Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 19

< October 18	October 20 >

October 19

File:Charlie-Bradshaw-1960.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: Remove from team page and move to biography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in

WP:NFCC#8. However, as a deceased individual, this image would qualify for use in the article Charlie Bradshaw (American football coach) for use in the infobox for visual identification. I recommend removal from the team article, and the adjust the usage rationale and add it to the individual biography article. Whpq (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2017 (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:Bill Atkins Troy State.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: Remove from team article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in the

Bill Atkins (American football) article. Recommend keeping the image at the individual bio article, and removal from the team article. Whpq (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2017 (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:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.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: No consensus, default to keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a photo of a product which is still manufactured, it is replaceable. That no one has found a free equivalent does not impede the creation of one. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per the rationale I provided when declining a previous CSD nomination. Instead of rehashing the whole thing over again, I have copied the discourse below. The image is clearly of encyclopedic value to the article. The previous keep result was closed by an admin stating, ""Speedy deletion declined - a very plausible argument of irreplacability has been advanced". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content below copied from File talk:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png

The deletion nomination was declined by reviewing administrator BethNaught, who stated in their edit summary, "Speedy deletion declined - a very plausible argument of irreplacability has been advanced" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The image is used to illustrate the key theme of the article, which serves to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, whereas its omission would be significantly detrimental to that understanding. Furthermore, use of the image in the article fully complies with Wikipedia Non-free content policy and Non-free content criteria and fair use under United States copyright law.

Furthermore, there has been significant discussion on the talk page about having an accurate image of the product in the article:

The nomination for deletion (diff) comes across as a knee-jerk, drive-by reaction (e.g. see a similar style nomination here) without actual consideration or due diligence given by the nominator regarding how the image actually significantly improves the educational value of the article, nor how omission of the image would be beneficial relative to the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lead section, the image shows a product which at least appears to be sold in the United States. It should therefore be possible to go to the United States and take a photograph of this product. The picture therefore fails

Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The likelihood of a free equivalent image of the product being created is very slim to none. Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form. The only access consumers have to it is when it's already mixed in with ground beef, which makes it indistinguishable from the ground beef itself.

Furthermore, as of at least March 2013, the product's primary manufacturer won't let reporters in its plants at this time or even speak to the media. See this article, where it states:

Before all the coverage, BPI routinely let reporters inside its plant. Today, the Roth family and BPI employees generally won’t speak to members of the media, even by phone. In fact, most of the players in the “pink slime” story — including the scientist who coined the term, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver who “manufactured” pink slime on his show, ABC News, laid-off BPI employees, and BPI itself — are communicating almost exclusively through lawyers or representatives, if they are willing to address the topic at all.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. As stated above, consumers have no access to the product, so they won't be able to take a picture of it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form That's no different from typical scientific images where it may only be possible for scientists to create replacements. We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. Images taken by mass media typically fail

Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that

WP:NFC#UUI §7 pertains to photos from a press agency or photo agency. This is not a photograph, it is a screenshot. As such, WP:NFC#UUI #7 does not apply to this content whatsoever. Furthermore, at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Acceptable use § Images regarding the acceptable use of non-free content it states, "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." For starters, see Pink slime § ABC News report. This is a screen shot from a television program that is quite clearly aligned with critical commentary and discussion about the topic. As such, it qualifies as an acceptable use of non-free content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding "We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement": As explained above, the product's primary producer will not allow anyone access to the product to photograph it. As such, it's virtually certain that the company would not allow its employees to photograph it and then upload the image to Wikimedia commons. If this were to occur, such employees would likely face termination from the company. North America 1000 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while I'm not thrilled with the idea of "it's hard to photograph so let's steal a news media photo", this article is primarily about ABC's reporting and features a screenshot from that reporting for the purpose of criticizing that reporting. So that's a little bit different than if this were a photo from, say, the New York Times, and was not at all for the purpose of criticizing the NYT's reporting. --B (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (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:Tallia Storm presents We Day 2017.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly needs permission - who is Hartmann Media? – Train2104 (t • c) 02:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the EXIF shows the author as "RICARDO VIGIL MORAN" and the copyright holder to be "www.rickyvigilmoran.com" so this would need to be sorted out through OTRS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2017 (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:Gousto Website Logo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo, no foreseeable use FASTILY 04:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2017 (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:Glen Carroll and Jon BonJovi performing.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:55, 19 October 2017 (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:JayIsaac2016.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quality of file is so bad that it adds no value regardless of its insufficient permissions. Salavat (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2017 (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:Jonathan Bartley and Caroline Lucas.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, images from Commons can be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2017 (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:Joy as a Cute Witch.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (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:Photo of Max Hellerstein.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (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:RenukaKesaramadu.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (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:Richard Sharp 2016.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (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:Jonathan Hobin Bio photo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (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:Paul Glimcher Picture.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (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:Rohit Kalia Pic.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2017 (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:Wade michael page police handout.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, mainly per Explicit. The perpetrator is not the subject of the article in question, which is grounds for failure of

WP:NFCC#8 -FASTILY 04:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The mugshot taken in supposedly Wisconsin was discussed at

WP:NFCC and copyright status were discussed. Replacing the image with a freer image was considered, but I wasn't sure whether a mugshot from North Carolina is free to use. The other participants there disagreed; no freer replacement was uploaded.

One reason to have the image deleted: the biographical image is used in the non-biographical article about the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Even when the section about the perpetrator is detailed, I believe that readers would already understand the event/shooting itself without this image. The shooting itself, not the shooter himself, is the article subject. Another reason: The image isn't necessary to help readers understand that the perpetrator was one of white supremacists. Even the article doesn't (and shouldn't) emphasize too much on his appearance (unless his overall appearance is the important part of the shooting). Sure, racial hatred was the motive for murder and one of major components of the event. The image might be replaceable or irreplaceable. Regardless, the image fails the "contextual significance" criterion.

Of course, I would hear different interpretations on the criterion otherwise. At first I thought about having a central discussion about image of various perpetrators, but I decided to nominate this individual image on the safer side before doing so. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC); amended, 00:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The matter was already discussed on the article's talk page, there was no consensus to delete, and bringing the matter here strikes me forum-shopping--although I do appreciate the heads up. The argument that the article can be understood with a picture of the dead perpetrator (whose reputation in death cannot be damaged under common law) is not a positive reason to delete it. Indeed, we should think of the readers' curiosity. There's no reason to force them to use a search engine when we have an image. The sole concern might be copyright, but the mugshot was widely distributed, and our fair use of it does not infringe on its potential monetary value. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "understood without a picture", right? --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Talk page discussions don't overrule (or could be considered as forum-alternatives to) FFD. Venue is important.Overall, to attract more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable fair usage to me. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May you please explain why, CapitalSasha, the usage is "reasonable" and it meets NFCC? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that criterion says that the image is supposed to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. What the person looks like seems germane to a section about a person, so it would enhance understanding in that way. I don't feel very strongly about this one way or another though. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BIO1E, nor is the main subject of the article, but he was the main part of the event. Personally, I already understood the article without this image as it provides sufficient knowledge about the shooting itself. But that's my experience. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure I understand your point, since NFCC refers to the ability of an image to enhance understanding, not whether the article would be at all understandable without the image. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again,

WP:NFCC#Policy says that non-free multimedia content may be used if it meets all criteria. However, the "contextual significance" criterion says further, "[I]ts omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Whether the image enhances the understanding is not the main issue.

Here comes my point... well, revised point actually. Does removing the image affect readers' understanding of the shooting itself? Re-reading the revision without the image, I already understand that the event was racially motivated and that the perpetrator was very disturbing and that the victims were non-white. Removing the image doesn't affect how I read the article... ever, especially when it's not a biographical article. I believe that other readers would say the same about this image, but that's my opinion. How does removing the image affect your understanding of the shooting itself, not the shooter (who is not independently notable)?

Going back to the "Rationale" part, it implies that we have to be selective on non-free content, especially if it is non-text. I was told that using too much non-free content compromises the "free content" principle. I guess I slowly begin to find it more compelling to agree with. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I would say that I feel a certain amount of background on the shooter, including his appearance, is germane to the shooting. I don't really understand the difference between the presence of the image enhancing the understanding and the absence of the image detracting from it: after all, removing a positive thing is a negative thing. I am not an expert on the NFCC policies so maybe we should wait for more experienced editors to chime in. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As established in early 2016, and especially in light of
WP:NFCC#8. ℯ xplicit 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (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:Ford Focus Cosworth.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose is claimed to be "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question.", however this is a concept car that has a three sentence paragraph about it in the

WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2017 (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:RINGBELL.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 ⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was originally PRODded, but it was rejected as if it were a "di-orphaned fair use" tag. I wonder whether others are aware that

WP:PROD has extended to files for months. The image does not accurately represent the song but the compilation album of the same name, Ring My Bell. The issue was also discussed at Talk:Ring My Bell#Picture sleeve?, but I felt that it's more of a local consensus trying to override the existing procedure, the FFD. Also, the image is not used in any of releases. Try eBay, which lists compilations of the same name. As suggested in the talk page, I can replace the (incorrect) front cover with more authentic front cover (either this or that... or others). However, File:Ring My Bell by Anita Ward US vinyl red label A-side.png is uploaded as free and ineligible for copyright because it is too factual, the background uses a plain color, and simple font is used. Therefore, I find the front cover not just incorrectly used but also replaceable by a free label. Same for other front covers, i.e. picture sleeves, used overseas. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I prefer to both retain the image and use it in the lede position, simply because it is the most attractive and colorful image, is single-specific, and corresponds (in reverse) to the image on the LP. -- JGabbard (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Per

MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, being "the most attractive and colorful" is another way of saying "decorative", isn't it? The image is the mirror version of Songs of Love (Anita Ward album) front cover, but I guess that's not a sufficient reason for deletion. As I said, the use is improper, and compilation albums of the same name are not independently notable (unless sources say otherwise). The image has misled readers into believing that it "is" the front cover of a picture sleeve; it is not part of one of the territorial releases. Even when it is, the free image does the same purpose as what the non-free image was supposed to do (but is misrepresented). --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2017 (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:NorthwestHeights01.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely.

talk) 22:25, 19 October 2017 (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:ForestParkElementary.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely.

talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (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:ForestHeightsPark.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely.

talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (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.