Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

File:Optimus Prime.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused drawing of copyrighted character. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:OQO 01+ in dock.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo shows copyrighted wallpaper, not sure if it qualifies as de minimis due to the low quality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Prince Royce - Stand By Me.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 February 14. ✗plicit 13:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince Royce - Stand By Me.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:Amerie sinhgle imcomingout.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. ✗plicit 14:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image de-PRODded under assumption that the section about Amerie's take on classic I'm Coming Out would have passed WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. However, I don't think notability of the version is the case here. Actually, Amerie's version performed so-so, subpar, or below top 50 in Australia, Romania, and the Netherlands. Also, the version has made very little impact, compared to original Diana Ross's version. Also, the song article puts Ross's version at the very top.

Keeping the cover art merely based on assumptions of notability per article/section length is not something I have in mind. This comes down to the cover art being either contextually significant or not to the song in question. Also, regardless of critical commentary, the issue is whether deleting the cover art of Amerie's version would or wouldn't affect the understanding of a well-known song performed by Ross... and the "marketing, branding, and identification information". In case the cover art is deleted, I may use an available free image of Amerie. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2022 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspects (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kate Bush - Running Up That Hill.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in Art pop and Running Up That Hill. To date, no clear rationale for usage in the song article, which may or may not have sufficient critical commentary to support the sample. Furthermore, unsure about critical commentary for the usage in art pop, even with "darting drum rhythms" and Kate Bush's "dogged vocals" described by one music critic. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why this is relisted, but ah well. As I must say, no objections to deletion if no one else objects and if failure to comply with NFCC is implied. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Elena gheorghe Ochii Tai Caprui sample.wav

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(rationale originally for PROD): "Sample excessive in size, especially in WAV format. Fails WP:NFCC#3b. Also, insufficiently supported by critical commentary. More about the track (or the sample) itself than the album. Not contextually significant to the album [Vocea Ta] as a whole." Realized it was listed previously in now-historical PUF venue. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 08:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Gatorade logo.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is another, simpler file at Commons for the same topic which is marked as "uncopyrightable". In my experience it's generally not useful to challenge "not copyrightable" declarations on such logos, but I am not sure which of these is official - if it's the Commons file this one can be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, File:-gatorade.png (nonfree) is the current logo, c:File:Gatorade logo.svg is a simple version of the current logo. (dunno if official) c:File:Gatorade logo before 2009.png is the old logo. (fully orange lightning) File:Gatorade logo.svg (nonfree) is similar but with orange/red lightning. A quick image search gave me no exact match for bottles or labels with the orange/red lightning variant (one was close though), but a few with what seems closer to the fully-orange variant. (often there's an outline though) While Gatorade claims that the old logo is still used in the UK and Ireland, https://gatorade.co.uk/ would seem to disagree. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.