Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18[edit]

File:Better Call Saul - Mijo.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? Cause at the moment, I think the image passed WP:NFCC, and therefore vote keep. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina, WP:NFCC says: "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". The picture conveys none of that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does. It shows the reader who the characters are and also has a bit of contextual significance in reception. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Depicts a mere random scene between two characters. How the image depicts characters' (mere) appearances isn't the matter of critical commentary. Furthermore, the scene can be adequately explained by text without the image itself, and I trust the free content's adequate ability to help readers understand what the episode is about. I hope the uploader will trust free content (i.e. text alone), won't the uploader? By the way, the Reception section has quotes that should be paraphrased or trimmed down. The mentioning of a character Tuco is too brief, especially in quotes. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a random scene from the TV show. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 19 December 2020 (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:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing.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 2021 February 8. FASTILY 00:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing.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:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing - Donny & Marie Osmond.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: Keep -FASTILY 00:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain whether an image of any release of the Osmonds' version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" is necessary, especially for visual identification. In other words, I have concerns about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8. Sure, the Osmonds' version charted in the US and Canada, but that's all there is. Even adding reception to prove notability of the version may neither improve the image's compliance with NFCC nor make critical commentary be sufficient enough to guarantee a non-free image that would be too significant for deletion. Free content may help readers adequately understand any version of any song charted in a couple or few countries without making a non-free content necessary; see one FFD discussion and another FFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. Picture sleeve images may not be necessary, but they certainly enhance an article beyond what a simple side label can do. In this case, the Osmonds' cover is notable, having charted in the biggest music market in the world, the United States. That means that it was played by Casey Kasem on American Top 40 and thus aired worldwide. Even if it had not also charted in Canada, which it did, charting in the U.S. alone is more than enough. Donny and Marie are reknowned artists, and the image is also significant in that it corresponds to that of Gaye and Terrell. - JGabbard (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being biggest music market in the world, the United States, certainly won't cut it, especially for me. Neither would the renowned (when will "reknowned" be an officially accepted alternative?) singers' prominence and fame, especially at the time. Neither would the sleeve's enhancement ability (or lack of ability) beyond what a simple side label can do. As I see it, not enough info can help save the image from being deleted as not significant enough to increase the understanding (of the song itself or the version itself). Furthermore, I have thought about merging the Donny/Marie section into another section, like I did with Detroit/Elton John one recently, but I'm still awaiting the results of the discussion. On the side note, the Germans were fortunate to receive the picture sleeve, but then Americans were (un?)fortunate to receive the generic sleeve but then have been able to recognize the song title on the side label. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George, the arguments you advance could be made against most any picture sleeve. But in my experience, readers to prefer to see them more than they do side labels. - JGabbard (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing in favor of either a side label or a picture sleeve. I'm arguing about whether deleting any visual identifier like this sleeve would impact the understanding of the Osmonds' version (and any other versions). One editor and I discussed cover arts of existing versions at another FFD discussion. There, both of us agreed that amount of cover arts (and other kind of identifiers) should be very minimal at best, or so I summarized differently(?). George Ho (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Concur with Aspects - JGabbard (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2020 (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:WSIPC LOGO.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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this does not cross TOO. Not more complicated than many Google logos which are available on Commons. E.g. see category such as File:Google Wallet logo.svg which is extremely similar and was kept in a FFD. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - if the Google Wallet logo has more going on, I think this is definitely in the PD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 21 December 2020 (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.