Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8[edit]

File:Old Street station 1920.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: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 01:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much per the previous FfD, where I set out the rationale of why the file was PD, leading it to be kept. However, a bunch of bots keep "edit warring" on it, so I'm bringing discussion here again to gauge consensus on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FFD only considered public domain status in the UK. If it was published in 1929 and in copyright in the UK until 1999, then it's still in copyright in the US - the monstrosity that is the URAA "restored" copyright to foreign works still in copyright in their country of origin in 1996. Particularly heinous for this image, which likely would have been public domain in the US for many decades had it originated there, maybe since publication.
Copyright duration in the US for works-for-hire is 95 years since publication, or 120 since creation if that's sooner. So if you know it was actually published in 1929, it'll become PD in the US in 2025 (at least unless Disney intervenes again). If it was just created in 1929 and not published until later, it might remain under US copyright as long as 2050. —Cryptic 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, And to further add to that, the "Underground Group" mentioned in the picture is (I believe) the Underground Electric Railways Company of London which was a private organisation, hence copyright expiring 70 years after publication. However, four years later, in 1933, it was absorbed into the London Passenger Transport Board, a government organisation and hence under Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. So, if my understanding is correct, it means that a photograph published later by the same body (or descendent) is more likely to be out of copyright. That's .... bonkers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the way forward is to 1) Swear a lot and shake a fist; 2) retag the image {{PD-UK-unknown}}; 3) write a non-free use rationale like you offered at the last FFD - this shouldn't be at all unreasonable, since the depicted building no longer exists and has an entire section of the article devoted to it; and 4) maybe tag {{Non-free no reduce}} to scare away one of the bots - the lettering of the image seems integral to it, and it'll quickly become illegible if the image is squeezed any smaller. —Cryptic 05:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For US copyright, must reinsert "not-PD-US-URAA" and tag this image as "non-free fair use" for four more years and "out of copyright in 2026". --George Ho (talk) 09:34, 19 December 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:Overwatch loot box.gif[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. There are well-made points on both sides about the NFCC#1 validity of this particular image but, imo, neither makes an overwhelming case that this image passes/fails NFCC#1. I suspect there is a wider discussion to be had about images suitable to illustrate not only physical but also psychological concepts of topics like loot boxes. Nthep (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Nthep (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NFCC#1 "not replaceable with free media" criteria is inaccurate. Even assuming that it's impossible or extraordinarily unlikely for any freely licensed game to have microtransactions, it would still be possible for someone to create a freely licensed representative example of lootbox opening. Such an example already exists at File:Video game loot box mockup.png and is included in the article Loot box. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to add on that in the context of the article as it is right now, none of the elements specific to Overwatch are discussed in the context of this image. The description for the image as it is used in the article only remarks on general features of lootboxes that are present in the image, such as the items flying out of the lootbox, item rarity by colour, and the "final reveal". Two of those are demonstrated in the freely licensed image at the top of the article and a freely licensed "final reveal" could be easily mocked up. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was discussed last December with "no consensus" Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 8, and I think the same arguments still apply. The article discusses the specific nature of how certain parts of opening loot box animations (not necessarily those specific to Overwatch, but exemplified by Overwatch's animation) are used to draw in the gambling loop. While there are free ways to show how a loot box is opened, they do not capture the artist aspects that companies like Blizzard have spent to make the aspect of opening another loot box attractive (factors discussed in the article in depth). That animation aspect cannot easily be remade by free works. A free work can demonstrate the mechanic aspects of what a loot box does, but not the psychological factor which is what only is going to come from a commercial -- and therefore non-free -- example. --Masem (t) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last FFD an example has been created at File:Video game loot box mockup.png, so the discussion has materially changed since then.

The argument you're making is basically equivalent to saying that no free equivalent of lootboxes can be created that is of the same quality of the Overwatch lootbox. This flies in the face of the spirit of WP:NFCC and a decade or so of consensus, which is that we can't use a non-free file solely because it would look better than a free equivalent. "Free replacements" are allowed to be substandard and of a significantly worse quality so long as they demonstrate the encyclopedic aspects of a non-free image.
And the necessity of the profit motive making something non-free is illogical. If I create a JimboBox app on my computer tomorrow that lets one collect rare Jimbo cards composed solely of freely licensed photos of User:Jimbo Wales and charge the user $5 for a box of four Jimbos, solely so I can screenshot a photo of that app and freely license it, would that change your opinion? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's two aspects of a loot box image. One is the mechanical factors to show the box opening, dispensing loot (with different rarities) and all the flat-out gameplay stuff which absolutely can be 100% recreated with a free image. But the factor about loot boxes is the subtle psychological aspects of how this presentation has been tuned with fine details as to increase the anticipation level and draw the player into continuing the cycle - matters discussed in the article, and the type of stuff that is refined by commercial publishers (seeking to make a profit) to maximize that influence. Those elements simply can't be recreated with a free image because they represent time and money put into by the commercial company to get it just right. And that's the part that is important to capture from the OW loot box image and justified via NFC. --Masem (t) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're again, just reiterating the argument that since free images can never have the same quality as the commercial ones (which may or may not be true), that it's OK to include non-free content. This is an argument that has been rejected time and time again, with low quality free images used all the time in place of high quality images. It's also interesting that you claim that these "subtle psychological aspects" are "matters discussed in the article". I don't actually see any discussion outside of the caption of these "subtle psychological aspects" in the gif that aren't demonstrated by the free image that's currently present in the article. Just to diagram it, let's examine what's present in the non-free/free image and discussed in the "design" section as of this diff [1]:
Loot boxes are often given to players during play, by watching streams, or by buying them (free N non-free N; neither image shows how the lootbox is obtained)

Loot boxes can either be openable immediately or by using "keys" (free N non-free N; both images do not show keys)

Loot boxes have appealing visual effects (free Y non-free Y)

Loot boxes have appealing audio effects (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can be modelled off of slot machines or roulette wheels (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can show a prominent button prompting the player to buy more (free N non-free Y)

Loot boxes can contain items of differing rarity, sometimes denoted by colour (free Y non-free Y)

Loot boxes can have a mechanic that increases the odds of higher rarities the more cases are opened (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes may give items that can be traded or shown to other players via inventories (free N non-free N, no demonstration of that mechanic in the gif itself)

Loot boxes give items visible to other players via the course of a game (free N non-free N, neither image actually shows the game in which the items are being used)

Loot boxes can give items that the player already owns (free N non-free N, player's inventory is not shown in either image)

Loot boxes that give "duplicates" can have systems for the player to get rid of these duplicates, such as trading or converting into in-game currency (free N non-free N, neither image shows those systems in use)

Loot box systems can allow a player to use the aforementioned in-game currency to directly purchase items they don't have, circumventing the loot box (free N non-free N, neither image shows those systems)

Loot boxes can implement "gashapon" mechanics (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can be "seasonal" and only available during a certain time (free N non-free N, Overwatch seasonal lootboxes not shown in the gif)

It appears to me as if the only aspect that this particular gif demonstrates over the free image that is included in the article is that this gif includes a button to go to the "shop". The rest of the details are only included in the caption and are unsourced commentary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That animation aspect cannot easily be remade by free works And? NFCC1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". It doesn't say "or could be created easily". Colin M (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does not discuss any visual elements specific to Overwatch, and discussions about the psychological factors are not related to the visual elements. The free image File:Video game loot box mockup.png is sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --Wcam (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear from Chess' analysis above that this image is replaceable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to point out that there would likely need to be more added, but there are now a number of new academic sources (beyond the PCGamer one that speak to how animation and art are part of the psychological effect of loot boxes as gambling-like mechanics , eg [2] [3], [4] [5], [6] and more. These all speak to how the animation is typically designs close to how slot machines and other gambling devices indicate a near-win as to draw the player to continue to spend money. It is not just the reveal of these items (which the free image gets across) but the elements around them that are designed for a psychological effect, which the non-free is capturing. This is why a free replacement (which is not designed to show these) isn't sufficient. --Masem (t) 05:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Masem._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though for the longest time I thought I was going to vote "delete". @Masem: I now doubt what you meant with A free work can demonstrate the mechanic aspects of what a loot box does, but not the psychological factor which is what only is going to come from a commercial -- and therefore non-free -- example. Because a free replacement could be made that looks highly similar. The reason I'm voting "keep" is that no matter how good, even if indistinguishable from the real thing, it'll always be fake. A photo of a doppelganger would never be usable as a free replacement to illustrate a biography, even if it would be impossible to tell the difference. A photo of an iPhone knockoff could never illustrate an article about the iPhone, even if it was pixel-for-pixel identical to a photo of the real thing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with Chess's analysis. It is entirely possible that a free piece of media could be created that would serve the same purpose as this in the Loot box article. Masem's argument seems to be that it would take a lot of time and effort to create a replacement of the same quality. This may be true, but I don't see how that's relevant to our NFC policy. Colin M (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is useful but replaceable as far as the usage in "loot box" article. A similar picture or animation can be done as a free media. Here is a static image: File:Video game loot box mockup.png. Non-free animation doesn't add much and I'd lean towards delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Masem's and Alexis Jazz's arguments. Commercial companies will continue to seek out and exploit subtle psychological aspects for profit. The incentive to do that is missing in any freely replaceable alternatives. Even though a free alternative could be produced to replicate the psychological aspects, there may be subtle aspects that were not completely replicated in the free alternative. In addition, it is unfit for an encyclopedia to illustrate anything with a photo of a replica, no matter how similar it is. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The loot box animation is the subject of commentary in the article. I oppose the use of mockups or fakes to illustrate a subject. Neo-corelight (Talk) 10:55, 4 January 2022 (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:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.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: relisted on 2022 January 18. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg (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:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg[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 ⚡ 09:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is stated to be used for identification but is actually used at the bottom of the article. File:Starro.jpg is the fil in use for identification. The remocal of this image would not detract from the understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it's the same character in a quite different (and quite popular) media. Seems quite relevant to the article and no reasonable amount of words is going to make the differences clear. This is "a picture is worth 1000 words" situation IMO. Weak because it's not clear all that is enough for using a non-free file... Hobit (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've kept images in similar circumstances - depiction of a fictional character in a different kind of media - but there needs to be nontrivial sourced commentary (preferably about its appearance) and a non-boilerplate NFUR. Or at least one that doesn't outright lie - "The article as a whole is" certainly not "dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The only sourced statement is the mere fact that Starro appears in the movie, and the source really doesn't say any more than that. Delete. —Cryptic 05:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Cryptic. This could be appropriate if it was the subject of sourced commentary, but it currently is not. Colin M (talk) 00:54, 19 December 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:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.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 2022 January 18. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.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:Pangasinense People.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: This has been open for several months now, and there is still a lot of disagreement below about whether this is actually PD. No prejudice to restoration if someone is able to create a valid fair use claim for this image -FASTILY 01:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Facebook, claiming that the PD-Gov applies to official social media presences even when unstated, and claims of PD are false as archives of government site to 2019 point to copyright either way. I think an NFUR could be written for this image, within context to the rest of the article, but not certain. Either way, this licensing is incorrect. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is present on a Philippine government website [7]. The site copyright notice says content is created and maintained by the Provincial Information Office, and owned by the government Province of Pangasinan. It is thus effectively public domain, as as explained in Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines. I have updated the image template to recommend moving the image to Wikimedia Commons. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The website must state that it is public domain for PD-PhilippinesGov to apply. The website in question was ARR at the time of uploading. This will not stand on commons. This is copyrighted. I wish it worked the way you argue, but it unfortunately doesn't. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: This has already been discussed in the case of Smithsonian on Commons, but ARR use by governments is a complicated matter. Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that public domain requires some kind of explicit "public domain" notice, but that is not the case on enwiki. Public domain is inferred, and the rules regarding that process are laid out in broad strokes on WP:PD. As far as I can tell there is no special exemption to this policy for the Philippines, nor does PD-PhilippinesGov require sources explicitly state the images are public domain. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Sennecaster and Elephanthunter: this is very tricky. I usually consider official socmed pages of the likes of the Province of Pangasinan as under PD. But there is one caveat: did the photographer of this particular file took this photo as part of his/her regular duty as an employee of the Provincial Government? See c:COM:Philippines#Commissioned works, rule #1 for works created during employment. If the second case (letter b.) is the case here (in which the IP rights belong to the province), then this passes Commons' house rules on policy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally presumed that in the Philippines, official social media presences are managed by staff members of the office in question as part of their regular duties. At the risk of WP:COI, I'll use this example: my grandmother is mayor of Gasan, Marinduque, and the various offices under her office have official Facebook accounts (e.g. her office, the municipal tourism office, the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, etc.). Those accounts are managed by employees of the municipality as part of their regularly-prescribed duties, and as such their contents are presumed to be in the public domain. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I'm totally missing something, I don't think this can be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. No disrespect to anyone is intended, but this looks basically to be nothing more than a photo of a group of people standing in a room; so, a similar photo could almost be certainly taken by someone to serve that same encyclopedic purpose, and then uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license. For example, a photo like File:KKPK Katlung Misyun.jpg (assuming that's not a copyvio) also being used in the same section of the same article seems reasonable to create or find. In addition, given also the way this file is currently being used, it would also be hard to justify this as non-free per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.
The argument that this is PD made by Sky Harbor above, however, is interesting though and might actually be OK. I still think the provenance of the photo would need a bit more clarification to to eliminate any doubts about it. I'm not sure about c:COM:Phillippines, but not everything posted on an official US government website is, for example, automatically PD. US government websites do occasionally "use" content created by third-parties (not US government employees as part of these official duties) and these are not OK to license as {{PD-USGov}}. Whether the Philippines has similar provisions in its copyright law(s) is something I'm not sure about, but that would one concern that I think would need to be addressed before this could be moved to Commons. If there are any doubts as to whether this would survive a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be keeping it under such a license. If there's a chance that anyone in WP:PHILIPPINES could simply take their own similar photo and upload that to Commons, then that might be the best way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: there is. At Section 176.3 of the copyright law of the Philippines: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, all works by the Philippines Government are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. Where is the "unless otherwise noted" part from? It's not in the law from what I can see. It is also complicated by the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with Commons that works by the Philippines Government are free, see {{Non-free Philippines government}}. Both our template and the one on Commons have survived two deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an All Rights Reserved notice at the bottom of the source page, which would reasonably apply to all images published there. I consider that as "otherwise noted" from the PD claims, especially since it is blatantly stated. The Philippines government is notoriously bad at removing those All Rights Reserved notices (if they were unmarked, I could assume PD-Gov but since it is explicitly said I count it as "otherwise noted") and I'm not really sure how to proceed around it. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the "otherwise noted" statement in the Commons template come from? I can't find it in the law. As a comparison, {{PD-USGov}} does not contain an "otherwise noted" statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text may also be in Republic Act 10372 which isn't linked. Alternatively, and this is my speculation of what I know about Commons, there may be a consensus on Commons to be conservative in respects to copyright, so that could be how a consensus was formed to add it. Unfortunately, Philippine law is very ambiguous on copyright like this and TOO, but I respect and trust what Commons has to say about copyright laws and how it applies to the project (and supplementary, ours). Sennecaster (Chat) 22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster and Stefan2: the template wording used at Commons is just a rewording. The exact wording as per Section 176.1. of our copyright law is read as follows:

176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.

It is a holdover of section 9, third paragraph of Presidential Decree 49 (1972), which was our copyright law from 1972 up to 1998, when the current law (R.A. 8293) came.

But there is also a clarification at Section 176.3 for government works that incorporate copyrighted works from non-government people or entities. The copyright in the said work (by non-government people or entities) is not nullified just because it was incorporated in a work of the Philippine government (thus resulted in the deletion of a Philippine stamp bearing an image of Catriona Gray). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 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:Friedrich Leibacher.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 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friedrich Leibacher.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:I Want To Hold Your Hand (Beatles song - sample).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: Already removed from The Beatles' North American releases, no consensus on the remaining links (Cultural impact of the Beatles, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Power pop -FASTILY 01:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at Cultural impact of the Beatles, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Power pop, and The Beatles' North American releases. If it helps readers understand the song more and meets WP:NFCC#8, the sample should remain at the song article. Unsure whether the same is true for usages in other articles. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep obviously merited for the articles that were named, and they each contain critical discussion about the contents of the song recording (except perhaps The Beatles' North American releases). ili (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't object to removing the sample from The Beatles' North American releases, do you? If so, how would removing it affect the understanding of the topic or what is discussed? --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Removing would not affect the readers' understanding of the Beatles' North American releases because there is no critical commentary about how the musical contents of the song relate to the Beatles' North American releases. ili (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: the genre article doesn't mention the song outside a file caption. George Ho (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...So? Why does the body need to include more commentary about the musical merit of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" when the media caption and sample says everything there is to say? In any case, the section contains much commentary about the Beatles' "Mersey sound" from early 1964, the same time that the song reached number-one in the USA. The song is actually referenced, just not directly. ili (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all right. I guess the caption is sufficient enough, and describing the song outside the caption isn't necessary? Probably the sample is trying to tell readers what early-1960s power pop sounded like, how the Beatles fit the term "power pop"... or what "power pop" had been when Pete Townshend coined the term. In my case, having listened to 1960s songs, I can already understand what the article describes and what a typical 1960s power pop song would sound like, both without having the sample in my head. I even understand what the quote from The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll says about the Beatles and its musical style without assuming that deleting the sample would affect such understanding. Maybe younger demographics of today can imagine what a typical 1960s power pop sounds like without the sample, or maybe they need the sample since they are preoccupied with newer songs of their time? --George Ho (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, I think that such broad-concept articles should be kept accessible for people who have hardly listened to anything recorded before this century (i.e. the vast majority of people under 21). I also believe that there are plenty of people above 21 who are, shall we say, too musically challenged to understand what "ringing guitars", "vocal harmonies", and the "Mersey sound" are supposed to sound like without an immediate reference. And perhaps there are people who only know the Beatles for Yellow Submarine (I've met several) and would therefore struggle to understand the link between their songs and Fountains of Wayne. ili (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for belated reply. I just didn't know how to respond to your latest argument... until now. Maybe I'm unsure whether lack of knowledge about related musical phrases and terms is one good reason to keep the sample. I'm also unsure whether the sample helps such audiences know what they mean or understand the link between the song and... Fountains of Wayne. They can research the terms on Google and other search engines or dictionaries to figure them out. Would that be enough without the sample? George Ho (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: removed sample from The Beatles' North American releases. I still am torn about keeping the sample in other articles outside the song article, especially when the song itself has been barely detailed outside the file caption. --George Ho (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm mostly commenting as to Power pop (and commented on the FFD of the other sample in that article too). I read that article and found this sample helpful in understanding the text. While descriptions like "jangly or "ringing" guitars are helpful, they're general and their interpretation is highly underdetermined. The way I imagined it before trying the sample was not the same as what it actually sounded like. The text is a lot more meaningful after hearing it than before. When considering the extent to which content helps readers' understanding, one should especially consider that many readers do not come from a background of already knowing what reference points like Merseybeat sound like, and should not be expected to know, just like they should not be expected to already know what power pop itself sounds like. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously sufficient rationale for I Want to Hold Your Hand which means the file has to be kept. Whether it should be included in other articles is possibly better discussed at the respective talk pages of those articles? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:58, 26 December 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:Faith No More – I Started a Joke (CD1).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 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faith No More – I Started a Joke (CD1).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:Frank Ocean Voodoo.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this track in-depth -FASTILY 07:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at Frank Ocean#Musical style. If it helps readers identify the musician's style, then I can appreciate the efforts to help readers identify his music. However, I'm not sure whether the sample complies with WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFC#CS. The section's description of the song "Voodoo" is brief, aside from quoting the song's chorus (or a verse?), which I could remove someday. I don't think the critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the sample. Furthermore, I think deleting the sample wouldn't affect how readers can learn about the musician's musical style, which may remind listeners with/of(?) R&B... or "avant-garde R&B"(?), and comparisons to other musicians/artists. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I uploaded the file originally... isn't this a freely released unpublished work that could just be rectified with a different licensing? It was only posted on the artist's social media account for free as far as I know... Anyway, I don't understand all these seemingly knee-jerk delete noms... not that readers couldn't just YouTube-browse these songs anyway, but there is fairly substantial commentary in the article(s); the noted elements in the caption echo discussion in the relevant sections. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant commentary from Stereogum... would this connection help justify the sample? "...moods that fit in well with the rest of Frank’s sometimes-bleak, depressive lyrical tendencies..." ([8]) Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary from Stereogum wouldn't help justify much either. I believe that readers will grasp what "sometimes-bleak, depressive lyrical tendencies" (or just "tendencies"?) mean without a sample (and its help). I would like to know why you think deleting the sample would affect readers' ability to understand the topic, i.e. the musician/singer/songwriter and his style, and/or the article's ability to teach readers about the topic. The criterion requires a non-free content to be too significant for deletion, and I'm failing to see how the sample complies with it. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reader has heard his music before, I don't think any amount of text would ultimately give the average person a sense of what it sounds like... Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, text and an audio work aren't the same thing. However, ~~I see you haven't yet given text content plenty of chances especially to educate an average person about one song... or one person.~~ for me, no matter how dissimilar the clip and text are, the text content (editable it has been) can adequately give sense of what a person like Frank Ocean and his musical style are about. If I want to sample his songs, I can go to music and shopping websites. Maybe I'm implying the sample's compliance (or failure to comply?) with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER? I wanna mention those but couldn't due to fear that my argument based on the sample's ability to be "irreplaceable" couldn't be strong enough and could be rebutted easily. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the assumption I made about you in order to keep good faith, I hope. Probably you did give text plenty of chances before but then found text a poor replacement for an audio clip, right? George Ho (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads me to believe you are underestimating the importance of an audio sample in general... Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think is the sample of the song, not the whole song itself, significant to the article and its topic? WP:NFC#CS mentions the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance. Both links lead you to WP:NPOV, one of the project's core content policies. I'm unsure how the sample containing the chorus (or a verse?) balances the biographical article well and gives the article a due weight. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure whether a sample of any Frank Ocean song like "Voodoo" is necessary to help readers understand the person in question. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Didn't notice the reply below until I posted this comment. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spin source cited in the sample caption identifies it as an "odd" and an eccentric take on an R&B trope, which are identified as characteristics in Ocean's music overall, according to the section this sample is placed in. MTV News identifies the song as "a prime example of Ocean's distinctive technique as a songwriter: His best songs, like "Voodoo," disrupt the flow of linear time by prompting us to dive deep into our own memories and feel something indelibly real." (In an extensive essay on other examples of this in Ocean's music...) Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caption may... probably help a lot. However, outside the caption, the body content already describes the song's themes and (derivative?) use of traditional spiritual song "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands". George Ho (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant in the spirit of WP:AESTHETIC. Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it sure does meet WP:AESTHETIC, but what about due weight and balance? George Ho (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you are applying questions of due weight/balance to the current content in the section on Ocean's musical style? Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added some more content in effort to improve support for the sample. I appreciate your efforts... and I don't know what else to say about the current version. Maybe I hope the paragraph/passage about the song is neither excessive nor overly detailed, is it? If it is perceived to be excessive, then the passage may potentially have undue weight and/or poor balance.

Speaking of excessive, I just listened the whole song at Tumblr and used a stopwatch. I realized the song lasts 96 to 101 seconds. However, the sample is more than 10 percent of the song's length, which is disallowed by MOS:SAMPLE, WP:NFC#Audio clips, and WP:NFCC#3b. In order to trim down, the sample must be no more than ten seconds, unfortunately, and I don't know which of ten seconds I must sample. Do you know which ten-second segment to sample? George Ho (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can figure it out... but I had a question earlier about whether this song is non-free or not. What do you think? Piotr Jr. (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By default, the sample is non-free, regardless of how the song was released, unless the artist released it under either an acceptable Creative Commons license, Free Art License or another acceptable license allowing freer and broader use of content; see c:COM:licensing. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've shortened it to 10 seconds. Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to create more improved but still-inferior versions of the sample. At least the length is no longer excessive. But the line "don't you let her see divide / voodoo"... and the music... I hope I'm wrong about its (in)significance, but I fear that I might be right about its inability to be relevant or significant to readers. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I was confusing significance with "irreplaceability" and/or intermingling them both? George Ho (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision didn't make much of a discernable difference... And I still feel it's significant enough. Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Almost) Two months passed since the nomination. Description about "Voodoo" outside the caption is still brief, and themes of spirituality and sexuality and lyrical 'moods' and 'sometimes-bleak, depressive lyrical tendencies' are not hard to understand, even without the sample. Furthermore, the 30-second sample of the very short song was excessive and rightfully deleted, and the 10-second sample (to me) still doesn't adequately illustrate the song's (possible) significance and the musician's talents. If the line heard in the sample is adequate to someone else, then all right. I wonder whether the sample is worth continuing to use in the long run. Per WP:NFCC#3b, MOS:SAMPLE and WP:NFC#Unacceptable use, we can neither use the whole song nor go further than ten seconds, i.e. ten percent of the song's length. George Ho (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC); edited, 21:57, 18 December 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:Halyna Hutchins (cinematographer, journalist, born 1979).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. Barely, only - headcount has this as 12 keep 6 delete, no side has clearly stronger arguments than the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She died yesterday, and no evidence that an attempt to find a free image has actually been attempted. As such, I don't believe WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied, as a freely licenced image could be available if people actually did a search Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've searched on Google Images and Flickr and haven't been able to find a free image. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Until we can find a free image of her, I suggest that we let this picture be in her article. Toadboy123 (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2021 (PST)
Note: Article about subject has been nominated for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now resulted in an apparent snow keep, if it matters here. --Chillabit (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7; so, the outcome of an AfD can impact whether a non-free file is kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a cursory Google and Flickr search is not enough. We don’t keep this until a better one is found, we wait a few months until all avenues have been exhausted. Step hen 02:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with this. There's no reason why either her family or one of her employers wouldn't be able to freely licence a photo for us, or anyone that has ever seen her and taken a photo could also do so. Google and Flickr are not the entire world. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there's no brightline amount of time that needs to pass before a non-free image of a deceased person can be used, it's generally expected that a reasonable effort be made to find a free equivalent that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one. It doesn't have to be a free version of the non-free one, just a free one that can serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose. Now, there might be some disagreement among editors as to what is considered a "reasonable effort", but a cursory Internet search shortly just after someone has died usually doesn't seem to be enough. This is a hard case to assess because there was no article about Hutchins before she died and thus there's no way to easily determine whether there was any effort being made to find a free image of her as is sometimes the case with those who die after an article had already been created about them. Moreover, as pointed out above, the default is not automatically to use a non-free image until a free equivalent can be found or created. There are quite a lot of images of Hutchins currently available online. Is there a way to track down the provenance of some of them and see whether WP:PERMISSIONs might work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per standard NFC approach around recently deceased people (particularly those that we know had public presence), we expect editors to try to make a good faith search for free media, which includes reaching out to family + friends for a possible free licensed image. But we know doing that immediately in the wake of death is not appropriate, but within 6 months or so is a reasonable timeframe, so for those 6 months after death, we do not allow non-free images of recently deceased to be used. --Masem (t) 13:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until somebody produces a free image, there is no reason to assume one exists or could be obtained. Sandstein 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how fair use works on here. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a freely licenced phot could be obtained by all the methods I suggested above, we shouldn't default to assuming that none exists just because nobody has found one. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be a free image on Commons with the same filename: Commons:File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg. If this is actually a free image, then we should delete this fair use image, and use that free image instead. Though I'm not sure about whether the Commons image is actually free or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unlikely to be free picture because: 1) its uncut version here is mentioned as "courtesy of Halyna Hutchins"; 2) several files uploaded by this editor have been marked as a possible copyright violation. Flipping Switches (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've nominated all of that user's files on Commons for deletion as likely copyright violations. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elli, Toadboy123 and Sandstein as well as per text in file summary: Hutchins (cinematographer, journalist, born 1979).jpg&action=edit&section=1 "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) The subject is deceased, so it is not possible to take a free equivalent." "Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, who is critically discussed in the article." and "Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) The owner of the photo is the subject shown in the photo. Halyna Hutchins was deceased in 2021. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being able to take a new photo of Hutchins doesn't mean a free-equivalent cannot still be created. If an existing image of her can be found that is (1) already freely licensed or (2) the copyright holder agrees to change to a free license, then WP:FREER isn't being met. WP:NFCC#1 doesn't mean that a free new image needs to be taken and it doesn't mean that a free version of a specific non-free image needs to found. If another image of Hutchins can be found that is freely licensed and is capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free one, then this one is not needed regardless of who took it. Moreover, the default isn't just to use a non-free one image until someone else finds a free equivalent. it's expected that the uploaders of non-free files will make a reasonable effort to try and find a free image first before uploading a non-free one. All ten non-free content criteria need to be satisfied for a non-free use to be considered acceptable per WP:JUSTONE, and it's the responsibility of the person wanting to upload and use a non-free file to establish that these criteria are met per WP:NFCCE. The FREER hurdle is a pretty big hurdle to overcome and it doesn't disappear just because the subject of a photo is decased. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roman Spinner. Just until a free image if there even is one can be found.

SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. We don't just upload non-free images until a free image becomes available. We demonstrate that all endeavours to find a free image have been exhausted and then upload a non-free image. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem and MarchJuly. Free content can be created. It automatically fails FREER due to that possibility. In 6 months, this can be reconsidered, since a considerable amount of effort would of been put in to search for free content. Sennecaster (Chat)
Keep - Undeleting the image after six-month wait seems like a plausible option, but I find the process too agonizing and bothersome. Furthermore, deleting and undeleting would prove that, from this day, the image meets NFCC, i.e. is irreplaceable and contextually significant. Must we assume that a photo fails NFCC but then meets NFCC six months later? Also, why should NFCC indicate age of a non-free content? --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For any other person we accept a non-free rationale if they are no longer alive and a web search turns up nothing that is freely licensed or potentially public domain. I have also searched Flickr and tried YouTube as well. Got nothing. I've never seen a requirement to contact random photographers or organizations (who may be grieving soon after someone died) to try and convince them to freely license their material. It would be nice if something was relicensed and we would delete the non-free image in that case, but waiting some arbitrary period before allowing fair use seems rather pointless and bureaucratic to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious enough that a free image could become available so this fails the criteria. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, but isn't that true in every case where photographers of existing photos haven't been contacted? Or even just for all fair use media? We could contact record companies and movie studios to freely license covers. Some smaller studios might even do it. (we have a porno cover with a VRT ticket for example) Per policy this image should be kept: our searches turned up no free alternative to be currently available and a free alternative definitely can't be created unless you'd count paintings or something. An existing non-free image might be able to get relicensed with a free license, but AFAIK policy doesn't require us to venture down that avenue and frankly I don't know how such a requirement could be worded or verified. If you disagree with the policy that only requires that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created" you should propose an addition that requires editors to contact copyright holders of existing content. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's already covered in essence by the current wording. I don't need to do anything to continue to enact a guideline which is clear. If you personally need more clarification on that wording, then please feel free to make your own proposal. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This satisfies all the criteria of the non-free license at Template:Non-free biog-pic. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, there is no free-use equivalent, and nor could a free one be created as the subject is deceased. Those arguing for its deletion, want to argue that a free one can be created, because we have yet to do an exhaustive email enquiry with everyone who has ever known Hutchins throughout her life. But this is entirely unpractical for any subject, and it is why the policy is interpreted by consensus in Template:Non-free biog-pic to mean "where the individual(s) concerned are deceased, or where access would for practical purposes be impossible". I can understand why someone would nominate this for deletion on the day of her death, as there was no time to search for a free-use equivalent, but it is now 6 weeks later and we should put this to bed. - hahnch e n 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's always impossible to prove that there is no free image of a subject. However good faith searches by several people haven't found any free images, or any evidence that free images are likely to exist, so it's fair to presume that no free image of the subject exists. The fact that a copyright holder could theoretically be persuaded to make an image available under a free licence doesn't mean that the image is replaceable by a free equivalent. If that wasn't the case then every fair use image would be replaceable. Hut 8.5 13:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the policy for this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. The outcome of that discussion could affect this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The good-faith and reasonable effort has already been undertaken. Delete voters' interpretation of "could be created" is unreasonably expansive. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use has more people supporting the delete voters. Don't misrepresnt people. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the same rational as Toadboy123 - FlightTime (open channel) 20:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use has more people supporting the delete voters. Don't misrepresnt people. I'm not fully sure if this was true at the time Joseph wrote it, but it certainly isn't true now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contrary to some of the claims at the Village Pump, policy and the WMF resolution underlying it are both clear that "could be created" includes relicensing images. The purpose and spirit of both the policy and resolution (using only free images unless there really is no other option) is undermined by the rush to use a non-free image before someone is even cold. There is no deadline and the Free encyclopaedia is better for having no image than a non-free one while it is unknown whether a free image exists or could exist. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are no free images of her after her death as of Janaury 2022. There are no "Creative Commons" images on Flickr, and there are none of her on Google Images. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:19, 18 January 2022 (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:Black Hole Sun (Soundgarden song - sample).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: Keep in Black Hole Sun, remove all other usages -FASTILY 02:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in Black Hole Sun, Soundgarden, and Superunknown. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with reliably sourced captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The file is too lengthy, displaying 31 seconds despite the 30-second limit imposed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. Otherwise, it is sufficiently supported by cited description at the Soundgarden band page, but not at the other two articles. At "Black Hole Sun", the file is not described at all, while at Superunknown, it is accompanied by text having nothing to do with the sounds that the listener is hearing. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I resampled the song and almost the same segment. I also downgraded the quality by lowering the project rate. Hopefully no more than 30 seconds. George Ho (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Black Hole Sun, remove all other instances. The commentary on Soundgarden should be moved to the song article, as it meets WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 00:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit and Binksternet: In the song article, I moved the sample from top infobox to the Composition section and copied caption/commentary from the band article. I may likely agree with Explicit's suggested approach, i.e. keep in song article, remove from others. --George Ho (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: the redirect file:BlackHoleSun.OGG probably contains an old revision and must be deleted. --George Ho (talk) 10:45, 19 December 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:Jesus Christ Pose (Soundgarden song - sample).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: relisted on 2021 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus Christ Pose (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg (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:Hands All Over (Soundgarden song - sample).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: relisted on 2021 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hands All Over (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg (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 Moon Represents My Heart - Teresa Teng.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. ✗plicit 12:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at Mandopop and The Moon Represents My Heart. I don't think the usage in the genre article complies with WP:NFCC#8. Probably an attempt to educate readers what a Mandarin-language pop song sounds like back in 1970s. However, I've not yet seen sufficient commentary that can support the sample. Unsure whether the sample should remain in the song article, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The text in both articles do explain its significance, specifically illustrating her singing style, which is in direct contrast to the strident style of revolutionary music then only permitted in mainland China, and the reason why her music made such a strong impact in China (her music was not officially permitted at that time but smuggled into China, but still became hugely popular). Her music, in this case her most popular song used for illustration, is of historical cultural significance in China in the shift from the stridency of the Cultural Revolution to something that is more "normal". Hzh (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from #File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg) I said "electric keyboards", not "electric organ". Well, I should've said "electronic keyboards" instead. I wonder whether you can tell the difference between two samples (besides loudness): one you uploaded originally, and the one I took from Spotify. George Ho (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC); modified, 09:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from #File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg) Maybe they were neither synthesizers nor electronic organs nor electronic keyboards. But I can't figure out which instrument was used for karaoke, especially when a singer mutes the vocals, original or not. George Ho (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, compare the video uploaded by ymfan on YouTube with other videos (or copies?) of Teresa Teng's version. I know, or figured, the one uploaded by ymfan is similar to ~~one of the~~ the version you uploaded. George Ho (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracks used for karaoke generally has no or quieter vocals, so that is irrelevant. Anyway, the one you uploaded is not the whole song (do you have YT link to your version?), so I can't really judge the differences, but those synthesizer/keyboard sounds were exactly what was popular at that time. If you are ripping from a newer release or extracted from a modern download, these tend not to represent the older recordings, because newer releases tend to be too loud and removing nuances in dynamics - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35250557 and in the case of The Moon Represents My Heart, the loudness ruins the intent of the original recording, which was meant to be soft and gentle (your re-upload is softer, so that is not that much of an issue). The ymfan's one sounds like the same one (I extracted it starting from around the 1.25 mark). Hzh (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I took the sample from Spotify release, which I'm giving to you. And here's the YouTube video uploaded by ymfan (actually, a U-Best karaoke release). --George Ho (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get it from a U-Best karaoke release, so it is irrelevant. My one looks like it's from this - Forever Star (I no longer have the original file/CD, so I can't really go back and check the one I used). Your one actually is likely not the original, precisely because that wasn't the most popular sound of the time, but unless someone can produce the original release, the argument is moot because the CD I used was a later release, as is the one in Spotify. Actually, I listened to both again, and there is little difference, the difference might be mainly due to which part you sampled from. Yours might also have been remixed to emphasize the strings, resulting in an apparent sound difference that may not be real. Hzh (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remix just to emphasize the strings. Neither did the studio. A video from Bilibili shows a vinyl copy proving how the song sounds. Or search for "videos of 邓丽君月亮代表我的心黑膠" on Google to hear the song on vinyl. --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned CD. As I must say, I don't know which CD you bought, but I can't tell whether it is an authentic copy or a bootleg or something else. AFAIK, even any edition of the compilation album 15周年 (Forever Star, which AllMusic calls it) didn't contain the same version that you uploaded. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused you of remixing, quite bizarre that you would think I thought you can. As far as the song is concerned, no bootleg would ever bother to mess with the song or add anything, no idea why you would think that it would make a difference. It's essentially the same song, you need to be a song historian to know why there might be some slight differences with different releases. Just why you spend so much time arguing something when I'm not reverting your new upload I have no idea - the initial objection was on the loudness, but that was resolved with a new upload. Hzh (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned in the nomination, there's a whole article about the song (The Moon Represents My Heart). The inclusion of the clip there is clearly significant and valid. As for Mandopop, there's a whole paragraph specifically about Teresa Teng and her significance and style, which the clip meaningfully contributes to. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 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:Bu Liao Qing.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: relisted on 2021 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg (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.

Embraer concept art[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 the second and third image, delete the first. ✗plicit 12:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple concept art images of possible future aircraft. The removal of these images does not detract from a reader's understanding of Embraer. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your scrutiny. Would it pass NFCC#8 if it would be in their own article, eg Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport and Embraer next-generation turboprop?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)please ping me when replying, I don't follow this page, thanks.[reply]

Done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste: One non-free image in the infobox would be okay for an article about the planned aircraft. Two (or more), without greater justification as to why each must be in the article would not meet WP:NFCC#3a. As to whether the articles on the concept places meet notability is outside the scope of FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not gratuitous, there is a major configuration evolution between both concepts, with the engines migrating from the wing to aft pylons, and it's much easier to comprehend with a picture than with words only, with a finer comprehension too. For example, the Boeing_737#Initial_design had the opposite evolution, with the engines at the tail initially, moved to the wings as it's lighter, a bold choice.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) thanks for the ping[reply]

The use of both images is not needed. The one image can show that the engines are now at the back and the lack of an image with the engines on the wings does not impair a reader's understanding of the article in any significant way. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. How about following this discussion on the more relevant Talk:Embraer next-generation turboprop?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@Marc Lacoste: Yes, we disagree, but this is the correct venue for the discussion. Lets wait for others to weigh in. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@Whpq: As it's an interest for aviation editors, can I offer them to participate to this discussion while avoiding WP:CANVASS ? thanks--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste: I see no issue with a neutrally worded message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Done. If you think it's not neutral, please correct. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The initial wing mounted design (File:Embraer turboprop concept.jpeg) appears conventional and therefore probably does not need an image. The aft-mounted engines configuration (File:Embraer 2021 turboprop concept.jpeg) and the short takeoff design (File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.png) are different enough to need the images to illustrate though more so for the former. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 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:Oh Bondage Up Yours.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: relisted on 2021 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oh Bondage Up Yours.ogg (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:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".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 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".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:Basshunter – Please Don't Go.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 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basshunter – Please Don't Go.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:The Exploited Punks not dead.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. ✗plicit 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in Punk rock and The Exploited, I'm unsure whether the sample is supported by critical commentary and meets WP:NFCC#8 in each article, even when trimming out 20 seconds to comply with MOS:SAMPLE. George Ho (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaqlps the definitive Oi! track, a style discussed extensively in the Punk article, while how can you have an article on the The Exploited with out a file sampeling their style, which is explained in detail in the text. To note, the people who would be most upset by the Exploited file being removed from the Punk article would be the members of the Exploited. So zero risk here. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the sample exceeds 10%-requirement because the song lasts one minute and 51 seconds. I don't know which segment to use. Also, the bit rate needs to be downgraded. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 10% is a rule of thumb and a hard and fast rule -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil and Guerillero: I resampled a portion and trimmed out at least 20 seconds. I downgraded the sample rate a little bit. I wonder either 32 kHz (which the current revision uses) or 22 kHz is the right sample rate. Furthermore, I wonder whether the portion is good enough. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 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:Anarchy in the UK.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. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the sample's compliance with WP:NFCC#8 while currently used in Anarchy in the U.K., Punk rock (former FA), and Sex Pistols (still FA). I recently trimmed out seven seconds and downgraded the sample quality. Even then my concerns, especially about critical commentary's sufficiency to support the sample, still haven't been eased. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than enough critical commentary --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In which articles? George Ho (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the above, and in hundreds of books and thousands of music mag editions. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the song article since there is enough critical commentary there to justify its inclusion. Aspects (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 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:Katherine Jenkins - Bring Me to Life.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 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katherine Jenkins - Bring Me to Life.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.

Samples of tracks from Izitso[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. ✗plicit 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The samples I'm listing are used in both articles "Izitso" and "Cat Stevens". They are de-PRODded per assumption that critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the samples, like 'It was an early example of synthpop and his last top 40 hit single of the 1970s' and 'It was one of the first examples of electro, or techno-pop', helping them meet WP:NFCC#8. However, those lines taken from the Cat Stevens article (to me) would be understood already without the samples. Moreover, description about the songs is very brief.

Furthermore, the samples are also used at the "Personnel" section of the album article, but there's not enough support there. Additionally, each sample exceeds the 10%-limit set up by MOS:SAMPLE: "Old Schoolyard", 13~14 seconds longer; "Doughnut", five to six seconds longer. I don't know which segment of each song to use (for better understanding), and I don't know whether the same segments are significant for such understanding. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both are used and commented on in Cat Stevens. It was an early example of synthpop and his last top 40 hit single of the 1970s and It was one of the first examples of electro, or techno-pop is valid commentary, and a 30 second sample is a minimal use fully in line with our best practices. 10% or 30 seconds is a rule of thumb, not immutable law. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting captions of the samples from Cat Stevens#Later recordings (diff), aren't ya? "Old Schoolyard" lasts two minutes and 44 seconds (i.e. 164 seconds). I trimmed the sample, making sure it's no more than 16.4 seconds (i.e. 10%), and downgraded the audio. Furthermore, I think you omitted, if not overlooked, what MOS:SAMPLE said: whichever is shorter. "Was Dog a Doughnut?" is an instrumental lasting four minutes and 15 seconds (i.e. 255 seconds). I trimmed that as well, making sure it's no more than 25.5 seconds (i.e. 10%). Still, an instrumental? Furthermore, there are other samples used in the musician article, but I've not yet nominated them at this time. George Ho (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: the same captions are also seen in Izitso#Personnel (diff). --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC); edited, 09:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but to prevent arguments about multiple use, they are more on topic at Izitso than Cat Stevens, so a single use at Izitso is recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 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:God Help the Outcasts scene.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 2021 December 18. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:God Help the Outcasts scene.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:Roll tide wiki.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if either article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this sample in-depth -FASTILY 02:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in "Crimson Tide (film)" and "Hans Zimmer" articles. I doubt that the sample is necessary for each article, especially to understand the instrumental "Roll Tide" as one of Zimmer's "personal favorites" and "heavy use of synthesizers in place of traditional orchestral instruments". Furthermore, description about the track in each article is very brief. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC); edited, 22:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I uploaded this. It could survive if the use was pruned back to one article, "Crimson Tide (film)" and a bit more detail given about it. Otherwise there won't be many audio clips left.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would deleting the only audio clip remaining in the film article diminish the understanding of the film (and its soundtrack and film score)? Hearing the sample, even as identity of the instrumental, I couldn't tell whether it indicates the instrumental's significance. Even improvements still wouldn't help support the sample, would it? --George Ho (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that any audio clips that I have uploaded have some use, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in doing it. The problem is that some people set a stricter NFCC benchmark than others. I am strict about not having non-free audio clips used in more than one article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tried finding sources substantially covering the instrumental probably without avail. I found it performed as part of concert setlists, but I don't think including the info would improve justification of using the sample. I also found Jon Moxley saying that the instrumental is "great" for workout music mix, but I'm not confident that it would make any difference. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 28 December 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.

Paris logo[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFCC#8. While it might be appropriate to use the logo in the article about Paris (where it is currently not used), the logo shouldn't be used in the articles Council of Paris and List of mayors of Paris. Also, there shouldn't be two copies of the logo on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the logo of the City and of the council of Paris, so it should be used in both those articles (with appropriate non-free rationales.) Of course, the newer duplicate should be deleted. Rcsprinter123 (jive) 09:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFC#UUI §17. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that another version exists. Yes, there should be only one file. Both the council and the mayor are using this symbol instead of the coat of arms, so i think its appropriate. The infobox in Paris wont allow an additional file. --Andrei (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 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:The Fall Totally Wired.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: delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in punk rock article, I am unsure whether the sample is sufficiently supported by critical commentary about the song "Totally Wired" and meets WP:NFCC#8. The article doesn't mention the song outside the caption. It's not used also in other articles. Furthermore, even trimming out 17~19 seconds to comply with MOS:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC#3b still wouldn't help the sample meet the other criterion. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you hold off on this one George, the track is seminal in bridging punk and post-punk, need to add supporting text but am travelling atm, so may be a week or so. Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna withdraw nomination, but since your reply, I predict the discussion would last weeks or months. Furthermore, the sample exceeds the 10%-limit and needs to be trimmed and downgraded. You can resample the song, which lasts three minutes and 25 seconds. --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme think about reducing the sample length..I'm not great at this stuff, so maybe next weekend? Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I replaced your revision with the one that is 19 seconds shorter and whose audio quality is downgraded more. I would like to know whether the portion and the overall audio quality are what you wanted. I made a couple more versions with various sample rates. BTW, I still am uncertain about its compliance with "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Excellent work George. Let me look in next few days about adding a sentence or two (just back from traveling). Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A month has passed since the sample's nominated. The "punk rock" article still hasn't mentioned the song outside the sample's caption itself. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 16 December 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:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf[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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on Commons several years ago as a potential copyright issue and BLP concern, unused and seems unlikely to be used. Hog Farm _Talk 07:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unused go ahead and delete it Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 18:24, 8 December 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:Ref100CD.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description says "Free to use by public for informative purposes only." Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:06, 9 December 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:Redgumbags.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 ⚡ 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of presumably copyrighted packaging. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:06, 9 December 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:Redknee logo.svg[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 ⚡ 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly above the threshold of originality in the U.S. as well. Putting it on FfD as I feel it is a borderline case. Logo is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ixfd64, agree it's borderline. Was used before Redknee was rebranded to Optiva. Normally I'd ping Clindberg to confirm, but since we have little need for it and moving to Commons is not an option as Canadian TOO is lower than US TOO I'd rather not waste his time. So yeah, delete it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: It's my understanding that Canada has a similar threshold of originality as the United States. See c:COM:TOO Canada. However, this logo might be copyrighted in the U.S. as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ixfd64, I'm aware of c:COM:TOO Canada and it is my understanding that Canada is somewhere in between the US and the UK: "Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States". Clindberg agrees. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:36, 15 December 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.