Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

November 19

File:Madonna - get together.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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna - get together.ogg (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:SDU BLACK RGB.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: Relicense to fair use -FASTILY 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not too simple for copyright. Likely eligible for fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would be no problem to re-license this as {{
WP:OTHERIMAGE, but generic cherry imagery seems to be quite commonplace as seen in c:Category:Cherry icons, and there are also examples other silouettes like File:Apple logo black.svg or c:Category:Plain black SVG icons which might be worth consideration as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2020 (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:SaintDismas.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: Textbook

WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article(s) the file was used in are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 02:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This file was originally uploaded as

WP:REFUND if that's what ends up happening. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Marchjuly: if you'd like to appeal the decision at Commons, you can do so at c:Commons:Undeletion requests. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SaintDismas.png --Sreejith K (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2020 (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:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.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: Converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If someone can provide proof/examples/citations that this image is below German TOO, then it can be transferred to Commons -FASTILY 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's decide whether the image, currently used at Pump Up the Jam#M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy version, is free in both the United States (c:COM:TOO US) and its home country, Germany (c:COM:TOO Germany). If in both, then transfer it to Wikimedia Commons. If free in the US but not Germany, then {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If unfree in the US, then the image must either comply with NFCC, including "contextual significance" criterion (#8) (i.e. more than just "mark as non-free"), or be deleted.

IMO the cover art itself doesn't look original enough for the US copyright protection. I see computerized font and plain colors and shapes, i.e. nothing out of ordinary to me. But unsure whether it is original enough in Germany. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be below
WP:SONGCOVER. The question then is whether this particular cover version would be Wikipedia notable in its own right per NSONG. If it is, then an allowance seems to be generally made to allow the use of its cover art in the same manner as if it were being used in a stand-alone article. Reaching number 16 in Germany seems to meet criterion #1 for NSONG, but that same criterion also states that charting nationally is not sufficient on its own for establishing Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Reading
All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song) and (They Long to Be) Close to You), thus making an image of a release of the cover version a more suitable lead image. In some cases, we have critical commentary covering the original and cover versions more extensively, like Love Don't Live Here Anymore and I Will Always Love You.
Back to this image, in this case, I tried finding third-party sources discussing the Real McCoy version of the song in databases of Wikipedia Library, but found none from those databases as of date. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Usually (to me), if a cover version can't have its stand-alone article, then a song article covering the original and cover version(s) should have minimal amount of images as possible. is pretty much what I said above. I'm not suggesting that the cover art of a cover song is automatically OK in all cases; only that it's probably OK in cases where the cover version could support a stand-alone article, even if that article is just a stub, because it's deemed notable in its own right. It's not surpprising that there's no mention of images in NSONG because images have nothing to do with the Wikipedia notability of a song. Perhaps something could be added to SONGCOVER (like for example was done in
WP:FILMSCORE), but SONGCOVER is a WikiProject guideline and it's up to the WikiProject to add it if it feels such information is relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (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:Tool aenima cover dedication to hicks.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:NFCC#8: all this is really doing in the article is saying that they had a tribute to Hicks. This can easily be accomplished with text and there is no justification for this non-free media, especially since this article already contains several pieces of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

*Delete, there is no reason for that album cover to be used in the article about the band. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2020 (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:Ayala Triangle - Ninoy Aquino Monument (Ayala Ave. Cor. Paseo De Roxas, Makati; 2015-04-03).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of pano in the phils. Created by Amastacio Caedo, dead in 1990. No permission from Caedo heirs Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mrcl lxmna you may please stop sending Files for Discuission requests againts my images for the purpose of deleting them due to unfree panorama rights in the Philippines because your continuing actions are attack on Philippine tourism, arts and culture, as well as free speech. Back then you sent thousands of deletion requests on Wikimedia Commomns, now you're targeting English Wikipedia. Of course, my goal of contributing landscape images on Wikimewdia Foundation platforms is to provide the people especially content creators a free-yo-use alternative, since vast majority of images in the Internet aren't always usable due to strict copyright policies of photo publishers and authors. Lots of my images have been also used by mainstream media outlets as well. Specifically in this latest claim, the sculpture of late opposition leader Benigno Aquino, what I'm disputing here now is the application of copyright restrictions to structures which are now owned by the government. Erection and/or maintenance of these monuments, nationalistic syymbols and other historical sites are funded by the Republic and nationals, and it's the Filipino public who hold the ownership. Also, maybe you didn't know that some architectural works depicted on some images in question may be "works-for-hire" commissioned by the government. Finally, I'm questioning your existence here on Wikimedia foundation because just like what other uploaders said, I noticed that your sole purpose is to petition the removal of most Philippines pictures because of you claim of violating the rights of property owners and architects, and that's so very unpatriotic and anti-free speech. Now is the time for everyone to know about your business here on Wikimedia Foundation, and the first thing to know is your occupation (whether photographer, lawyer, architect, tourism expert or historian), and if your actions are really done with acknowledgement from the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHIL). Patrickroque01

My response to you @Patrickroque01:. First of all, I have a professor who is acknowledgeable in copyright law. And second, please do not use ad hominem statement against me. The monument may be paid and commissioned by the Makati city government, and the public may own the monument or even the nation. But the copyright holder is NOT the local government or not even the public or state. Youre confusing copyright with ownership which are 2 different things fyi. The ownership may be the government or the state, but the copyright is still with the heir of ANASTACIO CAEDO the sculptor of this mlnument. You should provide proof of evidence that the sculptor was a government employee, or he had a formal agreement through written contract transferring his economic and moral rights to the government or the state or public. But theres nothing indicated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastacio_Caedo that shows he was a government employee when he made his works including Ninoy Aquino Monument. Commissioning doesnt transfer copyright of the artists Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (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:McMicking Memorial.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of pano in the philippines. No permission from the designer of this memorial erected in 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Triangle_Gardens Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2020 (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.

Alternative cover arts of Pump Up the Jam (album)

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 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Technotronic Pump Up The Jam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Technotronic featuring Ya Kid K.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:अलेक्ज्याण्डर भ. टेरेन्टेभ.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 ⚡ 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image is merely taken from social media here (direct), which has no indication of a free license. Further, that vk account purportedly belongs to Sandesh Lamsal, whom the uploader has been socking to promote. A confirmed sock of the uploader, HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki, has indicated 1) they are not Sandesh Lamsal and 2) they've been taking content from social media. Evidence of a free license from the actual author is needed. Note this same image as File:अलेक्ज्याण्डर भ. टेरेन्टेभ Rus.jpg has been deleted from the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 20:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2020 (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.