Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 15
November 15
[edit]
- 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, in favor of replacement with the poster linked below, with complete fair use rationale. While there were keep !votes above, I sense a consensus that the poster is the better image. So that should be the image used, because in reading the paragraph that discusses the ad, it would appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, while you're in there editing, when referring to advertisements, the proper spelling is "ad", not "add". Fix that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- File:Jennifer Lopez Still Promotional Advert.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arre 9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Used to show J Lo's "mature and elegant side". I do not think this image is necessary to explain how the perfume was advertised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- Keep. I strongly disagree. At the time of it's release, Lopez was being blasted by the media. In response, she decided to display a new mature look to the public. Statυs (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- Keep ~ per Status, if you read the text you would know why the image was there. No need for me to repeat what he said. Couldn't have said it better myself! Arre 01:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- @both of you: The extent of this description is "she appears in a more "mature theme", wearing an elegant dress while posing, in comparison to the promotional add for Glow by JLo, which had her nude behind a glass". Not only is the dress barely visible, we don't have to see the dress to imagine what an elegant dress would look like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- It's not about the elegant dress. There is the visual to it but it's more to visually identify her image at the time. She was in the middle of intense media criticism and controversy so decided to alter her public image for the scent's promotional campaign. Several people noted the change. It's reflecting the text and further allowing readers to understand. Arre 14:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- Maybe the poster would be better to use? Statυs (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- That would be more useful than just a headshot, but I'm not sure it would pass NFCC #8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- I've never seen that. But yes, that would be better because it has the text. Arre 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- Maybe the poster would be better to use? Statυs (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- File:Glow Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Status (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Looks purely decorative in the article, don't see what commentary it is supposed to support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)reply
- As the uploader of the image, I have to agree. It really doesn't add anything to the article. Statυs (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2012 (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.