File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This shouldn't be deleted. It's a re-release like Roman Reloaded. The previous deletion was an obvious no-consensus as well. MrIndustry ( talk) 22:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support - I think this file might have been deleted, because, at the time, it was a duplicate of a lower resolution version. Both were mistakenly marked for deletion and subsequently deleted. Either that, or the this file was confused with File:Paradise EP.jpeg, but there are subtle, important differences that justify the inclusion of both images, the former on Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) and the latter on Paradise (EP), since they are a re-release of an album (with a unique cover, when compared with the original) and a separate extended play. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - the other duplicates of this file were File:Paradise Edition of Born to Die by Lana Del Rey.jpg and File:Lana Del Rey Born to Die - The Paradise Edition.jpg. See also here: [1]-- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 23:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The image still isn't discussed critically in the article. User:MrIndustry has misunderstood WP:NOTAVOTE: it is not the number of votes which matters, but the reasons for keeping/deleting a file. For example, User:SuperHotWiki doesn't refer to any policy at all. Besides, this nomination violates the deletion review policy: you have to discuss the matter with the deleting administrator before starting a discussion here, but I see no prior discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

My watchlist says De728631 deleted it. So I wrote on his talk. It's a WW re-release. Its album cover is completely different than the original release. This is literally ridiculous. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

User:De728631 deleted it as G4 because someone had re-uploaded the image without respecting the previous deletion discussion. You are supposed to contact the user who performed the initial deletion instead, and according to the instructions, you have to discuss the matter with the user before bringing something here, not just post a notice about the deletion review after starting it here. Indeed, as you wrote, this is literally ridiculous:

• Book articles don't get an extra cover image only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, there are lots of different covers for The Fellowship of the Ring, but there is only one cover in the infobox.
• Computer software articles don't get an extra cover image only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, there are lots of different covers for Microsoft Windows, but not a single one appears in the article.
• Video game articles don't get an extra cover only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, the European and Asian covers of Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) are completely different to the American cover, but only the American one appears in the article.
• Films don't get an extra image only because there is an alternative poster or a DVD cover or something. For example, the article Avatar (2009 film) only has one poster, but google:Avatar+movie+poster shows that there are plenty of very different posters available.

Why exactly do you think that this CD is any different? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You act like it's just re-released. It's being re-released with 9 new tracks. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, compare with Little Busters!, then. It was first published as "Little Busters!" in 2007, and then remade into pornography as "Little Busters! Ecstasy" in 2008. The article suggests that a lot of new content was added in the second version, but there's no cover of "Little Busters! Ecstasy" in the article. Or, for that matter, Le Monde, which is published everyday with completely different material, but only has one cover in the article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with Busters so I can't understand it completely. It looks like there's FIFTEEN versions of it so that's probably why. Your argument is really petty talking about Le Monde. Why are you comparing a re-release of an album with 9 additional tracks with a newspaper that sells a new issue every day? Seriously? Why are you in this debate? -- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: Music albums are known to be identified by their album covers, and in this case a new cover has been released for this subsequent edition of the album. Various other articles on Wikipedia feature alternate album covers, so there is no reason why Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) should be treated any differently. The original FFD discussion was also leaning to "no consensus", but it was closed citing WP:NFCC. Alternate album artwork is certainly not forbidden to be used on Wikipedia, even though it appears some editors would wish it to be that way.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Music albums are known to be identified by the music. Exactly how is this any different from the four examples I listed above? Also see WP:NFC#UUI §2: if you are trying to turn the infobox section into a discography of versions of this album, then you can't include images of all of the different cover variants. About the "various other articles", see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • OTHERTHINGSEXIST is the worst page to come out of this project in some time. When you explain that there are hundreds of other articles on this project that feature a certain aspect, then by all means that shows that there is a standing precedent on Wikipedia that clearly allows for this kind of content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• The article for this album currently has 166 cited references. If the different cover artwork is truly as significant as it's made out to be here, surely sufficient critical commentary can be found on the subject to add at least one reliably-sourced sentence about it to the article. That's all it really needs. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I'd like to note that I didn't delete the original file, that was done by SchuminWeb; see the XfD link above. I even !voted to keep that. But since it was uploaded again after the first FFD, if under a different name, I had to delete it per policy. You should have raised this deletion review right after the first deletion instead of uploading the image again. De728631 ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn original AfD Policy is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous on this point that a 2/2 split can be closed as "delete" by an impartial administrator. A "no consensus" would have been a perfectly fine outcome, but a relisting would probably have been simpler all around. We do have precedents for multiple album artwork, like Virgin Killer, and the discussion should have turned, but didn't, on the adequacy of critical commentary for the new album artwork. Jclemens ( talk) 04:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - What article do you plan to use File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg in? From the FfD, "there is already a different cover in the article." What article? What different cover? Is the different tracklists in the article, as mentioned in the FfD? Is there an Infobox album in an article into which File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg will be placed? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  If you click article it'll take you to the article.-- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  The above DRV request is to place the WP:NFC File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg (pic) in the subsection: Born to Die: The Paradise Edition#Born to Die .E2.80.93 The Paradise Edition. What Non-free use rationale template do you plan to use? I found two references mentioning the upcoming November 13, 2012 re-release: Billboard September 25, 2012, mentions "a fancy deluxe box set". Billboard October 12, 2012 has no mention of cover artwork. Why should Wikipedia include a copy of the album image in its article when the reliable sources evidence judgments to exclude a copy of the re-release album image in their published article or provide any comment on the re-release album artwork in their published article? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Before it was deleted, it appeared in the main infobox (see Special:PermanentLink/517276711 for the last revision before the first deletion). When it was reuploaded, it was again placed in the main infobox at the top of the page (see Special:PermanentLink/518081015 for the last revision before the second deletion). Although the file has been deleted, you can still see the redlinked text "The Paradise Edition" in the infobox, indicating where it was used. Are you saying that you are planning to use the image in a different way than the way it was used before? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Critical commentary of the alternate cover was reported in this source by Stuff on September 25, 2012. It was added to the article in this edit. Surely it is sufficient and/or likely that additional commentary exists in other third party sources. It would seem to have a better rationale that articles like One by One (Foo Fighters album), which merely use multiple non-free content covers as decoration with minimal to zero documented commentary. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Allow uploading and allow relisting. The source "Genevie Rosen (September 25, 2012). "Lana Del Rey releases afterthought". Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved October 17, 2012." appears to be a Wikipedia reliable source and discusses the new artwork. The Stuff.co.nz source is significant new information (at least new to the FfD discussion) has come to light since a deletion per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The album was released on January 27, 2012 and they are releasing a new one eleven months later with significant changes. That is very odd and likely to have generate reliable source discussion. Album artwork is a large part of identity of a musical work and changing the album artwork after such a short time likely will have generated reliable source discussion. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. G4 is correct, and the original FfD close was within admin discretion. T. Canens ( talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  While we are discovering that G4 was applicable to the initial FFD last month (the closure of which is still a little problematic to me), the issue now stands that this new cover is the subject of critical commentary, which allows it to pass NFCC 3a & 8.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Additional Comment The Fame Monster is its own album and it has an alternate cover. It's even a "good" article. Can someone explain?-- MrIndustry ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. WP:NFCC #3a and #8 are not negotiable nor can consensus overrule it. Stifle ( talk) 20:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  3a) Invalid. Born to Die original artwork can't convey the message of a re-release. 8) Of course it increases the readers understanding of a re-release.-- MrIndustry ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete in the FfD, and the policy situation isn't so clear cut as to allow judgment calls by administrators; these aspects of NFCC compliance are a matter of editorial judgment about which editors may in good faith disagree.  Sandstein  08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Moreover, observe that Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) and Paradise (EP) both have individual covers. The fact that File:Paradise EP.png exists and the cover in question is essentially the same as it except for the text means that any critical commentary about the re-release cover in Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) can merely link to the article Paradise (EP), saying that the cover is similar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist the discussion should have turned on the issue of sources describing the image, it did not. Uzma Gamal has identified a source that does and there may be others that go into more depth. Relisting seems the way to go forward so a discussion can be had if this meets our NFCC guidelines now. Hobit ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The discussion about the image that User:Uzma Gamal found isn't part of Wikipedia. It is irrelevant if there are documents outside Wikipedia which mention the image; the purpose of an image is to help users understanding a Wikipedia article, not to help Wikipedia users understanding an external document. Also, as User:King of Hearts wrote, there is an almost identical image in Paradise (EP). Quoting WP:NFC: "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image." -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Regardless, they're two different albums and need to be treated as individual. People keep altering the EP article with re-release info, and including the SAME cover will only confuse them further. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • WP:NFC says that you should refer to the cover, not include it. That is, you should add a link to the other article where users can see the image. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Not like it's a tremendous issue, but I was the one that procured the source and used it in the article (see above). I wiki-linked the article text on Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) to point to the image description page. But, honestly, I don't see how "referring" to the image is better than simply posting it in the article. One way or the other, the reader is going to see it. Why add the extra hassle? Including the cover art, on two articles about the albums, in no way inhibits their ability to sell either album. If anything, it promotes it. On top of that, the cover is of reduced quality, is accompanied by critical commentary, and I think the article suffers without its inclusion to which there is no free alternative. If that doesn't satisfy NFC, then I don't know what does. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, that's a source outside of Wikipedia. And yes, that means we have a source that discusses the image. And yes, that can be a good reason to keep a non-free image (WP:NFCI #1). Is it enough? That's what we have FfD discussions for. DRV's role in this case (in my opinion) is to allow a wider discussion about if the image is needed. Hobit ( talk) 02:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that is a source outside the Wikipedia article. However, as I wrote, it is irrelevant if there are sources outside the Wikipedia article or not; it only matters if the Wikipedia article itself critically discusses the image. The purpose of the image is not to illustrate the external article but to illustrate the Wikipedia article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • As of today, the Wikipedia article does contain a critical commentary: The reissue's cover art released on 25 September. It features Del Rey with her hair free flowing against a tropical backdrop. [94] Genevieve Rosen, writing for Stuff, said the cover art was "looking slightly more luxe than in her stark and minimalistic original Born To Die portrait."[94]. So there is an appropriate reason to illustrate the WP article with said alternative cover art work. Referring to the similar EP cover would only confuse the general reader, so we need to display the real re-release cover in the album article. De728631 ( talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • The image is just mentioned briefly and the text seems to provide a replacement of the text. See WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply