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: Partial delete - galleries of non-free images are not permitted, as was correctly pointed out by Drilnoth, Black Kite, et al. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz correctly points out that some of the images aren't just galleries of non-free images, but, rather, the text makes reference to them. For example, in Faded_Sun_Trilogy#Cover_artwork, the text points out differences between the early covers and the later ones. This is not an endorsement of those images and interested parties should feel free to renominate them. It also should be pointed out that this is not a legal issue - certainly, under US fair use law we are entitled to use the images - it is one of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries states that we do not, in general, use these galleries; this is our policy even though legally we believe we would be entitled to. If you do choose to renominate them, please create a separate entry for each article - the problem here is that there are a lot of different cases and so there is really no consensus on what to do. I'm deleting the clear-cut inappropriate images, but leaving the others (even though, in some cases, I think they should be deleted.) --B (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair-use images used only in galleries; not needed. Fail Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 06:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have galleries of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A book cover is a good illustration of which book it is, and is irreplaceable. I don't see the difference in principle between having one cover for a book and a gallery of the books in a series. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the fact that such usage is a clear violation of our non-free policy? Black Kite 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Let's discuss on Wikipedia Talk:Non-free content#Requesting comment about galleries of book covers for book series articles. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it here, so that the closing admin only has to look in one place. How is the use of these images exempt from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries? Neither of the two keep !votes above really address this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes: 1) I find the fact that they're a gallery noninteresting. They're images of a series of books, however arranged; I believe that the use (where I argue that it's appropriate) is more important than the format. 2) No matter what, File:CherryhChanursSagaPBCover.jpg should be removed from the class. In addition to being in the gallery, it's a single-cover image in the same article, and so should not be deleted. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all without prejudice to re-examining individual cases. The real problem is stylistic: most of these "gslleries" are included in articles concerning series of books; the individual novels do not have discrete articles. Rather than arranging the images to align with text addressing the individual novels (which would presumably be OK), the cover images have been placed in their own sections. In at least one case, Foreigner universe, the images are accompanied by nontrivial commentary. (The commentary may be OR, or it (more likely) needs to be sourced to one or more Whelan art books, where the cover artist typically provides his own commentary on the covers; but that's not important here -- the best analogy would be to the two types of discographies we have in Wikipedia, as I understand them; when individual albums do not have their own articles, and commentary is included within the article containing the discography (often enough the artist's article), fair use of the covers is allowed with the discography; when individual album articles exist, and the discography includes only summary information, fair use cover images are allowed only within the individual album articles. Here, the case for allowing the images is even stronger, because the article includes critical commentary on the cover images themselves, collectively and individually. We should be carefully not to place too much weight on the term "gallery"; the applicable guideline allows for case-by-case exceptions, and these look like cases where the exception is justified. I'm not a big fan of galleries in general; I recently removed a small album cover "gallery" from an artist article Mark Ryden. But these look like the sorts of cases the exception is designed to allow -- no duplicative use in other articles, commentary on the underlying works, and use of a "gallery" to improve display and make commentary easier. Case-by-case discussion may be appropriate, and changing the layout of the articles to more closely align images and related text would certainly be an option. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The exception is where the cover itself is important or notable and discussed in the article. None of these are. Black Kite 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, in the Foreigner universe article, the covers are discussed in the article. But more important, there is, so far as I know, no dispute on the point that a fair use book cover image cn be used in an individual article on the book itself, and such images are regularly used in such articles. The question here is the extent to which cover images can be used when the books do not have individual articles, but instead have group articles. The fair use rationale is the same; the image is used only in a single article. To remove the image is to say it serves no useful purpose -- but that argument cuts exactly the same way in the individual book article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're wikilawyering: The relevant quote from WP:NFC under "acceptable use" says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The critical commentary is on the item (in this case, the book), it doesn't have to be commentary on the cover. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wikilawyering to point out that the usage of all of these images fail at least two parts of WP:NFCC and also previous consensus on the issue as mentioned in the nomination. Though oddly, you've pointed out the main problem by bolding "that item" - these articles aren't about the individual books, they're about series of books. This is the same reason why we don't illustrate discographies with multiple album covers, or "List of characters in X" articles with a non-free image of each character. Unless the book is notable enough to generate its own article, it isn't notable enough to generate a non-free usage. Also, the covers aren't "discussed" - they're merely described. Black Kite 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of Cherryh's books are notable enough to generate their own articles. For example, The Faded Sun: Kesrith, a Nebula Award and Hugo Award nominee, does not have its own article, but is treated in the series article on the Faded Sun Trilogy. Many of Cherryh's works are award-nominated or have received other recognition [1], and her books are generally the subjects of independent reviews and other significant coverage. The way the Wikipedia articles on her work is organized reflects editorial decisions on a wide range of factors, not simply notability. Form doesn't limit or define content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, NFCC by its very nature does define content as linked to form. If the individual books are separately notable then they should really have their own articles, but if they aren't, then they can't require a separate non-free image. Otherwise we're going to have some sort of a grey area where list articles have multiple non-free images because the individual items are supposedly notable without any real proof of the fact. Black Kite 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the NFCC policy/guidelines do you believe requires this? I don't see any language that says a fair-use image must illustrate the article subject itself, rather than a subordinate topic, and the more specific discussions regarding fair use of magazine covers pretty clearly contradicts this? Note the magazine covers in Demi Moore. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 = "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - the topic of these articles isn't book cover art, and even if you try to stretch the topic to include that, you still couldn't make an argument that the presence of the book covers "significantly" increases the reader's understanding of the book series. Black Kite 09:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, note the magazine covers in Demi Moore: They significantly increase readers’ understanding of the extensive sourced critical commentary on the covers in the “Vanity Fair controversy” section. Conversely, none of the Cherryh book covers significantly increases readers’ understanding of anything. —teb728 t c 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All of the uses fail WP:NFCC#8: Their presence does not significantly increase reader understanding of the articles. None of these images is necessary for understanding the article. Some of the arguments above misapply the precedent that a non-free image is acceptable at the top of an article to identify the subject of the article. That precedent does not apply here, for the covers are used in the body of the article, and they do not identify the subject of the article. —teb728 t c 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Update: Keep File:CherryhMorgaineSagaCover.jpg and File:CherryhChanursSagaPBCover.jpg per Izno below. —teb728 t c 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As quoted above by Alvestrand, the key guideline language refers to "item[s]"; it does not refer to article subjects. And if this interpretation of NFCC#8 is correct, it would just as accurately apply to the use of book covers in discrete articles on individual books, or individual LPs/CDs, or individual films (where posters, DVD covers, etc have been used regularly). Since that clearly conflicts with community consensus, it follows that it is not appropriate in the context you advance it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand your comment at all: What I am saying is that covers of books, LPs, CDs, and film posters or DVD covers are accepted by community consensus for identification of the subject of discrete articles just as you say. (I.e. by consensus they satisfy NFCC#8.) But that consensus does not include images in the body of articles or images that do not identify the subject of the article. —teb728 t c 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Collage, or take a group picture per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles #1. I am sympathetic to the view that showing the covers of works (preferably the 1st edition covers) does add significantly to reader understanding. But IMO it is also necessary to avoid a screen-acreage of non-free content which seems overwhelming. Most of the articles, as currently presented, in my view cross that line. Therefore, my recommendation would be to collage (or take a group shot with) significantly smaller versions of the covers. (Typically the covers above are each used in articles covering about half a dozen books). This also would make it much easier for the reader to see common design elements in the cover art across the series. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Collaging or taking a group picture involves as many non-free uses as individual images, unless there is a published collection of each group for which one image could be used. Black Kite 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but even with the collage the copyright taking is less, if the underlying images are smaller; and they are a lot less visually in your face, which is also a consideration. Jheald (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fair use galleries inherently fail WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Hullaballoo's comments. Fair use is same as if they were in separate articles, i believe there is no legal distinction between separate sections in an article and separate articles.YobMod 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, they are legally fair use, but Wikipedia's non-free image policy is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep File:CherryhMorgaineSagaCover.jpg, File:CherryhChanursSagaPBCover.jpg. Delete the rest. --Izno (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What is special about those two covers that we should keep them? —teb728 t c 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The former would much more ideally be used as the lead image compared to the one current in use. The latter already is used as an infobox image, but was doubly placed in the article (in the gallery), which is what caused Drilnoth to tag it as one needing deletion. You'll note he didn't submit for FFD the infobox images in all the other articles, just the 'extras'. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed... I was checking most of them to see if they were used both in galleries and in infoboxes, but I guess I missed that one. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes to closing admin: I know that this is going to be a tough close. Just for the record, I'd assume that most of the batch-book-cover-nominations below should have the same result as this one, whatever it may be, because the reasons are pretty much the same; this one just attracted more attention because it is both the first listed and the largest nomination. The only exception that I can see would be the Artemis Fowl batch nom, because that is for quite different reasons than the rest. Of course, the choice is really yours.
  I also understand completely if you feel that this is a "no consensus, default to keep" discussion. If this is the case, I'll probably just start an RFC to see what wider consensus is, because right now things do seem about split with good arguments on both sides, IMO.
  Finally, if the decision is to keep, I'd be happy to run AWB through all the images to remove the deletion tag and add {{oldffdfull}} to their talk pages. Doing it by hand would be tedious, for obvious reasons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if Drilnoth's comment above is true that these are "pretty much the same", then I must repeat the opinion I gave here. This looks like a no-consensus, default as keep to me. Dreadstar † 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this definitely needs an RFC at some point, regardless of the outcome of these specific discussions. Currently, there are 5 keep !votes, 5 delete !votes (including mine, as nominator), and one "make collage" !vote. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have !voted differently on different noms, and given different reasons. Some should go, and some should stay, but these large batch noms make it difficult to discuss actual uses of the images. An RfC or individual noms would be better.YobMod 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThese are thumbnails, not full images and useless to anyone who wants to steal the artwork. They represent the books, and form an interesting group of different artists' interpretasations of the same fictional universe. Book jackets are designed to attract buyers. Free advertising is provided every time they are displayed. This is not the same as reproducing artworks which are just that - art works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.203.95 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeahEctoplasam1slidesizeCORNERS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The.Lightdweller ( | contribs).

• OR, LQ, UE. Uploaded by a user whose only contributions are for advertising her psychic services on her user page. Calton | Talk 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason to keep a useless image. Moreover, note that (unlike the other two) another person is credited as the photographer, and there's no evidence of his permission. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeahwebsiteGldFrame.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The.Lightdweller ( | contribs).

• OR, LQ, UE. Uploaded by a user whose only contributions are for advertising her psychic services on her user page. Calton | Talk 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason to keep a useless image. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeahInTheLight.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The.Lightdweller ( | contribs).

• OR, LQ, UE. Uploaded by a user whose only contributions are for advertising her psychic services on her user page. Calton | Talk 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason to keep a useless image. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EftelingDonkey.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mach10 ( | contribs).

• Improper ND license applied. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 23 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fred meyers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiman xxx ( | contribs).

• Likely CV, obvious non-free publicity shot of living person, replaceable Ejfetters (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WiiSportsResortAthletes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boxing245 ( | contribs).

• Use of his file does not significantly increase reader understanding of the article. The article has no need to “illustrate the real athletes in the game.” —teb728 t c 05:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Does not increase understanding of article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the athletes are just marketing material, they make no appearance in the game, thus they are pretty much irrelevant to the reader's understanding.  Marlith (Talk)  14:32, 26 July 2009 (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 VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jabee x photo shoot 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grafwurks ( | contribs).

• Refer to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 22#File:Jabee x Trvs Clancy x 2008.jpg - exact same file, exact same author. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:43, 23 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:100 2623.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prochristo ( | contribs).

• Original uploader didn't add PD tag, so it is not confirmed whether or not they intended to grant that much freedom. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per either WP:CSD#F4 or WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, besides the reasons given above, what likely use is there for a picture of a random trunk? Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2009 (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: not deleted without prejudice - Everyone has the same copy/paste opinion, but ones like this (where it is not a gallery, but the book covers are being used in conjunction with the discussion about the book) ought to be considered separately from the galleries. --B (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need images of every one of the books; one (the first one) is enough. Having all of them fails WP:NFCC, specifically "significance" and "minimum use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have galleries of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here, the covers are aligned with the discussion of the individual books in the series. If the texts were broken out into separate articles on the individual books, there would be no issue. The validity of the use of fair use images depends on substance of the relevant article, not form. However, the use of the copyrighted logo image in the article's infobox appears to violate WP:FU; the claimed justification (identification of the series) is probably performed better by the cover images. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BK. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (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: not deleted without prejudice - Everyone has the same copy/paste opinion, but ones like this (where it is not a gallery, but the book covers are being used in conjunction with the discussion about the book) ought to be considered separately from the galleries. --B (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RoadofthePatriarch.jpg
• File:Pic dri5.jpg
• File:Drizzt 6.gif
• File:PromiseoftheWitchKing.jpg

• We don't need images of every one of the books; one (the first one) is enough. Having all of them fails WP:NFCC, specifically "significance" and "minimum use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Use of fair use cover images, aligned with relevant text regarding individual novels, is allowed when article covers entire series of novels, novels do not have discrete articles, and use of images corresponds to Wikipedia practice for individual novel articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection - I made a comment on the Drizzt 6.gif deletion but it's no longer here because the discussions were consolidated. If one must change the format of a discussion after it has begun, at least try not to delete relevant comments in the process. Anyway, my comment was that all three covers from the Icewind Dale Trilogy article could be replaced by a single image of the cover of the omnibus edition of that trilogy. Powers ^T 21:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... when I was combining the nominations I thought I checked all of them for other comments. My apologies for the removal! I agree with you here... removing all three images and using the omnibus makes more sense. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not so much a matter of making sense as it is that it eliminates the "not replaceable" fair-use requirement. Powers ^T 18:13, 28 July 2009 (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 --B (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternate covers, 4 different pages)

• File:Covers af5 usa.jpg
• File:Artemis Fowl Time Paradox Cover US Version.jpg
• File:Eternitycode.jpg
• File:Arctic incident.jpg

• There is no reason to have both the US and UK covers; having both fails WP:NFCC, specifically "minimum use" and "significance". Why is it important to have both? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Having both covers in my opinion, illustrates the differences between the US and UK versions which could help readers understand and comprehend the article, and I think that the image does pass WP:NFCC because it is very low quality, less than a half of the normal book cover size and it is used to illustrate the differences between the US and UK versions of the article. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But why are they both needed? We don't put covers of both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of a video game, or the NTSC and PAL versions, in an article... WP:NFCC#8 requires that the topic significantly increase the readers' understanding. I don't see how these do. (@ Mifter specifically) How do they help readers to understand the article any more than simple text (like "it was released with a different cover in the United States")? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, You can't compare 360, Ps3, NTSC, and Pal covers of games to book covers because game covers are rarely different cross-platform or between ntsc/pal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblaze (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all via BK. --Izno (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (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: not deleted without prejudice - Everyone has the same copy/paste opinion, but ones like this (where it is not a gallery, but the book covers are being used in conjunction with the discussion about the book) ought to be considered separately from the galleries. --B (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need images of every one of the books; one (the first one) is enough. Having all of them fails WP:NFCC, specifically "significance" and "minimum use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, "minimum use" doesn't apply here because each book is a separate entity - there are no duplicates. Each book is discussed in separate sections (they originally had separate articles), each book cover is different for each segment of the story and book series, and therefore each book cover is significant. These images of different books in no way violate WP:NFCC. These are all different books! Dreadstar † 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree with that; if each book had its own article it might be different, but I know from experience at FAC that this sort of use is not really acceptable for that level of quality, which is what all articles should aspire to being. Anyway, even if keeping the covers of the individual books is determined to be acceptable, the collections (like this one) don't have any real commentary in the article right now. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Use of fair use cover images, aligned with relevant text regarding individual novels, is allowed when article covers entire series of novels, novels do not have discrete articles, and use of images corresponds to Wikipedia practice for individual novel articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (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: not deleted without prejudice - Everyone has the same copy/paste opinion, but ones like this (where it is not a gallery, but the book covers are being used in conjunction with the discussion about the book) ought to be considered separately from the galleries. --B (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need images of every one of the books; one (the first one) is enough. Having all of them fails WP:NFCC, specifically "significance" and "minimum use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Use of fair use cover images, aligned with relevant text regarding individual novels, is allowed when article covers entire series of novels, novels do not have discrete articles, and use of images corresponds to Wikipedia practice for individual novel articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThePrydainChronicles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mdiamante ( | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC as an unneeded fair use image. Showing the compilation volume does not significantly increase the readers' understanding, and all of the books are already shown together in one image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here the use is clearly decorative; the novels have individual articles, and multiple cover illustrations aren't needed. However, it's worth considering whether to keep this image and delete the one in the infobox -- if this is the cover of an omnibus edition (or of a box set container), it would be a better choice for the infobox, so long as appropriate identifying commentary were included in the body of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because i think the omnibus cover is fair use for the series article. It is the individual covers in the infobox that are not fair use, as their use as identification is already made in the individual articles.YobMod 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) keep, particularly as an interesting example of the alternate name "The Prydain Chronicles". Also, Wolfowitz has a good point. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The High King.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jschwage ( | contribs).

• Using a book cover in an article about an author does not comply with WP:NFCC, specifically "minimum use" (especially when used in the infobox). A picture of the author should be used instead. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not used in the article about the book. That has other covers - this one is just in the authors article.YobMod 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove from infobox. Absent exceptional circumstances, the only sort of image that should appear in a bio infobox is an image of the article subject. In general, book covers should not appear in articles about an author, when the books have their own articles. However, when a book is discussed within the article, in the context of the author's career, an image may be legitimately used. Here, the image is of the book for which the author gained the most significant awards/recognition, and seems to me allowable. However, I think it would be better to use an image of the original edition of the book (best an image of the cover with the standard Newbury medal sticker attached, for association with the award). There's one here [2]. I don't see this use as materially different from the use of a magazine cover in the article about an individual, when the cover appearance was treated as a significant event and discussed in the article.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The book article itself already has 2 non-free images of this book, so it has no excuse as identification even there. Hence there are currently no articles that can make a good fiar use claim for this.YobMod 13:58, 29 July 2009 (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: deleted, see first entry for rationale --B (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gandalara2.jpg
• File:Gandalara3.jpg
• File:Gandalara4.jpg
• File:Gandalara5.jpg
• File:Gandalara7.jpg

• Fair-use image used in a gallery; not needed. Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have galleries of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove duplicate cover image from infobox. Here, the "gallery" appears justifiable; laying out the page with images aligned with text would be cumbersome, since the individual novel comments are relatively brief. It would be better, though, to move the set of images above the discussion of the individual novels, to make reader identification/association of the images and the text easier. If the entries on the individual novels are sufficiently lengthened, the display should be changed to align images with relevant text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2009 (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: deleted - there is no discussion of the book covers and galleries of fair use images are clearly not permitted. None of the keep points addressed a reason that the policy should not apply in this case. --B (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair-use image used in a gallery; not needed. Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in galleries. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have galleries of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. There's so little discussion of the individual novels that it's hard to hard to justify these, the article could be reorganized and repaired. The images are poorly chosen, not uniformly displayed/formatter, and there are supposed to be seven of them, not six. I wouldn't object to deletion so long as it wouldn't be a precedent against using the images properly in a single article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am planning on reworking the article and the book entries on the level of Laurel K Hamilton's Anita Blake series, I just haven't gotten to it yet. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2009 (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: Not deleted - general agreement that these should not all be combined together, kept without prejudice against resubmitting. --B (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need images of every one of the books; one (the first one) is enough. Having all of them fails WP:NFCC, specifically "significance" and "minimum use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we do need it. When we have an article about a bool, it is natural to have an image of its cover. Thue | talk 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) / keep. Showing book covers (or different version of book covers) in the main article for the book is obviously useful, unreplacable, has no negative effect on the marketability of the book, and therefore fair use IMO. 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC) User posted two different comments at different nominations before they were collapsed, but they are both keep !votes anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly decorative use. We don't have multiple uses of book covers for the same reason that we don't have albums covers in discographies; they're clear overuse and unless the covers themselves are notable and discussed as such, don't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could this be withdrawn and resubmitted? Different series, different articles, different issues. This bulk nomination has no rationale, and the nominator's explanation makes no sense whatsoever - why would the illustration of an article about Trudi Canavan's books have any bearing the illusration of any article on Meredith Ann Pierce's trilogy? As it stands, keep all.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they're all being used in image galleries, and all therefore fail the same parts of WP:NFCC. Black Kite 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in different ways (some have duplication, some don't for example) that raise different issues, and the gallery guideline talks about case-by-case determinations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable, but having looked through all of these I cannot find any where the individual covers are discussed or notable enough to justify an additional non-free image use. Black Kite 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the names of the separate article pages on which they are used. Hope that helps a bit. I agree it was confusing; and I agree that series covers and alternate covers are separate issues, which some may see differently. Jheald (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see Chanur for details. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zero Kazama.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DB9 ( | contribs).

• non-free image of a living person that is clearly replaceable with a free image. Image fails WP:NFCC#1. Was marked for Speedy deletion but this has been opposed by the uploader. Peripitus (Talk) 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Reasoning Needed - give everyone an example of where one might be able to get a free-image of the person, if you would. -Mattokunhayashi (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a living person, not in jail, not a recluse; so it should be easy. Find out where he lives or works, or find out where he is making a personal appearance, as most actors do. Go to where he is and take a photo of him. Or ask his publicist for a free license photo. (After this photo is deleted, the absence of a photo in in his article would motivate their help.) Do you know of some reason why it would be difficult? Even in cases where getting a free photo would be difficult (as with a fugitive from the law) Wikipedia rejects non-free photos if a free photo is theoretically possible. —teb728 t c 05:39, 25 July 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petition by Chau Liang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arilang1234 ( | contribs).

• Fair-use media being used in an article not about the subject (it's a film cover, being used in an article that does not discuss the film cover and only barely discusses the film itself). Would be appropriate in an article about the film, but not in the general article (Petitioning (China)) where it is currently used. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:43, 23 July 2009 (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.