Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peripitus (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 8 June 2009 (→Justdancesheet.JPG: kept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
May 29
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Diplomats America.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kemor (notify | contribs).
- Precedent is that band logos are unencyclopedic and should not be included. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Victoria'ssecretlogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grandpafootsoldier (notify | contribs).
- No more need, since we have File:Victoria's Secret.svg, and poor quality. Not useful for any forseeable purpose. -Zeus-u|c 04:45, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:02MA-Claudia1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nightscream (notify | contribs).
- Unused and no value for project—portrait of non-notable, unidentified person by non-notable artist. Postdlf (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I originally uploaded this to decorate my User Page, before I learned that it was not considered appropriate under User Page guidelines to do this, at which point I removed it. Feel free to delete it. Nightscream (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HorsesHorses - Patti Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Watusi (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (crop and some text) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). Inclusion of this image is simply decoration. Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PaulSimonSongbookCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Staecker (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (colours mostly) can (and are currently in the article) be easily described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). Inclusion of this image is simply decoration. Peripitus (Talk) 07:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the uploader- this image was uploaded before the almost-identical one that's now in the lead. I agree this version is no longer needed. Staecker (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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: keep this one, delete the inferior-quality duplicate, as per discussion below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:ABBA - Waterloo (CD).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamer.se (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2009+May+29%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (colour and some text) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I would nominate the other image for deletion instead: [1] Its quality is terrible. This image here, in contrast, is so much better. You nominated the wrong image Peripitus. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ABBA_-_Waterloo_(Original_Polar_LP).jpg){kind=link}
- I'm ok with deleting one, and have no preference for which one. Just having two close to identical images is rather pointless and doesn't sit with the site's goals and rules - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this one as sufficient, delete the Polar LP one as too low quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Scarletswalk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Easterbradford (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (border, perhaps colour and some text) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Enemaofthestateredcross.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Borgy (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (a cross added and contrast changed) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (background colour crop and some text) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional non-free image in an single article with a close to identical one already in the infobox. The small differences (colour) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional non-free image in an single article with a close to identical one already in the infobox. The small differences (colour) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mariahcareybutterfly2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thekangaroorat (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (her pose) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is "close to identical", at least not in the way your other noms here are. The pose is quite different. I'm not sure that here a text description would give the reader a complete understanding of the alternate cover. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not as identical - However the background is the same, as it the hairstyle, lighting, clothing, composition, photographer. It's just another shot the same shoot sequence. I reckon that the text (if really needed)—"An alternate cover used the same imagery, though with her in an oblique pose and her hair partly obscuring her fact"—while not giving the reader complete understanding, prevents their understanding being significantly impaired due to the lack of this image - Peripitus (Talk) 00:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is "close to identical", at least not in the way your other noms here are. The pose is quite different. I'm not sure that here a text description would give the reader a complete understanding of the alternate cover. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mike Oldfield - Incantations CD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TubularWorld (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (colouring and a font change) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:25, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MCMXC aD Limited Edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aston (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (text and possibly colour) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:25, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AnEveningofYesMusicPlus1994.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justin Foote (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (small colour difference, text moved and a crop of the image) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AnEveningofYesMusicPlus1996.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justin Foote (notify | contribs).
- Additional non-free image in an album article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (small colour difference, text moved and a crop of the image) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (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.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG){kind=link}
- File:Sans logique (maxi).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europe22 (notify | contribs).
.JPG&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2009+May+29%5D%5D){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
- Additional non-free image in a song article with a close to identical one already in the lead. The small differences (colour and text) can easily be described with free text and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate). With the small differences, that can be described with text, the image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:38, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC) The file image resolution is so small that its value is highly limited. I can barely see the things in the image. There is also no metadata. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I doubt the uploader, Mr. Miles Gerety, is user Aristoteles83 who supposedly took this image. Given the ultra low resolution, it is unlikely the uploader took it himself--so he cannot claim copyright. Anyway, we have many Commons images of Gran Sasso. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Screenshot Ballad of Buckethead.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HexaChord (notify | contribs).
- This non-free image is not the subject of commentary in the article and does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article, as required by WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Savage album.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andreasegde (notify | contribs).
- Album covers should only be used in the article about the album, not to decorate the article about the band or one of its members. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom here. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article about this particular single (which is not an album, BTW) and this is the only photo in the article about the band. Go black and white, I suppose?--andreasegde (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (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.
- 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 as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Fameballjustdance2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
- This non-free image is used decoratively and fails to improve readers' understanding of the article, contrary to WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if you want. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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: - Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Justdancesheet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
- It seems very unclear as to how this non-free image substantially increases readers' understanding of the article. The vast majority of Wikipedians probably can't read sheet music to understand it. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:This image is used to give the chord progression of the song. The article passed its GA review and the reviewer obviously didnot see any problem with it. The chord progression as described in the article is supported by this sheet music from the reputed Musicnotes.com and enhances the readers understanding by showing them how a progression is arranged. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:It is useful to have the specific details shown on the sheet music as well as being able to hear them (if one's ear is that attuned) in the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.118.182 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Surely sheet music is redundant to actually hearing the song? There is already a sample. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NFCC#3. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright we should concern ourselves with here is the copyright in the notes of the music, rather than copyright in the image which is an entirely conventional representation of the notes and contributes no creativity. The question here is, does showing the notes significantly add to the understanding a reader gets from the article, to an extent that justifies the copyright taking. I'll defer to anyone with more expert knowledge, eg someone from WikiProject Music on that. My guess is: it might. Jheald (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jheald is correct about the copyright. An excerpt from the score will always add to the information in any article about music. DGG (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree with Jheald about the weighting of copyright concerns for the sheet music as an image and for the musical substance. He is quite right in saying that these are two separate issues, but to my knowledge it is not true that the image could attract no copyright. Musical typesetting is enough of a creative act to create separate copyright on the typeset sheet – that is the reason why sheet music editions even of classical old masters are typically copyrighted by their publishers. I agree that our fair-use claim is good enough to allow an image in principle, but I would prefer it if somebody could re-engrave it to make at least that part of the copyright situation free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I used to minor in music, so I have a decent grasp of creativity in music. Musical typesetting is not enough of a creative act to create separate copyright on the typeset sheet of noncopyrighted music unless it is a differing arrangement from the original. Substituting a trombone for a sackbut's part isn't enough (as the sheet music itself doesn't change, but only the instrument), but rewriting a cello's part for a baritone requires some creativity (as a baritone cannot accomplish the same musical techniques as a cello and vice versa). In this instance, it is indeed a copyrighted piece of music, but including a small clip (6 bars) is no more a copyvio than quoting a small portion of the lyrics. I personally find this version of an image to be interesting enough for inclusion and a rather unique implementation of WP:NFCC, but not a violation of it. — BQZip01 — talk 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Reading up a little bit more, it seems you may be right, at least as far as US law goes – purely typical musical typesetting is apparently understood not to be a separate object of copyright. In that case, I agree with keep, as a useful instance of fair use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fut Perf?!? Is that you?!? Glad to see we can agree on something, but I'm not so sure what that means... :-) — BQZip01 — talk 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Reading up a little bit more, it seems you may be right, at least as far as US law goes – purely typical musical typesetting is apparently understood not to be a separate object of copyright. In that case, I agree with keep, as a useful instance of fair use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 7 June 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source website seems to say (bottom right corner) that the material is not licensed for derivative works. However, I don't speak Bulgarian, so I am not certain. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is written: "Съдържанието на този сайт може да се използва при условията на Криейтив комънс лиценз." meaning "The contents of this site can be used under the conditions of Creative commons license." --Gligan (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's cc-by-nd-2.5, which is not an acceptable license for use on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is written: "Съдържанието на този сайт може да се използва при условията на Криейтив комънс лиценз." meaning "The contents of this site can be used under the conditions of Creative commons license." --Gligan (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image was added to song article to illustrate music video when there was already a picture that did, so this image violates WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There's already another, better, screenshot for the video - so no need for this. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alicia Keys - No One music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a screen shot of this number 1 hit song. There are no screenshots in the article--just a picture of the album. Viewers may want to have a look at the screenshot...and we have screenshots for other articles. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Screen shots aren't for decorating articles. Policy clearly states that media must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This image does not do that. — Σxplicit 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if viewer's want to take a gander at a screenshot they can buy the DVD, or go to a website without the word "free" in its motto. This image is simply decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:32, 30 May 2009 (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.