Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 August 7



File:Madonna - american pie.ogg

 * 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. WP:NFCC requires non-free media files to aid in in the readers' understanding of the article, and its omission must be detrimental to the understand of said article. The review saying it's "sub-karaoke fluff" is literally saying Madonna's rendition is sung as badly as those in karaoke lounges. This is hardly sufficient to justify the use of this file. It would set a precedent that, as long as a song is reviewed (positively or negatively), a non-free audio sample is justified. This is simply not the case. — ξ xplicit  04:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Madonna - american pie.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC, sample has no critical discussion in the article and in no way makes a reader understand why a non-free sample is needed in the article. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article talks about how the song was changed from a folk classic to a "karaoke"-like dance-pop song. Alecsdaniel (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah and it uses a fat laod of sources right? — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 06:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except for the video section, just about every sentence has a refernce, so, yeah. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show where are these brilliant sources will you please which justifies the presence of this sample per WP:NFCC. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 04:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right in the article. And keep the sarcasm for yourself. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again show them, the article does not have a composition section where the sample is being discussed, nor its rationale indicates any ounce of notability. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 11:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a section about the critical reception. How are you supposed to know how a "sub-karaoke fluff" cover sounds like without hearing a sample of it? Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Critical reception talks about how the song was received critically, not how it would aid readers in understanding the article. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 10:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It aids by the fact that it's a highly notable cover. When you read about how the cover sounds like it's a "sub karaoke fluff", aren't you curious about how does it sound? The whole point of Wikipedia is to give the reader as many answers as possible (in this case, how does this chart topping cover sound), not making him go to other websites. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is definitely not an inherited quality. Calling a cover as a "sub karaoke fluff" does not actually discusses the song but reviews it. The sample should address what is the difference in terms of the original and the current Madonna cover that would warrant two seaprate samples to be included in the same article about the same song. Being a notable cover does not mean anything. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All this time you've spent trying to delete this file, you could have just found two links to save it. Alecsdaniel (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also inviting the valuable input of who has much better experience in NFCC related issues. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat</b> ] 11:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.