Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

File:Eminem - Walk on Water.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 24#File:Eminem - Walk on Water.ogg. ℯ xplicit 00:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking to FFD since speedy deletion was contested. WP:Manual of Style/Music samples (WP:SAMPLE) says not to include more than 10% of a song's duration within audio samples, with 30 seconds being the absolute maximum length allowed. 33 seconds is therefore too long for a song. The track also happens to run for 5 minute and 3 seconds (totaling 303 seconds). Even if this hadn't exceeded the duration limit for samples, it fails criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) by offering no discernible enhancement for the article except for maybe providing an ear treat for Eminem and/or Beyoncé fans, which isn't by itself a strong enough reason to maintain the file. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being 3 seconds over isn't a valid reason and is something that can easily be rectified, If went by your logic there would be no audio samples here, Anyway keep as It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used 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. –Davey2010^Talk 09:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing of encyclopedic value to be found in that sample which can't be sufficiently conveyed in prose. Please read the "Policy" section of WP:NFCC and its eighth criterion, especially if you haven't already, which says Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. No significant understanding of the song would be lost by removing this sample. I'm primarily concerned with meeting WP:NFCC requirements. We're also not just supposed to keep audio samples around just for the sake of having audio samples or for decoration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of uploading I'm convinced there were composition sections but maybe not, Regardless of that I disagree entirely and actually believe there is encyclopedic value in this audio sample, As I said by your logic we should would delete every audio file on every article ..... The file was added purely for encyclopedic value but that being said if others believe this isn't encyclopedic then I'm more than happy for it to go but at present I'm not really seeing a valid reason to do so. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a relevant or convincing point here and you know it. Keep the focus on THIS file here. Other files are for separate conversations. Anyway, how does it benefit the article at all per WP:NFCC requirements? I fail to see how it enhances any major aspect of the page in ways that words alone would be much less helpful for, and remember that WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep the sample. One could easily write about the chorus and other lyrics within the "composition" section instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was ..... I'm simply stating your logic here ...., As for the "ILIKEIT" - Please reread my reply where I stated and I will quote for you again "if others believe this isn't encyclopedic then I'm more than happy for it to go", I could also turn the tables and say to you "IDONTLIKEIT" isn't a reason for deletion, Well obviously I believe NFCC #8 is met but no doubt you disagree and that's fine, I believe this has contextual significance but like I said If others believe other wise then I'm more than happy for it to go - I'm entitled to my opinions and badgering me over it isn't going to change my mind .... I believe it should be kept rightly or wrongly and that's it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:People's beach1.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: keep. ℯ xplicit 00:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File is available on Commons as File:People's beach.jpg. File was tagged with {{keep local}} however the rationale is more than insufficient. It is based on the assumption that Commons is a host for pornography and will be shut down by the FBI. See history for more details. Hiàn (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image's author has requested that it not be stored at Commons. The author's express wishes should be sufficient reason not to delete. No good reason has been provided why the image should be deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing in WP:F8 that requires a sufficient rationale. It states clearly there that an image can ONLY be deleted if The image is not marked as {{Do not move to Commons}} or as {{Keep local}}. Nothing at all in there about sufficiency of rationales. The marking is explicitly a sufficient rationale not to delete. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:F8 is about speedily deleting files, but the nominator didn't request speedy deletion but started a normal deletion discussion, so WP:CSD does not apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really?! Then why didn't the nominator cite the criteria for not keeping a local copy? Could it be that it was because there aren't any, and the closest thing we have is that statement in WP:F8? In the absence of guidelines that apply explicitly it's perfectly reasonable to cite guidelines that cover parallel or similar situations. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for text in the United States, so the file should be deleted from both Wikipedia and Commons on copyright grounds. Can be undeleted in 2105. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've been trying to get this file deleted for years now. You know very well that freedom of panorama has nothing whatsoever to do with this, as I explained to you in painstaking detail in 2015 . — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input on the copyright question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the photographer wants a copy kept here then fine by me, I see no valid reason to delete at this present time. –Davey2010^Talk 17:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Keep comments above. The photographer seems fine with it here, so the bar seems to be met. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Fifth logo 2017.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial logo, invalid public domain reason. BethNaught (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Toms College of Engineering for Startups academic block shadow.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is stating they are the copyright holder. The description indicates the image was taken for a prospectus for the college. And indeed, the image does appear at https://toms.ac.in/prospectus on page 3. OTRS confirmation would be required to confirm copyright status. Whpq (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the uploader has added a comment to the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/2018 June 16. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.