Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
There are now two freely licensed photographs of the European Robotic Arm on the parent article. I don't believe this image is eligible for fair use as the article does not contain any commentary about the Engineering/Qualification Model except in the photo caption. Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is the book cover of a modern translated version of L'Aviation Militaire written by French aviator Clément Ader (1841 – 1925). French copyright law protects copyright for 70 years since the author's death, so the book's original copy had enter French public domain in 1995 (and immediately, American public domain after the URAA date of 1996-01-01).
It can therefore be seen that the book's original version is already in public domain. The book therefore is a clear violation of WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 03:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
While it meets all ten criterions as amended per non-free content criteria, and new laws came in force since 2020 + exceeding US threshold of originality. Christoph Meili, the person depicted, is still living. Per unacceptable use policy, pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image (also includes non-free promotional images) is considered unacceptable. Kys5g talk! 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The fair-use justification seems dubious, as there is likely some PD photo of 1950s SoCal dancing available at this point due to an unrenewed license (possibly this photo itself — that should be checked before it's deleted). Sdkb talk 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Amity Blight.png for the Amity Blight article). JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC as there is no critical commentary, this isn't necessary to understand the article, and it's just used as decoration. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Anne Boonchuy pro.webp for the Anne Boonchuy article). JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No source and no indication of when the image was taken or published. The subject was alive until 1962 and Lord Mayer of Brisbane until 1952. The photograph would have to have been taken before 1946 to be free of copyright in the US. The image is in use on the article of the subject, but free alternatives are available at Commons. Felix QW ( talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
University still exists, fails NFCC#1. -- Min☠︎rax«¦ talk¦» 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}} Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 06:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. Note that this also has a rationale to be used on an article that doesn't exist. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are so many logos on this page. Why do we need one more? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is from Michael Ochs archives, and I did research and this photo was the same exact copy of the Getty images one from https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/photo-of-velvelettes-photo-by-michael-ochs-archives-getty-news-photo/74299710. It has the same watermark from the Getty image. This also may fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll 12:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This non-free portrait claims to be used to show "definitive characteristics during the last parts of his reign" without specifying what these characteristics are. As used i the article it is decorative so fails WP:NFCC#8, and there are many free images Haile Selassie. Whpq ( talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As per WP:FREER, a freely licensed photographic work can be created instead of using such a non-free photo. Wcam ( talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is relevant at Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. For some reason, it is usted on three other pages for decorative purposes. (CC) Tbhotch ™ 18:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is relevant at Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. For some reason, it is usted on four other pages for decorative purposes. (CC) Tbhotch ™ 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it.
This implies that, per
WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is
significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.
The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.
Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).
Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.
In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho ( talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson.
Helping readers identify the James Brown song
It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be
contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.
Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The cover has a very simple design and is therefore not copyrightable. Someone can take a picture of the book and release the photo under a free license. Ixfd64 ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Although this file is accompanied by critical commentary, the commentary is not about the depicted scene but rather about the depicted character
Bill Cipher, thus failing both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Per
MOS:TVIMAGE, a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode ... may only be used if it meets the non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary needs visual support to be understood
. This image can easily be replaced with an image depicting only the character himself, which would more likely meet both
WP:NFCC criteria.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This poster's role of identifying The Wolverine (film) can be achieved with c:File:The Wolverine Trailer Exclusive (2013).webm, a freely-licensed promotional trailer on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The image was designed in Illinois, USA, and the design is too simple to meet the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 18 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 18 – ( 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 18===" 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.
Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
There are now two freely licensed photographs of the European Robotic Arm on the parent article. I don't believe this image is eligible for fair use as the article does not contain any commentary about the Engineering/Qualification Model except in the photo caption. Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is the book cover of a modern translated version of L'Aviation Militaire written by French aviator Clément Ader (1841 – 1925). French copyright law protects copyright for 70 years since the author's death, so the book's original copy had enter French public domain in 1995 (and immediately, American public domain after the URAA date of 1996-01-01).
It can therefore be seen that the book's original version is already in public domain. The book therefore is a clear violation of WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 03:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
While it meets all ten criterions as amended per non-free content criteria, and new laws came in force since 2020 + exceeding US threshold of originality. Christoph Meili, the person depicted, is still living. Per unacceptable use policy, pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image (also includes non-free promotional images) is considered unacceptable. Kys5g talk! 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The fair-use justification seems dubious, as there is likely some PD photo of 1950s SoCal dancing available at this point due to an unrenewed license (possibly this photo itself — that should be checked before it's deleted). Sdkb talk 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Amity Blight.png for the Amity Blight article). JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC as there is no critical commentary, this isn't necessary to understand the article, and it's just used as decoration. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Anne Boonchuy pro.webp for the Anne Boonchuy article). JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No source and no indication of when the image was taken or published. The subject was alive until 1962 and Lord Mayer of Brisbane until 1952. The photograph would have to have been taken before 1946 to be free of copyright in the US. The image is in use on the article of the subject, but free alternatives are available at Commons. Felix QW ( talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
University still exists, fails NFCC#1. -- Min☠︎rax«¦ talk¦» 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}} Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 06:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
California government works are public domain by default and not protected by copyright, please cancel fair use and replace with {{PD-CA-Gov}}. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. Note that this also has a rationale to be used on an article that doesn't exist. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are three non-free audio samples in this article and none of them pass WP:NFCC by being used for critical commentary and that have an educational purpose but are used without any context as decoration in the article. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There are so many logos on this page. Why do we need one more? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is from Michael Ochs archives, and I did research and this photo was the same exact copy of the Getty images one from https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/photo-of-velvelettes-photo-by-michael-ochs-archives-getty-news-photo/74299710. It has the same watermark from the Getty image. This also may fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll 12:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This non-free portrait claims to be used to show "definitive characteristics during the last parts of his reign" without specifying what these characteristics are. As used i the article it is decorative so fails WP:NFCC#8, and there are many free images Haile Selassie. Whpq ( talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As per WP:FREER, a freely licensed photographic work can be created instead of using such a non-free photo. Wcam ( talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is relevant at Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. For some reason, it is usted on three other pages for decorative purposes. (CC) Tbhotch ™ 18:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is relevant at Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. For some reason, it is usted on four other pages for decorative purposes. (CC) Tbhotch ™ 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it.
This implies that, per
WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is
significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.
The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.
Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).
Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.
In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho ( talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson.
Helping readers identify the James Brown song
It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be
contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.
Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The cover has a very simple design and is therefore not copyrightable. Someone can take a picture of the book and release the photo under a free license. Ixfd64 ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Although this file is accompanied by critical commentary, the commentary is not about the depicted scene but rather about the depicted character
Bill Cipher, thus failing both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Per
MOS:TVIMAGE, a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode ... may only be used if it meets the non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary needs visual support to be understood
. This image can easily be replaced with an image depicting only the character himself, which would more likely meet both
WP:NFCC criteria.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This poster's role of identifying The Wolverine (film) can be achieved with c:File:The Wolverine Trailer Exclusive (2013).webm, a freely-licensed promotional trailer on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The image was designed in Illinois, USA, and the design is too simple to meet the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 18 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 18 – ( 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 18===" 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.