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: Replace File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby45.jpg & File:I'm gonna love you just a little more baby (dutch cover).jpg with File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby by Barry White US vinyl.png - FASTILY 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC) reply

File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby45.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb26554 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:I'm gonna love you just a little more baby (dutch cover).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JohnMalisianos ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby by Barry White US vinyl.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded a side label of the " I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby" US release, intending to replace both the German and Dutch covers. However, my effort was reverted and then discussed at article talk page, which I felt is not the best venue to discuss non-free images, especially if no compromise is made there. I think that taking the images to FFD would meet the scope of the FFD, especially when WP:NFCC comes into play.

I interpret WP:NFCC#3a saying that an acceptable image must be substantially different from another pre-existing image that is already used. Also, I interpret WP:NFCC#8 saying that removing and then omitting an acceptable image would severely and detrimentally affect readers' understanding of the topic, i.e. article subject. In other words, an irreplaceable non-free image may be acceptable if omitting that image harms their understanding of the topic. (BTW, Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover provides details about what to do with extra images, especially non-free ones.)

Although editorial discretion on which images to keep and which to delete comes to play, the policies on non-free content also apply. IMO, the German and Dutch covers should be deleted. The German one is partially extract from the front cover of Barry White's parent album I've Got So Much to Give. Also, I could not find reliable sources proving that the song charted in Germany. On the other hand, the Dutch release was charted, and the release has a picture sleeve, which many editors would prefer because... Barry's face and the song title are included. However, the song title is already recognizable by most readers without the image, and there are available freely-licensed images of Barry White to use.

I prefer the US side label because the US single release, despite lacking a picture sleeve, was successful in music charts and possibly sales in the US, where White was born and where the song was produced. Also, the release was part of White's successful US musical career. If at least one sleeve were also to be kept, probably the Dutch one, despite the image coloring making the song title less visible than intended (maybe because of digital scanning?), because the single there was charted in the Netherlands. However, I don't think more than one image is needed to increase readers' understanding of the single releases of the song, right? Also, certain readers can go to other sites, like discogs or 45cat or eBay, without needing to upload extra images, like sleeves. – George Ho ( talk) 05:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Almost forgot. If deleting the sleeves would harm readers' understanding of the single/song, I would point commonality of digital artworks in the prominent digital/streaming age as the factor of harm done by omission. We have lived in the era where we listeners have used to artworks so much since the CDs became popular in the 1990s, yet how vinyl singles were variously released in different regions have become obscure to many, right? Maybe having a label and a sleeve concurrently in one article is a compromise, yet the method is criticized sometimes primarily for affecting article layout; see Template talk:Extra album cover#Adding generic record labels, which is just about mostly the labels themselves. Still, to me, without a label, most readers would not realize how sparse or rare picture sleeves were in the United States before the CDs became popular in 1990s (or the United Kingdom until mid- or late-1970s, where UK record labels increasingly preferred picture sleeves). George Ho ( talk) 06:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Also almost forgot, I anticipate other editors to disagree with me, especially since the majority (or consensus) has been favoring artworks (or picture sleeves) for years and since the sleeves and labels have been discussed before. George Ho ( talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Anna Brosche.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbjax ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See it's metadata, the author is Agnes Lopez. All rights are reserved. It is clearly copyrighted. Masum Reza ^📞 11:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder -- Whpq ( talk) 16:08, 17 September 2019 (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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

File:NSPCC logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo, replaced by vector version. Cloudbound ( talk) 12:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete You could have proded it you know. Masum Reza ^📞 13:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat ( talk) 06:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Cleanup. -- CptViraj ( 📧) 11:31, 16 September 2019 (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: missing clear evidence of permission. If you are the copyright holder, then please follow this procedure to get the file restored - FASTILY 23:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Capt John Treasure Jones, Queen Mary.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Tennant ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is unclear. Just because it was posted in a wikidot.com, doesn't mean it is licensed under CC 3.0. The website explicitly stated that no images are created by them. By posting to their site, "one agrees to license it to them". But there is no information about the author on the site. It could be that somebody took it from elsewhere and posted it on the site. Masum Reza ^📞 13:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

A. Whilst the author is unknown, it is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. The image is in the family archives of Capt Treasure Jones. It is used in his autobiography 'Tramp to Queen' as the colour illustration on page 52 and as the basis for the cover. "Tramp to Queen". The History Press.
I have been identified as the Author of this work in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. As such, I would assume that it should qualify under fair use rationale under United States copyright law.

B. The image is posted on a page of the website Sotonopedia. It website describes itself as being ‘’the a-z of Southampton’s history’’. Sotonopedia is developed and maintained by the Local Studies Department of Southampton Central Library.
This reference was used simply to assert that the image is ‘in the public domain’.

Not being conversant with the various licencing and copyright provisions of Wikipedia perhaps it should be covered by another classification such as licensed under the 'Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic' license. Since the book cover itself has not been used, I did not think that it would qualify as a 'non-free book cover'. Perhaps it should be identified as 'non-free promotional'. Many thanks Richard Tennant ( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2019 (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.