Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

December 4

File:Appleford School Logo.jpg

The file is published under a public domain license, however there is no public evidence that the file was released under this license. The uploader claims that the file was released to the school by a student teacher. I see no reason to distrust this, however I doubt this sufficient to be published on wikipedia as PD. The uploader also links the schools twitter account as evidence for the license, but again I don't see anything indicating this license on the page. Auguel (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. A letter for the headmaster is attached. This is a school-made design and the school has submitted it to wikipedia https://drive.google.com/file/d/1De2zSDvCqWPicEr5-EPkZr9b__aXahVt/view?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouseaubade (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Go All the Way.ogg

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]

File:Madonna - live to tell.ogg

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]

File:Madonna - ray of light.ogg

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]

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]

File:Plastic Love by Mariya Takeuchi 12-inch.png

I previously listed the original release sleeve for discussion on grounds of disputed copyright status after it was found unsuitable for Commons. The discussion result was "convert to non-free", despite lack of replies/votes. Furthermore, I uploaded this and then inserted it for Plastic Love in March 2020.

When the reissue arrived this year, I nominated the 2021 reissue cover, thinking that it was unnecessary. However, the consensus disagreed with me. Now that the reissue cover is kept, I wonder whether the original (tic-tac-toe) picture sleeve still meets WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8 anymore. When it was released originally in 1985, the song underperformed in a Japanese music chart. Several years ago, a fan-made video used a different cover, which is also used for this year's single re-release. The video helped the song receive greater attention and popularized it further.

The reissue cover, as I hate to admit, reflects the song's recent success and popularity. The original tic-tac-toe cover... seems to have taken the lead spot for at least one year, if not two, until the reissue takes an extra spot. No objections to deletion, especially if no one here responds by the time of conclusion and if using two covers still violates NFCC.

"Should I Stay or Should I Go" uses the 1991 re-release as its lead image and ditched out one of original released because the Levi's commercial helped the song achieve greater success than the song had when it was originally released in 1982/1983. I guess "Plastic Love" should do the same by using the 2021 reissue and ditching the 1985 original, which I'm re-nominating here. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Japan}} as I don't believe the cover meets the threshold of originality in the U.S. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Omega Scroll Novel Adrian d'Hagé.jpg

Unused derivative work of copyrighted book cover. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthony Athanas.jpg

Public domain alternative available with File:Anthony Athanas (9504743484).jpg SecretName101 (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridget Jones's Diary OST UK Cover.jpg

I recently merged the soundtrack article into the parent film article Bridget Jones's Diary#Soundtrack. The cover art identifies a soundtrack release but doesn't appear as if it increases understanding of the film and the film soundtrack. It also doesn't appear as if it displays something too significant for deletion. Furthermore, it would no longer meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:FILMSOUNDTRACK if continually used in that article. Moreover, it looks extraneous, despite different appearance from the film poster. George Ho (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Len Deighton and Michael Caine Ipcress File.jpg

This is a decorative use of a non-free image. This image's presence in the article does not increase the readers' understanding of anything. damiens.rf 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]