Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 20



File:Gollob and Kageneck.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Gollob and Kageneck.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by MisterBee1966 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unclear if this meets the non-free guidelines, current undergoing GAN Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We have free photos of all of the ones who are present on the image, so this fails WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But we do not have a free photo of this particular historic event. I don't understand how having three separate free images serves the same encyclopedic purpose as having a photograph of all three together on this particular occasion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about the event and the context in which these people are depicted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, yes but do we need to display this picture in order for the reader to understand the statement: " Gollob, together with Oberleutnant Erbo Graf von Kageneck, received the Oak Leaves from Adolf Hitler personally at the Wolf's Lair, Hitler's headquarters in Rastenburg, present-day Kętrzyn in Poland, on 5 November 1941." If not (and I don't think we do), it fails WP:NFCC per WP:FREER. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 19:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I understand. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Mariah Carey Can&

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Mariah Carey Can& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by George Ho ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded the European cover art to replace the similar photo (US promo image) uploaded by Smarty9108. Now I do believe that, while the image was used in Europe, the image may be redundant. While consensus say keep extra images of Rapture (song) and Gloria (Laura Branigan song), I am unsure about this European image. The issue is its significance to the song and ability to be different from the North American artwork. The artist is American, making the song American. George Ho (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not only used in Europe...both artworks were used in the USA as well. That's why I think we should keep both. troublednbored (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You got confused, Smarty9108. The European image was used for also the promo CD. It wasn't part of American commercial product. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Charlie Puth &

 * 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 the timed text as lacking a non-free rationale. The text on the page is clearly non-free but neither the time-text talk page nor the image page that links to it has a non-free rationale for the text as a separate item. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Charlie Puth & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by MaranoFan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Am bringing this for deletion as there are editors who question whether a timed text page such as this is acceptable. This timed text version of song lyrics is copyrighted material as well as the audio clip attached to it, however, the clip is being used with a fair use rationale. It seems to me that it is impermissible to create a timed text of copyrighted material. Other texts such as this this exist within Wikipedia, however, because timed text is relatively unexplored here, specific policy doesn't seem to exist on it. Discussion here could help establish consensus, but, I believe caution should be used due to copyright concerns and deletion should occur first. Am pinging because of her extensive experience with copyrighted content and policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem with the subtitles, then maybe TimedText:Charlie Puth & Meghan Trainor - Marvin Gaye.ogg.en.srt should have been listed at a discussion page instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note There is a discussion on timed text going on here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Bellator MMA in 2016

 * 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. — ξ xplicit  03:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Bellator 148.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Alexander Gustafsson ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Bellator 149.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Alexander Gustafsson ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Bellator 150.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hany Fargo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Bellator 151.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hany Fargo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)

This page violates WP:NFLISTS. All non-free files should be removed from the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:EDSA 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:EDSA 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Emperork ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file is used in three articles, but has a FUR for only two of them. Also, I wonder whether using it in the interchange article is justified in terms of WP:NFCC - using it in the road article likely violates WP:NFCC. Also, it seems like this is the actual source, seeing as that image is larger than the one from starbulletin - but it might be a different image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Image fails NFCC#8 (it's purely decorative) in the Ortigas Interchange article and I've removed it. It has no rationale for EDSA (road) so I've removed that also. For the remaining use I think it should be deleted. The rationale is poor (it says "it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual"...I'm sure there are many people here) and it could be adequately replaced with text (image fails NFCC#1) describing the size of the protest. We don't need to take someones copyrighted image from Panoramio (that is the original that Jo-Jo has linked to) to know that a lot of people jammed up this intersection in protest. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.