Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

File:Pick Up The Pieces.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used as part of top infobox. Insufficiently supported (in any way) by critical commentary of Pick Up the Pieces (Average White Band song) in context. May fail wp:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2022 (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:TV Patrol 2016.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only used at the history section (TV Patrol#2021–present: Bernadette Sembrano, Henry Omaga-Diaz, and Karen Davila) in a décorative manner. Does not fall under WP:NFCI Item No. 5: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - used for identification in a section without significant sourced commentary about the logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (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.

Got to Get You into My Life lead image

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 File:Got to Get You into My Life sheet music cover.jpg -FASTILY 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song article "Got to Get You into My Life" previously held both the sheet music cover and a picture sleeve. In 2010, amount of the lead images was reduced to one, sticking to the picture sleeve. Then it was switched to the sheet music cover by another editor because it looks "much better". Actually, to me, both look good, but using both may be against WP:NFCC#3a unless stand corrected.

I would stick to the 1976 US picture sleeve and ditch the sheet music cover. The song was released as a single in 1976 and did well in music charts. Sheet musics have been declining since sound recordings were established. Unless there are no prominent single releases, I don't see why we should use a "much better" sheet music cover, which may neither well illustrate the song's release in context nor meet WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sheet music cover. I don't think nfcc is met in this case (t · c) buidhe 23:54, 4 January 2022 (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:Original opening card of 'Minnie the Moocher' (1932).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: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator doesn't appear to be copyright holder. And looks to be too new to be public domain image Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible, because some very old cartoons have fallen out of copyright for various reasons. However, let's get some more input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's either copyrighted or PD, and not the CC license that is currently on the image. According to The Public Domain Review, Minnie the Moocher is public domain the US. The version provided at The Public Domain Review doesn't have all the Paramount trappings or any copyright notice which is different from the Youtube source which does carry a copyright notice in the opening credits. Likely PD US not renewed. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure if I fully understand the copyright renewal stuff but Minnie the Moocher is listed in the 1959 renewals and the Hirtle chart says if its renewed then the 95 year term applies. Salavat (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. The Public Domain Review simply asserts it is PD without explaining why, so they may simply be mistaken in this case mixing it up with other Betty Boop shorts which are PD due to lack of renewal. The issue has been discussed on Commons and they came to a conclusion of delete. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minnie the Moocher (1932).webm. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to nonfree - The title card's use as visual identification would meet the non-free content criteria. It is obviously not cc-by-4.0 and the preceding discussion here and previously on Commons indicates this is still under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to non-free title-card and add a fair use as per Whpq. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2022 (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:ME 1992 Programme Message.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that content from the CGSSB is under a free license. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (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.