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the song is invalid. Different covers convey different additional knowledge. This is not just one particular song's page but also links to artists' pages. So a cover art of Felix Jaehn's version featuring Jasmine Thompson is directly related to Felix Jaehn's discography and his successes or Jasmine Thompson's discography not to Chaka Khan. I think all covers of charting cover versions need to stay and do play a role in widening our knowledge of not just the song and its appeal and variety and adaptability, but also of the so many new artists who found it worthwhile to remake in their own unique way. werldwayd (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiment about the cover arts. However, the consensus decided that the cover art of the LL Cool J release (showing just Beavis and Butt-Head) failed NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" (#8) and "minimal number of items" (#3a) criteria. Saying that the deletion argument is invalid would contrast the decision made at and be inconsistent with the other FFD discussion. For consistency, I think one main infobox image would be enough and any other non-free image is unnecessary. Besides, we have free images of specific singers to fill the void, even when they aren't suitable substitutes for front covers. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that there is no cover-all way treating such instances when they occur. You bring the example of LL Cool G / Beavis and Butthead. I can give you many others of exactly opposite outcome. But there is no clear Wikipedia policy either way. For me, the significance of the cover as a stand-alone hit is of essence, as that specific new hit is an achievement on its own, or else we would not have infoboxes, just a brief one sentence listings for each cover, not separate infoboxes. If there is an infobox(es), like in this case, it deserves its own cover art. werldwayd (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every infobox, either a top/lead or a section, needs an image, does it? To me, a mere infobox would be sufficient enough. An image is a bonus, yet adding it is very tempting because... an image has mass appeal, doesn' it? George Ho (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are separate versions, and used for identification of those particular version and justifiable under criterion #8 to distinguish the different versions. I would understand the "minimal number of items" (#3a) argument if these were for the same version, but they are not, and one for the version is minimal. They are not equivalent items. Hzh (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To put this another way, you thought the decision to delete the LL Cool J cover art was wrong then, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that those who argue on the basis of #3a are wrong, given that #3a is meant for equivalent items, and these are not (different song covers are different items, because their inclusion is determined by their individual notability criteria per WP:SONGCOVERS outside of the main version. Once you remove the #3a argument, it's at best no-consensus. Hzh (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued in another FFD discussion, WP:SONGCOVER doesn't mention images especially as part of a cover version's notability. Also, WP:SONGCOVER is part of the WikiProject instead of a guideline. Furthermore, a cover art of a cover version would be unnecessary if that version doesn't have a strong stand-alone article. Either a cover art of the original (e.g. Rufus and Chaka Khan's "Ain't Nobody") or the most significant cover version (if the primary article subject, e.g. Carpenters' "(They Long to Be) Close to You") should suffice. George Ho (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is about the cover version being assessed separately, an indication it is considered a separate item even if placed under the same article. The #3a argument does not apply for a separate item. There is nothing in WP:NFCC about any separate cover art for any version, so the argument is of no relevance. Hzh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#3a aside, the #8 criterion determines whether deleting the image would affect understanding of the article subject, e.g. the song originally sung and then covered. Furthermore, WP:NFC#CS clarifies that criterion. AFAICS, neither one cover version is the primary subject of the article. The original version has been notable for years and predominates the song article, and later versions of the same song are covered as sections of the article. Furthermore, the spirit of the policy matters more (WP:NFCCEG) than the lettering. To me, NFCC can apply to any separate cover art for any version in order to determine whether a cover art passes NFCC, especially spiritually.

In this case, I am unconvinced that cover arts of later versions have tremendously increased readers' understanding of (what the article conveys about) the song. Their presences, including their own respective elements, merely identify the releases themselves. However, no face of a different singer or no random drawing on a front cover can increase the understanding of the song and its success(es). I'm still confident that the song can be already understood, regardless of content size, without those cover arts, be it a singer's face or a drawing or any other. The later artists' own successes with the same song can still be understood without them as long as they are discussed in the same article and still wouldn't triumph the original's success. George Ho (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your interpretation of the guidelines, and none of guidelines you cited specifically deal with the issue. WP:NFC#CS may apply to an album but it says nothing about multiple versions of the same song. The topic of a song article is the song, however within the article there may be multiple versions that are contextually significant. Sometimes it is also hard to determine which version is the most significant one, see for example, "Without You". Within the Ain't Nobody article, the Scooter version clearly does not warrant its own section, therefore if someone adds a cover art for it, it can be deleted, but the others are contextually significant. I'm only bringing up the #3a argument because you specifically asked about the LL Cool J's version, and there was no clear consensus once you eliminated that argument (therefore you can argue that it was erroneously deleted). As mentioned by someone else above, there is no clear Wikipedia policy on this, trying to randomly delete cover art based on your personal interpretation is not really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said my interpretation was personal. As I can assure you, it's not. I'm trying to make things consistent. Deleting one and keeping the others usually wouldn't make sense. If you still have issues with the deletion, please talk to Anarchyte about it.

About WP:NFC#CS, as I hate to admit, it is kinda subjective at best. Nonetheless, an "album" is just an example. The guideline can also apply to songs and says that one non-free content would be typically enough to identify the subject of discussion. Well, every case is different and subjective at best.

In this case, by reading the article, later versions were successful in music charts and received critical reviews at time of their own releases. However, I'm neither sure nor convinced that, no matter how well a version did, a "version" is a subject or an aspect. Actually, aspects of a song I can come up with are an image of a single release and a music sample, which we all know should be covered by critical commentary. Merely identifying the releases, successful or not, with their respective cover arts just... wouldn't cut it (for me, anyways). Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the later versions of the song have made lasting impact as much as the original has done. By the way, the File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is free from the shackles of NFCC because... it's free in the US. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are song covers of notable cover versions that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. I believe that the previous discussion was closed errornously based on two editors claiming WP:NFCC#3a, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. I was going to argue this point before it closed, but obviously never got around to it. Since you did not state #3a in your nomination, with the previous discussion being based on that point, means that only WP:NFCC#8 should be considered, which is not how the previous deletion was closed and should not serve as precedence. Aspects (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 28 May 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.

Torn (Ava Max song)[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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If having two covers in Torn (Ava Max song) violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), then let's choose either the (animated/comic) replacement cover or the original (live-action) one. The digital downloading/streaming uses the replacement cover more and more. Unsure about original/physical cover, but physical formats have been (steadily) declining and less and less used. Maybe earliest digital releases used the original cover. The song performed differently in various countries, but I don't see it charted in the US. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep animated cover (cover 2) as uploader: The first cover was only sporadically released in German CD single release and as the song's initial digital release cover for a month before it was silently updated, with the first cover seemingly out of print and non-existent without being accessed with an internet archive. The second cover is also more recognizable to most readers than the first since it is currently used in several digital services. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. If I remember correctly, the original cover was used for over a month until it was changed. Can "one item can convey equivalent significant information"? I don't think so. It's not like it was only used for one day and then changed to the animated one. It was representative of the song when it was released and when it charted. Heartfox (talk) 19:16, 30 May 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:TheWire28.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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 25 -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article; therefore, it fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image makes it clear, for anyone who watched the series, what episode is being discussed (he says as someone that just rewatched this during Covid). Thus meets NFCC#8 as it certainly makes it easier for me to recall which episode we are talking about. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8. As laid out at WP:NFC#CS, a non-free item is required to either "itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article" to be considered contextually significant. This image satisfies neither. NFCC#8 always requires for the removal of said item to be detrimental to the understanding of the article, but no detriment occurs as the screenshot is not critically discussed to any extent that would enhance the readers' understanding of the article. It fails every single aspect of policy. ✗plicit 06:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This image neither adds significant context that couldn't be replaced with text nor is it the subject of in-depth analysis in the body of the article. Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. -FASTILY 02:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NFCC#8, this image would enhance my understanding of the topic by enabling me to identify the episode easily.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's impossible for S Marshall or Hobit to have identified the episode from this image because this image isn't even from Dead Soldiers, it's from the scene in Time After Time where Stringer makes everyone follow Robert's Rules of Order. Timestamp 12:08 roughly. There isn't actually a scene in Dead Soldiers where Stringer is even leaning on a podium. The entire premise of this deletion discussion and the deletion review is flawed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this would mean that the image fails NFCC#8 because the frame is being used to illustrate an episode it's not actually from. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even assuming the image is in the correct episode, it would still fail NFCC#8. I completely agree with Xplicit's reasoning. SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 18 June 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:Saruta Kogyo SC logo.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE use of these two non-free logos in Tohoku Soccer League#Division 1 and Tohoku Soccer League#2015 clubs which fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFTABLES. The files are being used in tables listing teams which are part of the Tohoku Soccer League in manner that fails to provide the context for non-free use required by WP:NFC#CS. These files might be OK to use for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of a stand-alone articles about the team Saruta Kogyo SC or the company Saruta Kogyo, but no such articles yet exist. Unless there's a consensus that these files are somehow too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO Japan and their licensing can be converted to {{PD-logo}} (or even {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}), there's no justification for keeping them as non-free content based upon their current use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 14:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Do you think there's a reasonable chance of Draft:Saruta Kōgyō S.C. becoming an article per WP:FOOTYN? If there is, then at least "File:Saruta Kogyo SC logo.PNG" could be used in the main infobox for that article in a manner that meets WP:NFCCP. It can't be added there at the moment per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule for soccer clubs is "have they played in the National Cup" - I don't think this team has, only qualifying rounds... Giant Snowman 10:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saruta played in the National Cup twice. Yota00 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 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:Rajeshnarwal06.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a selfie. Unless the uploader is the subject, this is a copyright violation. WP:OTRS confirmation would be needed. Whpq (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File’s EXIF data indicates that this likely came from Facebook. It could be a selfie and the uploader could be the photographer/subject, but the image isn’t being used on any pages which means it pretty much has zero encyclopedic value at the moment. Unless it’s going to be used somewhere and unless it’s licensing/authorship is clarified, there’s really no value in keeping this per WP:NOTWEBHOST even if it ends up being OTRS verified. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the name is misleading as well. Rajesh Narwal is a) male and b) doesn't look anything like the subject of the photo. (One of the refs on the article about him has his actual picture.) - Sumanuil (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is of a female boxer. -- Whpq (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:30, 30 May 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.