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 debate was:

Deleted.  Orphaned, uploader requests deletion. 
Wily
D 
20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:MoutheaterBoston2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by amvymra ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned Amvymra ( talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (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 debate was:

- Delete - From the below debate: The image appears to fail NFCC#1 (No free equivalent) as there are free images of Flea in the article (and him touring with Cobain can be conveyed with text alone) and possibly NFCC#2 (Respect for commercial opportunities) given the images source. NFCC#8 (Significance) also seems to not be met - 
Peripitus 
(Talk) 
12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:FleaandCobain1992.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NSR77 ( notify | contribs).

• Non-free image being used for the article of a living person ( Flea). Image seems to be serving a primarily decorative purpose. A copyrighted image of Cobain is not necessary to show that Flea toured with him. Kelly ^hi! 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I thought the same thing when this was up for FAC. I tagged it for deletion then too, I think. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• A more thorough explanation since this is looking to be a borderline case: this photo shows nothing that is crucial to the article that words cannot show. It doesn't matter that this is the only image from the early 90s of him. (And if his image was so important, as claimed below, surely there would be more photos!) Readers can understand perfectly well that they toured together without seeing a photo. If you want to show that the two were friends, find a source that says that and don't insist on having a nonfree image to convey something that seems to be original research based on the photo. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This image is among the only photographs I can find of Flea from the early 90s that actually shows his face fully. Furthermore, it features Cobain so it definitely integrates into the prose. There's nothing here that violates Fair Use. NSR77 ^T _C 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per NSR77. — Giggy 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I knew this wasn't right. Also, Flea sold over ten million records in the 90s. I doubt its that hard to find a pic of his face. -- Endless dan 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. What you're basically saying is that any image of him is fine, except for this one. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't—not to be rude—understand that logic. NSR77 ^T _C 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Hopefully I'm not putting words in Dan's mouth, but my interpretation is, given Flea's widespread public exposure in the '90s, it should not be excessively difficult to locate a free image of him from that time frame, if in fact such an image is needed for reader understanding of the topic. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per my comment on the possibly unfree images nomination - it has a perfectly fine rationale with reasoning that provides acceptable reasoning for using the image. It's highly unlikely to find a free image from that time period, considering free culture and the internet were nowhere near as pervasive back then - if a free image was available I'm sure it would have been uploaded by now. The image is encyclopedic; it's a photo of two members of bands that were incredibly influential (especially in the period of time that it was taken) and it depicts not just the way Flea looked at the time (which believe it or not is important in itself - it's not about "hey this is a cool picture!!", as the way people dress and style themselves reflects the image of themselves they want to present to people; and if that's not relevant in a biography, I don't know what is), but the fact that he's hanging out with possibly one of the most influential people in alt rock - it's really rare to find pictures of any two iconic and influential musicians just hanging out together and shows that they weren't just touring together, they were friends (or at least reasonably acquainted) which is a ~notable~ fact (as I said, they both made a big effect on the alt music scene in the 90s). naerii 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I notice the image description lacks a source (which would be grounds for deletion all by itself), but it can be found here [1]. If the copyright holder is indeed " Sony Pictures Classics", in what relation does that company stand to the two artists pictured? They don't seem to be using it to market these singers as their product, so it's not obviously a promotional image. Being commercially owned it may well be failing NFCC#2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• You can't make assumptions that the image is or is not a promotional shot simply because of the copyright holder. To be fair, you have no proof or backup to support such a claim. NSR77 ^T _C 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, Sony Picture Classics (and its representative, Mongrel Media) are quite clearly using the image to promote not the two singers, but a movie which one of the singers happens to be referring to through a cartoon on the T-shirt he's wearing, and which is one of Sony Picture's products [2]. Our use of it is unrelated to the movie, so it's not within the implicit press-kit permission intended by the owners. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• In light of its copyright status, and of Calliopejen's excellent argument above, delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 31 August 2008 (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 debate was:

- Delete - Adding to the reader's understanding is not the issue here. Per the nomination and the requirements of 
WP:NFCC#8 a non-free image has to add significantly to reader's understanding. Usually this is via sourced commentary in the article about the image. Non-free images are not kept where they are decorative - 
Peripitus 
(Talk) 
07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Scorpions-Lonesome_Crow.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mairi ( notify | contribs).

• In the context of a near identical image already used in the article, this image doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Alternate cover art for music albums are valid and have significant precedence throughout Wikipedia. They add to the readers understanding by allowing them to see the various incarnations that album has been released in. In my opinion deletion of this image would be a policy change requiring many alternate album covers to be re-evaluated. Some examples that come to mind would be The Beatles White album, Magical Mystery Tour, Ummagumma, Meddle, The Dark Side of the Moon (20th Anniversary Cover), Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol. 2), David Live, etc. Jeffreybh ( talk) 02:32, 24 August 2008 (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.