Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 27

< September 26	September 28 >

September 27

Star Wars midi snippets

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. ✗plicit 03:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just midi snippets of tracks from the Star Wars movie. I'm concerned about their compliance with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Reading "music of Star Wars", the article already helps readers understand (the general idea of) the music itself. Thus, I really wonder whether the snippets are necessary. Hearing them, I hear familiar themes, but... in midi. (Alternatively, I can extract portion of a few tracks if necessary, but then I might risk violating WP:NFC#Unaccetable use. On the other hand, even just one sample from the actual soundtrack itself wouldn't be adequate.) George Ho (talk) 03:02, 27 September 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:Scary Door Time Enough.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 ⚡ 08:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either critical commentary about the scene is insufficient, or the scene itself is well explained in free text. Even being used for a Good Article since 2007, "Time Enough at Last", still doesn't absolve the screenshot's issues with WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1 in addition to WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 27 September 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:Time Enough themes.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 ⚡ 08:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the image increases readers' understanding of the subject of discussion is not what I'm concerned about. Actually, I'm more concerned about whether the article "Time Enough at Last" would be fine without the image(s) of a newspaper headline "H-Bomb Capable of Total Destruction" and the main character attempting suicide with a gun. If so, then the image may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 27 September 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:Recifefromolinda.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 Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, blurry, better alternatives available at c:Category:Views of Recife. ✗plicit 06:49, 27 September 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:Teceezy main 3.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 Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedia use. ✗plicit 13:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 28 September 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:ROB JEWELL 8.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 Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedia use. ✗plicit 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:08, 28 September 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:BSCR cover.webp

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 G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally uploaded the wrong format of the file, which could not covert to the correct format, and therefore this file is an orphan. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:51, 27 September 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:CT-WEX-0030.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been uploaded for use in a tutorial, but we are not a guide. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic use. House Blaster^talk 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:08, 28 September 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:Lionshead.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 Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photograph of presumably copyrighted packaging. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:08, 28 September 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:Little Italy SD Fishing 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 Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United States. We need permission from the original artist or evidence that this mural is old enough to be in public domain. Photograph is not used in any articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:09, 28 September 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:Subsequent Granada Report EP Cover.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#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nonfree cover is being used only for identification in an infobox in a section of an article. The cover itself is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved the image to Initial Granada Report where it has more context. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the cover is not the primary means of identification there either, nor is the cover the subject of any commentary so despite the move, the same issues remain. Whpq (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, both EPs are related to each other as they were both released as a teaser for Transmission Suite. I don't see the issue with commentary as there are quite a few sources which also include the EP, not just Initial Granada Report. DiscoA340 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This alternate cover is not significantly different from the original, nor is it subject to sourced critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 October 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:Rapunzel's Royal Celebration, Kensington Palace.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 ⚡ 01:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is stated to be used for "Illustrating the special event entitled "Rapunzel's Royal Celebration" at Kensington Palace.", but mere illustration is essentially decorative use. The image itself is not the subject of signifiant sourced commentary. It's removal does not detract from the understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies – didn't mean to cause trouble. I removed the image. SantosPhillipCarlo (talk) 01:16, 28 September 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.