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. Seems like we have a consensus for deletion here, and the article it was used in was deleted anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not constitute such permission. (An explicit statement is by the copyright holder [usually the photographer, not the subject] is required.) Even if it did, that is not a (free) license. Therefore, use needs to satisfy the non-free content criteria. As stated above, criterion 1 is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the cited passages: "individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Part of Ambler's notability rests on his TV appearances some years ago. In 2014, book coverage called him, "a charming, good-looking person" among other things. A new picture of him in his later years now may not serve the same purpose - showing him as he was during the span of his (heaviest) coverage in ~2009-2014. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need a non-free image to understand that someone was/is a charming, good-looking person. Text is sufficient to communicate that, but it isn't even in the article. Ambler's appearance is not even mentioned in the article, let alone discussed in a way that would make him notable for his appearance. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Development of the article was paused due to spending time on AfD and now this. It was the intention to expand discussion from whatever sources remain. It seems most Bios have pictures when available. Pictures are worth a thousand words... I don't know why this one is any different. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most Bios have pictures when available No. Most biographies use freely licensed images. Non-free images must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, not just be available. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:07, 23 April 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 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.
I previously took the side label to FFD discussion to choose either the label or the overseas picture sleeve. The result was keeping the side label and delete the other. I'm renominating the side label for discussion just to decide whether to transfer it to Commons. c:COM TOO US has a gallery of images that do not meet the originality standards to guarantee copyright protection. Like other 1980s side labels by Elektra Records, including File:Sweet Love by Anita Baker US vinyl.jpg transferred to Commons per FFD discussion, the red and black colors aren't mixed, and they don't overlap each other. Also, the text is not original enough; rather it is too factual. Furthermore, I don't see any icons that are complex enough for copyright. I would have boldly transferred the side label to Commons, but I am too cautious to do so on the file that was previously discussed at FFD. George Ho (talk) 21:55, 23 April 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.
![07:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_April_23#c-AnomieBOT-2020-05-01T07:02:00.000Z-File:"Drive"_by_The_Cars_US_vinyl_A-side.jpg){kind=link}
![FFD discussion](/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_June_7#File:"Drive"_by_The_Cars_US_vinyl_A-side.jpg){kind=link}
![21:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_April_23#c-George_Ho-2020-04-23T21:55:00.000Z-File:"Drive"_by_The_Cars_US_vinyl_A-side.jpg){kind=link}