Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

File:Beyonce in the Formation music video, 2016.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#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 20:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image is copyright from the music video. The contents can be described adequately in words and its omission does not harm the viewer's understanding of the topic in question. The purpose (WP:NFCC#8) calls the shot "iconic" which is an opinion not substantiated anywhere (WP:FANCRUFT) and claims to demonstrate decorating the house to evoke a plantation. Nothing in the image specifically depicts this and there is no suggestion that elements of the screenshot are discussed other than the fashion which is already adequately described in the synopsis within the article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image meets all ten non-free content criteria so I do not believe it should be removed. The contents have been described as "iconic" (as well as its synonyms) by many sources (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and as these sources show, this specific shot has been notably recreated by public figures such as Michelle Obama and on the front cover of a Marvel comic. The house is visibly decorated to evoke a plantation in the image - contrary to the claim in the nomination, the article doesn't only discuss the fashion but also explains how the Californian mansion in the shot was decorated to evoke a New Orleans plantation house with a Southern Gothic aesthetic, and thus the image is necessary to be able to see what this entails. According to the manual of style for the similar category of films here, non-free images can be used in articles to portray "production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." As stated, the image does portray the production design, costume design, and an iconic shot, and its inclusion is necessary to aid the reader's understanding. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- reply the background i.e. the house is barely visible in the image. The rational states that the reason the image is included is included to demonstrate how it was "decorated and shot" as a plantation but this is not really visible in the image. The largest portion of the image is Beyonce herself. More than 50% of the house is not visible, it is in the background and blurred. The focus of the image is Beyonce and her fashion. Although the topic might have been discussed extensively as pointed out in the sources you provided, that does not negate WP:NFCC where words adequately describe the images contents, and where there is ample quotes and descriptions of the costume, house and stylings. If those could not be adequately explained in words then fair enough it wouldn't be up for deletion, but they can and already are explained in words. The contents in the foreground of the image are Beyonce herself which adds nothing to the written descriptions already in the image. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 6 May 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:First For London (2).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 ⚡ 13:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely above the threshold of originality in the UK and likely copyrighted in the U.S. as well. I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use because I don't see any relevant commentary in the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 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:Ukr OCHA.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 ⚡ 13:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ReliefWeb maps are non-free. [9] Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio, replaceable. Buffs (talk) 13:46, 10 May 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:ABC News Channel.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by c:File:ABC News Channel.svg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file (File:ABC News Channel.svg). Salavat (talk) 15:11, 7 May 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:Dua Lipa - Love Again screenshot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A valid purpose and rational has not been described. The image is said to depict a western theme but a mechanical bull is a tenuous link and there is nothing in the image which is not already suitably described in wording thus failing WP:NFCC. There is a free image available which demonstrates a woman riding a bull and thus meets the threshold of the purpose described here. The image is also of too high quality to satisfy low res. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:44, 6 May 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:Dua Lipa - We're Good still.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#2 respect for commercial opportunities as the content is already adequately described in a detailed synopsis section (failure of WP:NFCC#8 - contextual significance). The inclusion of non-free screenshots therefore might dissuade individuals from checking out the music video for themselves (which would generate revenue for the artist/label). There is a significant and detailed description of the contents of the image. Fails WP:NFCC#3 due to multiple screenshots being used and them being of high quality. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:53, 6 May 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:IBMbuckling.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: speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. The vector image is based off of the patent drawing, not this image. House Blaster^talk 15:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the uploader. I see no reason not to delete it at this point. -Verdatum (talk) 22:45, 6 May 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:Dua Lipa, Angèle - Fever still.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC as it says the purpose is to showcase London streets. This is generic and non-specific. The image contains no content which is specific or detailed and is critically or substantially depicting something from the music video which demonstrates necessity. The synopsis adequately describes the scene in the image and the removal of the image would not cause detriment or harm to the readers understanding of the topic (thus rending the image in violation of WP:NFCC). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:57, 6 May 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:Dua Lipa - Physical workout video.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the song "Physical" where as this image is used to represent a small section of the overall topic. There is already a number of non-free media in the article such as cover art, sound clip and music video screenshot. Although the workout video attracted some critical reception, it was overall a small and fairly insignificant part of the overall topic. The contents of the cover are already sufficiently described in wording and therefore omission of the image is not detrimental to the overall reader's understanding of the concept. Fails WP:NFCC on the grounds of purpose, rational and minimal use of non-free content. Furthermore, in the description "to promote the release of the workout video" is listed, WP:NOTPROMO. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:05, 6 May 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:Flag of Cape Town, Western Cape.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an official flag, unnecessary non-free file, identical content to File:City of Cape Town logo.svg HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 17:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it seems like this file is redundant per WP:CSD#F1, even though it's not eligible for speedy deletion due to the difference in format. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:03, 6 May 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:Diddy-DirtyMoney-HelloGoodMorning.JPEG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the source linked in the description. Also the majority of the releases of the song use the cover art already in the article, therefore multiple cover arts are not required. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Per WP:NFCC only one NFCC should be used for each purpose to preserve the principles of minimal usage. The image nominated is used in the infobox as the main artwork for the topic however, what is currently used as "the European cover" is actually the main artwork and is used more consistently in the references. It is more widely recognised and therefore in the interests of minimality, both covers shouldn't exist in the article. Furthermore, the cover nominated for deletion is incorrectly sourced 0 the source given in the description does not include the image uploaded. (for reference, I have edited/clarified the description). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominating the file for discussion here at FFD seems fine, but removing the file from "Hello Good Morning" a few minutes earlier, orphaning it, and then nominating it for discussion here at FFD seems unwise. Orphaned non-free files are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5 after five days whereas an FFD discussion generally is expected to run at least seven days. If you're going to do something like this, it's generally helpful to make mention where the file was being used and why you removed it for the benefit of others to avoid confusion and anybody thinking you're trying to sneak one by. This file was being used as the primary cover art in the album for some reason, and whatever that reason is might mean this is the cover that should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply good point Marchjuly, thanks for pointing out. I'm not sure what I was doing at the time but I shouldn't have both removed and nominated it for deletion. I've restored the cover so it isn't speedy deleted and a proper discussion can take place as the intention was not to be sly or sneaky. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that this meets TOO. Buffs (talk) 13:49, 10 May 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.