Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

File:Pacific Islands Forum Logo WP.svg

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: Convert to non-free, and remove all usages except for Pacific Island Forum to address WP:NFCC#8 concerns. If necessary, we can have followup discussion(s) to determine whether additional usages are appropriate. -FASTILY 23:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pacific Islands Forum Logo.svg. This is a derivative work, and the original is copyrighted by the Pacific Island Forum. Relicense to non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free and use only in article Pacific Island Forum, subject to rules ar Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikiacc: How do you know that the original of this image is copyrighted by the Pacific Island Forum? I would support this if you could please provide a link or other proof. The deletion discussion at Commons does not cite any proof. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tucoxn: I haven't been able to find a specific assertion of copyright by the Pacific Islands Forum, but copyright notices are not generally required by US law (or the laws of any of the concerned countries, as far as I can tell). I haven't found any evidence suggesting that the logo is not copyrighted (Wikipedia:Precautionary principle applies). If you can provide a reason why the Forum wouldn't have copyrighted their logo, I'd be interested to hear it! Wikiacc (¶) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free. The Forum's Public Affairs Advisor stated that the Forum Logo is not public domain. I agree that this image should be used according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content. - tucoxn\^talk 13:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amend to non-free per above. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 25 February 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:Shawneeflagsmall.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality extraction from File:Flag_of_The_Shawnee_Tribe_of_Oklahoma.svg (replaced) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 18 February 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:Shit Iz Real.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of three non-free audio samples in the article, the only sourced commentary is the sample's caption of The track opens with Buckshot fleeing an impending retaliation and has been described by one critic as a "soundtrack for reality's never-ending street narrative". I'm not convinced that that connection is enough to meet the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples muster, especially when there are two other non-free music samples in the article with slightly stronger rationales for why the non-free sound itself adds contextual significance. The clip is also apparently longer than allowable, as the song clip is 30 seconds long, while Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples#What_is_the_maximum_length_permitted? provides a table that indicates since the song being samples is only 4:01 long, an acceptable fair-use clip would be a max of 24 seconds long. Hog Farm _Talk 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough critical commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 20 February 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:Endless title 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC - there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The original cover art, which is the primary visual image associated with the album, is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. There is no need to use multiple non-free images when one would suffice. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - similar outcome to multiple album covers. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 20 February 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:TMBG-Flood-Vinyl.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC - there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The original cover art, which is the primary visual image associated with the album, is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. This second cover is a zoomed out, recoloured version of the original coverart and is for a limited edition of the album. There is no need to use multiple non-free images when one would suffice. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not entirely correct. The LP and the CD have the same cover art – it's just that in the case of the CD, the inlay was folded into four "squares" (I know, because I have this album), so that only the top right "square" was visible as the "album cover" on the CD... this is what is shown as the CD cover in the article. Having said that, I agree that this probably fails NFCC, because as I have said, it's the same cover art – the question is, do we keep the CD cover as the most common format at the time, or the LP cover, as it displays the full cover image? Richard3120 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 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:Kraftwerk Autobahn Blue.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. The main component of the additional coverarts is a symbol/iconography which appears on the main cover art anyway. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: many previous FFDs have determined that superfluous album covers violate NFCC. The cover is also similar to the remastered version. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 20 February 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:Autobahn 2009.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 1. Ə XPLICIT 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. The main component of the additional coverarts is a symbol/iconography which appears on the main cover art anyway. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: other FFDs have determined so long that the image is different enough, than it can be kept. I would also be in favor of deleting this one and keeping the one above. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 20 February 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:And All That Could Have Been Live cover.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:04, 18 February 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:And All That Could Have Been Still cover.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:04, 18 February 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.