Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27

File:Flaka e janarit.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⚡ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flaka e janarit.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hakuli (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Editor has uploaded many images which are copyright violations. There is no good reason to believe this image is own work as claimed given their track record. Whpq (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2018 (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:Moon Man - Notorious KKK.ogg

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 as

G5 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Moon Man - Notorious KKK.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MrDankMeme (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Racist "song" consisting mostly of the N-word, added by a known sockpuppet and not necessary for context on

(talk) 01:31, 27 July 2018 (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:Cityscape I 360.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. OK, first off when an image is contested on

WP:NFCC
grounds, merely saying "keep" or "free use established" is not quite enough. We cannot simply use a non-free image unless it's established that it satisfies each criterion, and since it's a WMF-given policy a group of people here cannot simply override it. Thus, most keep arguments here don't carry the day.

Now as for keeping the image under

WP:NFCC#8 compliant rationales for using it on either article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Cityscape I 360.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Knulclunk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including

contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Non-free use does seem OK in the Diebenkorn article at first glance. Generally, a non-free image such as this would be allowed to show an example of the artist's work or style. The problem here though is that there is really no discussion of the painting anywhere at all in the article (its only mentioned by name in the caption) so the
    WP:NFCC#3a
    . Perhaps more sourced critical commentary of Cityscape I 360 itself or how it is representative of the Diebenkorn's particular style could be added to the article to strengthen its justification for non-free use; otherwise, I think removing the file from the article is appropriate.
  2. The non-free use in "Bay Area Figurative Movement", like the non-free use in the Diebenkorn article, seems like in should be OK. It could be reasoned that the painting is considered to be the most or one of most representative examples of the works created by artists discussed in the article. However, this also has the same issues as mentioned above: the painting is mentioned by name only one time in the image's caption; there's no critical commentary about the painting or how is best serves as an example of the movement's style; and there is another non-free image
    WP:FREER
    .
  3. The three other articles where the file is being used are articles about a particular genre/style or historical aspects of painting in general. Justifying non-free use in these articles is going to be really hard in the first place per item 6 of
    WP:NFG
    , with maybe a single mention by name. These articles do contain freely-licensed or PD images as well, so it's not clear why this particular file also needs to be used as such. Suggest removing the file from all of these articles based upon current usage.
It seems to me that given the current use of the file, keep for "Bay Area Figurative Movement" seems the best place to use this file if more critical commentary about the painting and how it represents the movement's style can be added to the article. I could also see keep for the painter's article, except there is another file also being used as an example of his work which is much better tied into the article content; two examples don't really seem to be needed and removing that Ocean Park file from the article seems more detrimental to the reader's understanding than removing this one. Finally, I'm really not seeing any justification for non-free use in the other articles; there are links to both the article about the movement and the artist in each of these articles, and the file can be seen there if needed. The use in an image gallery without a real sourced critical commentary about the painting in any of these articles doesn't seem to be permitted by NFCC#1, NFCC#8 or NFG; so, I suggest remove from these articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in all cases, free use established for this important example. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As posted in
      WP:ITSFAIRUSE in not really a good way to justify the non-free use of any file; so, it would be helpful if you can be more specific as to how you feel each of this file's non-free uses meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria. The problem is that this has not been established which is why the file's non-free use is being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2018 (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) 08:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The uses in all articles except the artist's bio and Bay Area Figurative Movement are unaccompanied by substantive sourced commentary, just token textual allusions to "support" display in an image gallery. This cannot satisfy nonfree content policy requirements. The use in the artist's bio as an example without commentary is redundant, since another example of the artist's work is provided, with detailed, communicative sourced commentary. The use in Bay Area Figurative Movement is on the surface plausible, but the supporting reference is, on careful examination, clearly unacceptable. The claim that the painting is "important" is cited only to artsy.com. The cited page does not actually discuss the work in question or characterize its importance. Instead, it lists works of the artist that are currently for sale, and urges those willing to sell the artist's works to consign their paintings to . . . artsy.com. In short, this is an advertising page for a vendor, and is not a reliable source regarding the painting's purported importance (or much of anything else). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sensing a little disagreement on whether the use in the Diebenkorn and BAFM articles is OK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The consensus was keep the image and the thread was closed. For Diebenkorn and Bay Area, see discussion above. The deletion question has been resolved to keep. I’m not quite sure why we’re still on this page. If there are concerns with image overuse in some of the other articles, take it up on those talk pages or just remove them from those articles. Knulclunk (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2018 (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:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fairfield Porter's painting 'Under the Elms', 1971 - 1972.jpg (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:Ralph Goings.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph Goings.jpg (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:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Where', 252 x 362 cm. magna on canvas painting by Morris Louis, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 1960.jpg (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:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..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: keep. Mostly because of the unaddressed PD-simple point made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including

contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 18 June 2018 (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) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (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) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (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:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg (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:Riley, Cataract 3.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riley, Cataract 3.jpg (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:BlackGreyBeat.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackGreyBeat.jpg (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:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Stella's 'Harran II', 1967.jpg (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:Typewriter-eraser.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: Keep only in

WP:NFCC guidance, and merely saying "keep" without addressing any of the criteria is not quite enough to establish an use rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Typewriter-eraser.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Slowking4 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including

contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:18, 18 June 2018 (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) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (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) 08:36, 27 July 2018 (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:For Pearl.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:For Pearl.jpg (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:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg (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:CottonMillFounder.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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CottonMillFounder.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Christian B (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per deletion discussion at Commons, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cotton Mill Founder statue, Vaasa University.jpg, sculpture is not copyright-free, and no FoP in Finland. Possibly okay under NFCC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fair-use for August Alexander Levón as the only image we have of the long-dead subject of that article. But remove from University of Vaasa, where it would be easy to take a picture of the building from a perspective that did not have the non-free sculpture. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (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) 12:37, 11 July 2018 (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) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (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) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped it, placed it in his bio article and removed it from the school article, and retagged it as nonfree. I also filed a Graphics Lab request to remove the flagpole that appears to be coming out of his head in the cropped version. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2018 (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:Ready For It? Taylor Swift.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⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ready For It? Taylor Swift.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DatBoy101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

no source, and if it this the official single art it is not the user's own work to release into the public domain. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (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) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (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:Matheran Railway Wala.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⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RussNelson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works in the USA India FASTILY 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not in the USA.
Apart from which, the rest of your nomination carries little weight anyway, even in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant to type India. There is no FOP for 2D works in India. -FASTILY 18:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{FoP-India}} seems fairly permissive, so seems clean for commons? DMacks (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have to decide whether this image of an engraved tablet on a 3D object is really in image of the 2D "text" nature (similar to a poster or painting) here. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we won't. Engravings are 2D works: c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#India -FASTILY 20:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that (as you can see because I linked the commons tag for it). It's an object with an engraving and the use-case is not clear to me whether it is merely the engraving component being illustrated (it is prominent in the image) or the whole object-with-engraving (possibly some historical artifact or other commemoriative 3D thing--it's not just a simple signpost) is the focus here. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking around, there appear to be a bunch of similar markers, all engravings on non-descript stone/tile mountings. So it's mostly the protected portion on a comparably insignificant 3D mounting rather than some text incidentally present on a substantive 3D object. That definitely makes it outside the realm of FoP-India. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (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) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (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:Lok Sabha TV logo.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: relisted on 2018 August 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lok Sabha TV logo.jpg (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:Tropic Sun Theatre sign.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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tropic Sun Theatre sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WikiTownsvillian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

advert-style image with doubtful licensing claim Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but relicense as fair-use for Full Throttle Theatre Company (possibly crop down to just the logo, removing the contact info). It's the logo of the article's subject (or at least its predecessor company/name) and there is a major section of the article about this specific era of its history. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with keeping it so long as it is cropped to just show the logo, in line with
WP:NFCC#3b. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2018 (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) 08:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped and retagged. I couldn't find an official image in the company's website, so this can suffice as its logo. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (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:Everyday single cover.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⚡ 10:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Everyday single cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sidetosice (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is not the official cover; in the file's page it says "it can be obtained from Republic Records" but Republic didn't publish the cover anywhere. Music01 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_27&oldid=853377905"