Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

September 20

File:Ring My Bell by Collette.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously PRODded but then de-PRODded in December of last year. Assertion that the notability of Collette's remake of "Ring My Bell" won't be understood without the cover art was used to dePROD the image. However, even when successful in Australia and New Zealand at the time of release, I still have had concerns about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8. Must a reader look for the cover art of the specific recording, released ten years after the more successful original version by Anita Ward? If so, would deleting the image of Collette's single release affect the understanding of Ward's hit song, which has been well known as Ward's song for decades? Would deleting the nominated image affect the notability of Collette's recording? In my case, I have already identified the song as part of Ward's career, and I don't think any cover art of any other singer's recording can improve such understanding of what I've already understood, would it? Well, I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, I've not yet seen critical commentary on Collette's recording improved for years, even as top ten in weekly Australian and New Zealand charts, but maybe it can improve. Still, as-is, description about Collette's recording doesn't appear sufficient enough to justify using the cover art. George Ho (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks George, with all of this in mind, I still think it's worthy of an image. Moreover, how would the article be IMPROVED by removing the image? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of "contextual significance" is allowing content that would be too significant to be deleted and that would improve understanding of the topic in question, e.g. the song. I'm unsure whether article quality has to do with the image's compliance with NFCC.

For the question you asked, I don't know why you didn't ask, "How is the image worthy enough to be kept?" If you want me to answer your question, I'll say this: I don't see how the cover art meets WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFCC#8, and I don't see how the cover art improves understanding of what is discussed. Merely using the cover to identify the release, to me, shouldn't be the only justification to use it. Furthermore, the article explains that Collette's recording has existed, may have been notable, and did chart, but that's about it. It hasn't explained much how Collette's version has been just as significant as or more significant than Anita Ward's. Maybe being on charts makes the image recognizable by Australians as the single was physically sold in stores at the time. However, I think Australians already recognized the song as Anita Ward's when Collette's version came out. Furthermore, Ward's version was successful in Australia, years before Collette's.

I wouldn't encourage editors to believe that using images of different releases by different singers is okay just because they charted, were heard on radios, and were sold as singles, automatically making a version notable. I have had cautions of using "fair use" content. Please explain why you think the image is "worthy". Thank you. George Ho (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should've said this earlier: I wonder whether it meets WP:NFCC#3a. If it does, probably two images are physically different enough to identify their respective different recordings. However, I saw an image of LL Cool J's version deleted from "Ain't Nobody" at FFD because voters thought it didn't meet WP:NFCC#3a, even if the image were different from others physically and identifies one of different releases. Maybe I'll try to use #3a as one of reasons for deletion, but that would be impossible without proving that two different cover arts share the same purpose or provide similar significant info. George Ho (talk) 06:01, 20 September 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:The Sacrifice Comic.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question already had a cover image, so the claim this is used for visual identification of the comic is not correct. There is no discussion about the specific panels or the art within this article, so this is basically failing NFCC#8 Masem (t) 04:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uploader. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:14, 25 September 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.