March 25
File:Dont You Want Me.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Dont You Want Me.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andi064 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after being de-PRODDed, I still have concerns about the sample's ability to improve readers' understanding of the whole song. I still have to wait until the last seven to eight seconds to hear two lines of the first verse. Furthermore, the assumption that free text isn't sufficient may originate from mistrust toward the "free content" principles. To put another way, hearing the sample, I couldn't find any content from the sample that would be harder to summarize and understand in text. George Ho ( talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I am honestly not sure how the user that de-PRODDed this file concluded that the sample in question passes WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) or WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). From what I see, there is one short, sourced paragraph referring to the song's instrumentals, however even then it talks more about prior instrumentals that were removed than it does about the final released track, and just a sentence or two about the lyrics. I concur with the nominator that this sample does not serve to enhance the reader's understanding of the song, and certainly not in any way that text alone could not. FHSIG13 TALK 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding and shortening the sample length, I'm still unconvinced that any portion/sample of the whole recording is necessary. Re-hearing the sample, I couldn't detect a content that is hard to summarize or describe in free text. Furthermore, I'm not confident that omitting the portion(s) is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. In other words, not contextually significant, regardless of (familiarity of) the genre and the band. George Ho ( talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with the nominator, in that there is definitely not enough sourced, critical commentary referring to the sample, in the article. I also agree that text alone could convey enough about the song to enhance the reader's understanding of it as much as the sample could, if not more. As such, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), and once again I can't wrap my head around how the user that de-PRODded the file (also the same user that de-PRODded the file concerned in the previous discussion) came to the opposite conclusion. FHSIG13 TALK 05:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mardochaios ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding, I'm still unconvinced that the sample is necessary (to understand the whole hit song), which would've put free text in shame. Furthermore, it's all music by instruments; no lyrics (yet). In other words, neither contextually significant nor proven that omission of the sample is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho ( talk) 02:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As with the two discussions above this one, the same user is responsible for de-PRODding the file in question and for the third time in a row, I can't seem to figure out why they did it. The article this file is used in lacks sufficient sourced, critical commentary to support the use of this file, and even if such were commentary were present, the text alone would probably still enhance the reader's understanding of the song just as much as the sample does, if not more since the songs vocals are not present in sample. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). FHSIG13 TALK 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hiplibrarianship ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free image illustrates a point in the cultural references section which is all of one sentence. The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the episode. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, the image is completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the entire episode it is being used to describe, and certainly not in a greater capacity than what text alone could convey. Fails the above-named WP:NFCCP criterion, as well as WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text). FHSIG13 TALK 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Originally uploaded per the redirect to this article, in place since 2013. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Whether the text can summarize what the screenshot shows isn't my main concern. The image doesn't improve readers' understanding of the whole episode, unfortunately. Such omission wouldn't affect how and what free text already educates about the whole episode, anyways. — George Ho ( talk) 06:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apply dual-license: This contains derivative Wikipedia's main page, our work, and licensed under
{{ GFDL}}and{{ Cc-by-4.0}}. Add more{{ Wikipedia-screenshot}}license tag, as a derivative.
- Apply dual-license: This contains derivative Wikipedia's main page, our work, and licensed under
-
Kys5g
talk! 14:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt these apply. The derivative is possibly non-free, and the copyright claimant, currently Walt Disney Company, may claim that the whole material is non-free. Try to crop the image to just the website, and... Well, probably the company would do the same thing, but the context would be different. George Ho ( talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
March 25
File:Dont You Want Me.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Dont You Want Me.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andi064 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after being de-PRODDed, I still have concerns about the sample's ability to improve readers' understanding of the whole song. I still have to wait until the last seven to eight seconds to hear two lines of the first verse. Furthermore, the assumption that free text isn't sufficient may originate from mistrust toward the "free content" principles. To put another way, hearing the sample, I couldn't find any content from the sample that would be harder to summarize and understand in text. George Ho ( talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I am honestly not sure how the user that de-PRODDed this file concluded that the sample in question passes WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) or WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). From what I see, there is one short, sourced paragraph referring to the song's instrumentals, however even then it talks more about prior instrumentals that were removed than it does about the final released track, and just a sentence or two about the lyrics. I concur with the nominator that this sample does not serve to enhance the reader's understanding of the song, and certainly not in any way that text alone could not. FHSIG13 TALK 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding and shortening the sample length, I'm still unconvinced that any portion/sample of the whole recording is necessary. Re-hearing the sample, I couldn't detect a content that is hard to summarize or describe in free text. Furthermore, I'm not confident that omitting the portion(s) is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. In other words, not contextually significant, regardless of (familiarity of) the genre and the band. George Ho ( talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with the nominator, in that there is definitely not enough sourced, critical commentary referring to the sample, in the article. I also agree that text alone could convey enough about the song to enhance the reader's understanding of it as much as the sample could, if not more. As such, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), and once again I can't wrap my head around how the user that de-PRODded the file (also the same user that de-PRODded the file concerned in the previous discussion) came to the opposite conclusion. FHSIG13 TALK 05:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mardochaios ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding, I'm still unconvinced that the sample is necessary (to understand the whole hit song), which would've put free text in shame. Furthermore, it's all music by instruments; no lyrics (yet). In other words, neither contextually significant nor proven that omission of the sample is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho ( talk) 02:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As with the two discussions above this one, the same user is responsible for de-PRODding the file in question and for the third time in a row, I can't seem to figure out why they did it. The article this file is used in lacks sufficient sourced, critical commentary to support the use of this file, and even if such were commentary were present, the text alone would probably still enhance the reader's understanding of the song just as much as the sample does, if not more since the songs vocals are not present in sample. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). FHSIG13 TALK 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hiplibrarianship ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free image illustrates a point in the cultural references section which is all of one sentence. The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the episode. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, the image is completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the entire episode it is being used to describe, and certainly not in a greater capacity than what text alone could convey. Fails the above-named WP:NFCCP criterion, as well as WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text). FHSIG13 TALK 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Originally uploaded per the redirect to this article, in place since 2013. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Whether the text can summarize what the screenshot shows isn't my main concern. The image doesn't improve readers' understanding of the whole episode, unfortunately. Such omission wouldn't affect how and what free text already educates about the whole episode, anyways. — George Ho ( talk) 06:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apply dual-license: This contains derivative Wikipedia's main page, our work, and licensed under
{{ GFDL}}and{{ Cc-by-4.0}}. Add more{{ Wikipedia-screenshot}}license tag, as a derivative.
- Apply dual-license: This contains derivative Wikipedia's main page, our work, and licensed under
-
Kys5g
talk! 14:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt these apply. The derivative is possibly non-free, and the copyright claimant, currently Walt Disney Company, may claim that the whole material is non-free. Try to crop the image to just the website, and... Well, probably the company would do the same thing, but the context would be different. George Ho ( talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.