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. This is now an orphaned non-free image, as it seems to be removed per a discussion at NFCR or some other forum Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Dark Horse LP side 2 face label.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JG66 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a in Far East Man (there's a picture of side 1). Violation of WP:NFCC#8 in It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna) (this is not a disc exclusively containing this song but a disc containing multiple songs). Stefan2 ( talk) 13:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I wholeheartedly disagree that this image should be deleted. The rationale was deemed acceptable, and I'm confused about why you feel the need to raise it at all.

Your point about there being a violation of WP:NFCC#3a because there's also "a picture of side 1" is wrong. Because in this instance, "one item can [not] convey equivalent significant information". As reflected in the article, "Far East Man" has two composers and two notable releases in 1974; each of the versions merits a separate section (aside from the Background and Composition sections), and each of the LP-label images allow readers to visually identify each of the well-known releases. Not only that but I am in the process of adding more information under the Harrison release – text that will refer both to the song's sequencing on side 2 of the Dark Horse album and to the actual image, which shows Harrison's future wife. The "picture of side 1" you mention is for Wood's version – from a separate album, in a separate infobox. This is consistent with many song articles – say, " Blue Suede Shoes" – where there have been notable releases for a song by different artists.

I'm sorry but I find your point about a violation of WP:NFCC#8 in "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" almost laughable. The image is serving as the primary means of visual identification for a song that is an album track – album sides (almost) always contain more than a single track. (So of course "this is not a disc exclusively containing this song but a disc containing multiple songs".)

I've had a number of song articles pass through GAN, after pretty thorough reviews, and from very experienced reviewers in some cases. Neither of these issues has ever come up in song articles where a similar situation applies regarding two or more notable releases. JG66 ( talk) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Album sides provide identification of the albums, although covers usually are used for that purpose instead. They shouldn't be used in articles about the individual songs, though. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

They shouldn't be – why not? Who says they shouldn't be? LP sides identify an album track and reflect its positioning in the sequence of tracks, which in some cases can be very significant. I always refer to the sequence of tracks in song articles I work on, because almost without fail – given the era of the songs I choose to write articles about – commentators and biographers have much to say about a song's place on an album, and its interaction (or contrast) with the tracks that precede and follow it. JG66 ( talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is a tricky case. The image may well fail WP:NFCC#3a in Far East Man, but I believe in passes NFCC#8 in It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna). Here's why.

Album covers and book covers have always had strange relationship with NFCC#8, and are routinely used in articles on those albums or books without regard for the content of the image. Even in articles where the cover art is not mentioned (like this FA) or where it could adequately be described in text (like in this other FA), the image is said to pass NFCC#8 because it is the primary means of identification for the song/album/book in question. I'm sure that, if this song had been released as a single, no one would object to using the cover of the single here.

So the relevant question is this: When a song was only released on an album, is the album cover the primary means of identification for the song? And I think it is. I think the Beatles' song "Fixing a Hole" is primarily identified with File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg, and even though the Fixing a Hole article does not currently use this (or any) image, in my opinion it legitimately could. The same applies in this case. (But I acknowledge it's a grey area, and that most song articles do not currently use album covers as identifiers.) – Quadell ^{( talk)} 18:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a clear violation of NFCC: non-free media should not be used unless they provide critical commentary on identification. This does not. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just out of curiosity, do you feel that way about album covers used in articles on those albums? That if they don't provide critical commentary on identification, they should not be used? – Quadell ^{( talk)} 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The deletion nomination is based on a claimed policy violation. However, in interpreting the policy we should be taking into account the guidelines. WP:NFCI para 1 says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". This wording is unambiguous in saying commentary on the covered item (rather than on the cover itself or on any purported identification) is required. As it happens this makes little sense to me but it is what the guideline says and, in my view, it is the consensus of the the historical discussions. Many WP:NFCC#8 deletion nominations have been contrary to our non-free content guidelines. Thincat ( talk) 08:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The article is not about the album (the thing called "the item" in WP:NFCI §1) but about a single song (which is not "the item"). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
        • I know and I agree that that is the issue for this article. Thincat ( talk) 09:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Having seen Quadell arrive with a calmer (and subsequently more effective) approach than my own, and then read another user's support for the deletion, I figured I'd formalise my opposition to the proposal down here.

1) Firstly, I can't see there's any credibility at all in that statement: "This is a clear violation of NFCC: non-free media should not be used unless they provide critical commentary on identification." In what way is the use of an LP face label, to visually identify an album track from the pre-CD, LP era, a "clear violation"? The second part – "unless they provide critical commentary on identification" – appears to be presented as if it's a stipulation, yet I can't find it among the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Aside from that, I'd say they do legitimately "provide critical commentary on identification".

2) Looking under Rationale on that page, the use of the Dark Horse side 2 label image in both articles does not harm wikipedia in any way, particularly regarding "legal exposure" – it's official album artwork that's reproduced in the article(s) to allow readers to visually identify the subject under discussion. And use of the non-free image is judicious – again, it's used primarily to identify the subject to readers visually. It's not supporting a spurious claim or being used irresponsibly, and the articles (in their more advanced state, as "Far East Man" is now) invariably make reference to the song's position on the original LP side, and to the design of this label. It's worth noting that in the Paul McCartney FA, such discussion of the Sgt. Pepper cover (a bit too much discussion, I thought, given the subject of the article) was sufficient to see the cover image included there – and that's without any thought for something as straightforward as visual identification of the article, of course.

3) Under Policy in that Non-free content criteria, only 3(a) has any bearing, and only in the "Far East Man" article. In other words, at best, there might possibly be grounds for removing the Dark Horse image from "Far East Man" if the Wood LP label appears also, but certainly not for deleting the file completely. Even in that article, I still suggest there is no violation of 3(a) for the reasons explained previously. (Given the choice, if a choice has to be made, I'd lose the Wood label, as the Harrison version is more notable, as reflected in the article.)

4) The Fixing a Hole/Sgt. Pepper point is an interesting one. Whether the desired image for identification might be an album cover or a face label, readers most certainly identify that song with its iconic parent album, so logically the primary means of visual identification for the song would have to be album-related. Which throws up the question, why shouldn't an article for a notable album track provide readers with some means of visual identification? " Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is another song from the album; there's no image to identify it at the top of the article, yet there is one for Elton John's single release of the song.

5) For me, Quadel's point – "I'm sure that, if this song had been released as a single, no one would object to using the cover of the single here" – is the telling issue in this discussion. Because, it's quite true and not necessarily for the right reasons. For instance, in the song article for one of the single A-sides pulled from the Dark Horse album, the title track, the custom sleeve appears in the infobox, yet it's an image that hardly identifies the song to readers; the vast majority of people, I suggest, wouldn't find anything familiar in that sleeve. It's the Dark Horse album cover (or a detail of the LP face label, in my opinion) that would actually confirm that they've come to the correct page. Not the best example, admittedly, because "Dark Horse" is an album title track, and the article title "Dark Horse (George Harrison song)" doesn't leave room for too much doubt ... My point is, there's a blind acceptance that single artwork can appear, however un-useful it might be, yet when something useful and logical can be added to identify a song/album-track article, we end up here at Files for deletion.

6) I'm thinking about all song articles, not just these two – covering compositions in an era when promo singles didn't exist and many artists, from the late 1960s through to the mid '70s increasingly concentrated on albums. In my experience with George Harrison songs, there's virtually no free content that's relevant or adequate to these articles, beyond very general terms. ("Far East Man" is quite unusual in that regard, because wikiCommons images for The Wick and Frank Sinatra are directly relevant, perfect in fact.) So, to my mind, this situation regarding inadequate free images adds to the need to allow for non-free content images as the primary means of visual identification. And I'm talking about in-depth articles, where the song is obviously notable enough to warrant sections discussing background and inspiration for the composition, interpretation and analysis of it musically and lyrically, particulars about the recording, context on release, its reception and legacy. Just as a lengthy analysis of song lyrics would allow for a reasonable portion of those lyrics to be reproduced, within reason, and commentary on musical structure might lead to a line or more of sheet music appearing, I think the extent of an article's coverage has to have some bearing on this issue regarding the use of a non-free image – as the primary means of visual identification, I stress again. Obviously, a skimpy article containing a non-free image in the infobox, a few lines of quoted lyrics and a music sample, yet almost nothing in the way of encyclopaedic content, is unacceptable. (Strangely enough though, if a song happened to be issued on a single, that may very well be the case, as far as the image appearing, along with a disproportionate amount of lyrics.) So I'm talking about articles that aim to cover their subject broadly and, I would hope, add something to wikipedia – and certainly don't adversely affect the commercial interests of copyright holders of any part of the original work. JG66 ( talk) 04:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The deletion argument "non-free media should not be used unless they provide critical commentary on identification" is actually a misquotation from the guideline at WP:NFCI para 1 which actually says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". This is saying the commentary must be on the "item" (the plastic disc or what is recorded on it), not on the cover or on any "identification". However, guidelines are for guidance and you do not need to accept them if you think they are inappropriate. However, mis-stating them seems to me a very unfortunate tendancy which is all too frequent at FFD. Thincat ( talk) 09:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your input, Thincat. Have to say, I find that "Cover art: Cover art from various items ..." sentence pretty confusing also. JG66 ( talk) 11:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Important criteria are poorly expressed rather too often. The trouble is, when someone tries to improve the wording, someone else complains that the meaning is being changed. The resulting discussion tends to become inconclusive. Thincat ( talk) 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The file informs the reader of the (for lack of better term) location of the track on the album which the text supports this by saying how it fits with the songs before and after it. Best, yeepsi ( Talk tonight) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I think Quadell sums it up well, it is indeed a grey area and you could argue both why we should delete it and why we should keep. But if we lost the image in my opinion it wouldn't be a great loss as it is just the CD not the actual cover and the quality of the actual image isn't great to be honest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Two months later ...

God, it's nearly Christmas and this FforD is still open. I was really hoping to have worked up one of the two relevant song articles for GAN by now – but I've not bothered obviously, given the current status of the image file. I appreciate the concerns facing Wikipedia regarding non-free content, but in no way can it be said that this face label is being used irresponsibly or presents a risk. It's serving to visually identify two in-depth song articles – any copyright holder's lawyer will appreciate that the image isn't being used as some pretty picture to replace discussion on the work in question.

Again, I'm wondering why it is that a non-free image is deemed okay in articles where the amount of text is perhaps half that of the image's fair use rationale – articles where the song was a single, of course. Wouldn't a copyright holder feel more disadvantaged by the following (all from WP Beatles): Wings (Ringo Starr song), It's What You Value and Oh My My (Ringo Starr song)? To me, those three examples clearly run contrary to a rationale for "the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopaedia"; they're more like gratuitous use, and they're almost in lieu of any encyclopaedic quality whatsoever.

I write in-depth articles because I believe in giving a subject what it deserves; that means a lot of textual points drawn in from a wide range of sources, and yes, it usually requires a non-free image also. Critical commentary on the Dark Horse label image has been added to the two Harrison song articles, and I decided to remove the generic Warner Bros. label image from " Far East Man" after all. Can't this matter be closed now? JG66 ( talk) 08:57, 12 December 2013 (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; deleted as F5 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Worcs beaten in last ball drama (reduced).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seafordcourt ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Misunderstanding of WP:CITE. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This scan of a newspaper report is used in a WP article although (for unmentionable reasons) this does not show in "file usage" or "what links here". To provide a suitable citation to a printed newspaper report does not require an image of the whole report. The file description fails to give a suitable citation either. Thincat ( talk) 19:24, 10 October 2013 (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; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Law & order svu new title card nbc may 2011.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jane Rizzoli ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary non-free media: There are already two pieces in this article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:52, 10 October 2013 (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; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Already includes one piece of non-free media — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:32, 10 October 2013 (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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ruholla Kazemi.ext ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by corona_2007 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan Ru kazemi ( talk) 21:35, 10 October 2013 (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.