Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17

WINC logos

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: All files were deleted by User:Explicit. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free logos all with a stated purpose of primary visual identificaiton but are not in the infobox as they are historical. The logos are not the subject significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FURs have been changed, logos have significant history within the article itself. Article is a Featured Article. User has not attempted to communicate the issues via my talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the appropriate venue to discuss nonfree images which do not meet the non-free content criteria. That nobody noticed that the images are not compliant for some time does not make them exempt from meeting the criteria. As for being featured article, the article became FA in 2014 and these logos all were uploaded after that time starting in 2015. -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: None of which I said. What I said was, the logos have significant history within the article itself and the Article is a Featured Article. Two seperate sentences...with periods. Nowhere did I say anything about anyone not noticing them or some nonsense.

To other users: I attempted, in vain, to discuss this issue with Whpq via my talk page. They seemed very uninterested in discussing this and more interested in just a "drive-by" FfD'ing. Discussion is recommended (by most admins) before going to any noticeboard or any XfD. Whpq's disinterest seems more than a little disheartening. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the current ANI thread about myself. This seems like piling on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the rcord, I am quite fine with discussing these images, but I am not fine with bifurcating the discussion between the user talk page and FFD and and indicated the discussion was here, twice, but apparently to no avail. Nor was this a driveby FFD or some attempt to pile on to an ANI thread that I had no part in. Anyhow, they have been deleted as author requested. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images have, indeed, been deleted per "db-author", we can consider this closed. There are no such thing as coincidences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 17 October 2021 (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:Lou Rymkus, American football tackle, on a 1950 football card.jpg

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:

Licensing says it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926, however the creation date was 1950. UnLeashedWolfie (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retag as a {{PD-US-not renewed}} file. Bowman football cards are in the public domain—see c:Category:Bowman American football cards for more examples. - Eureka Lott 17:29, 17 October 2021 (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:ME! mural.jpg

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article(s) are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of contextual significance: "For commentary on the album's background and the release of its lead single Me!" is hardly enough to warrant WP:NFCC criteria 8 ("its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") and 1 ("used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.") Currently used in two articles: Reputation (Taylor Swift album) and Me!. In the former, another free image currently used (File:Taylor Swift Reputation Tour3.jpg) is enough to provide understanding on the album's background and conception. In the latter, I am dubious about the significance of this file, because the article already has three non-free files to support. Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The mural image has contextual significance because it is the first promotional event Swift did for the song or the album. It's not just about the background, but the marketing aspect too. It's not abnormal in album/song articles to include images of how the artist promoted their work, such as via billboards; in Swift's case, it is a mural. The image does the job by actually illustrating the mural, which was widely covered by publications as well. The Reputation tour image is about the conception, while the mural is about the marketing/rollout. Ronherry (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how removing this image would negatively affect the readers' understanding. Non-free files must be essential and not merely decorative. A lot of artists embarked on extravagant promotional campaigns for their albums/singles/films, which can be effectively conveyed through prose, with an external link to the copyrighted images if necessary. Ippantekina (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every image on Wikimedia could be removed and explained in the prose itself, but that's not the case. The mural is quite literally the only image, on Wikipedia, of Swift participating in a Lover promotional event. It clearly serves the purpose and I don't see how it is "decorative" when it's the only picture of anything related to Lover, which had its tour cancelled. Ronherry (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be safely removed without violating criteria 8: "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". We know that Swift embarked on a large promotional campaign without having this photo--even the subject of this photo, the butterfly, has little to do with the album itself. Ippantekina (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2021 (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:InStem Logo.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used after the main article, Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine, was deleted as a result of an Afd. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2021 (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:Nymanogre.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. No sourced critical discussion pertaining to what the cover looks like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps removing the image from the relevant article.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottandrewhutchins: I removed it (once) for the above mentioned reason. It isn't enough that the image is "relevant" in the sense that it has something to do with the article topic. Please read WP:FILMSOUNDTRACK: "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." The only two acceptable non-free uses in the policy are identification (which we've already ruled out) and as an object of reliable sourced critical commentary about visual aspects (which the article doesn't have). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - soundtrack cover use is decorative as per nomination Whpq (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2021 (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.

Whose consensus? How many editors were involved, and who are they? I disagree with their reasoning. ≠--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example of basic summary results available at ClinicalTrials.gov.png

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 ⚡ 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2021 (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.

Images of Guns N' Roses's Live and Let Die (song)

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 File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses overseas artwork.jpg -FASTILY 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the US cassette single release of Guns N' Roses's "Live and Let Die" as intended replacement for the standard international, overseas artwork, which was originally under a different file. Then it was replaced with the same overseas artwork, so I uploaded the US cassette single under a different filename. Recently, I replaced the JPEG version with PNG one.

I have wondered whether either image complies with WP:NFCC, especially #8. If so, and if using both images violates WP:NFCC#3a, then either one must be kept. Preferably, either the US retail cassette single should be kept, or both should be deleted. The recording was made by an American rock band, yet the song was initially made for the eponymous film and originally performed by the British-American band. Well, the Guns N' Roses recording peaked high in global music charts, yet I wonder whether a cover art is necessary and too significant for deletion. If so, then I'll lean toward keeping the US cassette single. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (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:The Knack - My Sharona excerpt.ogg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at My Sharona, Power pop, The Knack and previously PRODded. Even as identity of the song "My Sharona", I have concerns about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8 and whether critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the sample in those articles. The sample should be removed from at least one article if it doesn't comply with that criterion while being used in that article. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC); expanded, 17:25, 22 October 2021 (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:LiXianglan - The Evening Primrose.ogg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently at Mandopop and Yoshiko Yamaguchi. The sample was de-PRODded under assumption that a sample should teach readers what a 1940s Mandopop song sounded like back then. I'm unsure whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. To me, a sample isn't necessary to tell readers what a Mandarin-language song sounds like, and Mandarin Chinese article already has one sample there. So does Wikimedia Commons. Well, the song has some historical value, but even with such value, the sample still has to comply with NFCC. I'm also unsure whether the sample is needed to learn about Yoshiko Yamaguchi and her singing vocals. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2021 (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 Want To Hold Your Hand (Beatles song - sample).ogg

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 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Want To Hold Your Hand (Beatles song - sample).ogg (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.