Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 28



File:CaroloftheDrummusic.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 ⚡  00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:CaroloftheDrummusic.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

The sheet music cover of "Carol of the Drum", now commonly known as "The Little Drummer Boy", was de-PRODded per this edit summary: There is already one of cover arts of a 1958 recording by the Harry Simeone Chorale. I'm unsure whether a sheet music cover using an original title is necessary and whether the sheet music cover itself is contextually significant per WP:NFCC. Also, I'm unsure whether historical value of the sheet music cover may suffice to comply with the criterion, even when the original title was used. However, AFAIK sales of sheet musics were waning, while recordings have become prominent over the years. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - article only briefly mentions the subject of the image. Per criterion 8, this image is not necessary and should as such be deleted. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 28 December 2020 (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:Daddy film 2015.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 ⚡  00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Daddy film 2015.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Pouya sh ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Poster has no evidence of permission (supposedly from the director of the movie). Poster should be converted to Fair Use license (if it is legit, see below).

Poster is also questionable given it does not mention the director credited in the article. Cast members in the article infobox also are not seen in the poster. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless copyright holder gives permission through WP:OTRS., the caption is conflating two different movies: Shoolizadeh vs. McCullouch. The Shoolizadeh movie's article was deleted, so its poster fails WP:NFCC. The uploader claimed to be Shoolizadeh; if true, getting a confirmation of permission through WP:OTRS should be easy. Wikiacc (¶) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, even if the copyright holder gives permission, if there is no article where the image can be reasonably placed, it should still be deleted (Wikipedia is not a web host). Wikiacc (¶) 06:58, 28 December 2020 (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:Instinct magazine cover.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 ⚡  00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Instinct magazine cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Bi-on-ic ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

no need for this, it's just an attempt to further promote Jordan Carlyle but we have a perfectly suitable existing image File:Instinct-1997-1st issue.jpg in the article. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - image fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and P,TO 19104. Traditionally we use the first or earliest available cover for books and magazines.— TAnthonyTalk 01:28, 29 December 2020 (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:Wendypoolepark.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 ⚡  00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Wendypoolepark.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Kootenayvolcano ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned file, redundant to File:Wendypoole.jpg. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redundant file - no obvious use. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 28 December 2020 (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:Clear - Cybotron.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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Clear - Cybotron.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Philaweb ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This audio sample is used in Clear (Cybotron song), Cybotron (American band), and Techno. I'm uncertain whether the sample is necessary to illustrate any of the article subjects: the song, the band, and/or one of genres. I'm uncertain whether the sample is contextually significant to most readers under WP:NFCC. I can hear just the music and lyrics, but none of those articles describes how and why the content of the sample is relevant especially for better understanding. Maybe it's about merely identifying and/or recognizing a subject associated with the content, but I don't think mere identification or recognition is adequate enough to make a sample contextually significant, is it? The sample was de-PRODded by, so I'm listing it here. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't find any proof that this satisfies WP:NFCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - as used in all these articles, fails WP:NFCC. For the techno genre and band articles, the song is mentioned, but there is nothing about its composition, style, or anything else and is a clear fail on WP:NFCC.  For the song article, there is a mention that a loop form this smog has been sampled by others.  Is the loop in this sample?  I don't know because the article just plops the sample down in the infobox and makes no mention of it in the article text.  Even if this is the sample is the loop that is mentioned, it is a single unsourced sentence.  The usage in the song article also fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly mentioned in article, again, lazy delete, look for refs, strengthen prose, notable track in history of genre. Acousmana (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the song does not meet WP:NFCC. The onus is on the editor adding the non-free content to provide the references and prose that is needed to support the usage of the non-free content, and that content must be in the article, not just potentially could be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's just plain lazy and evidences ignorance of the subject matter, nothing more, we could pull up any number of WP:RS that would validate its inclusion in the article - add a cite request, raise the issue on the article's talk age, don't just start deleting sruff without drawing attention to what is being proposed. Acousmana (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some improvements to Clear (Cybotron song). Have those improvements helped the sample meet NFCC? George Ho (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very marginal. I will say no it does not meet WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2021 (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:Juan Atkins - Techno Music.ogg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Juan Atkins - Techno Music.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jagged 85 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The audio sample is currently used in Detroit techno (genre), Electronic dance music (genre), Techno (genre), and Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit (compilation album). It was de-PRODded by, asserting that the deletion would affect understanding of the articles using the sample. I don't know how this sample is contextually significant to the subjects. As I'm very certain, usage in more than one sample may conflict with WP:NFCC and may be questionable, especially when freely-licensed open content exists and other too many samples are used. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no comentary of the audio samples is seen. Does not satisify WP:NFCC P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no sourced commentary about this particular sample. Fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, the track title, the compilation it's featured on, relevance to genre's history and name origin, deleting this is laziness, add the relevant prose instead, RS refs are out there, look for them. Acousmana (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the song does not meet WP:NFCC. The onus is on the editor adding the non-free content to provide the references and prose that is needed to support the usage of the non-free content, and that content must be in the article, not just potentially could be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's just plain lazy and evidences ignorance of the subject matter, nothing more, we could pull up any number of WP:RS that would validate its inclusion in the article - add a cite request, raise the issue on the article's talk age, don't just start deleting sruff without drawing attention to what is being proposed. Acousmana (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently couldn't find reliable non-primary sources providing newer info about the specific song. All I can find are sources using broader term "techno music" and similar. Maybe I overlooked one source, but finding it is very difficult to this date. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * not difficult, three WP:SECONDARY refs here, on the first page of search hits, specifically mention the track. Acousmana (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Made a few improvements, but (to me) still insufficient to justify using the sample, especially when mentioning just "speech synthesis". Inserting examples of such synthesis wouldn't make a difference. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you need to work harder, see Rietveld (2018) "The twelve  tracks on  the  compilation are  diverse,  from  the above mentioned house tracks and the commercially successful vocal dance anthem ‘Big Fun’ performed by Inner City and produced by Kevin Saunderson) to the genre defining electronic funk abstractions of Rhythim Is Rhythim’s ‘It What It Is’, by Derrick May, and Juan Atkin’s ‘Techno Music’, which ultimately defined the genre of Detroit techno." Also Rietveld (2014) "Although  techno  was  first  marketed  as  the  house  sound  from  Detroit,  to distinguish  it  from  Chicago  house  music,  the  name  ‘techno’  was  eventually  adopted, echoing the title of one of the compilation’s tracks, Juan Atkins’s ‘Techno Music’... this is a leading EDM scholar, writing in academic publications, about something that is widely covered elsewhere. I also noticed you deleted the track Strings of Life, again, this is laziness and misapprehension at work, and I'm not even going to bother explaining why in this instance. Sorry, but editors wading into topics they don't have knowledge of and deleting notable audio examples without discussion doesn't serve the project, it actually undermines it. Acousmana (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of those passages would still improve justification of using the sample in the articles (inc. genre ones), but you can still work on Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit, Detroit techno, and techno. BTW, maybe you should ease your "experts vs non-experts" attitude and assume that non-experts have done their best to make the project's standards consistent and high... unless I'm describing your attitude incorrectly. If you want File:Strings of Life.ogg undeleted, please go to WP:REFUND; alternatively, create a new sample via Audacity. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * certain commentators view the track as significant with respect to the coining of the word "techno," a sub-genre of electronc music/electronic dance music produced in Detroit during the late 80s, that you feel otherwise is no justification for deleting the file, we have sources, they conform to WP:VER, I fail to see the problem here, you are the only editor - in how many years? - to object to the inclusion of this file, yet you didn't even bother to raise it on talk first, how is that keeping "standards consistent and high"? I fail to see how this kind of editing is constructive. Acousmana (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: you are the only editor [...] to object to the inclusion of this file. Incorrect, I'm not the only editor; other two voted for deleting the file. Regarding standards, I was discussing how non-free content is used reservedly and strictly. Not even a verified brief info about album tracks can suffice, and it's nothing to do with verifying an info. Furthermore, you said, you didn't even bother to raise it on talk first. Trying to discuss the file in an article talk page would be local consensus, which should not override or preclude the FFD procedures. If you doubt about the FFD process overriding the need to discuss at article talk page, please discuss at WT:FFD. George Ho (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * George, did you or did you not prod the file? non-free content, a 30 sec clip, usage a rights holder is most likely not going to dispute - unlike many other examples we could find - is hardly a high priority for FFD, or do you disagree? Inclusion of the track has merit, the sources support this view. Acousmana (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * George, did you or did you not prod the file? Why does whoever did what matter to you? I see no point in answering the question other than to provoke you into responding. non-free content, a 30 sec clip, usage a rights holder is most likely not going to dispute - unlike many other examples we could find - is hardly a high priority for FFD, or do you disagree? Can you rephrase that? The question/sentence looks awkward to understand; I don't know what the subject and verb of the sentence are. (Oh, I'm using "are" because I'm using two subjects conjoined by "and".) George Ho (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you rephrase that? I can, but I'm not going to. Acousmana (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to rephrase "hardly a high priority for FFD" if you don't want to. However, as I will say, if a content (free or non-free) is listed in FFD, then there must be a reason, most likely valid. For example, the appropriateness and suitability of a non-free multimedia content in any page of the open content project, even with permission from the copyright holder, are questioned and evaluated. Well, not every non-free content can be listed at FFD. Nonetheless, even a "free" multimedia content is listed for various reasons, like being unused in articles, unsuited for Wikipedia or Commons, or questionable licensing. BTW, we'll see whether others agree with your following statement, with which I still disagree: Inclusion of the track has merit, the sources support this view. George Ho (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I almost overlooked your reference to the same author whose one of works I cited already in the compilation album article. I don't see the need or incentive to use any other of her works. In one source you mentioned, she was reviewing a track as part of the album review. I'm trying to access the other work, but the link doesn't seem to work at this moment. George Ho (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The arguments I see above for keeping are that the song is notable and is an important part of the history and development of techno music. However, the sound sample is not being challenged on notability, or importance.  The key issue is WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC.  The usage of this sound sample across multiple articles is excessive and unjustified.  With respect to WP:NFCC, The non-free usage rationale for Techno Music, and Detroit techno state the sample music "is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus."  There is no such discussion in those article nor anything else that justifies its use in the article.  For the Electronic dance music article, the stated purpose is "history of electronic dance music."  There is no explanation why we need to hear this sound sample in the rationale, nor is there any of that in thr article.  In fact, the only mention of the song in the article is this sound sample itself.  There is no article text about the song that I could see.  The song is also used in Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit but there isn't a non-free usage rationale for it and so that also fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete yay!! yeah, lets scrub this sucky file that is an affront to WP:NFCC. 100% way to go on this. Awesome! Acousmana (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2021 (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.

File:Inner City - Big Fun.ogg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Remove from all except for Big Fun (Inner City song) - F ASTILY   00:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Inner City - Big Fun.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jagged 85 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Used in Big Fun (Inner City song), Detroit techno (genre), Electronic dance music (genre), Inner City (band), and Techno (genre). Uncertain about the sample's compliance with WP:NFCC especially in those articles. The content contained in the sample is either briefly discussed in those articles (i.e. not enough critical commentary) or not significantly covered by sources. Sample was de-PRODded by, so I'm listing it here. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there is some comentary on the audio samples in Big_Fun_(Inner_City_song). Given its description of "mixed a catchy lead vocal and synth hook with what was essentially a techno backing track", I think the audio sample could help readers. That is the only place where there was NFCC#8 commentary, though. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep again, lazy delete, look for refs, strengthen prose, notable track in history of genre. Acousmana (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You won't reinsert the file in certain articles if the discussion results in the file being removed from those articles, will you? George Ho (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * contrary to what it might appear, have better things to do than run around readding/reupping stuff, have expressed feelings on the matter, if folk are bent on deletion, whatevs... Acousmana (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove from all but Big Fun (Inner City song). Only the song article has any sourced commentary and that is very very borderline. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2020 (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.