The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 10% of the length of the track, in this case 23.1 seconds. This 34 second sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex00:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track - it this case that would be 23.6 seconds). This 37 second sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex00:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was:
- Delete - while appreciating the perceived importance of this recording I think we are stretching the "published" part of NFCC#4 by keeping this. Bootleg recordings of live performances are a breach of copyright in some juristictions and though I don't know if Florida has "anti-bootlegging" laws it is probable. Given this, I don't see that the production of the CD counts as the owner of the material's copyright publishing it - any more that someone photocopying and distributing an unpublished manuscript does - Peripitus(Talk)08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain WP:NFCC#4, I'm unclear on what this entails. It's been published on bootleg CD in Japan, does this suffice? As for length, I would emphasize that the limitation given at WP:Music samples is indeed a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. I've put in a good-faith effort to make the sample as short as I can without truncating the verse; short of that, I have no recourse short of speeding the whole thing up, a la the Chipmunks, which wouldn't really be in the spirit of the rule, or of Wikipedia for that matter. Goldenband (talk)
OK, I've read a bit more on WP:NFCC#4, and I can identify the Japanese CD on which this recording was first published. Does this satisfy the rule? Also, regarding the 30-second rule, I think an additional mitigating circumstance has to be the fact that it's far less than 10% of the original recording -- in fact, it's less than 5%. Goldenband (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not clear on the basis for WP:NFCC#4. Hopefully someone who understands the nuances of fair use can answer this. I don't think that there is anything you can do at this point, the closing admin will have to use their judgment on whether this meets the guideline or not. I would interpret publication to mean by the copyright holder, but this is an edge case that is not made clear in the guideline. I was surprised that the track was 20 minutes long, there are very few songs of that length. It would be nice if you included the length of the track in the rationale, but I concur that less than 5% of the track length would be a reasonable reason to make an exception in this case. ~ BigrTex02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The original track (an early live performance of Pink Floyd's "Echoes") is indeed slightly over 20 minutes long, and would be even longer if this particular recording didn't end prematurely. I appreciate your concurrence on that point. So I guess now we wait for the closing admin, then? Goldenband (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2008 (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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#10a as yahoo images is not a valid source. Fails NFCC#2 as the author is listed as Rueters, a news agency that makes part of its income from selling news images. Fails NFCC#8 as omission of the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Nv8200ptalk01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image of Hitler Youth is already on the page. Fails NFCC#8 as there is nothing significant about this Hitler Youth member or his image chronicled in the text.. Nv8200ptalk01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm holding off on closing this until I've checked whether this might be PD-USGov. Failing that, I intend to close as per nom. Fut.Perf.☼06:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, can't find it in the National Archives catalog or anywhere else. If anybody finds the exact source and copyright status of this one, let me know. For now, I can't but delete. By the way, if this should ever be restored for some good reason: it should most certainly be "Martinzell", not "Nartinzell". Fut.Perf.☼07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons, if this is really in the public domain. It could be useful in an article about this particular form of body/ear modification. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this related to Youth Link Movement? This may be their logo. Is it copyrighted? If it is copyrighted, then delete it. If not, then ask what the licence is and if you think it's useful we may consider adding it to the page as a logo, if this is their true logo. If not then delete. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was:
- Delete here - I think the consensus here is that the map represents too much original research. I note that in looking through some of the linked articles there are high quality maps, many of which show what seems to be this reason in relation to Macedonia either at various points in time or as a wish-border proposed by some nationalists. Based on this I can't see this image ever replacing the extant ones in the articles. That said someone may find a use for it so I've uploaded it to commons under the same name- Peripitus(Talk)07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is in the encyclopedia's interests to have this image deleted, since it is pure speculation or imagination, and it does not document any known facts or history. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well I don't think it is in the encyclopedia's interest to have this image deleted and here is my reasoning. Many Macedonian nationalists would have the map re-drawn like so. Also it is sometimes useful to have POV maps as it can help explain thinks better. For example this map would work nicely in the articles Macedonia naming dispute and United Macedonia. It points out the entire Macedonia region in present day Europe. Look at a recent news article from the Balkan news agency Balkan Insight, this points out that "Athens argues the name Macedonia implies Skopje's territorial claims over Greece's own northern province of the same name and has threatened to veto the country`s start of accession talks with the European Union unless the row is resolved." [1] Greece certainly belives this is how FYROM wants the map to be and obviously they oppose. Also there is known facts and history as this dispute has been going on for years. I think there is no reason for its deletion, as this map could be used on many articles and its not "pure speculation or imagination" as quoted by the nominator. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, poor-quality graphics and little encyclopedic use in the absence of any cartographic information relating the borders of this "Macedonia" to the actual political borders in the region, and distinguishing them from each other. Fut.Perf.☼10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the nominator is of Greek ancestry and Greeks are generally anti FYROM and this image is of the whole Macedonian region, therefore may not approve of this image as it depicts Macedonia seperate from Greece. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (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.
This is the back cover of an album. We already have an image of the front cover in the article (Wild Hemmling), and we have a listing of the tracks, so there doesn't seem to be any reason that we need the back cover too. It doesn't seem to add significantly to the article (see the eighth non-free content criterion). —Bkell (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment - probably a UK image so it's PD if the author died before August 1938. If the author is unknown then it's PD now. will wait until the uploader comments as I cannot find where it came from - Peripitus(Talk)13:40, 11 August 2008 (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.
Not used, was not eable to find this particular image on the Boston College website ( http://www.bc.edu/ ), but there is no indication anywhere on the site that they have ever released any material into the public domain. Sherool(talk)14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, guess it was supposed to show that images posted to some website came out as poor quality due to re-compression, but as the uploader states he has no idea about the original source or copyright so his public domain release is kinda moot. Sherool(talk)15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Kinda agree here, while I think the image does add something to the article (albeit not much), its a non-free image the article can live without until a possible free image is found.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :)17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned alright! This is because it was originally used in the article Qstream which wikipedia decided to delete. I wanted to recreate the article again because I do believe qstream has some pedagogical interest and the information will be useful to a portion of the multimedia community. However, due to my work commitments, I could not get to it. The image demonstrates a software running on windows just like any other article on softwares (e.g, safari). Copy violation? Well, I created the image myself by taking a screenshot from my laptop. The qstream homepage has its own set of screenshots, also created by myself and released to the public domain. A picture is the best way to convey the information about any software.
In any case, I think when I get more time, I will create a fresh new page on qstream, with more professional look and feel and directly use one of the screenshots from the qstream homepage. Meanwhile, this orphaned picture can be safely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirbans (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the screenshot contains material not copyrighted by you (XP logo, GUI etc + the still from the movie / series displayed) you can't rely release this uder a free license or into the public domain (hence the copyvio comment). You might be eable to use something simmilar under the WP:NONFREE policy if you ever get around to re-writing a version of the article that satisfy the notability guidelines though. --Sherool(talk)21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned. Uploading to Commons would not be useful because the image has no chemical description, categories, or a meaningful file name, so it would not come up in searches.
Orphaned. Uploading to Commons would not be useful because the image has no chemical description, categories, or a meaningful file name, so it would not come up in searches.
Delete as replaceable unless demonstrated to be PD (which it might be). Consider speedy deletion for blatantly false image tag and completely meaningless fair use rationale. Fut.Perf.☼14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because a perfectly usable image is at Commons, as noted above; this image is replaceable and therefore fails to comply with NFCC. JGHowestalk - 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user has uploaded tons of images from websites that clearly don't own the images (and probably aren't even marking them PD, but I can't read Chinese) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user has uploaded tons of images from websites that clearly don't own the images (and probably aren't even marking them PD, but I can't read Chinese) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user has uploaded tons of images from websites that clearly don't own the images (and probably aren't even marking them PD, but I can't read Chinese) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, just a huge chunk of wikicode. Presumably this is all available in previous revisions of the relevant article(s) anyway, so whatever usefullnes it once had has probably long passed by now. Sherool(talk)21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was:
- Delete - as failing NFCC#8 (significance to the article) and lacks a source. the given webpage does not identify the author of the image - also fails to meet NFCC#10 and possibly #2- Peripitus(Talk)14:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
original copyright holder not identified. also, it does not add significantly to readers' understanding (esp bc of super poor quality - what's even going on in the photo?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (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.
Not used, not ensyclopedic and confusing copyright info, it's tagged as released to public domain by author, but at the same time the summary text read: "Author: The MRC All Rights Reserved". Sherool(talk)23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, also appears to be a copyvio, tagged as PD, but at the end of the document is says "@2006 Soniya Technology International Inc" Sherool(talk)23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i doubt the uploader took this photo him/herself. previously user has only contributed north carolina-related images, so it is strange that they would have web-resolution professional quality images of ongoing warfare in eastern europe. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i doubt the uploader took this photo him/herself. previously user has only contributed north carolina-related images, so it is strange that they would have web-resolution professional quality images of ongoing warfare in eastern europe. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
