Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10[edit]

File:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain teaser (for episode 166).ogv[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: a single screenshot would provide the same information. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Stefan2: I feel that a single screenshot cannot serve the same purpose. It would not only be confusing and incomprehensible but also avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. And the criteria you mentioned says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." but more than one item is not being used to portray the episode but only a 30-second sample is being used. I feel that this file noway fails the criteria. Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant WP:NFCC#3b, not #3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not free. Wikipedia always errs on the side of caution in regard to non-free work. Tamravidhir, many have attempted to push back against this and failed; myself included, so you are not the first (I no longer attempt it). This case is clear: the entire work is represented and need not be. Even a screenshot of the work could be called into question one day. As editors, we can be happy to describe the work rather than exhibit it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and Prhartcom: Firstly this image is a portion from a long work and is of low resolution. And secondly, I know that this file is non-free but I feel that it fulfills all the non-free content criteria and doesn't violate Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Yes, text is the best but at timea to avoid incomprehension and confusion non-free content like this might be needed. And I feel that this is one of such cases. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file seems to contain a complete commercial. In either case, WP:NFCC#3b tells you to use as little as possible of the copyrighted work. In this case, a single screenshot (or nothing at all) would suffice. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: I would not WP:BLUD but the clips used in the teaser are actually excerpts from the 12 March'12 episode and it is not long than just 30 seconds. So thus, it is just a portion of a copyrighted work. But, as I said, I would not push forward my point. :) Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a video it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is one sentence about the trailer, which just verifies it existence. The sentence itself is not even needed for the article as the series has 644 episodes and probably just as many trailers. The fair use rationale states "It illustrates a section of an educational article that specifically discusses the episode whose teaser this is." So the trailer is not about the trailer itself, which it should be, but about the episode it is promoting. Altogether this fails WP:NFCC#8 and no explanation has been given here why the video file is needed in the article. 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspects (talk • contribs)

Delete. The article where this file is used (Bade Achhe Lagte Hain) already has a fair-use image. This file is clearly superfluous, so it fails both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#3b. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think that the editor must read the entire section. It does speak a lot about the trailer and one will understand why it has been spoken about after reading it and the file very well has the reason due to which it was uploaded and used in the article. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:23, 18 November 2014 (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.

File:Everest telenovela trailer.ogv[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3b: there is no need for a film in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Stefan2: As I have said on the file page this video is needed for portraying the #WhatsYourEverest campaign and the metaphorical title of Everest. There is also a good amount of info in the article on the trailers of Everest. It is also mentioned that they take forward the idea of the metaphorical title. And I feel that if this file were not there then readers might find just the information incomprehensible and confusing. Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And after reading the criteria mentioned I feel that it no way violates the minimal extent of use criteria. This is a portion from a two and half minutes long trailer. This video is only 30 second long and is surely of a low resolution. I feel that this file in no way violates WP:NFCC#3b. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not free. See my comments above. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: Commented and replied here. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a video it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is one sentence about the trailer, which just verifies it existence. The text in the article already states what the trailer shows, making it unnecessary for the article, failing WP:NFCC#8. 06:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspects (talk • contribs)

Delete. The article where this file is used (Everest (Indian TV series)) already has a fair-use image. This file is clearly superfluous, so it fails both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#3b. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:25, 14 November 2014 (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.

File:Screen shot from Umbrella (music video).jpg[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 - no critical commentary Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image need to illustrate music video in article's section. Υμβρελλα (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not needed since it isn't critically discussed in the section. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that to add any picture to article it needs discussion on talk page? Right? With this picture “Music video” section looks more understandable. Υμβρελλα (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a music video. Besides, a section about a video does not need a picture of the video. See also Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Archive 6#Non-free images of a specific television episode. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Rose Colored Glasses (Kelly Rowland song)#Music video. This “Music video” section have screenshot (thumbnails) too. You think this picture fails WP:NFCC#8 too? Υμβρελλα (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember that many users added various screenshots of this (Umbrella (music video)) video and after some time even screenshot has been removed (idk who remove). It means that screenshot must be in article. Υμβρελλα (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general allowance of music video screenshots in song articles just as there is no general allowance of screenshots in television episode articles. There needs to be sourced critical discussion about the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But pls explain me for what terms screenshots here: Rose Colored Glasses (Kelly Rowland song)#Music video, or here: Live Your Life (T.I. song)#Music video is appropriate, but screenshot in Umbrella (music video) is inappropriate? I think this is just SUBJECTIVE OPINION, NOT RULES! All we knows WP:NFCC#8, but everyone understand this term differently. Υμβρελλα (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2014 (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.

File:Portuguese immigrants in Brazil.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, source does not substantiate stated date Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Portuguese in Brazil.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

photo not at link given, uploader is unreliable and appears to fabricate dates/authors at times Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Polish brazilians.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, invented date and author Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Lebanese family in brazil.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo not at source given, uploader is unreliable and fabricates dates and authors Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Syrians in brazil.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

invented date and author (not given at source), unclear copyright status Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Latvians in brazil.jpg[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source link now dead (and not available at archive.org), uploader often fabricated dates and author names Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Abellio Stansted Express logo.png[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Replaced in use by File:AbellioStanstedExpress.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:Yuv422 yuy2.png[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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SVG version of this file already on commons. Arthunter (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (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.

File:X by Monolith Soft logo E3 2013.png[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; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, also similiar file deleted from commons. Arthunter (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the file that was deleted from Commons. I don't have any major objections to its deletion, although I believe it to be free so obviously it isn't a huge deal if it stays. It doesn't really have a use currently, as it was replaced when the newer title logo came out at E3 2014, but I guess there could be some use for it in comparison to the newer, more modern logo for the game that was revealed last week. Dark Toon Link 01:05, 11 November 2014 (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.

File:Yale-nus official logo.jpg[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; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same file already exists on commons. Arthunter (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2014 (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.