Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 6



File:Winged Victory Side.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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Winged Victory Side.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by CharlesZ ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photograph needs a license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:06, 6 February 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.
 * Wait, did a user delete his own discussion file on the same day it was added? That seems... a bit odd. AtomCrusher (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Hwaa Remix.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: Textbook WP:NFCC/WP:NFCC violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this cover in-depth. - F ASTILY   23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Hwaa Remix.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Perghhh ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC as the article already has a different cover for the same album and WP:NFCC as this non-free album art is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Wcam (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. A section does exist further down the page for this remix, and perhaps the cover should be moved there. But there are multiple articles that set precedent with remix covers visible. AtomCrusher (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom – one image is sufficient, there is wide consensus that the bar for including alternate/remix/other version covers is very high and depends on there being specific sourced commentary on them. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 February 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:Volt - Weak Men (Instrumental Version).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 ⚡  03:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Volt - Weak Men (Instrumental Version).ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by RivetHeadCulture ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The sample were was de-PRODded without rationale, so I'm taking them it here. They are It is used at currently Electronic body music. However, critical commentary associated with the sample seems to be lacking or insufficient there. They It may likely fail WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. George Ho (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC); edited, 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not necessary to have a variant of the same genre, and doesn't substantially add anything to the below. AtomCrusher (talk) 17:05, 6 February 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:The Arch - Spang.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: Textbook WP:NFCC violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this clip in-depth. - F ASTILY   23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * File:The Arch - Spang.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by RivetHeadCulture ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The sample were was de-PRODded without rationale, so I'm taking them it here. They are It is used at currently Electronic body music Electronic body music. However, critical commentary associated with the sample seems to be lacking or insufficient there. They It may likely fail WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. George Ho (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC); edited, 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC), 23:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Illustrative of the genre in question, generic enough to prove useful, and short in length. AtomCrusher (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you people remove all these audio files from Wikipedia. It's not very useful (especially not for readers). For example the techno article has no representative audio sample anymore. It's completely naked while the punk rock article includes 13 audio files. Doesn't look rational to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.231.215 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 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:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg
<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 ⚡  03:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg">File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

In Campbell's Soup Cans, we have two images of torn label cans, one of a crushed can, and one of a can with can opener (all non-free) to support the sentence Occasionally, he chose to depict cans with torn labels, peeling labels, crushed bodies, or opened lids (images right).. In fact, as of the revision current as I am writing this, there are 10 fair use images used on the page, which is only because I removed the 11th. Given that this can painting is only tangentially related to the painting that is the subject of the sole article this is used in, I don't see how we can justify having this second non-free painting of a can with a torn label against WP:NFCCP #3a (minimal number of items). I hate to be the one to nominate famous art for deletion, but having two images of this is not in compliance with the NFCC policy, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, the amount of "fair use" on the page is excessive. I would also support a sensible but substantial trimming of the other images. AtomCrusher (talk) 23:15, 6 February 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.