Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 18
February 18
[edit ]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- File:UNCG Julius Foust Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Erlawrim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The copyright statement on original web source/page of the page said the file can only used for "personal, educational or research purposes only", that is not a free licence and thus cannot upload to the Commons. Also, free licence files are available to the Julius Foust Building. Saimmx (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delete fails NFCC criteria...practically all of 'em. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗ plicit 23:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- File:If i could turn back time.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Doubtful that the sample is needed just to hear what it sounds like. Doubtful such use exemplifies contextual significance, meaning deleting this sample wouldn't impact the understanding of the song, by any means. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep. Hearing "just" what a song sounds like in an article dedicated specifically to said song is of uttermost importance. A brief clip to illustrate what the song sounds like is acceptable under fair use to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. People who come to Wikipedia aren't all music scholars who could understand the composition just by using text description. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep: This short sound clip of If I Could Turn Back Time is a portion of the song's refrain. It meets the contextual significance criterion defined in WP:NFC#CS because it allows the reader to identify the song that is the subject of discussion in the article. Literally, the title of the song, If I Could Turn Back Time, is sung throughout the clip. It is not simply a song demonstration — it is a portion of the song that defines the work. - tucoxn \talk 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep I'm perplexed by this nomination. If you want to remove all music samples, then I can see a justification. However, we've said such music samples are allowed and this fits the necessary criteria to a T...not sure what your point is. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.