Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18[edit]

File:Ningbo Rail Transit Logo No Text.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2019 March 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ningbo Rail Transit Logo No Text.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:The Umbrella Academy.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2019 March 7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Umbrella Academy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Siouxsie and the banshees Join Hands with John McKay.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely decorative image, used only to illustrate the lineup of performers who recorded an album. That information is perfectly conveyed by text, and even if illustration were required, all the performers are living and could therefore be represented by free images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I updated the rationale. The inclusion of this photo was already explained and commented in the article. [1] However, the GA reviewer also commented in 2016 I also feel that the changes have made clear the significance of the publicity photo. [2]. Carliertwo (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This new rationale is plainly insufficient, and underlines that the use is a violation of NFCC#3, the "Minimal Use Principle". All of the content cited refers to the portion of the photo already displayed in the infobox, and the other portion of the underlying photo, showing the band members, has nothing to do with the World War I imagery cited in the text. Put simply, the infobox image of the album cover is perfectly sufficient to support discussion of what actually appears on the album cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2019 (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:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2019 March 16. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:YannyLaurel.ogg[edit]

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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A single word (whichever one you may hear) is probably not copyrightable. funplussmart (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say it does meet threshold of originality, as a sound recording (whether is is just a couple seconds or longer) is considered difficult to perfectly reproduce. It does follow fair use. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It only illustrates a certain audio illusion that can be reproduced. I think it is {{PD-ineligible}}. funplussmart (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I chose this original audio file in the first place since it is the original audio file that caused the meme in the first place. It is very difficult to reproduce that sound, as the reverberations in that particular recording sounds like high-pitched person saying “Yanny”, when the actual thing said was “Laurel” from a lower-pitch. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free. The entire phenomenon described by the article was about how people heard this particular file, so it's not replaceable. As to whether it passes the threshold of originality or not, I don't know enough to conclude that it does. Funplussmart ought to do some research about how sound files have been handled here and on Commons. What is certain is that the number of words is not the only factor. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinion. I was unable to conclude if it meet the threshold of originality or not either which is why I started this discussion. A quite little note: I also found File:-Laurel -Yanny Or.webm on Commons, which may have to go if the subject sound recording is copyrighted. funplussmart (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2019 (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.