Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20[edit]

File:Hip Sing Credit Union where Michael Chen was murdered.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. Its claimed purpose is "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work.", but the article is for Michael Chen (gangster).. Nor is there any significant sourced commentary about this image to justify its use in any other way. Whpq (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2019 (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:Clara-ma-rover.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clara-ma-rover The girl who chose the name of the rover.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 20 January 2019 (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:Storeybookgardenstot.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (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:Vat69.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: relisted on 2019 January 28. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vat69.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Madonna - another suitcase in another hall.ogg[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: no consensus. Seems like we don't have consensus on whether the file significantly enhances the understanding of the article topic and there are apparently comparably good arguments on both sides.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the sample and rationale does not illustrate why it would be required to aid in reader's understanding of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As half the article is about Madonna's version which was released as a single. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the primary subject of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it secondary to the original recording? If it not notable enough why doesn't the article just mention Madonna's version in passing instead of dedicating half the article to her version? Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because readable content and non-free media content is not the same thing. Just because there is a bigger chunk of the Madonna content does not necessarily warrant an inclusion of a media in it. Please comment on the issue at hand. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is nothing more than a subjective opinion. Madonna's song is not a mere footnote in the song's history. The song has two notable versions, both should have a fragment to represent them as seen with many other GA articles which deal with songs made famous in more than one version (Are You Lonesome Tonight? (song), It's All Coming Back to Me Now, Don't Cry for Me Argentina) or even non-GAs (I Will Always Love You). Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Madonna's version having more page space has nothing to do with the WP:NFCC failing of the sample. It fails WP:NFCC#8 which specifically mentions that its addition has of no significance to the readers understanding and removal is not detrimental. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that about literally any audio sample on Wikipedia. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, please consider that the uploader is venturing into WP:WAX continuously even after being asked to comment about this sample's NFCC. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my argument for the keeping of the file. Your argument was initially that it was ″not the primary subject of the article″, before admiting that Madonna′s version has more page space which would rather translate into ... her version being the most important one? The only audio sample this article has is the Madonna version which is falls under fair use. Even if the article would get a sample for the original recording, it would still not break any rules as evidenced by the articles I mentioned - which is why I mentioned them in the first place. You failed to explain how an audio sample for one of the two notable versions of the song is not relevant to keep it - please consider that, reviewing admin. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has sourced critical commentary that necessitates this file in order to be understood. Specifically, "Madonna's version of the song begins with the same soft strummed guitar in broken chords.[5] Madonna sings in a breathy voice, giving her character more vulnerability.[6][26] The first vocal entrance leads into an engaging melody with the opening phrase, 'so what happens now?', being repeated twice.[5]" cannot be accurately conveyed by words alone. You really need to hear what a "soft strummed guitar in broken chords", "breathy voice, giving her character more vulnerability" and "an engaging melody" sound like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (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:Cayton-Horace-R-Sr.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: relisted on 2019 January 28. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cayton-Horace-R-Sr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Tomb n graves of Islamic Naqshbandi saints of Allo Mahar Sharif.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader blocked for copyright violations, metadata indicates that this file came from Facebook. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte - given the uploader's history of copyright violations and the EXIF data indicating it came from facebook, there is no good reason to believe this image is okay. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2019 (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:HMS Medway sea trials.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: withdrawn. ℯ xplicit 23:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is Crown Copyright, has a term of at least 50 years. No indication that this file has been released under the OGL. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Ts&Cs here: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/terms-and-conditions -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep www.royalnavy.mod.uk is published under the Open Government Licence, and you can reproduce information from the site as long as you obey the terms of that licence. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that wasn't there yesterday... Oh well, Withdrawn in that case. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (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:Spam can.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree, I'm pretty sure that Hormel copyrighted the Spam burger image. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2019 (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.