Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18

File:Lamar Cardinals LU Wordmark.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. File:Lamar Cards wordmark.png, a better quality and transparent version, was uploaded to replace this file. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (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:Luger Rifle Toggle action.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

largely decorative scan from an auction catalogue with a very poor rationale (the image is NOT the subject of the whole article). It can either be replaced with a free image of the actual object, with a diagram from the now PD patent application or otherwise removed or replaced without significantly impairing reader's understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and 8. Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (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:Felipe Boada.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unused image of a person without a wikipedia article, and unlikely to have one. Peripitus (Talk) 04:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ryan shell (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2015 (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:Bhutanese Passport-1.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 defaulting to keep. The file is freely licensed and currently used in an article. As is usually the case the inclusion or not is then an editorial issue for the artcle's editors. Perhaps someone wants to record a better version. A note to the new accounts contributing below, how about editing and improving the article before you move on ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost unintelligible. Probable joke entry? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't find it unintelligible or a joke. Haminoon (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned we're going through this process when we are still discussing its inclusion in an article. Surely we should wait for the other process to finish first? Haminoon (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as above poster. Winckle (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no real evidence that it is a joke entry, but the file has serious sound problems. There is some kind of electronic distortion, all talk of accents aside. The way the speaker trails off after certain words and stumbles around others (0.47-0.50) adds alot of pointless length to the file. I would be more willing to vote keep were there no distortion.Ryan shell (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not of appropriate quality. We're a serious encyclopedia on the interwebz, remeber? Max Semenik (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no replacement available, and there's no proof that this file was created in bad faith. Even though the sound quality is poor, it is an example of how a Bhutanese person might speak, and it's helpful for people who need the article read for them. Zaixionito (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, low quality narration, it's not up to Wikipedia standards, it's adds little value to the article. Possible troll attempt. HumanCapacitator (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long there is no better version! TheStoepsel2001 (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing is gained from including this barely intelligible wibble Mm2000mm (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mm2000mm and TheStoepsel2001, were either of you involved in the discussion as IPs or anything? It seems strange to see an account created during a debate involve itself ONLY in the debate itself. Ryan shell (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Assume Good Faith mean anything to you? Mm2000mm (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does, I'm sorry you thought I was doing the opposite. Ryan shell (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copy the text of Special:PermanentLink/559209122 into Google Translate and click on the loudspeaker icon. Google's version is a lot better than this one. Anyone who needs a spoken version of the article can consult Google instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree as the Google version can't pronounce "Bhutanese" or the dzongkha words. Nevertheless that material is copyright and is un-usable to people on slow internet connections. If we deleted everything off wikipedia that was available elsewhere there wouldn't be much left. Haminoon (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where lies the copyright in Google's version? Sound files are subject to three copyrights, unless I have missed something:
- - - The copyright to the underlying text (© various Wikipedia editors).
    - The performance right, belonging to the human being who reads out the text. If the text is not read out by a human being, the performance right does not exist, per c:Template:PD-monkey. As Google's service is a computer as opposed to a human being, no performance right exists.
    - The sound recording right, belonging to the human being to operated the sound recording device used for recording the sound. Google's service is not recorded but is instead created in a different way, so it would appear that no sound recording right can exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok perhaps I misunderstood or assumed too much about the Google service. Most of the words appear to be individual samples. If it isn't under copyright does that mean we could legally upload it to Wikipedia? Haminoon (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be the only spoken article on en.Wikipedia in Bhutanese English. Given that many objections are with regard to the accent I am quite concerned about the precedence deleting this file may set. Haminoon (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reached out the the uploader? As far as i can tell KuchenZimjah is the only Bhutanese user on English wikipedia. Considering the enthusiasm for a replacement file but...lack of follow-though on the talk page for Bhutanese passport, perhaps we should go back to the source for an alternative?Ryan shell (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) [Fine, guess I'll do it myself]Ryan shell (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care what accent it's in, it's gone through some sort of strange filter and the pacing's bad. If it were in perfect Received Pronunciation but still autotuned and with poor pacing, we'd be in the same situation. It's not about the accent, it's about the poor quality of the recording. WarlordFrederick (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and find a replacement Kuhno133 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE. Come on, everyone. Clearly it's a gag. Vaguely amusing, but time to delete. Happy monsoon day 22:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say to keep it, you can understand it and it's not detracting from the article 50.48.213.55 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor sound quality and pacing. Very distracting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1st April already long past, and also, if Wikipedia is for Aliens then I would agree.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a replacement audio file is available. There does appear to be some feedback going on. BlueSalix (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds fine to me. Pacdude (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious joke. Not only is the accent an obvious joke, it drifts over the course of the recording. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke recording that has gone viral causing an edit war on the Bhutanese passport page. --Pavithran (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "gone viral" part is clearly true. check out this traffic graph! 74.113.53.42 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another user has provided an alternate recording that will probably be uploaded to commons fairly soon. Ryan shell (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my personal opinion, this recording is awful (particularly the fact that this sounds like it may have been auto-tuned). However, last I checked, personal opinions do not dictate the policies of this community... community consensus does. I feel that deleting this file would to some extent constitute discrimination and/or censorship, and would set an almost irreversible precedent that goes against some of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The fact that this deletion discussion exists really comes off (to me at least) as a group of 8 year olds screaming "I don't like his accent, so we should delete this." Besides, would we even be having this discussion if this hadn't gone viral? I think not. AndrewN ^talk 01:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, it's completely legible and doesn't stray from the content. So what if the recording isn't great? It still works. moot ^talk 01:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.233.245 (talk) [reply]
Comment As an explanation for the traffic spike, and perhaps the vandalism on the accompanying encyclopedia page, this was linked to in a thread on /b/ (how I got here). As for the actual deletion, I'd recommend this obviously flawed version stay only until the alternate recording mentioned above becomes available.DNA Ligase IV (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually got here from Imgur. I believe I also saw this mentioned on the Chive and others (not to mention friends on Facebook). It's definitely gone viral. AndrewN ^talk 03:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm entirely aware that this almost certainly has nothing to do with Wikipedia's deletions policy, BUT I think it's worthwhile to note that as it has indeed gone viral, the recording is now of some interest and value outwith the context of the original article. As it is also a correct, verbatim transcription of the article and doesn't damage its factual accuracy, I think it should be kept. 86.128.253.92 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't look like a joke to me. No reason to delete a perfectly intelligible recording. -ryand 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do the people implying that "delete" votes stem from systemic racism honestly believe this is how Bhutanese people talk? 74.113.53.42 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic Racism my ass! In fact this file mocking/insult Asians, so our accent is a joke then? I live here in South East Asia.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Be it genuine or a joke, I would keep the file but not use it in the article. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the person who produced this recording is, according to their userpage at least, a native Bhutanese speaker so unless there is another Bhutanese speaker among us who could verify that this is genuinely how it is spoken as then we can't assume anything. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But unlink from article (As it directly has no direct relations with Bhutanese Passport). Subjected to Wikimedia upload as the uploader uploaded it with CC attribution. So the file should be made available for unrelated Wikimedia Commons users. This file also serves as a critical historical example of vandalism v/s Wikipedia & Wikimedia rules and principles.Debasish Dey (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally keep files that are not in use on the project, though. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not really causing any harm. If someone wants a human voice version of the article and this is the best we can offer, then it is the best we can offer. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I offer no commentary on whether the file is genuine or not, not knowing what a kosher Bhutanese accent sounds like, but even if it is genuine, the poor sound quality and obvious audio distortions that have been added to it mean that shouldn't appear in the article and isn't of any particular use to the project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - The file is utterly unencyclopedic. The issue isn't the sound quality, which is actually fine; that issue is actually some form of auto-tuning or other types of audio manipulation. Add to that the over-extended words (notably passport at the beginning), and we're left with a totally inappropriate file that - yes - has racist overtones, due to the audio manipulation and the way the words are being mucked around with. It doesn't matter what a Bhutanese accent actually sounds like, because that isn't even the issue here. Also, to anyone saying "I would keep the file but not use it in the article" - how does that remotely make sense? Exactly what good does it do to keep this file around if the article it was made for doesn't link to it? That's just preposterous. Likewise, saying "Keep, good example of vandalism" - what? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no available replacement in a Bhutanese accent, and as someone up there said, there's no evidence it was put up in bad faith. Contact the person behind it and ask them to re-record it, and keep the file until they do, or until another Bhutanese person can offer a replacement. Mister Six (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need a Bhutanese accent - they just need to be able to pronounce the dzongkha words. People should be allowed to contribute in any accent.Haminoon (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's hilarious, it still matches the content and is intelligible. It should still be replaced eventually, if we're being serious. — Andreyyshore T C 03:08, 25 Jan 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The audio file is perfectly intelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had no problem understanding it and I am not a native English speaker! If someone has a better version, replace it with that! Also, ask the creator to upload a better version! Imagine how he might feel after reading this discussion!!! Anybody (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested the proposal to delete this file be closed as a failed proposal at requests for closure. BlueSalix (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2015 (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:Airport 2010 (Modern Family).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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: image is not used for an instructional purpose but a decorative one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:09, 18 January 2015 (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.