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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn per suggestion below. ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 04:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:The Fall Winter ptI.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:The Fall Who Makes The Nazis.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Two samples not proven yet contextually significant to the whole album. Furthermore, I fail to see why the text would be inadequate for readers to understand without them. Furthermore, there's already an album cover, and I think one non-free file (the album cover) is adequate for readers to understand the album (as a whole). George Ho ( talk) 01:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep:The article specifically discusses the sound of the track, and states "'Who Makes the Nazis' concludes that Nazis are born of "intellectual halfwits".[28] The track contains a number of sounds played through a dictaphone, a device that was to feature heavily in later Fall albums, most notably This Nation's Saving Grace.[29] Ceoil ( talk) 00:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Similarly, Winter (Hostel-Maxi) has a near paragraph describing its sound and lyrics

I'm not sure what your baseline for inclusion is here, but it seems to take fear of FU to extreme paranoia, and rather contradicts the current guidelines given when users are uploading. Maybe its the WP policy rather than these files you should be looking at. Ceoil ( talk) 00:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

When listening to the samples, quality-wise, I hear music, but lyrics are unclear. The assumption that more text is needed to justify use of the samples... I mean, sure, text and samples are not clearly similar. The samples' supposed roles are improving readers' understanding of the album (as a whole), not songs themselves.

WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#Multimedia discourage allowing too many samples, and I'm unsure whether two samples are either adequate or necessary, especially per WP:NFC#CS. If I wanna listen to samples, I can go to Amazon (or another music store) and listen samples of all tracks for deeper understanding.

Since you favor keeping both of them, I guess I have to find suitable portions and audio tracks to make lyrics more listenable than they are (not?). George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi George, can you use plainer language pls, your rational isn't making much sense to me. You seem to be making up policy on the fly? Ceoil ( talk) 01:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll try to rephrase. I'm confused why else besides so-called critical commentary you think the two samples are needed for the album article and why deleting the samples would harm the understanding of the whole album. Honestly, I really thought the album article would be fine without samples. George Ho ( talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Again, wot? Following that logic, there should be no samples on wiki. Again its totally contrary to the current guidelines. You seem a warrior fighting locally but losing sight of the bigger picture. Ceoil ( talk) 02:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

If you like me to withdraw the nomination and continue discussing the samples in Talk:Hex Enduction Hour, then I'd be happy to do so. I didn't wanna admit being anti-samples, but seems my rationale is apparently unclear without declaring myself anti-samples. Would that do? George Ho ( talk) 02:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

No I don't want to make it local that seems like you back tracking, why would I agree to renegotiatingon on different footings. ?? Because, been there done that with you, and there is always a next time that have to make the same arguments once again. Ceoil ( talk) 02:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Frankly George, I'm starting to question your competence in this area, my impression is that you are a net negative, and that this should be escalated. 02:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceoil ( talk • contribs)

I'll withdraw the nominations and not discuss the samples further. I don't want my supposed conduct to be evaluated further. Is that fine? George Ho ( talk) 02:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Not really. You are hyper active in deletion noms, yet "don't want my supposed conduct to be evaluated further". There is obvs a major issue here. Ceoil ( talk) 03:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

What do you think I should do to remedy what you think is an "issue" about me, especially in the future? George Ho ( talk) 03:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I think maybe withdraw the nom. See here by Nikkimaria, one of the most respected file reviewers on FAC, where she asks on a nom for an album "Might a non-free sound sample be justified?" Ceoil ( talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Whoa. You said you're not fine with me withdrawing, but then you said maybe I should. What changed your mind? BTW, I'll comment at one FAC subpage soon. George Ho ( talk) 04:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I said i was ok with you withdrawing, but not at you not "want[ing] my supposed conduct to be evaluated further. Is that fine?". This is getting very tedious. Your lack of competence is exhausting and Im not the only one to think so this week. Ceoil ( talk) 04:20, 4 December 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.

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 ⚡ 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Milabrianmulroney.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Habsfannova ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is not the user's own work. Per the Government of Canada, this Canadian photo was taken in 1984 and credited to Robert Cooper. Also, it does not pass the criteria of Template:PD-Canada-Crown. As this photo was not PD by the 1996 URAA restoration, this is currently in copyright in the United States per Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:54, 4 December 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.

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 ⚡ 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Cibo (Portland, Oregon) logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Another Believer ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaced with File:Cibo-logo.svg on Commons and no longer used in any articles. Ixfd64 ( talk) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat ( talk) 04:30, 4 December 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.

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 14:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:LDV Convoy orange lights (front).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davey2010 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:LDV Convoy orange lights (rear).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davey2010 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These non-free images are used in the LDV Convoy article to illustrate specific conigurations. These vehicles are still in use so it is not clear how WP:NFCC1 is met. As well, these two images are used to illustrate a single configuration of the vehicle so WP:NFCC#3a is an issue. Must two images be used? This is a single configuration of the vehicle. Not every configuration must be illustrted in order for a reader to understand a topic. The removal of these non-free images would not detract from a reader's undertsanding of teh topic of the LDV Convoy and so does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq ( talk) 03:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - My main goal with those images was to show where the flashy lights were - I know the text can be changed but I didn't think text alone could show this, The last image shows the rear top lights that only come with the corner orange lights (these weren't standard),
  I did make the suggestion on Whpq's talkpage that both images could be roof-cropped and merged into one image ?, Of course if that cannot happen then I guess these should be deleted, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 12:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. There's really no jusitfication for this type of non-free use per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. If, however, the WP:CONSENT of the person who took the photos can be obtained, the files can be re-licensed and kept. Since the same photographer took both photos and originally uploaded them to their Flickr account, the uploader might want to give WP:REQUESTFLICKR a try. Some users have had success in gaining the copyright holder consent in the past by contacting copyright holders, and Flickr licenses can be changed farily easily (I think). All that would be needed is for the Flickr account holder to change the licensing of the photos from "All right preserved" to an acceptable " Creative Commons" license. It seems the default Flickr licensing is "All rights reserved", which means many who upload their photos probably don't give it much thought. There are different types of CC licenses, but any of the ones listed here would be fine for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  Maybe I'm over-reading this but FREER states "with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created" (emphasis mine) - yes in one sense if the vehicle with the lights is there and the photographer wants to upload under a cc license then in that sense it would fail FREER however in another sense there weren't that many roof-light-models built and the chances of this turning up is slim to none so in that sense No a free image couldn't be created as like I said not that many were built and those that did exist have probably since been scrapped.....

  Perhaps irrelevant but both Gumtree [1] and Ebay [2] list only the non-roof-light versions so again these would be no opportunity to get a CC picture,

  In regards to WP:NFC#CS - Whilst there isn't a section on the lights it does get mentioned so IMHO that should be enough, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  WP:NFCC#8 is not simply a case of the lights being mentioned. Contextual significance needs to look at the article as a whole, and has two parts to it. The presence of the non-free content would need to significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, and its removal would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't think that is met here. This light configuration is just one variant of many, and removal of these images would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the LD Convoy topic. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  I was going to ask "without the images how would the reader know where the lights would be ?" however the obvious answer would be to change the configuration sentence however IMHO if we changed the sentence I don't believe it would be enough to make the reader understand it - adding the rear roof lights to that sentence would IMHO only confuse the reader even more,

  That all being said I do agree with your sentiments regarding one of many variants and that it wouldn't change the readers understanding of the article as a whole, When you put it like that it makes the images all but pointless I suppose - I just felt images would do a better job than text alone, – Davey2010 ^Talk 14:38, 6 December 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.

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 ⚡ 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Pouya Sarai.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aras2006 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. Furthermore, this file is obviously a crop from somewhere. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 14:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT can be WP:VRT verified. Given the subject of the photo Pouya Saraei is still living, there would seem to be zero chance of converting this to non-free content per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:57, 6 December 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.

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 ⚡ 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Pouya Saraei 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aras2006 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 14:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT can be WP:VRT verified. Given the subject of the photo Pouya Saraei is still living, there would seem to be zero chance of converting this to non-free content per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:56, 6 December 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.