Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13

Samples of Glenn Gould recordings

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: Procedural close/not actionable. Not clear what is being requested. If file(s) should be deleted and/or unlinked, please say which one(s). No prejudice to re-nomination with clearer rationale. -FASTILY 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of samples was de-PRODded per Cjmarsicano rationale: Guild’s performance of the Bach Prelude is distinctive because of his playing the famous arpeggiated chords staccato rather than legato like most pianists. It is a prime example of Gould’s specializing in Bach’s repertoire. All of the samples are used for only the Glenn Gould article. However, Gould has been already known to readers as a "classical pianist". If a sample helps readers understand his piano techniques described in musical terms, then great. However, the samples are of recordings of century-old works that Gould conducted in a piano or an organ. Ah... just now, I found out he composed his own works. Maybe one of his own works can be sampled if necessary.

Meanwhile, regarding the samples, I can hear piano or organ performances. I'm unsure whether the samples associate well with what is described in text and whether they are needed for further conveyance and understanding of him as a "classical pianist" and of his piano styles. Furthermore, four may be an excessive amount unless I stand corrected. Either at least one of the samples must be kept, or they must be all deleted. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 13 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:Saddle up! The Lake Kabetogama Walleye.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D or 3D artworks in the United States. Appears to be an unused personal image. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The uploader left a comment on my talk page saying they agree the photo should be deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:27, 19 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:We Are Family by Sister Sledge UK 12-inch single side-A.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: Procedural close/not actionable. Open for a week and half with no comments. Please direct specific source/copyright questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks, FASTILY 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, most (if not all) of the whole label portion of the UK 12" single is ineligible for US copyright, especially the Atlantic Records logo. However, I've not yet seen an image of the Cotillion Records logo in Commons, so I uploaded the image here instead of Commons in case of doubt. Both Atlantic and Cotillion logos are properties of American record labels. The Cotillion logo itself has a "C", a circle border around it, a very tiny shape (probably an isosceles triangle?) to make a tiny window appear like a vinyl's shiny reflection (or something like that), and a tiny dot in the logo center. However, I don't think the Cotillion logo itself meets US's originality threshold.

As "made in UK", the UK label was copyrighted as a "typographical arrangement" of a "published edition" for 25 years since its first publication. Yet I wonder whether c:COM:TOO UK still applies, regardless of the "typographical arrangement" copyright, and whether the label itself should be transferred to Commons. Well, the logos are American, and other elements can be also seen in other US pressings, like this one, yet... George Ho (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC); expanded, 05:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the whole green-white-red label design has been used for many 1970s US vinyl albums as well (this one, that one). Should be familiar to those who own US album vinyls. Also, seems like a variant of the one used in a 1967 album. In summary, I hope it's okay to transfer. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 19 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:NewYorkTimesWordleLogo.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logo, uploaded as non-free. There is only text in this logo, so it seems too simple to be copyrightable. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is below the C:COM:TOO. Convert to {{pd-textlogo}}. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 18 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:TorcaSandzak.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Uploader uploaded pictures of a screen as own work. Doubtful ownership of file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look like a useful image, and licencing is questionable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 14 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:NoviPazar-BaneRaska1999.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Uploader uploaded pictures of a screen as own work. Doubtful ownership of file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 14 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:NoviPazar-MladostLucani1998.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Uploader uploaded pictures of a screen as own work. Doubtful ownership of file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 14 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:NoviPazar-Loznica13.6.2004.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Uploader uploaded pictures of a screen as own work. Doubtful ownership of file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 14 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:FKNoviPazar1988IISaveznaliga.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Uploader uploaded pictures of a screen as own work. Doubtful ownership of file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:40, 14 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.