Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

File:Rod Culleton, Official Portrait, Western Australian Legislative Council.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F3 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image is stated to be the official portrait of Rod Culleton, Western Australian Legislative Council, but is sourced to the subject's Facebook page. The given permission link does have a free license but is for an Australian government website to providing a learning resource for educators with no explanation as to why that permission is applicable. If this were an official photo, then I would expect it to be covered by the copyright notice on the Western Australia Parliament site which does not have a free license and is quite explicit about the restrictions on image usage. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He doesn't appear to have ever been a member of the Western Australian Legislative Council and it is certainly in the style of an Australian Senate official portrait with a red background.--Grahame (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahamec: Thanks for catching that. I should have read through the article instead of assuming based on the file name. I found this page on the Australian parliament site which credits Auspic with a dead link. However, that is just he parliament site again, and the copyright notice makes it clear that the material is CC-BY-NC-ND which is not an acceptable license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Chic - Good Times.ogg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used as infobox of Good Times (Chic song), which may be insufficiently supported by critical commentary and may fail WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the file size is 747 KB, which to me looks too huge and may be against WP:NFCC#3b. Well, even trimming and/or downgrading the quality still wouldn't resolve the issue with the other criterion, would it? George Ho (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RobertGordonFire.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art may have been that of the single release of "Fire", first recorded by Robert Gordon and Link Wray. However, the single release wasn't very successful. Furthermore, The Pointer Sisters version became a huge hit at the time. Also, Springsteen's live version became a modest hit in the mid-1980s. Springsteen co-wrote the song himself with two others. Not every first recordings were hits. I think cover arts of more significant versions should remain, but this cover art should go for IMO especially not complying with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jennifer Lopez - Play.ogg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Remove from J.Lo (album) -FASTILY 03:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If critical commentary of the song article is sufficient enough to help it comply with WP:NFCC#8, then the sample should remain in Play (Jennifer Lopez song). However, I'm unsure whether the sample also does at J.Lo (album). I think its critical commentary is insufficient to support the usage in the parent album article, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete J.Lo sample: The article for "Play" expands upon the meaning and composition of the song, with sufficient commentary, so the sample there should be kept. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:J-Lo - I'm Real.ogg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Remove from J.Lo (album) -FASTILY 03:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to use File:YMO - Firecracker.ogg in other articles, like I'm Real (Jennifer Lopez song). However, first I would like the "I'm Real" sample reviewed. It's used currently in the song article and J.Lo (album). But there's no rationale for usage in the parent album article. Also, the "Controversy" section of the album article is about the original source "Firecracker" planned to be used by Lopez and Mariah Carey more than the song "I'm Real" itself. I doubt removing the sample from the album article would affect such understanding, but I can stand corrected. I also thought about using the "I'm Real" sample in Loverboy (Mariah Carey song) and/or Glitter (soundtrack), but I'm unsure whether each usage there would meet NFCC, including the #8 criterion. George Ho (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: I'm unsure whether the sample improves understanding of the song itself as well, but I can also stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of unpersuaded that this meets WP:NFCC#1 when commons:File:Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland.jpg appears to be freely licenced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the link in my nomination per request on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFCC#1 as noted in the nomination and there's no reason why a free photo of the monument in this church couldn't be made so replaceable on this second count as well. -- Whpq (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Plastic Love by Mariya Takeuchi 12-inch.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 03:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the original cover art of Plastic Love as non-free. Somehow, someone tried to change it as free to transfer to Commons. Another copy was uploaded in Commons. I tried reverting the status back, but it was changed back to that newer status. Now that the Commons copy is deleted, I thought about reverting the image's status back to non-free.

However, I also would like to know whether the original cover art still meets NFCC. The song article still uses the 2021 reissue cover art, which I also nominated separately for different reasons. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether US law can find the cover art original enough for copyright protection. The background has shades and highlights around color(s), and there's a tic-tac-toe in green paint(?). If there's no consensus on the image's status, then either convert back to non-free, or delete the original cover art if it fails NFCC. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FLARF SMALL.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of copyrighted packaging. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— I’m the creator of the work ; it is a criticism of flarf in the mode of flarf, so derivative is de rigueur — photo was altered by me using photoshop; it was taken by me with an olde timey digital camera (it is not a marketing image) and the item belonged to the child of poet / critic Mark Scroggins who gave permission for the item to be photographed, altered, and shared — — Amy Letter — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytown (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amytown: Did you ask the company of the product a permission to use that product yet? I'm unsure whether Mr Scroggins worked for the company at the time. --George Ho (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Fm913.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is the copyright holder, image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FoodCube French Fries Vending Machine.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of copyrighted graphics. Freedom of panorama probably doesn't apply as vending machines are not "permanent" displays. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.