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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( it's been colourised) can easily be described with text alone (and is currently), without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a). Either this or the other image is uneeded. Peripitus(Talk)02:00, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( image rotated, lightened and the text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look here everyone to see how much the two images in the same article are "essentially the same". No comment necessary I suppose, but just for the record I say keep. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 1989 Temple Records version, the main image was rotated by 180 degrees, lighted and had the text Mistress Mix and Psychic TV Je T'Aime added to the bottom left of the cover". That piece of text I just wrote described the major differences. Please tell me how replacing this copyrighted image with a piece of text of that type would significantly harm reader's understanding of the topic - Peripitus(Talk)23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, not least because describing images this way is totally uncommon. Just reading this stuff is dull, feels overly detailed (although it isn't, compared to the image itself) and therefore smacks "fancrufty" (because in real life, only extreme fan-boys would bother to describe covers like that). Images are images and words can't do them justice. (That's why some people paint and don't write novels.) Quite apart, as I pointed out in another case, you may just as well "describe" other pieces of visual information like that. To repeat, with your POV, you might as well argue to have all covers deleted, not just those of alternative releases. If we allow fair-use images at all, we need to apply reasonable and equal standards to all of them, no matter whether they are "alternative" or not. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A small "logo of an inverted crows-foot in a figured circle" is too complex to descibe in words ? What did I just do then. We do not host non-free images "for identification". We only host them when they significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic being discussed. - Peripitus(Talk)23:54, 25 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( background colour changed, image zoomed in, that's mostly it ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:03, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (image has just been turned into a negative ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:04, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( image zoomed in) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:05, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (sea shot changed a bit, text font changed ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another of your nominations where the image nominated for deletion is significantly different from the other one in the article (see Quick_the_Word,_Sharp_the_Action). If, as you say, it can "easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding", I suggest you go ahead first and demonstrate how this can be done, if it's so easy I mean. However, "sea shot changed a bit, text font changed" certainly isn't enough for anyone interested in record covers and graphic design in general. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the file page should explain why another image is required, and in the absence of such justification, the image should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (image zoomed to just the centre ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two images are significantly different. It's not just that the image is zoomed to the centre, the colours and hence the whole mood are different - see [1]. Keep. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any why does that matter ? Reader's have sufficient imagination to cope with a small change in colour. The image as used not discussed and is purely decorative - Peripitus(Talk)23:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the same image as the re-released version of this album. This is an image of the tapes cover, not the re-released cd. They were and are two different releases and must be treated as such. While they have most of the same musical content on them, they are still not the same release. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and how does that argument refute my assertion that the image is replaceable with text describing the differences ? Why is it critical for reader's understanding to see both images ? - Peripitus(Talk)22:08, 23 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( colour changed ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:07, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( background changed from black to white) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just the "background changed from black to white", the whole cover has been inverted (otherwise the black lettering wouldn't be visible any more). Although this is, admittedly, in itself a very simple graphical operation, just one or two mouse-clicks in any image manipulation program, it dramatically alters the mood of the image; see Radiohead: The Best Of. Of course, it's very simple to describe (unlike most of the other modifications in the images you del-nommed today), but also a very good illustration of how words can't even begin to convey the emotional impact of colours. But I suppose I'm talking to a wall here. I'm also wondering why you're always just linking to one image, instead of the album articles in question. Is it because you think that people are less likely to find your rationales convincing if they can easily compare the two supposedly so similar images in the context of the same article? Just wondering. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it changes the image but how does your argument address my assertions ? You admit that the image can be described simply but still assert we should host this copyrighted content. All non-free images here must meet all of the NFCC requirements, including the one where it states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. If the image does what you state it does, why is there no sourced discussion in the article about this. Where is a reliable source discussing the image changes at length ? - Peripitus(Talk)00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All non-free images here must meet all of the NFCC requirements, including the one where it states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". My argument is that its presence does significantly increase understanding. Yes, that's my opinion. Your assertion to the contrary is an opinion as well. "If the image does what you state it does, why is there no sourced discussion in the article about this. Where is a reliable source discussing the image changes at length ?" You're getting a little trollish, don't you think? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( image border removed and the text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is of interest to those who follow discographies. It may not be to others, but it is and the entry itself should illustrate that fact. Airproofing (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( line colour and image texture changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:12, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( colour changed and the big "R" changed to a big "X") can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Comparison between the word "red" and the colour red.png Another perfect example of how a seemingly simple task with words fails to have the direct impact a single look at an image can have. Reading the word "red surface" (what shade, by the way?) and looking at a red surface are two very different things. (Don't believe me? Which exhibit in the image on the right do you prefer? If you say A, you might as well ask to have both images in this article deleted. After all, the design of both is pretty simplistic and therefore "easy to describe with text alone". Also, you could quite easily recreate both of them in Microsoft Paint without infringing anyone's copyright (the covers are too generic for that), so why use "fair-use" images at all when words are enough? (Just in case anyone fails to notice, I'm being sarcastic and mean to say keep). Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you argue that it passes NFCC#1 - I believe enough in our reader's intelligence that they can visualise the cover in a different colour if they are told it was published as such - Peripitus(Talk)21:27, 20 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( text changed a bit + saturation decreased) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is of significant interest to people who use Wikipedia to find discography information, although, admittedly, not for everyone who ends up reading this article by chance and has no special interest in the subject. NFCC #3a prohibits use of two images when "one item can convey equivalent significant information." Whether or not this is the case here is debatable. The rationale given for deletion is the nominator's personal opinion, not a statement of fact. I would take a different view, not just because I uploaded this. But I suppose there's always going to be little common ground between users interested in contents and users interested in rules as an end in themselves. Completely regardless, as Real to Reel (Marillion album) points out, the cover in question is not merely an alternative cover for this particular album, but the cover of a new stand-alone release with significantly different, although partially identical contents (two CDs as opposed to one vinyl EP) that occurred twelve years later and as such is notable in its own right. Personally, I didn't think that the 1997 double album needs its own article, but it certainly does qualify for inclusion. If this image will be deleted, I'm going to create a new article for the 1997 release and include the image there instead. The final result is going to be the same (i.e., the image will remain on Wikipedia), but perhaps this solution is better if you're a stickler for rules. ;) BTW, how this image is supposed to be "replaceable with a free alternative" is completely beyond me. This statement probably just shows that this nomination was posted in haste and without putting much thought into it. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the "Free alternative" is a short piece of text describing the differences. Wikipedia is not an image repository of copyrighted material to provide discography information - Peripitus(Talk)02:56, 27 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:20, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( banners and text changed + moved) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:21, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
non-free image of the back of an LP, where we already have the front image. There is no discussion at all in the article about this image, it's rationale is boilerplate that does not apply to this image, it adds nothing of significance to reader's understanding of the topic - it's simply decoration in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8Peripitus(Talk)02:23, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( colour changed, text changed, same image used) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm beginning to have the impression you're on some sort of private crusade to have all "alternate covers" deleted. Most of your nominations today are dubious, but this one really takes the cake. The two images in the article Jazz Original are not only as different from each other graphically as alternate releases can reasonably expected to be, they even feature different titles for the same album. If you hate "alternate covers" in album infoboxes for whatever reason, I suggest you campaign to have this category deleted from the infobox template, instead of leaving countless drive-by del-noms. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Keep I have no idea what all of those initials mean, but the image is a self created one based on a generic football and basic block text chararcters representing the football team of a now defunct high school that closed nearly 30 years ago. Sf46 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( the caption described all significant differences ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)04:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason for the inclusion of this CD cover, although similar to the original LP cover, was to illustrate the change in the spelling of the band's name. While this fact is mentioned in the article lead, I believe a picture always has more impact. --Bruce1eetalk06:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to feel amazed at this. We need to host a copyrighted image to simply show that spelling of a band's name changes ? That is a very poor reason. How does that significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic ? - Peripitus(Talk)00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that this isn't the only change by far (describing all changes with text would appear dull, pedantic and uninformative despite the effort), the fact that an artist changes his/her name is very significant for anyone interested in that artist. If you say otherwise, you're stating an opinion, not a fact. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)04:49, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( changed from blue to orange) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)04:51, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( text and logo in the header) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)04:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two album covers in the infobox in this article are very similar, although not as similar as implied in the above deletion proposal rationale. The main difference has nothing to do with the "...text and logo..." used but rather relates to the addition of a Doc Severinsen photograph in the ('alternate') CD cover that does not exist on the (original) LP cover. An apparent oversight not corrected until 50 years after the original release of the album.
RE: WP:NFCC#1 - I presume the 'real' NFCC#1-related objection is based on the test, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?," and not because the image is "...replaceable with a free alternative...". There is no free alternative for either the (original) LP cover image or the (alternate) CD cover image in this case.
I'm not sure how to vote on this proposal for deletion. If I agree with the assertion that the alternate album cover could be "adequately" described in text alone, I fear by the same logic I would have to come to the same conclusion for the original LP cover image - and therefore I would need to reach the same conclusion for all album cover images in all articles. Presumably, any album cover could be described in text alone - without including the cover image itself in the Wikipedia article about that album. Determining whether any such text description alone is or could be "adequate" or not seems to be very subjective. In this case, it is accepted (apparently) that a text description would not be adequate to describe the (original) LP cover but (this deletion proposal implies that) a text description would be adequate to describe the (similar) alternate CD cover image. The proposal for deletion seems to be based on the idea that, since one of the cover images is present in the article, it is much easier to come up with an "adequate" textual description of the second cover - since one need only describe the differences and not the entire image. And I probably agree with that assertion - it is easier. But I'm still not sure what criteria should be used to determine when two images are "similar enough" to satisfy the "Could...be adequately conveyed by text..." test for an alternate album cover image. I suppose that can only be decided by the responses of thoughtful Wikipedia contributors to deletion proposals like this one - presuming those responses are based strictly on good faith interpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines for use of non-free content.
RE WP:NFCC#3a - Similarly, determining whether the original LP cover image alone can convey the "...equivalent significant information..." (without adding the 'alternate' CD cover image) is also a necessarily very subjective judgement - so I'm not sure this image necessarily "fails" NFCC#3a. Is the new image (itself) of Doc Severinsen on the cover in this case "significant information"?
Given the above arguments/reservations, I suppose I would vote to keep this alternate album cover image in this article. Reading through the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria I cannot think of a rationale to exclude the alternate image that could not equally be applied to the 'main' image. The strongest argument for deletion I believe is, as mentioned above, "...since one of the cover images is present in the article, it is much easier to come up with an "adequate" textual description of the second cover..." But I do not interpret anything in the Wikipedia Non-free content criteria that explicitly makes that argument either. If that position was intended to be conveyed in the Non-free content criteria, then perhaps the criteria need to be revised / re-written to make this clearer.
In case this CD / alternate cover image is deleted in the end, I have, today, added a textual description of the cover differences to the Wikipedia article that could arguably be said to "adequately convey the subject by text". Pugetbill (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
we need this image of a coloured lp why ? No reason I can see - the rationale is clearly incorrect. Image does not add signficiantly add to reader's understanding - failing WP:NFCC#8. Could easily be described with text alone - so it fails WP:NFCC#1Peripitus(Talk)04:54, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
we need this image of coloured lps why ? No reason I can see - the rationale is clearly incorrect. Image does not add signficiantly add to reader's understanding - failing WP:NFCC#8. Could easily be described with text alone - so it fails WP:NFCC#1Peripitus(Talk)04:55, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( text changes) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)04:56, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( image cropped and text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:00, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( "gold Edition!" text added) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:01, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (shading of the background ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:04, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (she's looking more towards camera ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:05, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( this is a cropped image) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the images should be deleted it should be for the CD: 2 single cover, not CD: 1, as that one was the main retail copy. Also, it is not a cropped version of the same image, Knight is in a different pose but I agree, only one is needed, so delete [File:Beverley Knight - Keep This Fire Burning (CD 2).jpg] TopopMAC1 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( colouring changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:13, 19 December 2009 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( shading ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:35, 19 December 2009 (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.
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 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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( colour and text changed) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:44, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences (white bands added, border colour and text changed ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On Wikipedia, we try to maintain a standpoint that addresses all nations and countries equally. This alternate cover was used on the US release of Kinda Kinks. The US release was virtually re-arranged, and made a different album, with a different track listing and several songs that would become unique to the American release. It adds to the article a great deal, in my opinion, as it establishes "identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." A US reader will not recognize the cover art (which does differ greatly - the only similarity being the photo of the group). This isn't the case of, for example, these covers. The US Kinda Kinks cover is for a (basically) different album, which is described and encompassed within the Kinda Kinks article. I believe this photo should be kept - I went ahead and added some of the above to its FUR, and reduced its size. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a reliable source talking about the difference between the covers ? If the world at large does not care enough to write about the small differences, what relevance does it have to reader's ? Why do reader's need to see two such similar covers, rather than one cover and a piece of text ? - Peripitus(Talk)04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me once again state that the records are different, and the two covers illustrate the two LPs. I'm afraid that I don't have a source, but I don't see how one is required for two covers to illustrate two albums. I also don't see how RSs represent "the world at large" - just because a book or article has not been written on a subject, it doesn't necessarily mean that the world doesn't care, or that it isn't important to establish commentary and visual recognition of the subject in question. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( shading/colour) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:56, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences ( shading/colour) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus(Talk)05:56, 19 December 2009 (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.
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.
inner sleeve artwork with a clearly incorrect rationale in an article with an existing image of the front cover. Adds nothing to reader's understanding of any significance - fails WP:NFCC#8Peripitus(Talk)05:57, 19 December 2009 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 technique could easily be illustrated by a free clip. There is no reason to use a clip from a copyrighted film to illustrate this method, especially when the film is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This representation of pan and scan technique on a film notable for its wide screen presentation. The subject of this example has traditionally been cropped to fit 4:3 NTSC ratio in the past. This subject of this example specifically shows the tracking of a main subject interacting with others as is required in a complex pan and scan technique. Use of an actual and notable film more accurately illustrates the pan and scan process than an abstract schematic. The image is such low resolution, frame rate, duration of the original work, it would unlikely impact future sales of the work.
I suppose if one provided an easily available free clip showing a central character interacting with several other actors across the width of a 1.85:1 film frame, it could indeed have a floating 4:3 crop placed over it. When you shoot it, I think it will be important to have your central actor be tracked moving from character to character. Note at the end pf the clip how she moves from between the first and second man to between the second and third man, with the crop following her though the original film framing is still. I also think it is important that we saw the third man (in the vest) come through the frame before she engages him. Once you post the clip to Commons, just note it on the talk page and I'll build the crop for you! Thanks! Until the easily illustrated free clip is provided, though, I vote for KEEP. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that pan and scan is originally used specifically to modify classic cinema ratio film into the 4x3 aspect ratio of historic television makes the idea of creating an arbitrary simulation with modern technology especially dumb.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2009 (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.
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 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.
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.
KEEP - The 1982 photo, an historic photo going on 30 years, actually is "special" and encyclopedic as it depicts historic land use. This public building (Oakland's Municipal Boathouse) was just renovated...for use as an upscale restaurant; there is no longer recreational boating use at the dock depicted in the photo there, which now has its own bar and seating at the water's edge. CriticalChris03:25, 22 December 2009 (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.
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 - Still existing objects can, unless there is a compelling counter argument, always be re-photographed - Peripitus(Talk)06:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Are you aure about that? This photo, while taken just a few years ago, is unequivocally historic. You're just wrong guy. Anyone CANNOT just "go there and take a picture" from this perspective; a multi-level, mixed use building now occupies the former parking lot in the foreground of the picture. Don't belive me? ...next time you're in Oakland (you don't sound like you spend too much time there) go to 14th and Madison and you'll see what I mean. CriticalChris03:19, 22 December 2009 (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.
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.
While the source is now gone, the image itself has no connection to the 2008 Weng'an riot where it is being used. The coffin is only related to her funeral and the only mention is that her parents guarded the coffin. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user Badagnani's statement the image itself has no connection to the 2008 Weng'an riot is wrong, to say the least. The article 2008 Weng'an riot is about the alleged suicide(or was it murder?) of Li Shufan, the girl's dead body happened to be lying inside the coffin. Arilang talk06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WHY WAS THIS PHOTO JUST DELETED, WHEN ALL COMMENTS WERE TO KEEP? THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE! PLEASE RESTORE IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION! Badagnani (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2009 (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.
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.
As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WHY WAS THIS PHOTO JUST DELETED, WHEN ALL COMMENTS WERE TO KEEP? THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE! PLEASE RESTORE IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION! Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2009 (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.
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.
Comment - WHY WAS THIS PHOTO JUST DELETED, WHEN ALL COMMENTS WERE TO KEEP? THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE! PLEASE RESTORE IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION! Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2009 (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.
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.
Comment - WHY WAS THIS PHOTO JUST DELETED, WHEN ALL COMMENTS WERE TO KEEP? THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE! PLEASE RESTORE IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION! Badagnani (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (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.
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.
"We do not need an image of someone being hit to see that there was violence". To actually "see" there was violence we certainly do need an image that shows violence - although the question is whether we need to "see" it to believe it. This is borderline. I would tend to say keep. Anyway, this image certainly contributes more to the understanding of what was going on than the posed photo of "authorities" standing behind a desk File:AMTDZoot.jpg. You sound as if any image was "fine" as long as it's free, no matter what's on it. The non-free image is definitely more relevant to the events described in the article than that desk photo. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been kept for two articles for the reasons listed below. The image is a flash photo taken during the riots.
The article is about a series of riots that occurred. A single picture of an individual being hit doesn't indicate riots, just that a single person was hurt. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A single picture of an individual being hit doesn't indicate riots, just that a single person was hurt". O.M.G.... So if, say, 100 people were hurt in some incident, how many of them would have to be hurt in picture to "indicate" that it was 100? 10? 50? 99? A reasonable person can be expected to understand that only snapshots of scenes exist. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (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.
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.
"Illustrative use only". What other use could an image possibly have? Regardless, the standard fair-use template says that "it is believed that the use of" a work "to illustrate the subject in question" qualifies as fair use "where no free equivalent is available". So what's your point? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't need a photo of him composing on a piano to know that he was a composer" Strawman, as nobody said or implied that. The two images are reasonably different. If one of it was to be deleted (not that I'm proposing this), I would rather delete the top one, as the one with the piano shows him without a hat and in a more natural situation. "We don't need a photo of him composing on a piano to know that he was a composer". That's a silly strawman argument, as nobody said or implied that. Would it make you any happier if the piano was cropped from the image? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
