The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 -Fastily 01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insane Clown Posse - Tunnel Of Love-XXX-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sugar Bear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

1. Image is decorative because it's not necessary for understanding of text.
2. Hardcore pornographic image that doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the text. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, this is also not the main cover of the work (see below), so it fails the fair use justification used on other covers with objectionable content (see Wikipedia:Offensive material, Talk:The Dawn of the Black Hearts).
3. Higher resolution than needed for context of image.
4. Article is too short to require multiple images
5. Image is not the main cover of the work, but an alternate variant that was usually sold with a warning sticker covering the image, so the actual image wasn't generally displayed to the public in stores, so if anything met fair use in that section, it would be the sticker, not the actual image.

ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The alternate EP cover has critical commentary from reliable sources to justify its inclusion in the article and passes WP:NFCC#8. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so it being a pornographic image is not a reason for its deletion. The file was sized down to its current size back in December 2017 and one week after its upload and is not a reason for its deletion. Article size is not a valid reason for its deletion. An alternative cover can be used in an article as long as there is critical commentary from reliable sources as there is in this article. The nominator's arguments also have no merits because they uploaded the alternate cover with a warning on it, File:Tunnel Of Love XXX cover.jpeg, and a too small-sized version of the alternate cover, File:Tunnel Of Love (XXX cover).jpeg, and added both to the article at separate times, [1] and [2]. If the uploader thought the original cover failed all of these points, then why did they upload two other covers that would also fail all of these points? Aspects (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The smaller-sized alternate cover the nominator uploaded was deleted as I was posting the message as being redundant to the file up for deletion. Aspects (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to meet a compromise with you while I was waiting to prepare a discussion about the image. Also, I gave several reasons why the image doesn't meet fair use justifications. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @Aspects. The nomination is erroneous. Kys5g ^talk! 01:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain how it is erroneous? I clearly gave several reasons why the image doesn't meet fair use requirements. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The alternate EP cover has critical commentary from reliable sources to justify its inclusion in the article and passes WP:NFCC#8. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so it being a pornographic image is not a reason for its deletion. The file was sized down to its current size back in December 2017 and one week after its upload and is not a reason for its deletion. Article size is not a valid reason for its deletion. An alternative cover can be used in an article as long as there is critical commentary from reliable sources as there is in this article. The nominator's arguments also have no merits because they uploaded the alternate cover with a warning on it. If the uploader thought the original cover failed all of these points, then why did they upload two other covers that would also fail all of these points? Kys5g ^talk! 05:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was an error in judgement on my part because I wasn't ready to take this discussion here, so I was trying to compromise with the guy that kept putting the image back before I could take the discussion here, to avoid an edit war. There's no fair use justification for a hardcore pornographic image in this article. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Offensive material: "editors of articles such as Car do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns about relevance." It's right there. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Any offensive un-encyclopedic content is still discouraged if not disallowed. But in this case, the image may still be encyclopedic, right? George Ho (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's extraneous because of the article size and the reasoning for its placement is just to show that it exists. It doesn't provide enough commentary on the image to meet fair use guidelines. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMILE spacecraft.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ultimograph5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A freely licensed image of the spacecraft was recently made available. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is probably even better. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ✗plicit 03:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Choice (Australian consumer organisation) logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Clare. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I feel like this (and the original version of the logo for that matter) should be simple enough to relicense as {{PD-textlogo}} instead of it's current use under NFCC, but I'm not too familiar with files stuff. Does it normally get exported to Commons if we determine that to be the case? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which I've just done. TOO is Australia is very low, and this likely exceeds it. -Fastily 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rod Black 2014 Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GMcIsaac (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File page lacks adequate evidence of permission for uploading an official and presumably copyrighted official headshot. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rod Smith Headshot 2018.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GMcIsaac (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File page lacks adequate evidence of permission for uploading an official and presumably copyrighted official headshot. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.