Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15[edit]

File:Fresh Cream - Spoonfull Cream clip.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: keep. ✗plicit 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sample de-PRODded under assumption of sufficient, adequate critical commentary, including "swirling instrumental interplay, echo, fuzz tones". Sure, there's a section describing Fresh Cream's rendition of "Spoonful". However, I'm uncertain whether a sample meets WP:NFCC#8 and is needed to identify the recording. Hearing the sample, I also can't be certain whether the content in context matches what the text describes. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As George notes, there is section dedicated to Cream's versions. It contains four paragraphs and besides the recording and release material, it includes a brief commentary on the music, which George has quoted. In the sample, one may hear fuzz (distortion on the guitar and possibly bass) and the echoey reverb used, and I suppose some instrumental interplay. I'm not sure what more it would take for George to hear it, but he seems to be pushing for a highly restrictive interpretation of what constitutes "contextual significance".

He recently attempted to add his own "rule" with no discussion nor consensus to the WP guideline for music samples [1] (which he has reverted) and for "Spoonful", has moved the {{audio sample}} out of the infobox and changed it to {{Listen}} in keeping with his "rule". These issues really need a broader forum, such as at WT:Non-free content, rather than one editor's attempt to determine policy using a piecemeal FfD approach.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I didn't realize until now, per instructions at Template:Audio sample/doc and Template:Listen/doc, the "listen" template is preferred to "audio sample", and the sample should be put into body. Furthermore, the Template:Listen/doc says: Do not position non-free audio or video files in the infobox. Whether samples should or shouldn't be in the lead section... well, just as long as non-free samples are outside, i.e. not used in, an infobox. I'm unsure whether a central discussion is necessary, but we can do so after this discussion is concluded. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Wait, those instructions were added in June of last year by Binksternet ([2],[3]). --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the subject of sourced commentary, and serves to identify the topic of discussion for the section. Colin M (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in case this isn't clear from my earlier comment). Also, George's 14 January comments about "instructions" regarding file use are not supported by consensus and appear to just reflect his and another editor's personal opinions. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2022 (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:Charli XCX - Come To My Party (Demo).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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to fail WP:NFCC#4, doesn't appear to have been published by the copyright holder before, and the source is simply listed as "online circulation". hinnk (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2022 (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:Quanah Parker exhibit at National Ranching Heritage Center IMG 0245.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently disputed copyright status. Original uploader Billy Hathorn was banned for copyright violations, the licensing explanation for this image was I did not know of any copyright on this. There is no name of an author. "No name of author" does not imply that the text is not copyrighted. No evidence of free licensing, I do not believe this is fair use either because it is replaceable. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of a free license. Whpq (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Text is well above TOO. I was going to FfD this but forgot. Thanks Epic! :D Sennecaster (Chat) 05:20, 18 January 2022 (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:I Love the Nightlife - Alicia Bridges.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other file File:Alicia Bridges - I Love the Nightlife.jpg (German single) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. Somehow, a different file was uploaded just now. There's already a file uploaded as free, File:I Love the Nightlife by Alicia Bridges US 7-inch side A.png. I'm not convinced that the cover art was used for one of single releases (discogs, 45cat). Seems to me that it's for the ~~singer's re-release~~ re-release of the singer's old album using the same name, previously titled after the singer (musixmatch, Amazon, discogs, eBay). I think the cover, intended as an alternative to the "dreaded" side label, was mistaken as part of a single release when uploaded. Using the image in Alicia Bridges (album) as a second/extra image wouldn't comply with NFCC. As-is, the misuse of the cover art fails WP:NFCC#10a, WP:NFCC#5, and/or WP:NFCC#4. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 06:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same uploader uploaded the same image as File:I Love the Nightlife.jpg. Well, as I must say, there are black bars on the left and right, but the cover art is the same 1999 reissue album cover. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2022 (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:Love Won't Let Me Wait - Major Harris.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously tagged with "rfu" and then deleted very soon as File:Major Harris Love Won't Let Me Wait.jpg. Let's evaluate the Spanish (Spain) single picture sleeve's (discogs, 45cat) compliance with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (and WP:NFCC#3a if applicable). I uploaded a portion of the US single release (File:Love won't let me wait by major harris US vinyl side A.png) in Commons, intended as the deleted sleeve's replacement. With the side label still eligible for use in Commons, I figure that the Spanish sleeve is replaceable. Furthermore, I still remain unconvinced that deleting the Spanish sleeve will affect the understanding of the song Love Won't Let Me Wait (and its releases), especially in context, even when the cover seems harmless. The US single is already displayed as identification of the release itself. Unless the it is needed to attract mass appeal (of the project) and show the singer's appearance, I still am concerned about the necessity of the Spanish sleeve. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2022 (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:Waseda University Official Logo.svg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to qualify for WP:Non-free content since File:Waseda University Logo.svg already is there. Jonteemil (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2022 (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:Kasey Cisyk - You Light Up My Life (cover).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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De-PRODded per JGabbard's rationale (diff): image varies enough from promotional image for parent album. However, the cover art is the exact variant (or cover art) of used for the parent soundtrack album You Light Up My Life (ebay, discogs, 45worlds). This variant has "ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK" banner above the album title. As I'm convinced, the image belongs to the soundtrack. BTW, it looks similar to the film poster.

Single releases of the eponymous song use different variants of the same artwork (discogs (1), discogs (2), 45cat). (The Italian single uses a different one (eBay).) Well, the Portuguese single's picture sleeve (discogs) looks almost similar to the parent album, but the record label Arista's logo looks slightly different: on the Portuguese single, the text below the logo appears dark or black; on the vinyl soundtrack album, the text below the logo appears white. Still, the "ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK" banner appears in both variants, and I'm unsure whether the difference on the record label logo between the two would compensate that.

Overall, the cover art's compliance with NFCC, including WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#5, and/or WP:NFCC#10a, comes into question. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC); corrected, 09:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I Agree, It accurately belongs to the LP version not the single. Telex80 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2022 (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:Photo-0394 (2)4.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, uploader has not edited in nearly 15 years. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 05:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2022 (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:PiDigits.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:PiDigits.svg. ✗plicit 05:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the deletion of this file I uploaded, thanks. Mebden (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transfer to Commons. This files does no harm in existing and I imagine could still be useful for some people. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:15, 22 January 2022 (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:Rafflesinstitutionartspace.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in Singapore. I don't think the mural can be considered de minimis as it appears to be the central focus. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2022 (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.

Extra album covers in music of Final Fantasy V[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 -FASTILY 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one album cover should be enough per WP:NFCC#3a. Preferring the Original Sound Version cover art.... George Ho (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2022 (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.

Extra cover arts in music of Final Fantasy VI[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 -FASTILY 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one cover is sufficient per WP:NFCC#3a. Preferring the Original Sound Version cover art.... George Ho (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2022 (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:Bon Appétit Foodcast.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Appétit Foodcast redirects to Bon Appétit#Podcasts, yet the file page uses the redirect page for the Article parameter. The "Podcasts" section summarizes at least three podcasts in one paragraph: Bon Appétit Foodcast, and Bon Appétit Healthyish, and Food People. This card isn't of Foodcast; it's of Food People actually, which is mentioned in only one sentence. Even so, I'm unconvinced that a cover art or a logo of any Bon Appétit podcast meets WP:NFCC#8 when the article is about mainly the magazine, not about magazine-based podcast(s). I'm also unsure whether the following rationale for uploader's dePROD holds up: I'm not as familiar with the policies and guidelines concerning the deletion of images, but I took the time to add the image so I'd like to see what a discussion might yield. George Ho (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (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:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.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 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.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.

Cover arts in music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series[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 -FASTILY 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one cover art should suffice per WP:NFCC#3a for an article about a broader topic than the specific release. Preferring Final Fantasy Tactics Original Soundtrack by default.... George Ho (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (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.

Other extra cover arts of the Final Fantasy series[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 -FASTILY 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one cover art should suffice in each Music of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII and Music of Final Fantasy XIV per WP:NFCC#3a. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, certainly when it comes to my image for LR OSt Plus. I don't mind if it gets removed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2022 (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:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.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 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.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.