Wikipedia:Files for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 33 48 81
TfD 0 0 2 5 7
MfD 0 0 2 2 4
FfD 0 0 2 3 5
AfD 0 0 0 124 124

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list hereEdit

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2021 April 20}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2021 April 20}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2021 April 20}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1928, not 1922.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participationEdit

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussionsEdit

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussionsEdit

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

April 12

File:Dua Lipa - Levitating cover art.png

[edit]

File:Dua Lipa - Levitating cover art.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LOVI33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Generally, WP:SONG article use one artwork (per minimal usage), but a second cover is sometimes needed when the extra cover gets a wide coverage in third-party reliable sources or as widely used as the main cover. This second cover of "Levitating" doesn't meet this criteria and clearly fails WP:NFCC:

  • It was never used for commercial release, thus most readers or listeners wouldn't aware of this existence. It's also unavailable in Discogs database, which usually includes all non-commercial / radio-only CD singles, meaning that the cover was indeed never used in any promotional releases, not even its radio release.
  • Not third-party coverage for this second cover. The uploader uses Capital FM and ARIA instagram to justify its inclusion. But those links were published after the cover was uploaded to Wikipedia and became a main infobox picture for months (circular reporting). Lady Gaga's fan-made cover fo "Shallow"[1] was also previously used in many charts and Academy Award page because of the inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • There's no contextual significance per WP:NFCC#8. Since the cover is barely found anywhere else, its omission would not affect readers' understanding of the article topic.

Regards. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Discogs is considered an unreliable source as it is user-generated. It is also listed in both WP:RSPSOURCES and WP:ALBUMAVOID. Secondly, this picture was used in a promotional single release. Yes, the official UK release date was 23 September, but the image is listed Capital FM's database where a date is not mentioned, meaning it could have been added at any time. With releases of any kind, a label is involved and considering that Capital is one of the biggest radio stations in the UK and has had several affiliations with Lipa, I would say it is ok. Also, that is probably why it isn't listed as a radio single on Discogs, because it is a promotional single. Just doing some searching on Discogs, I can see more than one radio single not listed there as well. Yes, it was uploaded before 23 September, but that is because I found it on the designer's website which is can be how cover art leaks before its official release. ARIA is also considered a reputable source. It is not an archiver like Hung Medien. Finally, this image is 100% notable as it is for a promotional single release, not the official single release. I would also like to mention that most post-album release single tend to just have a cover art released by the artist or the label that isn't used in any promotional cases. Also, the cover art was used in the waiting screen for the Levitating (featuring DaBaby) music video waiting screen, leading up to its premiere. With all these cases, you cannot say that it wasn't used anywhere. LOVI33 14:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also like to add that in the discussion for the "Shallow" cover art, most of the reasoning was that it was a confirmed fanmade cover. This is clearly not the case here as it appears on the album cover art designer's website. Also in that discussion, reasoning was that it appeared on one of the chart archiver websites (Hung Medien), not a reputable source like ARIA. LOVI33 15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
You rationale still far away from justifying WP:NFCC#3 (minimal usage) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Usage in very very few occasions, especially for an additional cover, still doesn't meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have mentioned. It is a completely separate from the single release as it is for the song's promotional single release. The cover art used as the main doesn't fully convey the article's topic as it just represents the single release when in fact the song also received a promotional single release. Also, I have just discovered that the cover art is listed in All Access so that means it was used for the original's adult contemporary single release. LOVI33 03:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 7

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png

[edit]

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious according to WP:NFCC criterion 3 ("minimal usage") and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. The original cover (as published onto iTunes) is already included in the infobox. I do not see why this is needed, as it does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject. (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this file actually meet criteria, since it's much different than original one and use photo took from music video and if you search for "Eh, Eh" on iTunes or Spotify you'd rather get this artwork, rather the original one. But like in "Salt" I think both artworks are worth including. infsai (dyskusja) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe the artwork of the most notable release should be the main image. Taking a quick glance at this article, the remix EP only seems to be mentioned in the Track listings section, so it is clearly not the more important one. Including an extra image, such as the one in "Salt", is okay in cases like that, but I'm not so sure about "Eh, Eh". I also agree that it does not significantly increase my understanding of the article's topic. Why include the artwork for a specific remix when there are tens or hundreds of others out there that also did not experience notable success? I don't see the point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If the cover on iTunes is the most notable, then I think this should be kept, while the other file should be deleted. (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @ResolutionsPerMinute, Infsai, and : Also, from the comments here I am sometimes a little unsure which file folks are talking about when they say "this" or "it" and that makes it hard to tell what should be kept and what should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been suggested that File:Lady Gaga - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).png should be deleted, so I have tagged it as such.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

April 3

Violence (song) cover arts

[edit]

File:Grimes and i o - Violence.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lk95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes and i o - Violence (Alternative cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anonpediann (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have one original cover and one alternative cover. The original is more graphic and seemingly offensive (but hopefully, encyclopedic... unless I'm wrong): it shows a drawing of a woman apparently killing someone with a sword... unless I stand corrected. The alternative is less offensive, showing pink background and some being facing up the air with some kind of "X" on the left eye. Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Number of items, either one or both covers may be kept. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep both: I don't really see a need to remove one of them. As above, many music-related articles feature both the original and alternate cover art of a song or album. It being "offensive" - hmm, I don't know about that. It's a drawing, and Wikipedia is not censored anyway... Граймс (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete alternative cover per nom - since it was uploaded second, and per 3a only one should stay. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both: Although 3a states that only one artwork should be used, this is an exception as one is the original cover and the other is the current cover. See Torn (Ava Max song) for instance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think there are exceptions to "#3a". If either one fails 3a, then that one fails 3a. Same thing I can say about #8. Also, per another FFD discussion, making exceptions to or ignoring this project's copyright policies is the last thing we wanna do. Furthermore, per WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines, the project sets higher standards on "fair use" (or non-free) content than the US copyright law yet still strongly encourages free content. BTW, I might wanna list both cover arts of "Torn" by Ava Max for discussion... right after results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    Oh, almost forgot, per WP:NFCCEG, how non-free (or "fair use") content is used and included shall be based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. George Ho (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    @George Ho: From my understanding, 3a is used for artworks that won't have much significance on the article, for instance deluxe edition covers that are hardly any different from the standard edition cover. However, these two artworks have very stark differences, and since there is two artworks that were released with the song, they both should be kept. 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", but the original artwork helps to convey equivalent significant information by informing readers that the artwork has changed since the release date, which in my opinion, is encyclopaedic due to its archival value. I notice that you were also the same user who nominated the artworks with Miss Anthropocene, and my arguments are the same with the users who think the revised standard album cover should be kept. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    I see your point about #3a, and your use of phrase archival value may be imply that you believe both pass #8 also. Right? Honestly, I'm unsure whether archival value is enough to justify an extra cover art. Sometimes, in my personal experience, one out of two artworks with very stark differences is kept, but that's a case-by-case basis: e.g. Should I Stay or Should I Go (FFD discussion), which was physically released and re-released long before the digital streaming era. Moreover, sometimes two covers with (somewhat) possibly similar elements can be also kept (especially by default); e.g. I Should Be So Lucky (FFD discussion where visual dissimilarity and wide recognition triumphed) and Hanging on the Telephone (FFD discussion). George Ho (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the original. If a new cover has replaced the original, I don't see why both should be kept. If, however, there is significant commentary on the original, then I'd think otherwise. (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an old thread but could benefit from further discussion as otherwise it is heading towards no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 19:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the original. It was used, at most, for four months before it was switched to the current cover, so the original is the one that requires sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Aside from learning that the original was designed by Mako Vice, I was unable to find any coverage on its design. plicit 01:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

March 31

Other cover arts of Ain't Nobody

[edit]

File:Diana King-Ain't Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:LX-BN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nez202 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Aint-Nobody-(Loves-Me-Better)-Felix-Jaehn.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werldwayd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Since one of cover arts of Ain't Nobody was deleted per other FFD discussion (recently closed), I think now is the time to review other cover arts' compliance with NFCC. Well, the cover versions by Diana King, Richard X vs. Liberty X, and Felix Jaehn featuring Jasmine Thompson were successful especially in music charts. However, I don't think cover arts of subsequent versions of the song are needed, are they? The song was originally recorded by Rufus and Chaka Khan. One image of that original release would be enough. The song would be already understood without the cover arts that I'm listing here, and deleting them wouldn't affect such understanding and notability of the cover versions, methinks. In other words, like the one deleted in other FFD discussion, those cover arts may fail WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). George Ho (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would understand if they were multiple releases of the artist Chaka Khan herself. But I don't see any harm in having cover arts of the song if they are completely independent of the original artist. Saying it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the song is invalid. Different covers convey different additional knowledge. This is not just one particular song's page but also links to artists' pages. So a cover art of Felix Jaehn's version featuring Jasmine Thompson is directly related to Felix Jaehn's discography and his successes or Jasmine Thompson's discography not to Chaka Khan. I think all covers of charting cover versions need to stay and do play a role in widening our knowledge of not just the song and its appeal and variety and adaptability, but also of the so many new artists who found it worthwhile to remake in their own unique way. werldwayd (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your sentiment about the cover arts. However, the consensus decided that the cover art of the LL Cool J release (showing just Beavis and Butt-Head) failed NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" (#8) and "minimal number of items" (#3a) criteria. Saying that the deletion argument is invalid would contrast the decision made at and be inconsistent with the other FFD discussion. For consistency, I think one main infobox image would be enough and any other non-free image is unnecessary. Besides, we have free images of specific singers to fill the void, even when they aren't suitable substitutes for front covers. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
What I meant is that there is no cover-all way treating such instances when they occur. You bring the example of LL Cool G / Beavis and Butthead. I can give you many others of exactly opposite outcome. But there is no clear Wikipedia policy either way. For me, the significance of the cover as a stand-alone hit is of essence, as that specific new hit is an achievement on its own, or else we would not have infoboxes, just a brief one sentence listings for each cover, not separate infoboxes. If there is an infobox(es), like in this case, it deserves its own cover art. werldwayd (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not every infobox, either a top/lead or a section, needs an image, does it? To me, a mere infobox would be sufficient enough. An image is a bonus, yet adding it is very tempting because... an image has mass appeal, doesn' it? George Ho (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep They are separate versions, and used for identification of those particular version and justifiable under criterion #8 to distinguish the different versions. I would understand the "minimal number of items" (#3a) argument if these were for the same version, but they are not, and one for the version is minimal. They are not equivalent items. Hzh (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    To put this another way, you thought the decision to delete the LL Cool J cover art was wrong then, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say that those who argue on the basis of #3a are wrong, given that #3a is meant for equivalent items, and these are not (different song covers are different items, because their inclusion is determined by their individual notability criteria per WP:SONGCOVERS outside of the main version. Once you remove the #3a argument, it's at best no-consensus. Hzh (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
As I argued in another FFD discussion, WP:SONGCOVER doesn't mention images especially as part of a cover version's notability. Also, WP:SONGCOVER is part of the WikiProject instead of a guideline. Furthermore, a cover art of a cover version would be unnecessary if that version doesn't have a strong stand-alone article. Either a cover art of the original (e.g. Rufus and Chaka Khan's "Ain't Nobody") or the most significant cover version (if the primary article subject, e.g. Carpenters' "(They Long to Be) Close to You") should suffice. George Ho (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The notability is about the cover version being assessed separately, an indication it is considered a separate item even if placed under the same article. The #3a argument does not apply for a separate item. There is nothing in WP:NFCC about any separate cover art for any version, so the argument is of no relevance. Hzh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
#3a aside, the #8 criterion determines whether deleting the image would affect understanding of the article subject, e.g. the song originally sung and then covered. Furthermore, WP:NFC#CS clarifies that criterion. AFAICS, neither one cover version is the primary subject of the article. The original version has been notable for years and predominates the song article, and later versions of the same song are covered as sections of the article. Furthermore, the spirit of the policy matters more (WP:NFCCEG) than the lettering. To me, NFCC can apply to any separate cover art for any version in order to determine whether a cover art passes NFCC, especially spiritually.

In this case, I am unconvinced that cover arts of later versions have tremendously increased readers' understanding of (what the article conveys about) the song. Their presences, including their own respective elements, merely identify the releases themselves. However, no face of a different singer or no random drawing on a front cover can increase the understanding of the song and its success(es). I'm still confident that the song can be already understood, regardless of content size, without those cover arts, be it a singer's face or a drawing or any other. The later artists' own successes with the same song can still be understood without them as long as they are discussed in the same article and still wouldn't triumph the original's success. George Ho (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of the guidelines, and none of guidelines you cited specifically deal with the issue. WP:NFC#CS may apply to an album but it says nothing about multiple versions of the same song. The topic of a song article is the song, however within the article there may be multiple versions that are contextually significant. Sometimes it is also hard to determine which version is the most significant one, see for example, "Without You". Within the Ain't Nobody article, the Scooter version clearly does not warrant its own section, therefore if someone adds a cover art for it, it can be deleted, but the others are contextually significant. I'm only bringing up the #3a argument because you specifically asked about the LL Cool J's version, and there was no clear consensus once you eliminated that argument (therefore you can argue that it was erroneously deleted). As mentioned by someone else above, there is no clear Wikipedia policy on this, trying to randomly delete cover art based on your personal interpretation is not really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talkcontribs) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
You said my interpretation was personal. As I can assure you, it's not. I'm trying to make things consistent. Deleting one and keeping the others usually wouldn't make sense. If you still have issues with the deletion, please talk to Anarchyte about it.

About WP:NFC#CS, as I hate to admit, it is kinda subjective at best. Nonetheless, an "album" is just an example. The guideline can also apply to songs and says that one non-free content would be typically enough to identify the subject of discussion. Well, every case is different and subjective at best.

In this case, by reading the article, later versions were successful in music charts and received critical reviews at time of their own releases. However, I'm neither sure nor convinced that, no matter how well a version did, a "version" is a subject or an aspect. Actually, aspects of a song I can come up with are an image of a single release and a music sample, which we all know should be covered by critical commentary. Merely identifying the releases, successful or not, with their respective cover arts just... wouldn't cut it (for me, anyways). Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the later versions of the song have made lasting impact as much as the original has done. By the way, the File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is free from the shackles of NFCC because... it's free in the US. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep These are song covers of notable cover versions that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. I believe that the previous discussion was closed errornously based on two editors claiming WP:NFCC#3a, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. I was going to argue this point before it closed, but obviously never got around to it. Since you did not state #3a in your nomination, with the previous discussion being based on that point, means that only WP:NFCC#8 should be considered, which is not how the previous deletion was closed and should not serve as precedence. Aspects (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

March 25

Screenshots from The Wire

[edit]

File:Unto Others.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Corner Boys.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Know Your Place.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Misgivings.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:That's Got His Own.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Final Grades.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

All of these non-free scrteenshots are being claimed to be used for identification and in most cases there is an addiitonal claim that it is mentioned in the plot. These images are not logos, title cards, posters, or other such images thatr are used for identificaiton. As well, these images are not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary and their removal does not detract from the reader's understanding. Simply illustrating plot point with no critical commentary is decroative usage. Fails WP:NFCC#8. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 16#File:TheWire28.jpg -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong Keep. WP:NFCC#8 only states that images must show "contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Additionally, the image must serve a purpose. There is no requirement of "significant sourced critical commentary". In general, each image serves to show a plot point, but we'll go through each image for you!
- Unto Others. This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode - it's linked at the bottom of the article. it depicts Herc and Sydnor interviewing Randy about the security camera, which is mentioned under the "Major Case Unit" section of the article". This is an actual image from the episode - not from any other episode. To reiterate, THIS IMAGE IS FROM THE EPISODE. By definition, this is contextual significance. There is a case to be made that removing this image would indeed detract from a reader's understanding, given that the image is illustrating a plot point from the episode. Again, significant sourced critical commentary is not a written requirement.
- Corner Boys. Well, where do we go from here?
1. This image is literally referred to in the title of the episode and article - it depicts Namond showing up to school without his uniform on and being disruptive. Under the title reference section, it states ""Corner Boys" references the terminology used to describe the disruptive students in school, and the focus taken by Colvin's group to relate to them in terms of what they know: the streets of Baltimore. The term comes from Baltimore area slang for the street level drug dealers, usually adolescent males, who literally stand on street corners and sell drugs." The image there is of three of these said "corner boys".
2. Under the Epigraph section, it states "Zenobia makes this statement in Colvin's class to back up Namond, claiming that the students' drug dealing is related to the activities of larger legitimate systems." Once again referring to the scene in the image.
3. I'll copy and paste the massive chunk of text from the "school" section of the plot which you clearly chose not to read -
Namond tells Randy and Michael about the discussion on their way home from school. When De'Londa catches her son Namond working on his package in his bedroom she angrily tells him that the police could seize their house if the drugs are found there and insists he hand the task on to a lieutenant.
Michael gets home to find that his mother has sold his groceries for drug money. She threatens to take the DSS card from him. He insists on keeping the card. The next day, when Michael gets home from the gym, Bug tells him that his father has returned. Michael is dismayed and repulsed when the man goes to touch him. He confronts his mother, telling her that she has broken her promise by allowing Bug's father to return. She is unconcerned and tells Michael that things are going back to the way they were. Michael is stunned and his mother says that Bug's father will now hold the DSS card.
The next day an energized Namond raises the hypocrisy of a system that promises to reward him for good behavior when it fails to live by its own rules much of the time; he states steroids, liquor, cigarettes and Enron as examples. Darnell points out that even Colvin's police work focused on drugs, so in a way, drugs paid Colvin's salary. Zenobia claims that the street life is just part of the larger system. Prez discusses his class's difficulty with the test with his colleagues. They reassure him that performance is low across all subjects. Hanson and Shapiro tell him he must follow the curriculum. Sampson and Hanson offer typical sage advice: Prez's first year as a teacher has to be less about the children and more about him surviving.
At lunch, Prez watches Dukie show Crystal and her friends how to shop for jewelry on the internet. He notices that Michael is despondent at the back of the class. Prez asks if Michael is okay, but Michael hesitantly declines to confide in him. Prez leaves his offer open and suggests that Michael could talk to the school social worker. Michael goes to pick Bug up after school but learns from Miss Ella that his father has already taken him. Michael runs out of the school after them. He finds Bug doing homework with his father and pulls Bug away from him.
Parenti, Colvin and the special class teacher discuss their progress. The academics are impressed with their results but have noticed that some of the children are not participating — those with deeper problems in particular. Parenti wonders whether they can convince the corner kids to take an interest in subjects beyond drug dealing.
Namond gives his package to Kenard and tells him that he is a lieutenant and warns him not to cheat him on the profits. Namond delivers his takings to his mother and she notices that he has made less than she would expect from a full package. He blames his territory, but she goes to tackle Bodie about territory."
- Know Your Place. An image of Daniels being promoted to C.I.D. colonel.
1. Let's take a look at the title reference section. "...the title also refers to Carcetti keeping the high-up police in line, as well as Carcetti being challenged by Nerese Campbell in the first budget meeting."
2. Politics section - "Carcetti, Norman Wilson, and Delegate Watkins agree that firing Burrell is off the table because of the potential backlash of his black voters at the idea of a white mayor firing a black police commissioner. Carcetti tries to coax Burrell into stepping down, but Burrell understands the racial situation in which the mayor-elect finds himself and refuses to leave quietly, claiming that he will only do so if he is fired. Instead, Carcetti tells William Rawls that Burrell is to undertake no initiative as Commissioner without clearing it through him first. He then requests two promotions: Stan Valchek to Deputy Commissioner of Administration for helping him throughout the campaign, and Major Cedric Daniels will become C.I.D. Colonel, filling the late Ray Foerster's position. Carcetti claims that he wants to give Daniels carte blanche to reform the investigative units. Daniels tells Rhonda Pearlman that there's a chance Baltimore might be able to turn itself around under the new administration. She, Carver, Greggs and Sydnor are present at the promotion ceremony.
- Misgivings. Herc gives Bubbles a grape soda, attempting to apologize after repeatedly breaking his promises to him. As a result, Bubbles seeks revenge against him.
1. Directly mentioned in title reference section. The title refers to the feelings held by various characters in the episode. Marlo's misgiving about Little Kevin led to his murder. Bodie worries about the appropriateness of his new boss's actions. Doubts spread about Randy's character lead to bullying at school. Miss Sheperdson has misgivings about the appropriateness of the special class while many teachers feel the same way about her insistence upon teaching test questions. Michael makes an uneasy decision about Bug's father. Marimow and Bubbles doubt Herc's integrity. Burrell worries about his job security while Daniels doubts the effectiveness of his new strategy. Wilson and Carcetti worry about trusting Davis. Bubbles also deliberately gives Herc misinformation about a drug bust.
2. Major Crimes section. "Thomas "Herc" Hauk visits Bubbles and tries to enlist his help in retrieving the missing camera. Bubbles is outraged that Herc is asking him for more favors when Herc has broken his promises. Bubbles again asks for help with the drug addict who has been robbing him and Herc makes another promise to help. Herc provides Bubbles with a phone and some money and instructs him to call as soon as he sees his tormentor.
Herc discusses his problem about the missing camera with Officer Kenneth Dozerman and Detective Leander Sydnor. Sydnor urges Herc to go straight to the lieutenant before the situation gets worse. Herc is worried about Lieutenant Marimow's reaction.
Herc tries to confess to Marimow and is faced with hostility. Bubbles spots his antagonist and attempts to call Herc during the meeting, but Herc ignores his calls. Marimow threatens Herc with an internal investigations division case and Herc is intimidated into withholding the information about the camera.
Bubbles becomes frustrated with Herc and decides to get revenge. He calls up Herc about a fictitious drug resupply in progress, giving Herc the license plate of a minister's car. Herc jumps on the opportunity and organizes a traffic stop. Herc is aggressive towards the minister, throwing the minister's possessions on the sidewalk as he searches his car.
- That's Got His Own". Image shows Omar cocking his shotgun while robbing Prop Joe's narcotics shipment with his crew. This was the final scene in the penultimate episode of the 4th season and had major plot implications.
Omar section: "Omar Little and Renaldo follow Cheese to a meeting with Stanfield. Cheese's jocular manner is met with stony silence from Marlo, Chris, Snoop, O-Dog and Monk. Marlo pays Cheese more than was expected and then orders a bigger shipment of narcotics. Cheese cannot promise, but tells Marlo that he will discuss it with Proposition Joe. He gives Monk a burner phone and tells him that they will call when they have the drugs. Stanfield's people are newly dubious about using phones and Cheese reassures them that they do not have to answer the call; the call itself will serve as the signal that the meeting is ready.
Omar organizes a meeting at Butchie's bar to put a team together. Butchie offers him the men who helped Omar while in jail as muscle, but Omar declines, telling Butchie that he hopes to be more subtle. His old associate Kimmy arrives and receives a warm welcome. Omar and Renaldo follow Cheese while he prepares the delivery to Marlo. Proposition Joe calls Omar as promised; Omar does not take the call. Omar, Renaldo and Kimmy tail the van to the meeting place. Kimmy is dressed as a prostitute. Cheese and his associates prepare to load the shipment into the van. Kimmy approaches one of the guards and tries to distract him with the offer of sexual favors. Renaldo's people arrive posing as painters and block Cheese's van in. Omar demands that they open the truck. Cheese reports the theft to Proposition Joe who worries that the co-op will think that he is withholding the shipment for himself."
- Final Grades. Arguably one of the greatest television scenes/episodes of all time. The image depicts Bodie Broadus immediately before his tragic death. This scene bears heavily on its critical reception, and this is arguably your worst image tag here, and 100% should stay.
1. Critical response section. "The episode received unanimous acclaim from television critics. The Futon Critic named it the second best episode of 2006, saying "David Simon did it again. He made us think these four boys—Namond (Julito McCullum), Michael (Tristan Wilds), Randy (Maestro Harrell) and Duquan (Jermaine Crawford)—could have at the very least a future and ripped the rug out from under nearly all of them. He gave us a voice in Bodie (JD Williams), who rallied against the current state of "the game," only to silence it. He gave us a saintly mayor (Aidan Gillen), only to muzzle him with bureaucracy. In the end however he did give us the "old" McNulty (Dominic West) back and the promise to fight the good fight once again. And I'm sure he'll make us believe again—and rip the rug out from under us again. And I wouldn't have it any other way."
2. Title reference section. "Although most obviously referring to the test grades received by the school's students, the title also refers to the final evaluation of Parenti and Colvin's pilot program, Chris and Snoop's evaluations of O-Dog and Michael's skills, and to the end-of-year statistics which Carcetti leaves in Royce's name." (O-Dog kills Bodie, who becomes part of the end-of-year murder statistics.)
3. Western District section. Series of events leading up to Bodie's death. "Poot Carr and Bodie Broadus visit the site where one of the bodies was found. They have heard that Little Kevin's body was found inside. Bodie becomes increasingly agitated about the unjustifiable nature of the killing of his friend. Officer Jimmy McNulty recognizes Bodie when he vandalizes a patrol car as he is being arrested by other officers.
McNulty visits the staging area and asks Pearlman how many bodies have been recovered. She reports that 17 corpses have been discovered so far. He asks Pearlman to sign off on releasing Bodie without charge. McNulty quizzes his colleagues about the case they are building. They affectionately taunt him by saying that a real police officer would feel compelled to help them.
McNulty waits for Bodie as he is released from jail and offers to buy him lunch. As they leave, Monk arrives with the bondsman and notices Bodie getting into McNulty's car. McNulty takes Bodie to Cylburn Arboretum. Bodie tells him that he is not an informant, but admits his frustration with his life as a drug dealer and Marlo's leadership. He states that Marlo expects his people to stand behind him, yet he himself does not stand behind people who work for him. He tells McNulty that the game is rigged and that he feels like a pawn on a chessboard, showing that some of D'Angelo Barksdale's teachings were not lost on him. He offers McNulty information to bring down Marlo, but openly tells McNulty that he will not give any information on any former Barksdale associate. McNulty, out of genuine respect, tells Bodie that he is a soldier."
4. Stanfield Organization section. "Monk reports sighting Bodie to Marlo and a newly released Chris. Marlo instructs Chris to have Michael kill Bodie on the chance of him being an informant. Chris tells Marlo that Michael worked for Bodie so the task should go to someone else, as Michael's first kill should be a stranger. Marlo relays the latest news about the theft of their shipment and Omar's offer to sell it back to them. Marlo mentions that Proposition Joe said Omar offered to sell it back at 30 cents to the dollar, 10 cents more than what Omar actually told Joe.
Bodie returns to work on his corner with Poot and Spider. He notices someone approaching in the shadows and Poot sees someone coming from the other direction. Recognizing Chris and Snoop in the darkness Bodie and Poot realize that the pair have arrived to kill Bodie. Poot urges him to flee, but Bodie refuses to run from his own territory. Spider runs while Bodie fires into the darkness. Poot makes a final plea and then takes flight himself. Bodie, refusing to back down from Marlo and the Stanfield Organization any longer, stands his ground and fires at Chris and Snoop, yelling to them that he isn't running away from them and that they won't put his body in an empty row house as they have with their other victims. As Bodie is distracted by Chris and Snoop, O-Dog steps from a doorway and shoots him in the back of the head. Bodie falls, and O-Dog fires another shot at the back of Bodie's head, finishing him."
I have completely and totally justified each image's reasoning and I highly suggest you review and reconsider your deletion push. Thanks bud! LJF2019 talk 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@CatcherStorm: WP:TLDR and IMDB is a wiki. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: WP:TLDR is not Wikipedia policy. I don't know what IMDB being a wiki has anything to do with my justification. The reason there's so much text here is because a majority of it is pasted text directly from each article, which directly contradicts Whpq's claim of lack of significant commentary. The relevant sentences for each image are italicized, in case you didn't notice. The strongest case against deletion is the last one, Final Grades, which is conveniently bolded AND italicized for lazy eyes! LJF2019 talk 08:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@CatcherStorm: Indeed WP:TLDR is not policy, it is my opinion. And I'm probably not alone. You said This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode which is more of argument in favor of deletion than against it, as a wiki is not a reliable source. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If the most effort you're willing to put into reading my justification is reading one sentence and giving up, then don't bother commenting anything at all. I don't see what your comment is contributing here. If you're going to target one arbitrary part of my argument and say it's because a wiki isn't a reliable source, and ignore literally all of my other justifications, then just don't say anything. LJF2019 talk 09:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@LJF2019: A case could be made for these screenshots (probably not a strong case per Whpq below), but a wall of text is not helping. And IMDb is also not helping. The source should include a time code, instead File:Final Grades.jpg links a YouTube video from some random user and File:That's Got His Own.jpg links IMDb. Authenticity is considerably more difficult to verify when unofficial sources are used and no time code is provided, that alone is an argument for deletion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above argument (after wading through far too much text) boils down to a case of the image supporting the plot description. It is worthwhile to look at the instructions at {{Infobox television episode}} in which all these images are used. The image parameter in bold states "There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode.". Given every TV episode article has a plot summary, clearly just supporting the plot is insufficient. So what is needed? The documentation provides the direction that images are added "typically if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in genuine need of visual support." In all of these episodes, there is no sourced analytical commentary. What sourcing sourcing exists is just a primary source of the HBO website's epsiode information. Where is the analytical commentary? -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment “Where is the analytical commentary?”
If one sentence could describe the inane way you are approaching this discussion, that would be it. Time and time again, I find myself directly addressing your argument only to have you walk around it.
Once again, your last claim is patently false. The wall of text is there because a sizeable portion of it is copied and pasted from sections of the article directly related to the analytical commentary you are begging for. When discussing Wikipedia policy, I would prefer to go off of pages that say specifically that it is Wikipedia policy. So let’s go by WP:NFCC.
You’re correct in that “an image per episode” is not a blanket allowance, but no one is making that assertion here. Nevertheless, “an image per episode” is not prohibited under NFCC so long as its need can be demonstrated.
You may or may not have a valid case for the first 5 image, but I don’t think you have a case for the image on Final Grades given that it is illustrating a crucial plot point in one of the most critically acclaimed episodes of the most critically acclaimed season of one of the greatest television shows of all time. The analytical commentary you’re looking for is all over that article. This is true for the other images, but to a lesser degree.
It’s also important to consider the quality and structure of the article in general, and what defines “significant” in terms of sourced commentary. Some articles are simply written better than others. Every article for each Breaking Bad episode is well-written enough to the point where it merits an image per episode. For The Wire, an image illustrating a crucial plot point in an episode, coupled with mentions of the scene in the plot as well as a direct connection of the scene to the title and perhaps also the epigraph, which are sections in EVERY The Wire article, are sufficient for me. LJF2019 talk 23:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The only sourcing in the articles for this are primary source (HBO web site epsiode / script). There is no actual independent sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rationale in nomination is not convincing - the standard for non-free content has nothing to do with being a "logos, title cards, posters" (barring logos that are so simple as to be public domain, of course, like pure text). The standard is critical commentary, of which The Wire has in spades. There's a bit of a forest vs. trees issue here: if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot, but also doesn't necessarily lock down which one - any shot of Bubbles in an alleyway in season 5 might work (where they intentionally went for a different, handcam, documentary-style approach). Nominator sees this as a weakness, that this means any shot individually doesn't qualify, but this isn't correct: it just means that many shots could qualify as a representative shot of the style. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The comment in the nomination referring to title cards / logos is addressing the claim that these screenshots are used for identification. But that is secodary to the main thrust that these images fulfill the requirement for contextual significance by dint of being the subject of critical commentary. You note "if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot". I agree. If such sourced commentary were to exist. But we do not have that here for any of these images. We do not have critical commentary "in spades"; what we have in spades is plot summary sourced to HBO, a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusionEdit

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

April 13Edit

File:Olympia Dukakis still at Pride Parade, from film Olympia by Harry Marvomichalis.jpgEdit

File:Olympia Dukakis still at Pride Parade, from film Olympia by Harry Marvomichalis.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PaulThePony (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used for a stated purpose of "reinforces a portion of the article describing Olympia Dukakis as someone concerned about social justice including being a proponent of LGBTQ rights". The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary (or for that matter any commentary beyond a caption). If it is the fact that she is the grand marshall as a a pride parade that emphasizes the point, then it can be stated in text and does not need a non-free image to illustrate it. Whpq (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Whpq. I understand and appreciate the point. Can you recommend how to proceed, or otherwise offer guidance in this regard? For example, more broadly, her story is one of pushing beyond convention, within and beyond her family. Her embrace of queerness takes many forms, particularly in her embrace of roles uplifting the LGBTQ community, but also, more broadly, in terms of breaking free of the limitations put on Greek-American women of her era. I see this image as very much expressing and illustrating those dimensions of her being, her spirit. The page otherwise doesn't do much, literally, to illustrate this. Would such a framing make the image more appropriate to the page? That is, would you recommend I (or any editor) add additional text to the article more directly identifying and highlighting this matter? I feel the pieces are all there and welcome, with gratitude, any additional advice you can give. --PaulThePony (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@PaulThePony: If the copyright holder is willing to release the still image under a free license, then the non-free content criteria do not apply, so that would be one way. Assuming this image remains non-free, then you will need to find significant sourced commentary from reliable siources about this image that support its inclusion in the article, or discussion about Dukakis's activities where this image would need to be present in order to enhance a reader's undersanding. I know this is a bit vague but I honestly don't see how this image could easily be used and satisfy WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

With thanks again for your clarification and guidance Whpq, I received this in an email this morning of 4/15 from the owner of the image—the filmmaker of the documentary from which that still he created is taken: "It sounds to me that the easiest thing to do is to release the image under a free license. I don’t mind offering it under a free license." Can someone let me know how to change the categorization on the file page? Thank you. --PaulThePony (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: That's great news! Permission will need to be confirmed. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries provides instructions for the copyright holder to email the consent. The copyright holder will need to identify the specific license he is using. For images, the recommended license is {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License). You should modify the file information to reflect a free image instead of a non-free image. Add {{subst:OP}} to the file information to mark that a permission email is on its way. You must leave the deletion discussion notice in place. I will be withdrawing this nomination, and the deletion discussion notice will be removed when this discussion is closed. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As permission is pending for this image under a free license, discussion of its merits as a non-free image is moot. I withdraw this nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for your guidance. Hopefully not too prematurely, I've added {{subst:OP}} to the information on the image page. I am hoping and assuming you'll get the email from the owner within 24 hours. --PaulThePony (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Eduardo Sencion.jpgEdit

File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Usage at 2011 IHOP shooting fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Tragic event already understood without perpetrator image. Previously nominated as part of mass-nomination listing that closed as "no consensus". George Ho (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Michael McLendon.jpgEdit

File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Usage at Geneva County shootings fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Tragic event already understood without perpetrator image. Previously nominated as part of mass-nomination listing that closed as "no consensus". George Ho (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:George Hennard.jpgEdit

File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Usage at Luby's shooting fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Tragic event already understood without perpetrator image. Previously nominated as part of mass-nomination listing that closed as "no consensus". George Ho (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Teresa Parker.jpgEdit

File:Teresa Parker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yardy12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I fail to see how this meets the non-free criteria given there is no standalone article and the content is about a sentence long about a non-major character. TAXIDICAE💰 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Tom thumb scale.jpgEdit

File:Tom thumb scale.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blatantdream (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. The information conveyed by this image can be adequately described by text. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:DAIS-Members.jpgEdit

File:DAIS-Members.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dverma (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is insufficient author and source information to verify the OGL license, I cannot find it elsewhere on the internet either, nor is it marked as an own work. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a file I have created and own. Please take this image off the list of the items to be removed. Dverma

Recent nominationsEdit

April 14Edit

File:Irem Corporation logo.svgEdit

Non-free file may actually be free: File:Irem Corporation logo.svg was orginally uploaded with fair use rational however, the logo doesn't meet COM:TOO JAPAN or COM:TOO US --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 10:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:NewPortcullis.pngEdit

File:NewPortcullis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 8oym8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, also WP:F7. But still exists with a free image of CoA (File:Crowned Portcullis.svg). Frontman830 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Ubique Barracks.jpgEdit

File:Ubique Barracks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J-Man11 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I do not see any OGL license at the URL. Dylsss(talk contribs) 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Pexels-photo-3367459.jpgEdit

File:Pexels-photo-3367459.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StacksOn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was published after 4 July 2018 on Pexels, thus it is not a CC0 license, and the Pexels license does not meet our definition of free content. Dylsss(talk contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Gjergj Arianiti.jpgEdit

File:Gjergj Arianiti.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dardania0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is from Picasa according to the metadata and the author is labeled as "unknown", so this is obviously not the uploader's own work. Dylsss(talk contribs) 19:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, Italy 02.jpgEdit

File:Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, Italy 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Conte di Cavour (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flickr washing, these images look computer generated, so FOP doesn't apply, and the copyright presumably belongs to the architects and not this Flickr account, if you look on Tineye, you will see that these were indexed before 2014. Dylsss(talk contribs) 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Ray Abeyta, Hold Fast (2004), oil painting on canvas.jpgEdit

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. (non-admin closure) Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Ray Abeyta, Hold Fast (2004), oil painting on canvas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Netherzone (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no commentary whatsoever about this painting in the article apart from the caption which simply states the painting, the rationale on the file page does not explain how this meets WP:NFCC#8. Dylsss(talk contribs) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Dylsss, Thank you for the message regarding this file. The sub-section "Literary references" in the section "Themes" is entirely about this painting, and it is described in detail, however I failed to mention the title of the painting in the article. I have since resolved this. Thank you again for the heads-up. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, while the sentence is quite brief, I do think that it is useful for helping the reader understand that section, though I am not sure if that understanding is significant. But it isn't as clear cut so I am going to withdraw my nomination. Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
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:Heart attack.jpgEdit

File:Heart attack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brandonalina (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clearly Flickr washing, it is marked with © MedicineNet.com 2004 and it was published on Flickr in 2007. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 15Edit

File:ArchiveG.jpgEdit

File:ArchiveG.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mailer diablo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

http://sxc.hu/ images (now https://www.freeimages.com) are not, and never were free enough. I do not think the GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses are correct. The image is at https://www.freeimages.com/photo/journey-1525428. Also see c:Commons:Stock.xchng images. Dylsss(talk contribs) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Rainbow1127 dt800.jpgEdit

File:Rainbow1127 dt800.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Game4sports (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Like the above, this is another photo from a stock site which does not have free enough terms and the licenses are not correct. Dylsss(talk contribs) 07:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Janicefireworks.jpgEdit

File:Janicefireworks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ichbinbored (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per above again, incorrect licenses, terms are not sufficiently free. Dylsss(talk contribs) 07:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Higly-flexible -coupling.jpgEdit

File:Higly-flexible -coupling.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neoui bada (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flickr washing, this looks like a cropped and rotated image of https://www.clustermaritimo.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/3.1.jpg. It is the only upload of the Flickr account and the image has missing metadata. Dylsss(talk contribs) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Ryan Beatty performing on October 13, 2012.pngEdit

File:Ryan Beatty performing on October 13, 2012.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Divine618 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per the Commons deletion request c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryan Beatty performing on October 13, 2012.png, unacceptable permission. The file is also unused. Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Judasgoat.jpgEdit

File:Judasgoat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Egg Centric (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Judas goat Chèvre de Judas.jpg, the author never permitted it to be licensed under a CC-BY 3.0 license and the permission statement is very much not sufficient. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

April 16Edit

File:Bros2017.JPGEdit

File:Bros2017.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChrisTheDude (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a derivative work of non-free content, I do not believe there is any reason that these screens are not copyrightable, it being live footage of the stage is not relevant, the camera is operated by a person and the picture is captured in a tangible medium using their intellectual thought, regardless, the second screen from the left does not look like live footage of the stage. It is not de minimis because the use is not incidental, it makes up a significant part of the composition as a whole and removing it would remove an essential part of the image. The image was also deleted on Commons. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Georg Nusch ceiling painting.jpgEdit

File:Georg Nusch ceiling painting.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jason7825 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georg Nusch ceiling painting.jpg, it isn't possible to confirm whether this painting is in the public domain, it says "I was given permission by the hotel owner to take the photo and upload to Wikipedia" on the file page but this is irrelevant if the hotel owner is not the copyright holder. It is unused. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song)Edit

File:Show Me the Way cover 1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rlendog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Showmethewayps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piriczki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Show Me the Way by Peter Frampton UK vinyl side-A.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

If picture sleeve is preferred more, then let's keep the 1976 live single, which was more successful than the original 1975 studio one. If the singer's nationality and song's origin matter more for representation, then let's go for the vinyl label of UK live single, which I uploaded and preferred more than the sleeves. Well, then why not keep them both? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Speaking at the U.S. State Dept.jpgEdit

File:Speaking at the U.S. State Dept.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A Flaneur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file has been repeatedly uploaded. The uploader claims that they have taken and own the picture, but this cannot be so for either or both of two reasons:

  1. It is a screenshot. It is thus an ipso facto copyright violation of the copyright owner's work
  2. The uploader has stated, unequivocally and eventually, on my talk page that they are the subject of this picture, one Randall Lee Goodden. this permalink is useful, but the thread is lengthy, in the segment Latest Edits to Randall Lee Goodden highlighted in this diff.
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).

Either of those reasons, unless WP:OTRS is used to provide satisfactory evidence of ownership or permission, is sufficient to delete this file Fiddle Faddle 06:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the original broadcast can be verified to be under an acceptable license. If the original broadcast is a work of the US government, then it would be public domain, but no verifiable source information has been provided. -- Whpq (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Reuters News Interview.jpgEdit

File:Reuters News Interview.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A Flaneur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file has been repeatedly uploaded. The uploader claims that they have taken and own the picture, but this cannot be so for either or both of two reasons:

  1. It is a screenshot. It is thus an ipso facto copyright violation of the copyright owner's work. In this case that appears to be Reuters
  2. The uploader has stated, unequivocally and eventually, on my talk page that they are the subject of this picture, one Randall Lee Goodden. this permalink is useful, but the thread is lengthy, in the segment Latest Edits to Randall Lee Goodden highlighted in this diff.
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).

Either of those reasons, unless WP:OTRS is used to provide satisfactory evidence of ownership or permission, is sufficient to delete this file Fiddle Faddle 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the original broadcast can be verified to be under a free license. Given that this is a Reuters interview, the likelihood of the original work being freely licensed is vanishingly small. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Glass Art.jpgEdit

File:Glass Art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pabobfin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph of a recent artwork. Supposedly a work by Doug Bayer from http://bayerglassworks.com/. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - There is no freedom of panorama for art works. Note that this same image is used in a gallery of photos at this museum page. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate screenshotsEdit

File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Word for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Word 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silvergoat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jlin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MS Word 2007.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stephenchou0722 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3a, only one screenshot is required to identify the software. It is simply the same software running on different operating systems, they both serve the same purpose. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Added 3 more which are not used for identification, nor are they being used to illustrate anything in particular and where its omission would be detrimental to any sort of understanding. Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  Comment: Not really. They're different versions, not just running on different versions of operating systems. I do agree with WP:NFCC#3, though - but these are vital to show the history of Office for Mac. Also, compare File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png, File:Screenshot of Microsoft Office Excel 95, an application part of Microsoft Office system.png, and File:FileScreenshot_of_Microsoft_Office_Excel_2000.png. Again, all non-free licences, but used to show the history of a particular piece of software. This qualifies under minimal use in my opinion and are not, in any way, duplicate, as you mentioned. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you initially only added three screenshots, and all are the ones I uploaded. Office for Mac and Office for Windows have almost always, in the history of Office, been independent releases and almost completely different, so these screenshots qualify for minimal use. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And, as I quote from WP:NFCC#3, minimal use, not only one as you said. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Silikonz. These aren't duplicate screenshots, they are being used to illustrate the history and evolution of Office for the Mac. Jlin (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello? Dylsss, are you here? I think this discussion is worthy of being closed with no action taken, unless you have something to say... any comments? Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 07:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Silikonz and Jlin: Sorry, I've been busy in real life, please let me clarify why I nominated them for deletion. File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png, File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png, File:Word for Mac screenshot.png all identify their respective Microsoft Office applications along with Windows screenshots on each page. Because they both serve the same purpose of identifying the software portrayed in the article, they are not minimal use, and only one is required to identify the software. Consider this, can you tell from one screenshot File:Microsoft_Word.png, or do you need both the Mac and Windows screenshot to recognise the software. You could argue that both are needed to identify the software for each operating system, but I personally would struggle to tell the difference between the Mac and Windows screenshots if you were to crop the title bar, WP:NFCC even clarifies that "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". I would definitely consider only one screenshot to be a "depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject" and this relates to my point about how you can identify the respective software with only one screenshot and how they are both very visually similar that one displays a prominent aspect of the software. This may be different if there were separate articles for the software on each OS, but the article is for the software as a whole. In my interpretation of policy, unless you cannot recognise Word/Powerpoint/Excel without the use of both screenshots (you can), then they should be deleted. There does not seem to be any commentary at all about Microsoft Word 2007, next to where the image is placed, there are brief mentions, but not where including File:MS Word 2007.png would help the reader understand the text content. Again I see very little commentary at all related to Word 2011, and none where including File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png would help the reader understand the text content. If you could point out what these two images help the reader understand, whether that be a feature or part of the UI which is described in the text, that would be helpful. Lastly, File:Word 2010.png is placed next to a table, it is out of place and basically serves no purpose from what I can see, it is not even placed next to any sort of text at all, nevermind relating to Word 2010, and I think it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC. It is important to understand that non-free content is there to supplement free content, which is why they have to be contextually significant, whether that be so the reader can identify the article, or content described in text. An example of a very good use of fair use in my opinion are the non-free images on Ribbon (computing), they supplement the text content and in my opinion, removing them would be detrimental, in contrast to the images here, which do not help represent any sort of feature or UI element. I would also note that the information page Wikipedia:Software screenshots, implies that software articles should only use a screenshot from one OS in the infobox, but this is not a policy or guideline page. Thanks. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Mac and Windows Office releases differ greatly; it was only until recently that Microsoft made Office for both OSs more similar.
    Thus, it is vital to show the history of Office for Mac; it is completely different than that of Office for Windows; I'll give an example here: Office 2011 and Office 2010. Completely different. This is the reason why Office 2011 has its own article, seperate from Office 2010.
    The Office for Windows screenshots you mentioned above could be added to their individual Wikipedia articles, if they have them.
    I feel that Office for Mac and Office for Windows still differ enough that they require separate screenshots. WP:NFCC#3 says minimal use. Multiple screenshots are permitted. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like duplicates to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Sorry, when I first created the nomination page it was just
The reason I titled it duplicate screenshots is because their respective articles Excel, PowerPoint and Word, already had screenshots of the same software but on the Windows operating system. Silikonz argues that these are different enough to warrant use, but the question is not necessarily whether they are different, but whether you can identify the software with only one screenshot. It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system. Similarly to the reasons that we do not have both front and back covers of books or historical logos (unless they are discussed in critical commentary), these should be deleted. In terms of the other 3 screenshots, there has still been no arguement from other about how these possibly meet WP:NFCC#8. "illustrate the history and evolution" and "it is vital to show the history of..." are ridiculous reasons for keeping non-free content but they in no way explain how they a significant in the context of the article, i.e. what specific commentary or point in the article do they help support or explain. I could for example upload a load of non-free screenshots of different versions of Word and place them in a table of all the different iterations of the software, I could say that this illustrates the history of Microsoft Word, but this would clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 because there is not contextual significance. As a matter of fact, it is really no surprise that they fail WP:NFCC#8 because they were originally uploaded in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to be put in the infobox, then when a new one is uploaded, someone has just willy-nilly dumped them somewhere in the article to prevent deletion, they should have been deleted per WP:F5, thus it is quite obvious why these would fail WP:NFCC as they were never uploaded with the intent to be used in the way they are being used now. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system.
@Dylsss: My mother can't even tell the difference between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office while using it. (until she runs into something that works slightly different) Would you call her silly? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Various audio clips for Everywhere at the End of TimeEdit

File:What does it matter how my heart breaks - sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wetrorave (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:And heart breaks - sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wetrorave (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:The Caretaker - K1 - Advanced plaque entanglements.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wetrorave (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The files constitute a copyright violation of WP:SAMPLE, which states that "a small number may be appropriate if accompanied by text;" these clips make the audio clips count go up to six. And, as the uploader of them, I can say that they don't serve much purpose on the article I've uploaded them to, the EATEOT album series. The first album of the series, which already has an audio clip about it, is quite similar to the second and third, which have their audio clips being the aforementioned "What does it matter how my heart breaks" and "And heart breaks." Following this pattern, the fourth album, which also has an audio clip about it, is quite similar to the fifth, which has its audio clip being "Advanced plaque entanglements." (y'all get what I'm saying, right?) Wetrorave (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep: I think one for each stage is fine. Each stage is different enough to warrant at least one audio snippet in my opinion. I think some stages, especially Stage 5, could even potentially warrant more audio snippets. InvalidOStalk 14:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@InvalidOS: I don't know. I kind of agree and disagree with you at the same time. While WP:SAMPLE is indeed a policy, it is stated on the top of it that "occasional exceptions may apply." While the albums are certainly different from each other, they are similar at the same time, especially the first three. I'm gonna think about this for a bit and reply later whether or not I agree or disagree with deleting the samples.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Yeah, ok, they can stay. Each stage is indeed different enough to have one audio clip anyway. After making a re-write of the article, I can say that they are necessary for explaining each stage, as each stage is literally an individual album.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Goodden Speaking2.jpgEdit

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: Deleted as F1: duplicate file. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Goodden Speaking2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A Flaneur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This picture is of the uploader

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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:Goodden Speaking.jpgEdit

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: Deleted as F11. The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, with no evidence of permission. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Goodden Speaking.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A Flaneur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This picture is of the uploader

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The picture was taken by a friend at my request sitting in the front row, using my camera. A Flaneur (talk)

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:Metal 2 Logo.pngEdit

File:Metal 2 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17jiangz1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this copyrightable? Its components are simple -- a gradient background and a 3D M, and there's some more complicated stuff kept on Commons. The geometry is very simple (and directly based on a letter) and I think it might not pass the United States TOO. DemonDays64 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 17Edit

File:Iwgp-h0.pngEdit

File:Iwgp-h0.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piotr Bart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No non-free use rationale can be written without failing WP:NFCC#4. Simply, it's an image from an unendorsed fan site which itself isn't in compliance of fair use, at least not sufficiently enough to be copied over to Wikipedia. The image can never be used in an article and would be deleted for being orphaned. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood the policies. Wanchan2020 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. @Wanchan2020: This is a very clear misinterpretation of WP:NFCC#4 which requires that copyrighted works are published or publically displayed. Copyright subsists in two works here, the 3D belt itself, and the picture of the belt. The belt meets WP:NFCC#4 because as an award, it has been publically displayed, and I am guessing belts like these can also be bought? The picture meets WP:NFCC#4 because it has been published on the source website. It doesn't require that the images from these websites must also have been produced with permission from or by the copyright holder, this would essentially disallow derivative works of copyrighted 3D objects apart from by the copyright holder. If this interpretation were to be correct, it would mean that most of the 1,877 images in Category:Fair use images of three-dimensional art would fail WP:NFCC and be eligible for deletion. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dylsss: 1) No, this belt can't be bought. No maker has been officially licensed to make and sell exact replicas of this belt. 2) This is not for every case but you are allowed by the copyright holder to take photos of (for example) monuments and photos in mass media are published with the copyright holder's permission. This is neither. 3) Most of the 3D art images are on public display (i.e., you can go and see them in person) and you can infer where the photos came from. This belt isn't inside some museum. You can't tell where Iwgp-h0.png came from or you'd be able to replace the fan site URL in the rationale with a credible source (as well as replace the image with a better, undoctored one). Wanchan2020 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I know little about wrestling, but from my knowledge these belts are worn by wrestlers who are champions of that title at wrestling events, so it would have been publically displayed at an event. If we can reasonably assume this, then I would say that it passes WP:NFCC#4, otherwise delete. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dylsss: Then that's what our disagreement boils down to. Whether assumption is sufficient for copyright matters, which Wikipedia takes seriously. It's not only the assumption that the belt was displayed. You're also assuming conditions of entry at those events. And assuming where the image came from: could be a video screencap, could be a photo from an event, could be a photo of an unlicensed replica. With the image being doctored, what can you deduce that isn't an assumption? If it were text, it would be removed for being from an unreliable source and we wouldn't need this discussion. Wanchan2020 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File:All The Small Things.oggEdit

File:All The Small Things.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at punk rock (genre) and All the Small Things (song). The usages in those articles either must comply with or may fail WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Furthermore, there have been one too many samples, making this sample possibly conflict with WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items), but I'm nominating just this sample for now. Sure, the sourced caption at the genre article may help the justification of using the sample, but I'm unsure whether the sample improves the understanding of the genre and whether removing the sample would affect the understanding of the genre. It may belong to the song article, but I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep The usage in the article about the song is unambiguous and I think the usage in the article about the song easily passes the NFCC --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    What about the usage in the genre article? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    The last clause was supposed to say I think the usage in the article about the genre easily passes the NFCC. Gah -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpgEdit

File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

This is another one of images kept by default per "no consensus" decision on FFD discussion about huge amount of mass shooter images. Whether it violates WP:NFCC#1 ("no free equivalent" criterion) and WP:NFC#UUI is not the only issue, but I'm not concentrating a lot on that. My main concern is its compliance with WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). Currently used at the article, I doubt that an image of the perpetrator increases understanding of the tragic event 2011 Seal Beach shooting, and I don't think deleting it would affect such understanding somehow. The shooting was already tragic as it is, and an image of the perpetrator wouldn't change that. George Ho (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can't fault George Ho's persistence in trying to get this image deleted. I support including this image as the uploader, and think that there needs to be a broader debate about including images of perpertators.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Tried it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but there were no replies. I wonder why. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 18Edit

File:Olivia Rodrigo - Sour (Target edition).pngEdit

File:Olivia Rodrigo - Sour (Target edition).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peterpie123rww (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Limited release alternative cover with fan content (artwork and poster) but no additional music. This is not a widespread release- its limited to one retailer, in one market therefore unlikely to aid in user understanding. It therefore fails the principles set out in WP:NFCC re: limited use of non-free images as this would be the secondary non-free image in the article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

April 19Edit

File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star from World War I.jpgEdit

File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star from World War I.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Boston1775 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The Croix de guerre itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary in 119th Field Artillery Regiment, and omission from the article would not hinder the readers' understanding of the article topic. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Dutchess Stadium, Fishkill, New York.jpgEdit

File:Dutchess Stadium, Fishkill, New York.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smartyllama (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, low quality. There are better images here: c:Category:Dutchess Stadium. Stefan2 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as creator. In my defense, this was good quality for 2009 when I took the photo but it's 2021 and there are much better options. Note that I am not requesting deletion under G7, I just don't have any problem with this getting deleted if that is what consensus is. Smartyllama (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 20Edit

File:Rounders bat and ball.jpgEdit

File:Rounders bat and ball.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JonniJonniJonni (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image uploaded for article deleted 15 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Party). I would move it to Commons to augment Rounders if it were clear that the uploader was actually the copyright holder, but that is not clear and the uploader has not been around in years.

Note: Has been proposed for deletion twice (May of 2020 by User:Fastily and March of 2021 by myself). Last year it was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with a comment of "Decline. Files once used in articles should be kept to preserve integrity of article history," while my prod was declined because of the previous proposal.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

FooterEdit

Today is April 20 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 20 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===April 20===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.