Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 June 30

< June 29	July 1 >

June 30

File:AEW Blackpool.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: relisted on 2022 July 10. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AEW Blackpool.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:REalGOod-mural.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 ⚡ 09:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in the United States. The mural is likely above the threshold of originality because the Disney Junior logo (which is of similar complexity) is copyrighted. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused/unencyclopedic. I disagree with the nominator's assessment of TOO though. An argument could be made that DJ logo is not copyrightable because the Mickey Mouse logo is PD and the "Mickey" character embedded in the "i" is no more than two dots and a rectangle. Buffs (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the registration for the copyrighted logo, however, it doesn't say WHAT the logo is/entails. Their official logo may include animation and shading that was not present in the original. Buffs (talk) 17:34, 1 July 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:Dolly Parton - I Will Always Love You.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: keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with critical commentary (be it one portion of an article or the whole article), I'm still concerned about the de-PRODded sample's ability to help readers understand the song (as a whole). I hear just the chorus/refrain portion, but I think it makes readers more curious about what the full song sounds like and drives readers into seeking a full song. When listeners hears the verses not heard in the sample, they will eventually grasp and realize what the full song is about and what it describes. George Ho (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough sourced critical commentary in the article to justify the sample's inclusion there thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. The nominator even states that there is critical commentary, nullifying this nomination. Aspects (talk) 18:36, 3 July 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.