Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

January 13

File:PythagoreanGraphic.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version. ✗plicit 01:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 14 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:PythagoreanDerivation.GIF

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 ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version. ✗plicit 01:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 14 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:The Pussycat Dolls - Sway.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art was de-PRODded under assumption of sufficient critical commentary in context about the Pussycat Dolls version of "Sway", making it compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Or, rather the section about the version has enough paragraphs describing the version. However, the version is less successful than other versions. It under-performed in South Korean charts and did not chart elsewhere. Even when charted in just one country, a cover art identifying one version of Something's Got a Hold on Me was deleted in one FFD discussion. I don't see how this case should be any different from the other case or another recently closed case. BTW, free images of the female group are stored in Commons and can be used to compensate, just in case. George Ho (talk) 01:49, 13 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.

Extra covers of Generator (Foo Fighters song)

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 -FASTILY 00:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The variant cover arts I'm nominating contain extra words and banners, different from File:Foo fighters generator.png, which I prefer and am not nominating. I appreciate the uploader's passion and willingness to display various variants of the same artwork just for narrow identities. However, the cover arts are of the same artwork. Extra covers displaying other features may fail WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8 unless I'm proven to stand corrected. (Moved from the wrong log.) --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 13 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.

Extra covers of Breakout (Foo Fighters song)

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 -FASTILY 00:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the uploader's willingness to display different releases using different artworks. However, extra cover arts inadequately identify the topic in context and may fail WP:NFCC#8. Also, the information provided by the cover arts aren't that different from each other, regardless of how they appear, and may fail WP:NFCC#3a. (Moved from the wrong log.) --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 13 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:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide proof that this meets the criteria for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or if the article(s) the file was used in are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this cover in-depth -FASTILY 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously listed one of the album's record side labels showing four sigils at an FFD discussion, which resulted in "no consensus". However, that was about the whole side label itself, not one (or all) of the sigils. Speaking of sigils, I uploaded Jimmy Page's "ZoSo" sigil, used for Led Zeppelin IV (well, untitled officially).

It's tagged as "non-free" for now since the images containing this sigil were deleted on Commons as copyrighted in Page's home country, the United Kingdom. If non-free, I wonder whether the image meets WP:NFCC, especially WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), in the articles Jimmy Page and/or Led Zeppelin IV. If free, then it should be "PD-ineligible-USonly". No objections to deletion if neither compliant with NFCC nor free to use and distribute. (Moved from the wrong log.) --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 13 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:IOMCDC flag.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for the Isle of Man Civil Defence Corps, dubious own work claim. Also, unclear if this is actually freely licensed; appears to be derived from File:Isle of Man Civil Defence.tiff which is tagged as a non-free image. Should probably be deleted; converting to fair use would result in WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violations. FASTILY 02:39, 13 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:MichelleLodzinski.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC 8. An image of Lodzinksi as she appeared at the time of her late son's disappearance does not enhance or improve the reader's understanding of that event and those that follow, as described in the article. There is no reliably sourced commentary on that image, either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nomination that this image's use fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 14 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:Lotus Land Story.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2022 February 24. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotus Land Story.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously listed the original release sleeve for discussion on grounds of disputed copyright status after it was found unsuitable for Commons. The discussion result was "convert to non-free", despite lack of replies/votes. Furthermore, I uploaded this and then inserted it for Plastic Love in March 2020.

When the reissue arrived this year, I nominated the 2021 reissue cover, thinking that it was unnecessary. However, the consensus disagreed with me. Now that the reissue cover is kept, I wonder whether the original (tic-tac-toe) picture sleeve still meets WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8 anymore. When it was released originally in 1985, the song underperformed in a Japanese music chart. Several years ago, a fan-made video used a different cover, which is also used for this year's single re-release. The video helped the song receive greater attention and popularized it further.

The reissue cover, as I hate to admit, reflects the song's recent success and popularity. The original tic-tac-toe cover... seems to have taken the lead spot for at least one year, if not two, until the reissue takes an extra spot. No objections to deletion, especially if no one here responds by the time of conclusion and if using two covers still violates NFCC.

"Should I Stay or Should I Go" uses the 1991 re-release as its lead image and ditched out one of original released because the Levi's commercial helped the song achieve greater success than the song had when it was originally released in 1982/1983. I guess "Plastic Love" should do the same by using the 2021 reissue and ditching the 1985 original, which I'm re-nominating here. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Japan}} as I don't believe the cover meets the threshold of originality in the U.S. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- U.S. TOO is a literal nightmare, I think it's borderline but falls just below. IIRC that license is mostly accompanied by a NFUR regardless. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to deletion of this image if there's no consensus on its copyright status. Id est better to delete if no one objects to deleting it. George Ho (talk) 00:43, 24 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:Hometown Glory.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than one cover art of Hometown Glory is used, conflicting with WP:NFCC#3a, regardless of what Template:infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover says. The 2008 re-release/reissue, which uses close-up of Adele's upper face, including the eyes, was more successful and performed better on charts. The reissue cover art reflects the song's success more. I'm listing the original 2007 cover art showing Adele sitting at a table in an eatery. To put this another way, in order to enforce the criterion more, I would favor keeping the reissue XL release and removing the original cover art. George Ho (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m understanding this correctly, there is an original cover and a reissue cover, yes? If that’s the case, my opinion is that the page is good as it is now, showing the original cover first, with the reissue shown below with the description indicating that it was a reissue cover. This has been done before with other reissues, such as Aquarius. 2601:48:8100:B6A0:D80E:8EA4:6A4A:71B0 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article I've been referring is about the song/single, not an album (of any sort). The original release of the song wasn't successful, and displaying two different covers is... normally distracting. BTW, thanks for mentioning that album. I may nominate one of its album covers soon. --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aquarius (Tinashe album) no longer has a reissue cover art, so the example you cited no longer applies. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about the validity of the IP user's vote. The user didn't explain clearly why the article should retain two cover arts instead of just one. Rather it used another article an example that is no longer valid, especially since that album article lost one alternative cover to deletion. I'm also worried about the conclusion of the discussion and weight of our own arguments. But I will neither judge further nor speculate the conclusion. George Ho (talk) 06:25, 27 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:Quadrilateral Traffic in Transit Agreement (QTTA).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free map that can be redrawn using a free source such as OpenStreetMap with a compatible license (WP:NFCC#1). Wcam (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason a free map can't be created -- Whpq (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails NFCC#1. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 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:TasteofInkNextClockworkalbum.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an upload I made when I was much younger for my own band I had in middle school as a test image upload. Probably wasn't the best idea to upload it. It should be deleted. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:50, 14 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.