Orphaned, Permission not specific for GFDL.
Nv8200ptalk 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The image was being used on the user's page until an anon removed it, citing CSD G11. I'd revert but I'm not sure that act constituted vandalism. Perhaps the edit should be undone and the image unorphaned. -
Nard 19:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept and restored to user page.howcheng {
chat} 16:41, 13 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-free copyrighted photograph, unable to determine if it's promotional or not (source link is dead). Should be replaceable by a screenshot, which would be a smaller percentage of a copyrighted work.
Videmus OmniaTalk 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These photos (including lower XfD's) were orignally included in the article about Catalina Yachts, but some editors bitched about it looking too much like a catalog for the line. I did not protest the removal of the photos from the article. I support whatever choice serves the WP project best, regarding these orphan photos. Cheers! --
Kevin Murray 04:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This is an .ogg file, one of many of Keane's songs, and is under fair use. There are quite a few of keanes songs on the various pages, thus eliminating the rationale that it significantly enhances the encyclopedia: it does not. Also, this has been previously deleted before and the uploader,
User:Fluence has threatened on
User:ST47's talk page to continue to include this file if it gets deleted again. Further, does not have a fair use rationale for every instance, it only has one single fair use rationale.
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. This latter reason by BigrTex is quite more rational and logical (and true as I knew it was stated) than the nomination itself which relies on a more ambiguous statement so I do support deletion now. However, a comment for Swatjester, 3% from all Keane songs isn't too much. --
Fluence 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
This is an .ogg file, one of many of Keane's songs, and is under fair use. There are quite a few of keanes songs on the various pages, thus eliminating the rationale that it significantly enhances the encyclopedia: it does not. Also, this has been previously deleted before and the uploader,
User:Fluence has threatened on
User:ST47's talk page to continue to include this file if it gets deleted again. Further, does not have a fair use rationale for every instance, it only has one single fair use rationale.
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Do not delete. Although is considered to be one of the band's best works,
Tom Chaplin (lead singer of Keane) has encouraged the illegal downloading of this particular song (as stated on its FUR) in the United States, as stated on the band's fanzine of 2004 (
[1]) due the lack of the track in the album versions for that country. Furthermore, I didn't tell ST47 I would upload these again here.--
Fluence 23:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Just because the artist encourages illegal downloading, does not make the downloading legal. We don't really care what the artist wants or not, fact is, illegal is still illegal.
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 02:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Perhaps we should delete one of the other fair use media of this artist and keep this one then? Your deletion rationale is we have too many songs by this artist...maybe this is the one we should keep? -
Nard 02:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
We don't need any of them. Regardless, all of these Keane songs have been speedy deleted at least 4 times. One, I just found, was IFD'd, so I've speedied it as well as a recreation. That many deletions is a pretty good sign that we shouldn't have it.
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I can assure if this were a Beatles' or Maddona's song then it should be not deleted, but of course if it's from a band less people know then you can do whatever you want with it. The artist can do too whatever they want with their music but the only ones encouraging this thought are actually Muse. I don't think BBC was too happy when they threatened Muse...--
Fluence 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
For one thing
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Nobody is "discriminating" on your band's song here. Secondly, you need to firmly understand that just because a band says it is ok to do an admittedly illegal thing, does NOT make it ok to do so. If Keane told you it was ok to beat children with sticks, that does not make it OK to do so. The act is just as much against the law as subverting copyright is. And once again, it's not established for certain whether Keane or their record label holds the rights to make such decisions, even were they legal decisions to make, which they are not. I'm sorry but just because you like it is not good enough.
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears to me that this sample meets the criteria of
Wikipedia:Music samples and
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, neither of which limits number of samples by artist. I think that at one time there were likely an excessive number of Keane samples, but that implies that we should prune them, not eliminate them altogether. At this time, it appears to have a rationale for each use, since it is only used on one page. ~
BigrTex 16:34, 7 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Contradictory license information: Tagged as GFDL and cc-by-2.5, but the watermark says "all rights reserved" —
High on a tree 12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC).reply
Keep and crop watermark. Dz Studios is free to relicense their work any way they want, and you must first reserve rights before you can give them back. (Standard legalese in other words). -
Nard 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep If they say all rights reserved and then upload it themselves then thats is up to them, what are they going to do sue themselves?
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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per
WP:NFCC#1 and
WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image being used to show what a living person looks like, this image really does not contribute to understanding of the film in question.
Videmus OmniaTalk 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
No verifiable source or copyright status.
Videmus OmniaTalk 16:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is credited (C) Stadt Marburg on this obit, matching the information given by the uploader.
[2]. Would appear at the very least to be fair use, so suggest re-tag and keep.
Jheald 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I changed the tag, added a rationale, and kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 23:56, 18 August 2007 (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.
No evidence of release as promotional photograph (no good source information). Replaceable by screenshot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 16:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free image being used decoratively - delete per
WP:NFCC#8, article contains no commentary on book cover or book.
Videmus OmniaTalk 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Decorative image.
Videmus OmniaTalk 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Appropriate to illustrate the visual style of the video, eg the rather bleak coldness of the beach under a desaturated sky, the plain black styling of the singer, etc.
Jheald 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article goes to some length to describe things that are happening in the video. This screenshot should be replaced by another one that actually depicts something that the article actually states. howcheng {
chat} 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only, as videos are discussed and compared in article. --
Knulclunk 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete and recommend replacement with a screenshot of some action that is actually described in the article (such as where she removes the excess clothing). howcheng {
chat} 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only, as videos are discussed and compared in article --
Knulclunk 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Should be replaced by a different screenshot where you can see the "1970s-period gown" better, since that's what the article actually describes. howcheng {
chat} 16:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Aside from the caption, the article doesn't even mention the video.
17Drew 10:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete... but because it's in a
Wikipedia:Image use policy-incompliant format for a screenshot (it should be in PNG). The screenshot illustrates the grainy quality of the performance shots in the video — if that was to be described in the article itself, it would be original research. Would it meet the non-free content criteria point linked to above if I added sources describing this graininess (and other aspects of the footage that the screenshot would illustrate in ways text alone could not)?
Extraordinary Machine 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is only a short blurb about the video and certainly an image just of her singing is not needed to understand that "a live music video was released". howcheng {
chat} 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. A one-sentence description of the video hardly counts as "critical commentary" on the scene being depicted. howcheng {
chat} 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only, delete from individual articles. Shows by example dress and style discussed in text. --
Knulclunk 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Image deleted. There was no commentary or discussion of image. It was a head shot of two people that relayed no significant information. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep to display the most successful and widespread music video of her entire career. I can't argue about the fair use of the UMass image below, but this is most certainly fair use.
Staxringoldtalkcontribs 16:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Totally unnecessary for reader understanding. No image is required to convey the concept that both Krauss and Paisley appeared in the music video together. howcheng {
chat} 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The image very well could illustrate points that words alone could not. But there's not enough in the article for that to be determined. Only one sentence about the video that states the name of the director and the premiere date, not even close to critical commentary.
17Drew 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
One sentence is hardly a section.
17Drew 10:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, this article talks about audio/VISUAL show A New Day... An image of a video enhances the article.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only image you could use for this article is the DVD cover, which doesn't exist yet. The article will have to go sans non-free images until then. This could easily be replaced by a photo of one of her Las Vegas performances. howcheng {
chat} 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Please tell me you're not using a bot for IfDs now. I'm not the original uploader and I make no claim to know anything about how the image is being used. You want
Bull Borgnine, and I can only assume you're using a bot now since you would have known that had you read the giant banner at the top of my talk page. This is just getting annoying.
17Drew 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry - you're the only uploader in the file history - the previous versions were deleted.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
That's why the banner on my talk page says to check the history; the original uploader will be there but not in the file history.
17Drew 01:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
It's OK to delete it, as long as you tell me the reason why you should (I asume it's because it does not represent the
Single (music) in any way). Clarify what's going on here and I will try my best to collaborate. (The warning in my post and my reading of this discussion did not help me undestand in any way). P.S. I've noticed that I'm not the original uploader of this, but I recall uploading the image before. Please, could someone explain to me what's going on?
Bull Borgnine 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep appropriately illustrative of the 1920s styling, and anachronistic rhinestone headphones, discussed in the article.
Jheald 09:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only. --
Knulclunk 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Image deleted. The image did not provide significant information to the article. Basically a headshot of the artist. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Appropriately illustrative of the 1950s styling and black and white film lighting discussed in the article.
Jheald 09:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not really. You can barely see the costumes and a picture is not needed to understand that the concept of "black and white". howcheng {
chat} 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Totally unnecessary for reader comprehension considering as the video isn't even mentioned in the article anywhere but the caption. howcheng {
chat} 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I've replaced it with
Image:AmericanPieVideo.png, which actually illustrates the video unlike useless close-ups, so this one's orphaned now anyway.
17Drew 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, video commentary. -
Thankyoubaby 04:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete and recommend replacement with a screenshot that shows something actually described in the article (such as the "famous midriff"). howcheng {
chat} 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, video commentary. -
Thankyoubaby 04:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete and recommend replacement with a screenshot of something that is actually discussed in the article. howcheng {
chat} 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit, discussed in the article.
Jheald 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."Keep for video commentary only. --
Knulclunk 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, video commentary. -
Thankyoubaby 04:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Image deleted. Discussion of the leopard skin outfit was not significant enough to warrant a fair use image. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 11:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no discussion of the video except to say one was released in the US and a different one was released in Canada. This image is not at all necessary for reader comprehension. howcheng {
chat} 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section.
Max24 11:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no discussion of the video except to say one was released in the US and a different one was released in Canada. This image is not at all necessary for reader comprehension. howcheng {
chat} 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot.
Videmus OmniaTalk 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep These templated messages aren't exactly helpful. The article discusses how the video is more "sexier and more confident" than the group's previous work. The screenshot seems to illustrate that pretty well by showing exactly how the video does that.
17Drew 01:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The reason i uploaded this was to demonstrate the change in Bardot's image, relevant to that specific part of the article. It shows the group with one less member and more raunchier and confident image.
Peter2012 6.19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The words "group with one less member and more raunchier and confident image" convey the same encyclopedic information as the image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image shows how the group presented "a raunchier and more confident image" -- ie exactly what that image was. There are innumerable different ways in which the group might have presented "a raunchier and more confident image". But this image shows exactly how they did, thus appropriately illustrating and clarifying the text.
Jheald 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Used commentary as permitted by
WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only. --
Knulclunk 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - the "raunchier and more confident" image is already being displayed in the album cover. howcheng {
chat} 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Image kept. The image clarifies what "new and confident" image means. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. User has given his best information on the source, which is what NFCC #10. The relevance of this is for us to assess the legal fair use position. Image is either a publicity photo, or (worst case) a photo taken for a contemporary magazine. Either way there is no suggestion of an NFCC #2 problem, which is what the source information is relevant to assess. Regarding NFCC #8 (significance), the look of the band (especially Steve Strange) was an important part of its distinctiveness, and the photo makes a valuable contribution to the reader's understanding of this.
Jheald 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, in the worst case (photo taken for a contemporary magazine), then we would indeed have a NFCC #2 problem. Thus, delete for not knowing the actual source. howcheng {
chat} 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply