Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

File:Megan-thee-stallion-essence-cover-quotes.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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted magazine cover fails WP:NFCC as currently used in article. Hog Farm _Talk 07:37, 18 December 2021 (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:San Diego 93.3 FM HD2 Pride Radio.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of copyrighted album cover. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is an example of visual metadata sent over HD subchannel. Mikus (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inferior derivative of artwork for Poetica (iiO album). --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (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:San Diego 96.5 FM KYXY HD2 radio.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted album cover. I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use because the parent articles HD Radio and KYXY do not cover this specific album. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it shows how image metadata can be passed over HD subchannel. By the way, what album this cover is derivative of? Mikus (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inferior derivative of artwork for Ministry of Sound: Maximum Bass, High Octane. --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is unable to hurdle the bar of WP:NFCC as a derivative of a copyrighted work - there's no reason why this couldn't be replaced by a free work. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 21 December 2021 (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:San Diego 98.1 FM KXSN HD3 radio.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted album cover. I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use because the parent article KXSN does not cover this specific album. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is an example of visual metadata sent over HD subchannel. Mikus (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inferior derivative of artwork for Nothing but the Beat. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2021 (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:Yaser Arafath New.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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - Wikipedia is not a webhost — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (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:Faith No More – I Started a Joke (CD1).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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art was de-PRODded on basis that it supposedly meets WP:NFCC#3a and that the Faith No More version of I Started a Joke is notable. Even if it may meet WP:NFCC#3a and can identify the release, I'm unsure whether the cover art also meets WP:NFCC#8. The version charted in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, but its chart performances were either (less than?) modest or unsuccessful. Furthermore, I think deleting the cover art still wouldn't affect how readers understand (i.e. learn about) the version and its notability and other versions of the song, regardless of the size of the section about that version. There are free images of the band in case that the cover art is deleted. George Ho (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. Aspects (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (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:Jesus Christ Pose (Soundgarden song - sample).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: keep in the main song article and remove elsewhere. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in Jesus Christ Pose and Soundgarden. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with reliably sourced captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Jesus Christ Pose, remove all other instances. The commentary on Soundgarden should be moved to the song article, as it meets WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 00:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied commentary/caption from the band article and pasted it into the song article. Hopefully good enough and not missing anything else. The redirect file:JesusChristPose.OGG must be deleted. George Ho (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2021 (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:Hands All Over (Soundgarden song - sample).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: keep in the main song article and remove elsewhere. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at the following articles: Hands All Over (Soundgarden song), Louder Than Love, and Soundgarden. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Hands All Over (Soundgarden song), remove all other instances. The commentary on Soundgarden should be moved to the song article, as it meets WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 00:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied caption/commentary from band article and pasted it into song article. Hopefully not missing anything else. The redirect file:HandsAllOver.OGG contains an old revision and must be deleted. --George Ho (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2021 (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:Bu Liao Qing.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this sample in-depth -FASTILY 00:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sample of buliao qing (song) is currently used for Mandopop article. However, I don't think the sample complies with WP:NFCC#8 at this time. Even the song article doesn't have sufficient commentary to support the sample. I don't think the genre article does either. Furthermore, there are already samples of spoken Mandarin Chinese in Commons if readers want to learn more about the language. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is perhaps the most popular song from Hong Kong in the period, and it also illustrates the change of musical style from Shanghai's shidaiqu to the sound of that period (such as the use of piano and strings, the text also mentions the change of musicians employed and musicianship in Hong Kong). Hzh (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made some additions recently in order to support the sample and are working hard to help the sample being kept. However, to me, the "1950s–1960s: The Hong Kong era" section... I can't tell whether the condition is bad or not. There aren't enough sources cited IMO. It also uses songs as examples. I tried finding sources discussing the song, but I just found articles about films using the same Chinese title. The assumption that deleting the sample would deprive readers from understanding more about the genre... I wonder why I just don't see that happening in my mind. --George Ho (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More can be written in that section, and more sources can be given. The section as it is is not complete, there is for example no mention of the influence of British bands like the Beatles and the band sound of Hong Kong, but that can be fixed later. There are distinct periods of musical styles (and the files are there to illustrate the change in style), by the 1970s, the synthesizer/electric organ sound became dominant (likely influenced by Japanese pop music), which is why your comment on The Moon Represents My Hear.ogg is wrong, because that was the dominant sound of that period. Hzh (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited: (Moved my replies about the other sample to #File:The Moon Represents My Heart - Teresa Teng.ogg). George Ho (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genre article still briefly mentions the song but lacks reliable sources verifying info about the song. I've yet to see why deleting the sample would still affect understanding of the genre (or the song). I'm unsure whether uploader's vote suffices enough to keep the sample. I wouldn't be surprised if the sample is deleted, despite just one vote at this point. --George Ho (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2021 (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:Oh Bondage Up Yours.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: Remove from Punk rock -FASTILY 00:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in Oh Bondage Up Yours! for infobox and Punk rock (now former FA) for its "1977–1978: Second wave" section. I'm not confident about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8 in those articles. Hearing the sample, either the critical commentary in the song article is insufficient to support the sample, or critical commentary can be already understood without it. Furthermore, the genre article's description about the song other than the caption is brief and insufficient enough to support the sample. I'm unsure whether the caption can help justify the use of the sample anymore.

Another criterion I'm concerned about is WP:NFCC#3a. Currently, the genre article uses several more samples, which may or may not be necessary. George Ho (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough critical commentary in the song's article to justify its use there. Aspects (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the song article, I recently pushed the sample down from infobox to "Content" section. I also copied the sample caption from the genre article to the song one. I still don't think the critical commentary of the genre article sufficiently supports the sample. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2021 (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:Basshunter – Please Don't Go.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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Basshunter version of "Please Don't Go" did well in Sweden but so-so (or worse) in Slovakia. Even with chart performances, and even as identification of the release, I'm unsure whether this cover art complies with WP:NFCC#8, is necessary, and is too significant (in context) and valuable to be deleted. The song was originally a late-1970s ballad hit, but later then it became a 1990s dance hit... twice. Furthermore, the Basshunter version is another dance version, and I'm unsure whether it has made much significant impact as prior versions. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2021 (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:Katherine Jenkins - Bring Me to Life.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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Katherine Jenkins version charted modestly (or worse) in Germany and the UK. Despite the content length about the version, the cover art wouldn't improve understanding of the song. Even if the cover art would, deleting the cover art still wouldn't affect how the song is understood significantly and contextually. George Ho (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 18 December 2021 (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:God Help the Outcasts scene.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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot was taken from Disney film adaptation of Hunchback of Notre Dame. The details about the scene is described in the caption (diff), but the light shining through the glass window... I'm unsure whether the image is needed to understand the song and the whole scene easily described (to me) by text. I'm also unsure whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an iconic frame from the song in it's original use, the animated film, that it meets WP:NFCC#8. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 18 December 2021 (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:The Anthropocene Reviewed Book Cover.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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image identifies a book adapted from the eponymous podcast The Anthropocene Reviewed. I appreciate the uploader's willingness to help readers recognize and identify the book. However, the book itself is used as part of a section of the article about the podcast. I'm unsure whether a book cover is necessary to understand what can be already explained in text, especially when the book is not the article's main topic in question. Nonetheless, I would hate to see the "Book" section split into a newer article just to help the book cover meet NFCC. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book would qualify for an independent article under WP:NBOOK and the cover would obviously be appropriate there. Having the two topics be covered together, rather than seperately, I think serves our readers better. I will also note that the book itself is not in the article about the podcast as the book infobox, of which the cover is inside of, is coded under the Book section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Barkeep here, this section is roughly equivalent to an article and the cover is appropriate there. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the uploader per the justifications above. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2021 (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:Go All the Way.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: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at power pop genre article. I'm uncertain whether the sample of Go All the Way (song) complies with WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, I think the song article doesn't have much commentary to support the sample. I appreciate the sample trying to exemplify how the genre progressed in the 1970s. However, I think readers can grasp what "sexually suggestive lyrics, considered risqué for the day" really mean without help from the sample... I hope. Moreover, I hope those reading the genre article should grasp what "heavy arena-rock hook to the cooing, teenybopper-friendly verses and chorus" really mean without trying the sample and emphasizing a lot what the caption says about the song. The idea that readers couldn't understand what the song article says about the song itself.... Maybe keeping the sample would allow readers to have their own opinions without believing what quoted passages say? George Ho (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The genre article has commentary about the song's musical content and the song's importance in the context of the genre. ili (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only !vote was from the uploader. This discussion needs more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comment above! Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read this article and found this sample beneficial in understanding the significance of the text (and vice versa). While the written descriptions like "cooing" are helpful, their interpretation is highly underdetermined. The way I imagined it was not the same as what it actually sounded like. The text is a lot more meaningful in retrospect after hearing it than before. When considering the extent to which content helps readers' understanding, one should especially consider that many readers do not come from a background of knowing music from the genre already. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2021 (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:Madonna - live to tell.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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If critical commentary of Live to Tell is adequate enough to comply with WP:NFCC#8, then the sample can stay at the song article. However, I'm unsure whether the same is true for that of the Madonna article. If not, then remove the sample from the parent entertainer/musician/singer article. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For both Madonna files up for discussion, the reader needs to know how the voice of the artist sounds like, what is the sound of the artist, etc. Both songs are used and discussed in the context of showing Madonna's reinvention (highly notable) and different vocal styling, as her voice changed after "Evita." Both samples have sources discussing the importance of those two tracks in the context of Madonna's career. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 18 December 2021 (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:Madonna - ray of light.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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly meets WP:NFCC#8 when used in Ray of Light (song), whose critical commentary may be sufficient enough to support the sample. However, unsure whether the same is true when used in the Madonna article. Default to removing the sample from Madonna unless stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sufficient enough" is more than enough ... both words mean the same thing, and therefore this all too commonly used phrase is redundant (Sorry

) Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For both Madonna files up for discussion, the reader needs to know how the voice of the artist sounds like, what is the sound of the artist, etc. Both songs are used and discussed in the context of showing Madonna's reinvention (highly notable) and different vocal styling, as her voice changed after "Evita." Both samples have sources discussing the importance of those two tracks in the context of Madonna's career. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the song article, certainly, there is more than enough () commentary and musical description of the song to justify the file's inclusion. But while I can see that's important enough in her musical development to warrant a sample in the article on Madonna herself, there needs to be more in the text about this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 13 January 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:Love Don't Cost a Thing.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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sample was de-PRODded under assumption of sufficient critical commentary. However, I still have concerns about whether the sample is necessary and whether the song can be already understood and easily describable without it. I recently uploaded a newer revision, but my concerns still hasn't eased yet. Hearing it, I can listen to the chorus, but the lyrics are already well summarized and described in text of Love Don't Cost a Thing (song). George Ho (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC); edited, 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the song's article. Aspects (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the comment above, as there is sufficient critical commentary. Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2021 (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:Jenny from the Block still.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: relisted on 2022 January 14. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenny from the Block still.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:All I Have (Jennifer Lopez song - sample).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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song "All I Have" is already well summarized and described in the article, so readers would easily understand what the article says about the song. IMO the sample wouldn't be necessary. Furthermore, I recently split one section using the sample into two sections. George Ho (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the song's article. Aspects (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comment above. Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (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:Jennifer Lopez - Get Right.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: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uses nine screenshots of Jennifer Lopez's individual roles in the music video of "Get Right". Description about Lopez's roles is brief and wouldn't sufficiently justify inclusion of the gallery image. Furthermore, what is depicted in the image may be already understood without the gallery itself. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the song's article. Aspects (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comment above. Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image serves as a useful illustration in its article, considering the amount of relevant commentary to it in that particular section. --Zander251 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2021 (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.