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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply

File:Donald Duck.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ANGELUS ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ Peteforsyth with the reason "Unclear what the source is, since the file referred to (at Italian Wikipedia) was deleted (due to copyright problems). There is no attribution for this file, and it's unclear whether or not it's an authentic depiction of the subject. In addition, having a vector-based SVG for a non-free file violates the need to use only low-resolution images for this purpose." FASTILY 02:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: It should be easy to find a suitable image that is known to be official, and can have a proper attribution in its non-free use rationale, etc. This one is based on a file that has been deleted, and (unless somebody can dig it up and fix the NFUR) it's unclear where it was copied from. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I am kinda sure this is official, I'll do some searching. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No luck yet, but some interesting finds (no complete match): Donald Duck 4-Pin Set Disney movie rewards exclusive, Button made by OSP (One Stop Publishing) in the early 1990s. and Vintage pin from 70s 80s USSR. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete If I ever stumble upon it I'll let you know. But even assuming the base image is official, it is probably an unofficial vectorization. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 21:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: I replaced the picture with a smaller jpg version, File:Donald Duck.jpg, which has correct non-free license info. I replaced the image used on the article page. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The .jpg file should also be deleted given that its provided source is a cabinet company. Aspects ( talk) 04:00, 8 December 2020 (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: no consensus. This appears to be an editorial issue first and foremast, so FFD is not the venue to address that issue. If and when this is discussed on the article's talk page, then this cover can be re-examined in a future discussion if needed. Ə XPLICIT 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Only way Is Up Otis Clay.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image of the original Otis Clay version of " The Only Way Is Up" is used as a lead image and part of the Clay infobox. Recently, I removed discogs from the article as "unreliable" per WP:RSP#Discogs. Then I searched on Google News and Google Books couldn't find reliable sources that would prove further significance of the original Clay version and improve the article. If I use Wikipedia Library, I bet the results would be the same. Thus, the Clay vinyl image would fail WP:NFCC#8, especially as lead image. The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction. Somehow, the Clay infobox and image were inserted several years back just to push the Yazz infobox down. I'm not nominating an image associated with the cover version of a song as I've done to other images of cover version releases. Rather I'm nominating the image of the original version. George Ho ( talk) 08:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I've now added alternative sources re the significance of the Otis Clay song and could find more if necessary. The Clay infobox was not added "just to push the Yazz infobox down" (see WP:AGF), it was added because it is the original recording, which is highly notable. Placing the infoboxes in a different order would be chronologically wrong - I do not accept that "The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction." Re the image of the Clay label itself, alternative sources could be found if necessary, but my understanding (happy to be corrected) was that Discogs can be used as a source for images, but not for references about those images. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I think more is necessary; if Yazz's version had neither existed nor made the song popular, I would have redirected the song to Otis Clay. Seriously, I would have. Indeed, how are the weights of original version's and of Yazz version's significances different from those of (They Long to Be) Close to You, All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song), No Me Ames, and Solitaire (Laura Branigan song)? I'll use databases of Wikipedia Library to verify the original's significance soon. George Ho ( talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Finished using Wikipedia Library databases. Added just info about albums listing the song, but that's much info I can add. I don't think what I added would make the song more significant than I hoped for. George Ho ( talk) 11:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what the problem is. If you just think that the Otis Clay infobox should be removed, why not simply raise that question on the article talk page? Or are you seriously suggesting that all mention of the Otis Clay original version should be removed? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to remove all mention of the Otis Clay original version, but I'll discuss the infobox when the closure of this listing arrives. Actually, I'm trying to make consistency with songs whose cover versions are more popular and more notable than more obscure original counterparts/versions. I also don't want readers to give an impression that. I also don't agree that the Clay version is "highly notable". Rather I think it is "notable" but, if not for Yazz version, not good (or strong) enough for a stand-alone article. George Ho ( talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Didn't notice the partial sentence, so I'll give a fresher one. When readers see this image, they would see the image as proof of the item's existence. However, when they read the whole article, the readers would get impressions that Yazz version is more prominent, especially at such detail. Then the image of the Clay single reason would be set aside by readers and probably overlooked. To put it another way, I don't think the image of the Clay version would help readers improve their understanding of the releases of the song... or rather understanding of what the critical commentary can convey. Also, I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image of the Clay single release. George Ho ( talk) 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Those are fair points, but I think that approaching it in this way - rather than simply suggesting on the article talk page that the Clay infobox should be removed - is a strange way to approach it. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The cover and spine are ineligible for copyright protection and too old anyway. A free license for the photo of the book however is missing. If a Wikimedian acquired this book and took a photo with their own camera and licensed the photo freely, it would be fine and could be uploaded to Commons. Per WP:FREER I think this should be deleted. (unless every last copy of this book has been destroyed, which seems unlikely) — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Unused, questionable licensing templates. Appears to be copied from someone's personal Instagram account. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - unused with no evidence of permission -- Whpq ( talk) 22:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 10:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, useless anyway. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk _{What did I break now?} 16:59, 7 December 2020 (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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

File:Podma Pettit pedal pumping.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Podma Pettit ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file of questionable encyclopedic value. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unused personal file. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat ( talk) 10:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, useless anyway. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk _{What did I break now?} 17:01, 7 December 2020 (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.