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 ⚡ 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:USAUpAllNight.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SkaTroma ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low-quality image featuring collage of almost unreadable/unrecognizable logos with distorted aspect ratios. AldezD ( talk) 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The file seems to a fairly used rationale in the article. I could agree the image could use work to make it clear, but doing it through a deletion discussion is just out of the question. After all, this is a non-free photo, and non-free photos should be of low quality to avoid piracy. It is starting to appear to me that everybody's going to be sick of you, I can tell you that. 和DITOR E tails 15:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Bad aspects are not sole reasons for deletion, but rather cleanup. Needs for cleanup are not adequate reasons for deletion. It might need a good update, not deletion. Perhaps PNG, especially since WP:IUP allows PNG to be a format for logos? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I'll request the SVG derivative at WP:graphics lab. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - File:USA up all night Logo.svg replaces this image. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:57, 19 September 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 ⚡ 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:ABU TV Song Festival 2013.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wesley Mouse ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This version is in jpg, and a newer svg format File:ABU TV Song Festival 2013 logo.svg has replaced this one. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:54, 6 September 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. Ultimately, the NFCC cannot be overridden by a local consensus and with no critical commentary on the image in the article text, it does not seem to be a tenable claim of fair use. I am aware that this may seem to be a "supervote" at first glance, but as the closer I am obliged to interpret the consensus of the debate with one eye on policy, and policy-based arguments have established themselves better. In particular, Jheald's comment is a WP:OSE example, and Aspects's comment appears to be founded on the mistaken suggestion that the image is the subject of critical commentary in the article. Stifle ( talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chad427 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since it does not contribute anything to the reader's understanding, nor is it critically being discussed in the article and nor is it significantly different from the original cover art present in the article. — Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Essentially similar to the case of Madonna (Madonna album) that was recently presented at WT:NFC, without apparent dissent, as an example of appropriate use of an alternative cover ( this discussion), that the same nominator also recently objected to.

The use is in line with the guidance at Template:Infobox_album, "... per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion" -- language which emerged out of detailed consideration at WT:ALBUMS several years ago, and has several times been noted at WT:NFC.

This cover is not a minor variation of the first cover (in the way that eg [1] would be for Madonna (Madonna album)). The alt cover is completely different, with composition, styling, and presentation that are utterly different - a quite different image. The claim that it is "not significantly different from the original cover art present in the article" is simply not true.

The purpose of showing cover images is to show the reader the dominant image or images associated with the album. As WP:NFC#cite_note-2 clarifies, such cover art "implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8), by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys" -- something upheld overwhelmingly in the three RfCs cited in the footnote.

In this case, as the article explains, there were different cover images used for the United States release (where the song was considerably successful) and for the parallel release in Europe (where the song also met with considerable success). The U.S. image was not used in Europe, and vice-versa. Both markets were highly significant for the song, and presentation of both images is therefore appropriate to properly convey the "marketing branding and identification information" associated with it. This is a textbook example of justification for including both images, per WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCI#1. Jheald ( talk) 00:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. We are discussing inclusion of front covers of the single Material Girl. While different, differences of information are too thin. Dressings by Madonna have little or no significance, unless sources discuss them. The Japanese cover is similar to the seven-inch cover of Like a Virgin (song), but it is too extraneous for Wikipedia. The nationality-based front cover is preferred by me because it fits the singer's nationality. Madonna is American, not European. Even when one image is significant to Europe or Japan, adding more images can also affect the alignment of the article. Also, this ain't an album but the single. The song is also available in the album, and we already have an audio sample. So why adding more images of one single? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per George Ho. No sourced commentary regarding this alternative cover, appears to not be notable, hence fails WP:NFCC#3a, per nom. If reliable sources significantly discussed differences in artwork then its inclusion could possibly be justified. If the artist were European and/or the European version were the initial (or more notable) release then the images could be switched and we'd discuss the deletion of File:Material girl madonna vinyl american.jpg instead. -- Trevj ( talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as stated on Template:Infobox album, "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.", which could be logically used for singles. The current consensus for alternate images on album/single articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable. The nominator is flat out wrong when they claim that the two cover images are not significantly different from each other. Aspects ( talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree with the above contributor, the alternate cover is significantly different. There are numerous articles across Wiki of alternate covers very few of which have generated this debate. Can't help feeling the crux of this matter is actually the content of the alternative cover is perhaps offending someone. That is no reason to remove what is a legitimate picture of a legitimate record sleeve. It doesn't need to be referred to in the text, readers can see it is different. Simoncrossuk ( talk) 20:58, 8 January 2014 (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.