Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

November 1

File:Philadelphia-Baltimore Stars helmet 1983-1985.png

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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR claims that this is a logo, but it looks more like a helmet. Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course it's a helmet, but it's what's called a "helmet logo", much like used for the Cleveland Browns and a couple of more USFL teams, the Oakland Invaders and the Los Angeles Express. So it belongs on the page... NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there plenty of other pictures of helmets containing the same logo in your uploads, such as

Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Stefan. The helmet is not part of the logo. Reh man 12:45, 24 November 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:Rajeshbieee.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader says "I (Rajeshbieee (talk)) created this work entirely by myself", but then below that he says it was taken by a "photographer friend" . That's a contradiction, and if his friend took it, that means it's not his own work and he does not own the copyright. 823510731 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the uploader has now changed it to say he took the photograph himself and it wasn't the "photographer friend" who took it after all. Reviewers need to be aware that Rajeshbieee has made some seemingly outrageous claims to try to support keeping images, (of which this is the most mind-boggling of them all), and that suggests to me that we cannot trust any of his claims. In my opinion, he should not be allowed to retain any photographs whatsoever on Wikipedia. 823510731 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to replace my previous comments which were too personal, and for which I apologise. 823510731 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error corrected now and please don't delete my photo.Rajeshbieee (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I am really confused by the action. Yes the person in the photograph is myself and I have taken that photo and yes I agree with the contradiction "photographer friend" and it is my mistake where I typed the wrong information unknowingly. Anyhow thank you for pointing out the 'error" which I am correcting it now and please don't delete that photograph.Rajeshbieee (talk) 11:43, 1 November 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:Dealbreakers Talk Show 30 Rock.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Leonard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

There is no automatic entitlement to screenshots in episode articles. It is not clear that this image adds anything in particular to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The picture in question illustrates what would've been the result of a major plot development in the series that played out for several episodes. It illustrates the abstract idea of what the main character's specific concept of wealth would be and should be considered for adding this level of comprehension to the article.
talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- I confess I am struggling to follow the claims you're making. Do you have any sources expanding on the significance of what this character's "specific concept of wealth would be"? (And, to be clear, I may be more inclined to believe that this screenshot was significant if you didn't seem to upload a screenshot for just about every episode article you write...) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to give you a list of sources that explain the metaphorical meaning and its deeper implications in regards to the series as a whole displayed in a photograph? I... obviously, that's not physically possible? If there were, they would simply be included in the passage and the photo wouldn't be necessary, ergo, the photo is necessary. Additionally, I took the time to take screenshots that provide a physical representation of a specific portion of each episode for which I uploaded photos purely because they allowed for a deeper meaning of their corresponding episodes.

talk) 15:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Seemingly random screenshot. The screenshot is not discussed critically, so it fails
Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 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:Jaisejosephoto.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. 823510731 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:DhalapathyDinesh.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. EXIF data assigns copyright to "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" 823510731 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo and you you are claiming about 'EXIF assigns copyright to someone else in 2011"...even I can see that description in the page. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them. He is a stunt director in south indian filmsRajeshbieee (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

Please explain why the EXIF contains the "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" statement - if You took the photo yourself, you must know how it got there. 823510731 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The wikipedia page itself says "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadtrum#3G_smartphone_processors" the model number SC7727S using spreadtrum processors. I believe now you might have understood on the EXIf "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" issue. Most of my photos comes under this category and please check the next step.Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must not make multiple Keep recommendations. As for the phone copyright, I have commented here. And no, "most" of your photos are not in this category, just a small subset of them. 823510731 (talk) 11:47, 5 November 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:SureshBalajesir.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. 823510731 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:Kuberanactor.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. EXIF data assigns copyright to "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011". 823510731 (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo and you you are claiming about 'EXIF assigns copyright to someone else in 2011"...even I can see that description in the page. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:PSSridhar.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. Note there are previous revisions too, all claimed as the uploader's own work, and almost certainly not. 823510731 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:GauthamKrishna.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. Note there are previous revisions too, all claimed as the uploader's own work, and almost certainly not. (Canon EOS 7D camera used for this one, according to EXIF.) 823510731 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

Delete. Original upload is part of this photoset. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 5 November 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:RockPrabhudir.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. 823510731 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them. He is a stunt master in south indian films. Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:MKISukumaran.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. 823510731 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:S.N.Surendarsinger.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. Also, EXIF data assigns copyright to "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011". 823510731 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo and you you are claiming about 'EXIF assigns copyright to someone else in 2011"...even I can see that description in the page. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

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:RinilGowthampic.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another weird-sized low-res photo uploaded under an "own work" claim by a serial copyright violator who has been making unbelievable claims about copyright ownership. Many of the others are proven copyvios and Rajeshbieee has been blatantly dishonest about them, and we can't trust him on this one. It's also interesting to see the wide range of cameras this user seems to have at his disposal, judging by the EXIF - NIKON D300 this time. 823510731 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

FfD

.

- Anna Frodesiak — SpacemanSpiff -Stefan2 - 823510731 - Let me explain this to you people once again that I am a person working in film industry for a long time and have association with many film personalities and technicians. Just because of few copyright violation happened in the past, the vengeance to remove all my genuine photographs are really hurting. The word " serial copyright violator " really hurts and if I am a person who is not obeying wikipedia law, then how I contributed for over 5 years and if I am a serial violator, then how I traveled these 5 years with wikipedia? In film industry you will get chance to meet several people, take photographs and even take photos with others camera, mobile phones etc and yes, if I clicked a photo with a different cameras, still the photo is owned by myself which I take from them. Personally I have a samsung Z1 mobile and I purchased it in 2014 december only and if its EXIF shows "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011", then is that my problem? and is this the way to trace the origin of a photograph? I have mentioned many times that I am ready to send the original photographs to you people that are not cropped, but you are not accepting that step and still addressing me as " serial copyright violator ". please do a google search for "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" and we will get many headers for the same for all photographs. Anyhow please carry on your work, but I am really sad. See this is me among the cast of film [1] Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect people would be more likely to believe you if you weren't clearly lying in at least one of the current deletion discussions. 823510731 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, here's another thought. What other cameras have you used over the past 12 months to take these photographs? 823510731 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another idea (I'm full of them today!) I can understand if people don't want you to be emailing them any photos, but how about you upload one of the images that's currently up for deletion, one that was shot on a professional camera, uncropped and at full camera resolution, to an image site like Flickr or similar, and then tell us the URL? I suggest File:GauthamKrishna.png, which was apparently shot on a Canon EOS 7D. 823510731 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try this Flickr link [2] and these are the photos where the "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" happened as mentioned by you.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see the original of the File:GauthamKrishna.png one, please. 823510731 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to check for those photos as they are taken with different cameras, the copies might be still with me, but the above Flickr ones are already stored in my mobile phone.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eight year history including one blocked account of copyright violations. He's now under an indefinite restriction from uploading any media given the high level of obfuscation. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna - 823510731 - Stefan2 — SpacemanSpiff.

Last one week my life is like hell for experiencing the accusation as "serial violater" eventhough I am a dedicated wikipedia editor for the past 5 years and even in this period, no one said bad on my textual contribution, but now only photo uploads. The primary accusation here is " EXIF copyright in the file itself says "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" - if you took the photo, you must know how it got there " and I provided valid reply for the same as I am using Samsung Z1 Mobile/camera which uses the Spreadtrum processor that has been certified in the wikipedia article itself [3] and please go through it as understand that the listed mobiles will show the copyright as Spreadtrum,2011 only, moreover I have also given two other photo upload by another editor and the files are " File:Alpana on saraswati puja2.jpg and File:Khaste lake.jpeg " and this too shows copyright as Spreadtrum,2011. Now let me ask you... what is my mistake here? Am I supposed to meet the Spreadtrum head to change the settings as Copyright, RajeshBieee? Let me know your next step as I have provided you the valid reason of licesing for my own photographs and yes 1-2 photographs of mine was found in the artiste's website and yes, myself only provided that to the artistes and I have already mentioned several times about my association with film industry. Evenif I have provided you the right explanation, the result I got are..

1. Removal of Autopatroll 2. Edit restriction, no uploads.

I believe you admistrators are good enough to understand the right and wrong and if I have provided you the right evidence, then why the 'PUNISHMENT'? and please note that I am not 'PARROTING' or showing 'obfuscation'. I would like to get a reply from you people on the evidence I have provided and finally please let me know the status of OTRS ticket #2015103010013963 Rajeshbieee (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've commented on the phone copyright thing here. 823510731 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 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:Laura Branigan - Gloria.png

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. — ξ ^xplicit 05:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UK cover art has been used for six years, counting three years for PNG file and three for replaced JPG version. I added the side-A label of the US release to represent more the American singer's rendition and the release in the singer's home country. The UK image resembles the top half of the album Branigan. Favoring a mere picture sleeve from an away country over actual representation of the critical commentary is a bad example for Wikipedia. Since both images convey the same info about the singer's rendition, even when the US had a generic vinyl sleeve, I guess there's no need for the UK image anymore. As for visualizing the singer, perhaps go to Laura Branigan article instead. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the grounds of identification. The picture cover is recognisable specifically to this single, unlike a generic label that all Atlantic singles of that time featured. Of course a US cover would be favoured but the release did not have one, as mentioned, thus I went for the next best alternative which I felt was the UK cover. This is the English-language Wikipedia after all, so a cover from the UK should be in the realm of notability? If we were to go with the vinyl label, I don't think it would help a reader with context of the article any more than having no image at all. The information it provides (title, artist, credits etc.) is all present in the article body and/or infobox already, and it certainly gives no visual context. —Dell9300 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MUSIC if you can. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@George Ho: Out of interest, is there anywhere that says specifically what to do in the case of a single not having a cover? I don't know if I'm missing something here but the "cover" field in infoboxes for singles I would presume is for cover art. Not disc/vinyl/cassette art. Also it is worth pointing out that a search on google images for "Laura Branigan Gloria single" finds the UK cover most 'common', and it has been chosen as the single cover on last.fm [4] —Dell9300 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about

WP:IUP. George Ho (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a case where the cover version could be its own article based on the notability; if that was the case, we would allow the image, and I would argue against where normally the lead image in the infobox being the first country of release in favor of an actual cover than just a label. Given that the authors here have opted to keep the notable cover within the context of the original song for comprehension, it should be okay to keep the non-free UK cover here since we would have allowed it if they had split the article. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I added the US label originally to replace the UK image, but someone here disagrees. Of which one are in favor; US or UK image? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 19:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted: the UK one could be kept; it is a rare case of a clearly notable cover song that could have had its own article, and the UK cover image would have been fine there, but the editors opted to keep the cover song with the original song for comprehension. In this rare case, I would generally be accepting of the cover's cover here. In most cases of cover songs, the cover song is barely notable beyond the original song, so it would have never gotten its own article, so the cover's cover image is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk with Masem, I decided to label the US image free to use. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 14 November 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.