Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 10



File:Wintec Autoglas Logo.svg

 * 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 ⚡  07:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Wintec Autoglas Logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Nick-4711 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Its inclusion in the article does not add significantly to the article. Jonteemil (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NFCC - doesn't contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic. Can easily be replaced by text of the company name. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:26, 16 May 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:Logo-Miscanthus-Green-Power.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  07:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Logo-Miscanthus-Green-Power.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Nick-4711 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Its inclusion in the article does not add significantly to the article Jonteemil (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NFCC - doesn't contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic. Can easily be replaced by text of the company name. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:26, 16 May 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.

Screenshots from The Wire

 * 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: relisted on 2021 May 28.  MBisanz  talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Unto Others.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Corner Boys.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Know Your Place.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Misgivings.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:That& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Final Grades.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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.

Other cover arts of Ain't Nobody

 * 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: relisted on 2021 May 28.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Diana King-Ain& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:LX-BN.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Aint-Nobody-(Loves-Me-Better)-Felix-Jaehn.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png
<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: keep the nominated cover, delete the other. ✗ plicit  13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png">File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Infsai ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious according to WP:NFCC criterion 3 ("minimal usage") and Template:Infobox album. The original cover (as published onto iTunes) is already included in the infobox. I do not see why this is needed, as it does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject. HĐ (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this file actually meet criteria, since it's much different than original one and use photo took from music video and if you search for "Eh, Eh" on iTunes or Spotify you'd rather get this artwork, rather the original one. But like in "Salt" I think both artworks are worth including. infsai (dyskusja) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the artwork of the most notable release should be the main image. Taking a quick glance at this article, the remix EP only seems to be mentioned in the Track listings section, so it is clearly not the more important one. Including an extra image, such as the one in "Salt", is okay in cases like that, but I'm not so sure about "Eh, Eh". I also agree that it does not significantly increase my understanding of the article's topic. Why include the artwork for a specific remix when there are tens or hundreds of others out there that also did not experience notable success? I don't see the point. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 14:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the cover on iTunes is the most notable, then I think this should be kept, while the other file should be deleted. HĐ (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also, from the comments here I am sometimes a little unsure which file folks are talking about when they say "this" or "it" and that makes it hard to tell what should be kept and what should be deleted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It has been suggested that File:Lady Gaga - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).png should be deleted, so I have tagged it as such.
 * My final comment is to keep this file (File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png) and delete the original release file (File:Lady Gaga - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).png). iTunes has replaced the cover, so the recently uploaded cover represents a widespread release. HĐ (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:33, 10 May 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:Dua Lipa - Levitating cover art.png
<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.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Dua Lipa - Levitating cover art.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by LOVI33 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Generally, WP:SONG article use one artwork (per minimal usage), but a second cover is sometimes needed when the extra cover gets a wide coverage in third-party reliable sources or as widely used as the main cover. This second cover of "Levitating" doesn't meet this criteria and clearly fails WP:NFCC: Regards. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was never used for commercial release, thus most readers or listeners wouldn't aware of this existence. It's also unavailable in Discogs database, which usually includes all non-commercial / radio-only CD singles, meaning that the cover was indeed never used in any promotional releases, not even its radio release.
 * Not third-party coverage for this second cover. The uploader uses Capital FM and ARIA instagram to justify its inclusion. But those links were published after the cover was uploaded to Wikipedia and became a main infobox picture for months (circular reporting). Lady Gaga's fan-made cover fo "Shallow" was also previously used in many charts and Academy Award page because of the inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * There's no contextual significance per WP:NFCC. Since the cover is barely found anywhere else, its omission would not affect readers' understanding of the article topic.
 * Keep: Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Discogs is considered an unreliable source as it is user-generated. It is also listed in both WP:RSPSOURCES and WP:ALBUMAVOID. Secondly, this picture was used in a promotional single release. Yes, the official UK release date was 23 September, but the image is listed Capital FM's database where a date is not mentioned, meaning it could have been added at any time. With releases of any kind, a label is involved and considering that Capital is one of the biggest radio stations in the UK and has had several affiliations with Lipa, I would say it is ok. Also, that is probably why it isn't listed as a radio single on Discogs, because it is a promotional single. Just doing some searching on Discogs, I can see more than one radio single not listed there as well. Yes, it was uploaded before 23 September, but that is because I found it on the designer's website which is can be how cover art leaks before its official release. ARIA is also considered a reputable source. It is not an archiver like Hung Medien. Finally, this image is 100% notable as it is for a promotional single release, not the official single release. I would also like to mention that most post-album release single tend to just have a cover art released by the artist or the label that isn't used in any promotional cases. Also, the cover art was used in the waiting screen for the Levitating (featuring DaBaby) music video waiting screen, leading up to its premiere. With all these cases, you cannot say that it wasn't used anywhere. LOVI  33  14:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that in the discussion for the "Shallow" cover art, most of the reasoning was that it was a confirmed fanmade cover. This is clearly not the case here as it appears on the album cover art designer's website. Also in that discussion, reasoning was that it appeared on one of the chart archiver websites (Hung Medien), not a reputable source like ARIA. LOVI  33  15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You rationale still far away from justifying WP:NFCC (minimal usage) and WP:NFCC (contextual significance). Usage in very very few occasions, especially for an additional cover, still doesn't meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned. It is a completely separate from the single release as it is for the song's promotional single release. The cover art used as the main doesn't fully convey the article's topic as it just represents the single release when in fact the song also received a promotional single release. Also, I have just discovered that the cover art is listed in All Access so that means it was used for the original's adult contemporary single release. LOVI  33  03:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: per comments above. Alexismata7 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur that the image does not add contextual significance to the article (WP:NFCCP) - there was a different cover on a promotional release that isn't even discussed in the article? I also concur that the image exceeds WP:NFCCP.  Finally, I believe that it is in violation of WP:NFCCP which states that the rationale should be "relevant to each use," but the rationale states that this image is for "the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for," but it is not being used as the primary visual image nor will it help most users identify the work, since the release of the promotional single was so limited.  ★  Bigr   Tex  02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The promotional release is mentioned in both the "release history" and "release and promotion" sections. I would also like to mention that this article has gone through many different versions with the infoboxes. Originally, this image did serve as the primary identification but I eventually decided to exile it to an additional cover as the original and remix version are being promoted as the same single, with the remix being the "main" single. The reality is these are two different songs, they are just promoted as the same single and both parts should be represented. If each version of this song were to have its own separate section, this image would serve as the primary identification. Yes it was limited to use but the cover says both the artists name and the song title. To me that is enough to say people would have found what they have looking for if they came to the article. Also for most post-album release singles, the cover art usage is normally limited. As for whether the current image can convey significant information, I have mentioned above why it cannot. LOVI  33  18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bigrtex. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 09:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bluesatellite and Bigrtex. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:39, 25 May 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.

Duplicate screenshots
<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: keep. ✗ plicit  12:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Silikonz ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Silikonz ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Word for Mac screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Silikonz ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Word 2010.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Silvergoat ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jlin ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:MS Word 2007.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Stephenchou0722 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCCa, only one screenshot is required to identify the software. It is simply the same software running on different operating systems, they both serve the same purpose. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added 3 more which are not used for identification, nor are they being used to illustrate anything in particular and where its omission would be detrimental to any sort of understanding. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. They're different versions, not just running on different versions of operating systems. I do agree with WP:NFCC, though - but these are vital to show the history of Office for Mac. Also, compare File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png, File:Screenshot of Microsoft Office Excel 95, an application part of Microsoft Office system.png, and File:FileScreenshot_of_Microsoft_Office_Excel_2000.png. Again, all non-free licences, but used to show the history of a particular piece of software. This qualifies under minimal use in my opinion and are not, in any way, duplicate, as you mentioned.  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed you initially only added three screenshots, and all are the ones I uploaded. Office for Mac and Office for Windows have almost always, in the history of Office, been independent releases and almost completely different, so these screenshots qualify for minimal use.  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 04:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as I quote from WP:NFCC, minimal use, not only one as you said.  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 04:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Silikonz. These aren't duplicate screenshots, they are being used to illustrate the history and evolution of Office for the Mac. Jlin (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello? Dylsss, are you here? I think this discussion is worthy of being closed with no action taken, unless you have something to say... any comments? Silikonz (alternate account)  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 07:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sorry, I've been busy in real life, please let me clarify why I nominated them for deletion. File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png, File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png, File:Word for Mac screenshot.png all identify their respective Microsoft Office applications along with Windows screenshots on each page. Because they both serve the same purpose of identifying the software portrayed in the article, they are not minimal use, and only one is required to identify the software. Consider this, can you tell from one screenshot File:Microsoft_Word.png, or do you need both the Mac and Windows screenshot to recognise the software. You could argue that both are needed to identify the software for each operating system, but I personally would struggle to tell the difference between the Mac and Windows screenshots if you were to crop the title bar, WP:NFCC even clarifies that "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". I would definitely consider only one screenshot to be a "depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject" and this relates to my point about how you can identify the respective software with only one screenshot and how they are both very visually similar that one displays a prominent aspect of the software. This may be different if there were separate articles for the software on each OS, but the article is for the software as a whole. In my interpretation of policy, unless you cannot recognise Word/Powerpoint/Excel without the use of both screenshots (you can), then they should be deleted. There does not seem to be any commentary at all about Microsoft Word 2007, next to where the image is placed, there are brief mentions, but not where including File:MS Word 2007.png would help the reader understand the text content. Again I see very little commentary at all related to Word 2011, and none where including File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png would help the reader understand the text content. If you could point out what these two images help the reader understand, whether that be a feature or part of the UI which is described in the text, that would be helpful. Lastly, File:Word 2010.png is placed next to a table, it is out of place and basically serves no purpose from what I can see, it is not even placed next to any sort of text at all, nevermind relating to Word 2010, and I think it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC. It is important to understand that non-free content is there to supplement free content, which is why they have to be contextually significant, whether that be so the reader can identify the article, or content described in text. An example of a very good use of fair use in my opinion are the non-free images on Ribbon (computing), they supplement the text content and in my opinion, removing them would be detrimental, in contrast to the images here, which do not help represent any sort of feature or UI element. I would also note that the information page Software screenshots, implies that software articles should only use a screenshot from one OS in the infobox, but this is not a policy or guideline page. Thanks. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mac and Windows Office releases differ greatly; it was only until recently that Microsoft made Office for both OSs more similar.
 * Thus, it is vital to show the history of Office for Mac; it is completely different than that of Office for Windows; I'll give an example here: Office 2011 and Office 2010. Completely different. This is the reason why Office 2011 has its own article, seperate from Office 2010.
 * The Office for Windows screenshots you mentioned above could be added to their individual Wikipedia articles, if they have them.
 * I feel that Office for Mac and Office for Windows still differ enough that they require separate screenshots. WP:NFCC says minimal use. Multiple screenshots are permitted. Silikonz (alternate account)  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like duplicates to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I first created the nomination page it was just
 * File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png
 * File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png
 * File:Word for Mac screenshot.png
 * The reason I titled it duplicate screenshots is because their respective articles Excel, PowerPoint and Word, already had screenshots of the same software but on the Windows operating system. Silikonz argues that these are different enough to warrant use, but the question is not necessarily whether they are different, but whether you can identify the software with only one screenshot. It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system. Similarly to the reasons that we do not have both front and back covers of books or historical logos (unless they are discussed in critical commentary), these should be deleted. In terms of the other 3 screenshots, there has still been no arguement from other about how these possibly meet WP:NFCC. "illustrate the history and evolution" and "it is vital to show the history of..." are ridiculous reasons for keeping non-free content but they in no way explain how they a significant in the context of the article, i.e. what specific commentary or point in the article do they help support or explain. I could for example upload a load of non-free screenshots of different versions of Word and place them in a table of all the different iterations of the software, I could say that this illustrates the history of Microsoft Word, but this would clearly fail WP:NFCC because there is not contextual significance. As a matter of fact, it is really no surprise that they fail WP:NFCC because they were originally uploaded in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to be put in the infobox, then when a new one is uploaded, someone has just willy-nilly dumped them somewhere in the article to prevent deletion, they should have been deleted per WP:F5, thus it is quite obvious why these would fail WP:NFCC as they were never uploaded with the intent to be used in the way they are being used now. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system.
 * My mother can't even tell the difference between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office while using it. (until she runs into something that works slightly different) Would you call her silly? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in this case, the files which I have said have 'illustrated the history of Microsoft Word' could possibly be deleted, as their individual articles themselves DO include screenshots of Word.
 * I do wish to keep the images I uploaded, they do serve a purpose. Thanks. Silikonz (alternate account)  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 23:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:34, 10 May 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:All The Small Things.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: no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * File:All The Small Things.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by DCGeist ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Currently used at punk rock (genre) and All the Small Things (song). The usages in those articles either must comply with or may fail WP:NFCC (contextual significance). Furthermore, there have been one too many samples, making this sample possibly conflict with WP:NFCC (minimal number of items), but I'm nominating just this sample for now. Sure, the sourced caption at the genre article may help the justification of using the sample, but I'm unsure whether the sample improves the understanding of the genre and whether removing the sample would affect the understanding of the genre. It may belong to the song article, but I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The usage in the article about the song is unambiguous and I think the usage in the article about the song easily passes the NFCC -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the usage in the genre article? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The last clause was supposed to say I think the usage in the article about the genre easily passes the NFCC. Gah -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Remove from Punk Rock (along with the rest of the samples?). I tend to agree that it falls foul of WP:NFCCP, and if the reader is interested in what the song sounds like they could click through to the article about the song.  I also tend to think that when we talk about critical commentary about the file in the article, it excudes the caption, but I cannot find that rule currently.  ★  Bigr   Tex  02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:34, 10 May 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:Iwgp-h0.png
<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.  MBisanz  talk 23:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Iwgp-h0.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Piotr Bart ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No non-free use rationale can be written without failing WP:NFCC#4. Simply, it's an image from an unendorsed fan site which itself isn't in compliance of fair use, at least not sufficiently enough to be copied over to Wikipedia. The image can never be used in an article and would be deleted for being orphaned. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood the policies. Wanchan2020 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very clear misinterpretation of WP:NFCC which requires that copyrighted works are published or publically displayed. Copyright subsists in two works here, the 3D belt itself, and the picture of the belt. The belt meets WP:NFCC because as an award, it has been publically displayed, and I am guessing belts like these can also be bought? The picture meets WP:NFCC because it has been published on the source website. It doesn't require that the images from these websites must also have been produced with permission from or by the copyright holder, this would essentially disallow derivative works of copyrighted 3D objects apart from by the copyright holder. If this interpretation were to be correct, it would mean that most of the 1,877 images in Category:Fair use images of three-dimensional art would fail WP:NFCC and be eligible for deletion. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No, this belt can't be bought. No maker has been officially licensed to make and sell exact replicas of this belt. 2) This is not for every case but you are allowed by the copyright holder to take photos of (for example) monuments and photos in mass media are published with the copyright holder's permission. This is neither. 3) Most of the 3D art images are on public display (i.e., you can go and see them in person) and you can infer where the photos came from. This belt isn't inside some museum. You can't tell where Iwgp-h0.png came from or you'd be able to replace the fan site URL in the rationale with a credible source (as well as replace the image with a better, undoctored one). Wanchan2020 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know little about wrestling, but from my knowledge these belts are worn by wrestlers who are champions of that title at wrestling events, so it would have been publically displayed at an event. If we can reasonably assume this, then I would say that it passes WP:NFCC, otherwise delete. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then that's what our disagreement boils down to. Whether assumption is sufficient for copyright matters, which Wikipedia takes seriously. It's not only the assumption that the belt was displayed. You're also assuming conditions of entry at those events. And assuming where the image came from: could be a video screencap, could be a photo from an event, could be a photo of an unlicensed replica. With the image being doctored, what can you deduce that isn't an assumption? If it were text, it would be removed for being from an unreliable source and we wouldn't need this discussion. Wanchan2020 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Concur with nominator. The image was previously published, but is a derivative image of the belt.  Because we have no evidence that the source website has the permission of the belt's copyright owner, I believe the image fails WP:NFCCP.  A screenshot of a wrestler wearing the belt, even cropped to feature the belt, would pass because the belt's copyright owner would have permitted the original publication of the image.  ★  Bigr   Tex  02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:34, 10 May 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.

Torn (Ava Max song)
<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: relisted on 2021 May 28.  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Ava Max - Torn.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])


 * File:Ava Max Torn 2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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:1951MaistoBeetleFrontTrunk.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: no consensus. ✗ plicit  06:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:1951MaistoBeetleFrontTrunk.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Cstevencampbell ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

One of four fair-use images on Maisto, including the logo. There are also three "free" images of models being hosted on Commons included on the page.

I believe that this image currently violates WP:NFCCP - any one of the six images would be sufficient. However, because this image does detail the opening features and details of the model, I believe that it should be kept and placed at the top of the page if the above two images and the three Commons images are removed. I do believe that a better image could be created, showing the multiple scales manufactured and the details in a single image. ★ Bigr   Tex  22:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The "free" images at Commons are likely to be deleted as the underlying copyright on the model car itself makes the photos derivative of a copyrighted work. Of all the images, this one does show the features that are typical of the products from this company as described with sourced text in the article.  It meets WP:NFCC, and W{P:NFCC would be met with the other images removed.  It's placement within the article is one of editorial discretion and I provide no opinion there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:35, 10 May 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:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.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: no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ianmacm ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is another one of images kept by default per "no consensus" decision on FFD discussion about huge amount of mass shooter images. Whether it violates WP:NFCC ("no free equivalent" criterion) and WP:NFC is not the only issue, but I'm not concentrating a lot on that. My main concern is its compliance with WP:NFCC ("contextual significance"). Currently used at the article, I doubt that an image of the perpetrator increases understanding of the tragic event 2011 Seal Beach shooting, and I don't think deleting it would affect such understanding somehow. The shooting was already tragic as it is, and an image of the perpetrator wouldn't change that. George Ho (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, you can't fault George Ho's persistence in trying to get this image deleted. I support including this image as the uploader, and think that there needs to be a broader debate about including images of perpertators.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tried it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but there were no replies. I wonder why. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say much new here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:57, 11 May 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.