The result of the discussion was: delete. We need to know whose non-free content we're reusing and credit them accordingly. WP:IUP mentions URLs, but I interpret this as meaning a URL that points to the owner of the image and not a random website with no obvious relationship to the copyright holder. The likelihood is that this image is in the public domain anyway, but it needs evidence to prove that and the source is the first piece in the chain.
Your mileage may vary. If it does you'll be wanting Wikipedia:deletion review. With a source I wouldn't have been happy to close this as keep - I would like us to take a very much narrower view on non-free content - but I would have done because that seems to be in line with the community consensus.
And in closing, there's really no call for the unpleasantness on display here. There's none of us perfect. Let's worry more about our own imperfections and less about those of other editors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. No arguments offered to show how the use of this image complies with Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete; nomination uncontested, burden of proof &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Marine 69-71 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Concerns that this image may not meet all Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, and especially #1 and #8, have not been wholly addressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I had a situation a while back that was similar: At KMG Records there was the cover of an album, an "archives" release, one in over 100. The article did provide commentary: a review indicated that the covers were generic, providing minimal visual styling. The cover image was located beside the paragraph that supported it. Addditionally, you will see that the caption (alt text)lists the cover as "A typical Classic Archives resease", indicating that what was picuured represents the general form that these took, which again, was described by a magazine (a cited source) and called generic by the same. The diff for inserting the image.
Question: What is the threshhold being used for "critical commentary?" I thought that I had at least covered the basis. Dan, the CowMan ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - WP:NFCC#8 says: "Contextual significance. 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 this cover art does not increase readers' understanding of the section of the article, then what fair use image does? IMO, people are over-interpreting the FU guidelines, and Wikipedia is poorer for it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. We need to know whose non-free content we're reusing and credit them accordingly. WP:IUP mentions URLs, but I interpret this as meaning a URL that points to the owner of the image and not a random website with no obvious relationship to the copyright holder. The likelihood is that this image is in the public domain anyway, but it needs evidence to prove that and the source is the first piece in the chain.
Your mileage may vary. If it does you'll be wanting Wikipedia:deletion review. With a source I wouldn't have been happy to close this as keep - I would like us to take a very much narrower view on non-free content - but I would have done because that seems to be in line with the community consensus.
And in closing, there's really no call for the unpleasantness on display here. There's none of us perfect. Let's worry more about our own imperfections and less about those of other editors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. No arguments offered to show how the use of this image complies with Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete; nomination uncontested, burden of proof &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Marine 69-71 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Concerns that this image may not meet all Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, and especially #1 and #8, have not been wholly addressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I had a situation a while back that was similar: At KMG Records there was the cover of an album, an "archives" release, one in over 100. The article did provide commentary: a review indicated that the covers were generic, providing minimal visual styling. The cover image was located beside the paragraph that supported it. Addditionally, you will see that the caption (alt text)lists the cover as "A typical Classic Archives resease", indicating that what was picuured represents the general form that these took, which again, was described by a magazine (a cited source) and called generic by the same. The diff for inserting the image.
Question: What is the threshhold being used for "critical commentary?" I thought that I had at least covered the basis. Dan, the CowMan ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - WP:NFCC#8 says: "Contextual significance. 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 this cover art does not increase readers' understanding of the section of the article, then what fair use image does? IMO, people are over-interpreting the FU guidelines, and Wikipedia is poorer for it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply