Wikipedia:files For Discussion 2022 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. George Harrison and Bob Dylan rehearsed " If Not for You" before a concert. The text sufficiently explains this, a non-free screenshot of the rehearsal is not justified under policy. ✗ plicit 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, as the uploader. I can't see how this violates WP:NFCC#1 when a free alternative does not exist and certainly can't be created now, because one of the subjects (George Harrison) died 20 years ago.

With regard to WP:NFCC#8, I don't believe the text does sufficiently convey the significance of the rehearsal image. Several commentators cited in the article focus on the visual aspect, which only came to light with the release of the footage in 2005, not just the fact (which obviously could be explained in words alone), and how that aspect reflects the depth of the Harrison–Dylan connection. Jack Whatley of Far Out Magazine refers to subtle glances and body language cues, which can't be conveyed fully in words. David Fricke of Rolling Stone (whose comments I've added just recently) talks about the song becoming a statement on Harrison and Dylan's friendship, given they perform it together with such intimacy.

Less directly, it also supports other themes in the article: "If Not for You" was the most popular song on New Morning and a concert tour was expected to follow up and complete Dylan's creative comeback. He didn't want to return to the stage, as it turned out, but he did make an exception for Harrison and his Concert for Bangladesh project. Another theme, in the section on Harrison's 1970 recording, is how "If Not for You" and other Dylan-associated songs on the All Things Must Pass album ensured Dylan had a felt-but-not-visible "presence" on Harrison's debut album as a solo artist. Dylan's arrival at the Madison Square Garden rehearsal stage is the realisation of that "presence" (and a note in the section where the image appears explains the emotional significance of this moment).

On a more general note, I'm confused how there can be an issue with including the Harrison–Dylan image, given that secondary sources recognise its significance, when I raised images here for discussion that are completely ignored in their relevant articles and they were similarly ignored in terms of engagement from Ffd editors, back in May. (I'm talking about the non-free images that are still used at the top of Break-up of the Beatles and The Beach Boys' 1968 US tour with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) Yes, other stuff exists, but I try to be very mindful about including non-free media (which was the reason for seeking some guidance from outsiders about the other files), and I don't see a problem with this 1971 rehearsal image. JG66 ( talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - I appreciate the depiction of Dylan and Harrison performing the song at a live concert. However, I merely see two singers doing the duet. Apparently, to me, the image's purpose would be more about identifying merely Dylan and/or Harrison than displaying what would be considered significant to the song itself and to a specific version. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the image improves understanding of what can be already understood without this image. In other words, presumably, average readers can understand what the "Live performances" section says without the image around. Right? George Ho ( talk) 02:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, I think it meets the standard because of the comments of David Fricke and Jack Whatley. The latter writes about "some shared moments and some body language cues", something the reader appreciates more deeply through actually seeing the image. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 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:Friedrich Leibacher.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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 02:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Months ago the article about the perpetrator was merged into Zug massacre as WP:BIO1E has applied. Some other perpetrator images have been kept per other FFD discussions. However, I don't believe that the image may comply with WP:NFCC#8. The article is about the tragic event, and the event was already tragic enough. I don't see how the image improves the understanding or identifies the event. It identifies the perpetrator, but he is not the main subject of the already-merged article. George Ho ( talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. The perpetrator is arguably one of the core subjects of a mass shooting article, which is in part also his biography. This warrants illustration. Sandstein 07:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete it's pretty clearly a failure of fair use and adds literally nothing to the readers' understanding. Could be a picture of anyone. Now, a picture of the actual mass shooting would be fine, but not this. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: The image serves to illustrate the Perpetrator section of the article, of which this individual is ostensibly the main subject. — Legoless ( talk) 14:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 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:Lotus Land Story.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 March 27. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Lotus Land Story.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Lovelight Alstroemeria Records.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:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.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 March 20. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 02:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.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:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.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: withdrawn by me (just to start the merger discussion). ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 01:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song) was merged into Music of Final Fantasy VIII in August of last year. Sure, the "Music" article has a section about the song. However, I'm unsure anymore whether the cover art is necessary and meets WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI. Id est the music of the video game, i.e. the article subject, may be already understood without a cover art of the specific single release. George Ho ( talk) 22:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Undo merge of article and therefore keep the file. It was a WP:BOLD action, not based on discussion or consensus (see prior 2007 discussion on talk page). Various cited material was omitted, such as the song's role in gaining Western fans for the singer, and cover versions. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Looking at the old revision, the cited source verifying cover versions was Discogs (unreliable). Which other sources have been omitted? George Ho ( talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I was thinking of the citations from Excite [1] and BBC. [2] – Fayenatic London 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, the consensus must have implicitly changed, right? George Ho ( talk) 08:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
"unless it is disputed or reverted". @ PresN: I am disputing your merge, as it was a huge hit as a single, so was therefore notable, despite your rationale that it was not included on other Wong albums. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The two references that you note I dropped covered two sentences: "The song was popular among gamers in the West, and brought Faye Wong to the attention of many who were not previously familiar with her music." (BBC) and "Aki reports composer Nobuo Uematsu as saying her version 'shed light on "Eyes on Me"'." (Excite). I'm not well-versed in when singles should get their own articles, but in this case, even if we add those two sentences, it's a 4-paragraph section that's been padded into an article via tables, lyrics quotes, and discogs cites, so it honestly seems to fit better in the Music of FF8 article. -- Pres N 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. I offer no opinion on whether the merge should have been undone or not, and in any event it should be the subject of a separate discussion. However, there is no valid rationale for deleting the image of the cover art in my opinion. There are no other fair use images being used in the article, so it certainly satisfies WP:NFCC#3a. The song was commercially released as a single, and was fairly successful both within the context of sales data and it seemed to help raise the artist's profile outside of her home market. I would say that satisfies criteria #8 with regards to contextual significance as well. Haleth ( talk) 15:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Haleth: What if I upload and then insert the cover art of the FF8 original soundtrack? Would that affect the single cover's NFCC compliance, or is the FF8 soundtrack cover art unnecessary? George Ho ( talk) 06:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Fayenatic london, PresN, and Haleth: I thought about withdrawing the FFD nomination, then undoing the redirect, and then starting the merger discussion. Would that do? I'll renominate when the merger discussion is over. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
- @ George Ho: Yes, I would be happy with that. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 25 February 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.

Dance Again music video

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:Dance again (video).jpg - FASTILY 00:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I PRODded the screenshot of Jennifer Lopez and her then-boyfriend Casper Smart going to kiss, assuming that it's neither significant enough nor necessary nor compliant with WP:NFCC#8. However, the screenshot was de-PRODded under assumption of sufficient critical commentary. Rather than debate over the same image, and after the PRODding, I decided to upload two other screenshots: one orgy scene with Lopez in it, other with Lopez and Smart dancing.

If at least one screenshot must be kept, then I would lean toward the one(s) I uploaded and delete the one uploaded by AJ9. The orgy scene may resemble the single cover art used in the infobox, but it also illustrates what critics were concerned about. The dancing scene illustrates another part of critics' concerns but also further what the music video would be about. If I scrap out the orgy scene and use the dance scene, the dance scene alone wouldn't adequately illustrate what most critics were concerned about. On the other hand, if I scrap out the dance scene and use the orgy scene, the orgy scene alone would prove critics' point but would not adequately explain what the music video was actually about.

However, no objections to deleting all the screenshots if there's no consensus to keep any (or all) of them. Indeed, I'm unsure whether at least one of the screenshots would increase understanding of its significance and would be too significant for deletion. I uploaded those screenshots just in case. I'm still concerned about whether most readers will fully understand the music video without a screenshot and will see free content as adequate enough to explain the music video well without one. Nonetheless, I can stand corrected. George Ho ( talk) 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (see below comment matching this timestamp: 02:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)) reply

Keep the orgy scene screenshot since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusio. Aspects ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep the orgy image, and at least one of the other two images, since either enhances the reader's understanding of Smart's appearance in the video, which is the subject of significant sourced commentary. Colin M ( talk) 00:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nom's comment: Per above comments, in order to speed up the process, I'm withdrawing nominations on two screenshots that I uploaded per comments above. Leaving nomination on the one uploaded by AJ9 intact/remaining. George Ho ( talk) 02:14, 24 February 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:A classic foreland basin model.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 ⚡ 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Orphaned, superseded by File:A classic foreland basin model.svg on Commons. ✗ plicit 02:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat ( talk) 14:42, 24 February 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:Tectnoic events related to Singtali and Subathu Formations.svg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Orphaned vector with display errors. File:Tectnoic events related to Singtali and Subathu Formations.png on Commons properly displays the graphic. ✗ plicit 02:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat ( talk) 14:43, 24 February 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:Tectnoic events related to Singtali and Subathu Formations.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 ⚡ 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Orphaned, superseded by File:Tectnoic events related to Singtali and Subathu Formations.png on Commons. ✗ plicit 03:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat ( talk) 14:43, 24 February 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:Avinash Iragavarapu.jpeg

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 ⚡ 14:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Uploaded unfree files on commons. Doubtful own work. -- Minorax^{«¦
talk¦»} 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 14:44, 24 February 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:CherokeeHighSchool(Tennessee).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 ⚡ 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Image is from the town's chamber of commerce according to the description. VRT permission is needed. Currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 00:27, 25 February 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.