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⚡ 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FNM – I'm Easy-Be Aggressive.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Balthazar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If using more than one cover art of the Faith No More version is at odds with WP:NFCC#3a, and if either one inadequately distinguishes itself from the other, then let's delete the overseas artwork (discogs (1), discogs (2), ebay), which I'm listing here, and go for the North American one instead (discogs ebay). George Ho (talk) 01:28, 21 January 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.

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: Remove from Am I Evil?. No consensus on suitability in New wave of British heavy metal -FASTILY 04:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metallica - Am i Evil.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dawnseeker2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in "New wave of British heavy metal" and "Am I Evil?" Content heard in sample either easily conveyed by text or insufficiently supported by critical commentary. Not contextually significant enough to meet WP:NFCC#8, especially in both articles. George Ho (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not convinced that what a short music snippet express can be easily conveyed by text, especially in an complex article which describes musical styles and influences. Citing Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." IMO, this is what the audio clip in question does in the New wave of British heavy metal article, where the original band playing the song is cited multiple times, the style of music is described at lenght and the cover by Metallica is the result of a well-defined musical influence. I think that the casual reader of the article can understand the topic of the article much better with the audio clip than without it. Lewismaster (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about being included in the (main) song article, Lewismaster? George Ho (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song's article is rich of information about multiple releases but is not properly referenced. The article neither describes the song, nor cites musical styles. I am not sure that the audio clip can be very useful in such an article. Lewismaster (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the NWOBHM article, where it is properly referenced and its presence has some meaning. Lewismaster (talk) 17:57, 10 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.

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: speedy keep. Misuse of the deletion process. The file clearly passes WP:SAMPLE at Whole Lotta Love; the relevance and/or necessity of its inclusion on other pages should be discussed on those pages. (non-admin closure) SN54129 18:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SN54129 18:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Heavy metal music, Led Zeppelin II, Whole Lotta Love. May help readers convey the information described in text in the (main) song article, i.e. contextually significant there. However, unsure say the same for its use in other articles. The song is not mentioned in the genre article outside the caption describing the sample's content. The song is described in the album article, thankfully; unsure whether the sample (not the whole song) is contextually significant to the album. To me, the sample is more about the song itself than the whole album. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in song article since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Aspects (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:SAMPLE contextual significance 1) "the item [song or portion of] is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" for the Whole Lotta Love#Composition and recording article section, where the riff in the sample is discussed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: what is the logic here? "It may be unsuitable for some of the articles in which it is used, therefore it should be deleted"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly, but I was unsure whether the sample should remain in at least one article when I listed the sample here. Just wondering, what do you I should have done differently before taking this to FFD? Boldly remove it from a Featured Article, like heavy metal music? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ask at the article Talk page(s)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm... discuss a same sample in two or three different talk pages? I wouldn't dream of something like that. Nor a same sample in four or more if used in the same amount of pages. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have multiple doubts about suitability, I'd suggest you approach them one article at a time, starting with most doubtful first. Most samples only appear on one page (with the required Fair Use rationale). I guess this one is so iconic it's been added to a few. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The need for it at Whole Lotta Love is now somewhat reduced by the presence of two External links to YouTube - one to the video and one to the re-mastered entire track, one of which might be added in the infobox instead? 12:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  I added an external link to an authorized video in the infobox, which I think would attract readers more. No further comments on your suggestions. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 11 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Van Halen Hot for Teacher.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Heavy metal music and Hot for Teacher. Unsure whether the sample's content is contextually significant to the song itself and the genre. The song is not mentioned in the genre article outside the caption. The song article barely has content that could have supported the sample. Default to saying the sample doesn't, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 03:28, 21 January 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.

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: Remove from Heavy metal music -FASTILY 03:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel of Death clip.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Angel of Death (Slayer song) and Heavy metal music. It may or may not belong in the song article, which has information that readers may convey, regardless of article length, with or without the sample, which contains mostly instrumental music before the scream(s) at the end of the sample. However, can't say the same about being used in the genre article, which doesn't mention the song outside the file caption/description. George Ho (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in song article since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Aspects (talk) 00:01, 23 January 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murad Takla Screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mehediabedin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as the picture of the Facebook post doesn't significantly enhance the article. The post in question is already explained (with the relevant quote) in the article, an image of this Facebook post doesn't significantly improve reader's understanding of the concept (since it's just repeating the text) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fallout Nevada.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raymond Saint (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused video game promotional poster. Source website does not indicate a Creative Commons license. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:37, 22 January 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.

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: withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shantae series logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Steel1943 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image fails WP:NFCC#8 in Shantae since it is not necessary to understand the subject of the article. In addition, the shape and coloration of the image make the image unique enough to be eligible for copyright, and thus all points in WP:NFCC need to be met. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Alexandra IDV as a courtesy. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 does not require files to be necessary to understand the subject of the article (I'm not even sure if any images would meet that criterion), only that inclusion increases understanding and exclusion is detrimental to the understanding - and WP:NFC#CS specifically mentions the common "visual identification" context as an example of this. If I'm missing something, please educate me, because this does to me look the same as every other non-free logo used in infoboxes for identification purposes on Wikipedia (if the argument is that all such logos should be removed, this should be a bigger and more central discussion than a single FfD).--Alexandra^IDV 19:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra IDV: My interpretation in regards to WP:NFCC#8 is that since the article is not about the logo itself, nor is the logo explained in detail at any part of the article, WP:NFCC#8 does not apply to its use in the infobox since the article is about the series, not the series' logo. I suppose this could be compared to the use of the logo in Super Mario; since the article is about the series and not the series' logo, the use of File:Mario Series Logo.svg in the infobox is appropriate only because the aforementioned file's existence on Wikipedia is by claiming that the file is not WP:NFC since the file is "simple" shapes, letters, and colors, which is a claim I do not believe applies to the nominated image in the Shantae article. (Probably should have added the fact that the nominated file is used in Shantae, so I'll add that in to avoid potential confusion regarding this statement by readers of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Actually, upon further reflection, as well as verifying the use of File:Bioshock series.jpg in the article BioShock (series), I withdraw this nomination. I was under the assumption there was no precedence for using WP:NFC images in this manner for video game series infoboxes, but apparently I was wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For what it's worth, I am both the uploader of this image (in 2016), and the nominator of this discussion. I had a bit of reflection on the validity of the file's use in the article Shantae, and thought it actually didn't meet WP:NFCC#8 as used in the infobox in Shantae, though I obviously did not think this when I uploaded the file in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 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.

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: Remove from Cat Stevens -FASTILY 03:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catfatherandson.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sdpjswl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Cat Stevens and Father and Son (song). Neither the captions nor the articles help the sample be contextually significant (WP:NFCC#8). Either the critical commentary is insufficient, or the song can be easily conveyed in text without this sample. George Ho (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in song article since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion. Aspects (talk) 00:01, 23 January 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam Diane Cheers finale flight goodbye.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I uploaded the screenshot years ago to replace the other one. Then I changed the format to PNG in 2016. Now I'm unsure whether deleting the screenshot can harm the understanding of the episode. From what I see, two characters look sad, but the image itself wouldn't be clearer without the caption describing it, which I added on the same time I uploaded the image. Furthermore, the image is about identifying the characters in the scene more than about the scene itself. In other words, as I believe, the scene itself can be easily conveyed in words without this image present. Of course, I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 21 January 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MASH Goodbye.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staxringold (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Been used in Goodbye, Farewell and Amen since 2006. The screenshot(s), i.e. the whole scene, can be easily conveyed in text, or critical commentary has been insufficient to support the scene. In other words, may fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 21 January 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.