Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 6

December 6

File:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sample's contextual significance to the whole parent album and the TV programme questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon skimming through both articles, I don't see sourced commentary on this song in particular. An article about the song itself that also has sourced commentary might better make the case for keeping the clip, but none exists at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep at The Computer Programme, the entire category there is focused primarily on this sample. Delete it at Computer World however. This0k (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cult - She Sells Sanctuary excerpt.ogg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep for She Sells Sanctuary only.. Whpq (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File's contextual significance to the whole parent album, whole song, and whole band questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance George Ho (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Within She Sells Sanctuary, there is a sourced commentary regarding the song from John Leland at Spin, which talks about the specific instrumentality (the drums driving the song, and the guitar being the key sound, etc.). I also do think that having the audio there substantially increases readers' understanding of the song, as it's kinda impossible to impart to readers knowledge on how the song sounds using words alone in the way that having a short audio clip does. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, but remove FUR for all the articles except the article about the logo.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image has its own article - Tongue and lips logo - and should be removed from all others (WP:NFC#UUI:6). — Ирука¹³ 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Paul Rosenberg, with Odalisque in a Yellow Robe, 1937, by Henri Matisse.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Revert to fair use * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the image was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. It needs to be returned to its non-free state. — Ирука¹³ 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to fair use Is the evidence not the fact he died in the 50's, and that's him in the photo so unless somehow it was taken after 1977(which is unlikely) then it's not public domain but I highly doubt it was. There of course is the probability it wasn't published in the US but once again, that's highly unlikely.

Edit: Okay so it's definitely not been published in the public domain in the US. This0k (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Portrait of Jeb Stuart Magruder - NARA - 194667.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name corresponds to a different image, housed in the National Archives: see File:Portrait of Jeb Magruder - NARA - 194667.tif. The original source and authorship of this image is unclear and dubious: versions of it appear uncredited for instance at https://www.hullfuneralservice.com/obituary/Jeb-Magruder and https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/gazette/name/jeb-magruder-obituary?id=17145210. If Cybrchef (talk · contribs) is in fact the creator and/or legal copyright holder of this photograph, then credible evidence of permission should be forwarded to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) --Animalparty! (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the licensing should be changed to fair use. The person in question is deceased so keeping the photo under a wrong license has no point.

This0k (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use does not apply per WP:NFCC, because there are free equivalent photographs with credible public domain rationale at Commons:Category:Jeb Stuart Magruder. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but it is not an accurate photo of what he looked like before he died. In that case I think fair use image would be better than a poor quality public domain image so I'm saying rever to fair use and keep. This0k (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The public domain image suffices IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Legoland Discovery Display of Kauffman Stadium.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I marked this image for deletion as WP:NFCC:8. However, then I remembered that there are many free images of construction sets. And indeed, the image is just a building, which, according to c:COM:TOYS, is acceptable (and individual figures would pass for c:COM:DEMINIMIS (however, while searching, I even came across a good image of Lego-Harry-Potter, so I don't even know)). On the third hand, this composition was created by a third party and can be considered a "sculpture" - from the "for use" category back to the "for viewing" category..? — Ирука¹³ 22:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – De minimis doesn't apply, unfortunately. The image is highly focused on the Lego construction of a baseball field/stadium, and I've yet to see the image treating such construction as trivial or something to pass by. The c:COM:TOYS is subjective at best; somehow, it doesn't explicitly address construction of Lego bricks. Rather it uses toy figures as examples, like toy airplanes. Well, plenty of photos displaying construction of Lego bricks and pieces have been deleted at Commons. As you stated, the image fails to be contextually significant to the entertainment center, meaning the omission of this file wouldn't affect such understanding in any way. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:KNSB IowaPublicRadio logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually non-free? (If so, it would have to be removed and deleted as we generally don't allow decorative non-free former logos.) It appears to be the same basic logo as File:WOI IowaPublicRadio logo.png, which is on Commons and is asserted to be below the threshold of originality (or else it wouldn't be on Commons at all!). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:F5. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's the same logo. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 08:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it below the threshold because it so then Delete This0k (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.