Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

File:Musashi.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Dead source, No context , authorship or date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also no indication that it is in scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2016 (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:Kadan.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image not on source listed, low res. No other authorship or context given. Image is unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (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:Emperor-Day.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic source, No authorship or date, Image appears to be in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2016 (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:Hasištejn.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic source, No other publication information, Image is in use. FFD given age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2016 (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:Portland.gif

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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source appears to be dead link. There's no other publication information like an author or date given. Image is low res, non vector and unused. FFD owing to image being uploaded more than 10 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source can be recovered. The page contains no indication that the file is freely licensed. It also seems to be of too low quality to be useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2016 (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:StMunchinsCollege.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No source, Image is low res. No other publication data on file description page such as authorship or date. FFD as uploaded more than 10 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2016 (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:Mmelendi.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very little context, Found "Allison Rae Landry" listed in the history, Is this the photographer or the subject? No other data or context, and this image appears to be unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2016 (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:LBBI-030.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link to image (which is noted as a dead link.) No other publciation data (such as author/date). Image is seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (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:DorsetCottage.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post dates 1922, when did the NY Herald Tribune start renewals? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says 1927, not 1922. This page says:

“

New York Herald Tribune: see New York Herald and New York Tribune
New York Herald: issues prior to 1923 renewed; see 1950 Jan-Jun; contributions renewed from Jan. 20, 1924; see 1951 Jan-Jun
New York Tribune: issues and contributions from prior to 1923 renewed; see 1950 Jan-Jun

”

It sounds as if some early stuff has been renewed, but it is possible that some things weren't renewed. I guess we should assume that this was renewed unless otherwise proven. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2016 (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:Citizens Committee.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: convert to {{PD-US-no notice}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advertsing material, post 1922, No obvious notice? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that advertisements needed their own copyright notices and renewals and that they weren't covered by the newspaper's notice and renewal. Since I can't see any notice, I'd assume that this is {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2016 (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:SettleDown.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: convert to {{PD-US-no notice}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising material, No obvious notice, but post dates 1922. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #File:Citizens Committee.jpg above. This should be {{PD-US-no notice}} unless a part of the advertisement is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2016 (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:Lawrence academy.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, Most likely uploaders work, but that's not obvious from the file description page. FFD owing to the age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sfan00 IMG, do you see the border? It could be meant as a visual effect on some other website from which this may have been taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2016 (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:Soyuz tm7.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This media is unsourced. FFD owing to age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the camera watermark something which is typically added by Ebay? --Stefan2 (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that a likely possibility, the license is no good. The uploader's user page (pretty much an abandoned account at this point) claims she is an American student born in 1982. TM-7 was in 1988. There's no way she can claim copyright and PD release, because that would mean that she took the picture in Russia at the age of 6 Copyright law of the Soviet Union notwithstanding. She has also had issues with image uploads before. MSJapan (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2016 (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:Ptolus.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image lists -"The Forge Studios (Maciej Zagórski and Pawel Dobosz)" neither of which has an obvious connection to the uploader. Image is unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2016 (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:Discworld-Susan-Sto-Helit-Janet-Chui.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (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:Stareye.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, userspace, drawn by "a friend" who seems to be uncredited more fully. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be unencyclopædic. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2016 (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:Cedbou.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is only used on a user page. File description page notes "Vincent Lewandovsky", but this doesn't seem to be the name of the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user's user page suggests that this is a photo of the uploader and that the uploader is called Cédric Bouvier. I've listed the user page at MFD. The image isn't used on any other pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the MFD. Unencyclopedic. MER-C 12:26, 30 May 2016 (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:ToddSpungeon1.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is low res and unused. There's no specific sourcing provided on the file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2016 (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:Sj6board.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: Keep czar 02:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do PCB's count as copyrightable works? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish copyright law explicitly exempts electric circuits like this from copyright, unlike other utilitarian objects which may be subject to copyright. I don't know how it works in other countries, but utilitarian objects are typically ineligible from copyright in the United States, so I have no reason to believe that this would be unfree for the purposes of Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2016 (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:OrchardSquareSheffield.jpeg

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, most likely uploaders work, but that's not obvious from the file information present. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, low quality. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (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:Scotscrest.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourced, but there's no date, and I didn't see an obvious CC/PD release on the page linked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2016 (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:Castleonthecliff.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious CC/PD release at listed source. FFD owing to age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2016 (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:Rizak.gif

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, unused, No clear PD/CC release at source site. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2016 (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:Surkis.gif

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, unused, NO clear CC/PD release at source given. FFD owing to age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2016 (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:ShivaFF.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, unused, No source, No Author , No date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2016 (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:Hugoalmeida.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, Source is a dead link, and there's no obvious CC/PD release on the main page of the website concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2016 (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:Smallrsalogo.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Textlogo, but no source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2016 (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:Downtownkhonj.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely uploaders own work, but this is not detailed on the file description page. FFD owing to age of upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2016 (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:Monar2.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 ⚡ 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, Most likely uploaders work but that's not obvious from the file description page. FFD owing to upload age. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2016 (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:Ka90 butuan logo.jpg.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused file. Sixth o f March 11:58, 21 May 2016 (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:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.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 for the first file; delete the second. — ξ ^xplicit 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-free files being used solely for the identification of a very recently deceased person. It is very likely that a free alternative exists or than a non-free file may be relicensed, and no attempts have apparently been made (and certainly none have been documented) to find or procure a free alternative. Instead at the related discussion at WT:ITN#Fair use content in ITN-nominated articles and on individual nomination discussions the uploader has asserted that as the subject is dead it is automatically and instantly allowable to use non-free files per WP:NFCI point 10. Waiting 3-6 months and negotiating with rights holders have been dismissed as "too long" and "too hard" with essentially no elaboration. Speedy deletion of file:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg and File:Sally Brampton.jpg was declined by Explicit with a suggestion to bring it to FFD for discussion, however they deleted File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg for failing WP:NFCC point 1 - the same reason the other two nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no effort at all has been made to secure a free image of each of those dead people, and simply waiting until the day after they die to upload any image whatsoever of them to claim fair use should be strongly discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I did not upload the current image of Sally Brampton; the other person did. Also, the screenshot of Brampton was deleted because the current image was used. George Ho (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the images, keep until images that meet free content criteria at Commons are found. Similar situation on Tony Scott image when the Commons image was deleted as "impermissible" and then I reinserted the undeleted image of him, which I did not upload. George Ho (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't work that way, or else Commons would be flooded with such "keep until a fair use is found". Patent nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has been somewhat flooded with images that were already deleted as "fair use". It can also remove newly uploaded URAA-eligible files. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not following you. We should not default to "post any image until a fair use variant becomes available". Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George, the default has always been (and imho should remain) no image unless a freely licensed image is available. If no free image is available AND a free an image is important for the article (beyond simple identification) AND no free image can be created AND there is no reasonable chance that a non-free image may be made free THEN a non-free image may be considered if and only if it meets all the relevant criteria. This doesn't go out the window the day a person dies - all that changes is the likelihood of a free image becoming available starts gradually decreasing. Further, in all cases there has to actually be significant effort in to trying to find a free image - something that I'm not seeing evidence (or even appreciation) of. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such images clearly pass WP:NFCI#10. If no free image has been obtained during the many years that the subject was alive, it seems quite unlikely that a free image is going to be found now. The idea that Wikipedia editors should be making a special effort to hassle the relatives and acquaintances of a recently dead person about licensing rights seems quite insensitive and inappropiate. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's nonsense. Sure, we can be sensitive about it, but there has been not one shred of evidence that "a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" (that's the NFCI#10 you link to) and not one shred of evidence that anyone has actually even bothered trying to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an image search for both subjects and can confirm that no free images seem to be available. This is all that can reasonably expected at this time. The idea that editors should be encouraged to engage in licensing discussions with relations and acquaintances of recently deceased people seems quite unwise as it might get Wikipedia a reputation for insensitive ambulance chasing. It would be even more crass to publically publish such correspondence at such a time. These individuals have had a long and high-profile life in which there has been plenty of opportunity to do that. Their death marks a clear end-point. WP:NFCI#10 now applies and should be followed. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are relations and acquaintances the only people who might have photos of a public figure? What about fans, agencies, employers, magazines, newspapers, etc? If death were meant to be a sharp end-point then that would be reflected in the WP:BLP rules, but instead it's exactly the opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:BDP is to show sensitivity to the feelings of "living relatives and friends" and so we should do likewise. As for organisations such as agencies, the death of the subject will tend to terminate or complicate their contractual relationship as the subject's legal affairs will tend to be tied up in probate. So, this period is a doubly inappropriate time to be trying to seek a freely licensed image. It much better and easier to do this while the subject is alive. If this hasn't been done in the many years while they are alive then that's that and we then go by NFCI#10. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. There is not one shred of evidence that any effort at all has been put into sourcing a free image of these individuals. We should not default to choosing any old image of a dead person one day after they die simply because people are too lazy to do any work to get a free version. That is doubly inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have exerted themselves to get us to this point. I myself have conducted images searches, as stated, and found nothing. Characterising this good-faith activity on behalf of the project as laziness is absurd. Editors such as Philafrenzy work quite hard on Wikipedia without pay and it is quite uncivil to attack their efforts on the fanciful supposition that some hypothetical paragon might have done better. It is the fundamental nature of Wikipedia to work in an incremental way so that it is always a work-in-progress in which there is always scope for improvement. In the long term, all such images will be free of copyright as they age and so the passage of time will resolve the issue. In the meantime, we have helpful contributions as a stopgap. They are compliant with policy and so there is no evidence that there is a problem. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel this nomination is attacking anybody? There is indeed always room for improvement, but using fair use images in this manner is not an improvement (if it were the fair use policies would be written very much differently). If there were critical commentary about the image or if the person's physical appearance (or some aspect of it) was an essential part of their notability and this aspect were not easily conveyed in text then a fair use image (if no free one is available) is appropriate (see "Weird Al" Yankovic#New look and career to present for a good example). However this does not apply to the individuals being discussed here - the images are being used solely for the purposes of identification which is explicitly prohibited as a fair use rationale for living people. Without wishing to belittle your efforts at finding a free image, if after several months of documented effort no success has been forthcoming then a fair use image can be considered (assuming there is one that meets all the relevant criteria), but a few hours at most on google images is not sufficient. It's worth remembering also that every fair use image must be explicitly and individually justified, and that every image we use incorrectly weakens the case for us to use any at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's TRM that is attacking good-faith editors by calling them lazy when they do some voluntary work for Wikipedia. And we've had more than a few months to find images for these subjects; we have had years. The clock doesn't start ticking when the subject dies; it starts ticking when they are born because free images might be created at any time during the subject's life. If it hasn't happened by the time that they die, then it is reasonable to suppose that time is up for that option, until copyright expires on the photographs of their early life. Andrew D. (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence at all to suggest anyone has done anything to locate a free version of these images. Nothing. Just bland supposition and vague hand-waving. That's not good enough, and it is lazy when we are dealing with avoiding legal issues. Get with the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the addition of these images is pure vanity and has been done with no attempt at all to find free alternatives. For example, a two-second search at Flickr reveals this image of Sally Brampton, this image of Reg Grundy has anyone asked the copyright holders to consider changing the licensing? They're not friends/family of the dead so all the hand-wringing and over sensitive outcry from Davidson is irrelevant. I have personally asked people in the past on Flickr to modify licensing, for example File:Paul Mariner cropped.jpg and had favourable results. In fact, if these abuses of fair use are allowed to remain, we ought to look at a wholesale overhaul of the fair use arrangements here and clearly state "Any image of a dead person can be at any time post mortem under fair use", as that is what those voting to keep are saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that photographs want to preserve their own rights to earn profit from photos? To be honest, many photographers nowadays want to earn money and to make photographs for living... Perhaps you can ask any of them to consider more about freedom of expression than about money? --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you found this, and you asked, and were told no? Okay, thanks for clearing that up then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples given by TRM are both professional work which were posted by organisations with "All rights reserved". There's not the slightest indication that they would be freely given away. They were taken 6 years ago and so there has been plenty of time to explore that possibility. We have to draw a line somewhere in the application of NFCI#10 and the death of the person is the obvious point at which it becomes applicable. This nomination is trying to make that policy fuzzy and unclear so that we would have endless argument about whether enough time had elapsed or enough effort had been made. That would be quite inefficient and unproductive. There isn't a problem requiring any such change and the policy is fine as it is. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter in the slightest how long people have potentially had to enquire about making non-free images free, what matters is how long they have actually been trying. And yes, the policy is and should be fuzzy because real life is fuzzy and every fair use image must be assessed individually on its own merits. There can be no hard and fast rule about how much time has to have elapsed (because that will depend on the subject's profession, habits, prominence, where they lived and where they were photographed, what the copyright terms of the locations they were photographed in are, etc) nor how much effort has to be made (this will vary depending on the number of images available, the nature of those images, how identifiable the rights holders are, how contactable the rights holders are, how willing they are to negotiate, etc). For some subjects (e.g. Kim Jong-un) massively extensive and documented effort has been made to acquire a fair use image without success and so using a fair use image very shortly after his death will likely be fine (if nothing changes between now and then of course), for others (e.g. Tuau Lapua Lapua) no effort has been documented and so were they to die today using a fair use image tomorrow would not be acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the case of Kim Jong-un and it's a good candidate for WP:LAME. The outcome in that case was that someone created their own artistic impression. Either that was copied from a photograph, in which case it is a derivative work, or it is imaginary art – a clear case of WP:OR. We should not be encouraging such bizarre efforts when we have a reasonable and simple alternative. Andrew D. (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The 'could be created' part is satisfied if the person is dead. The 'no free equivalent is available' part is not necessarily satisfied. A number of non-free images were deleted around April-May 2013 because it seemed likely that the 'no free equivalent is available' part wasn't satisfied, for example by considering copyright terms. See for example Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17 which has some similar discussions. I'm not sure how likely it is that free equivalents exist for these pictures. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It should be assumed that good faith reasonable effort to locate a free alternative has been taken; this is really the only option since documenting one's quest for a free image is not required. Any challenge to this claim in any effect will proceed by trying to replicate a search for a free alternative, and there are only two possible outcomes: either a free alternative is located by the challenger and the non-free is replaced; or, a free alternative is not located, thereby verifying the result of the original search. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be assumed? And if you keep this, are you now advocating that any dead person can have any image of them uploaded as soon as they are dead because "it should be assumed that good faith reasonable effort to locate a free alternative has been taken"? Can we clarify the policy in that case to reflect that so it's clear? This individuals are nothing special in that regard, the images selected are nothing special, the only commonality is that the images were uploaded moments after their death. I have seen precisely zero evidence that anyone has done anything to secure a free alternative, and when it comes to matters of law, I'm afraid "assuming good faith" is reminiscent of the "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me" saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy requiring some particular amount of effort and no mechanism for recording effort – are you expecting us to fill out timesheets? In this case, both myself and TRM have searched for free images and we haven't found any. That's all that can be reasonably expected and the policy does not require anything more. Andrew D. (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let's change the policy to say that any images of dead people can be uploaded as soon as they are dead. Clearer? P.S. I don't consider a two-minute search of Flickr on a mobile phone to be a "search for free images". That's lame. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both images meet all the requirements of WP:NFCC. No freely-licensed alternatives have been identified, and it's unlikely that any will be forthcoming any time soon (e.g. before copyright expires). If and when a non-fair-use alternative comes to light then we can use that, but until that happens these fair-use images benefit the encyclopaedia. Speculation about re-licensing is pointless without any reason to believe that it's going to happen. Sure File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg might be released one day, but that small possibility doesn't invalidate the current case for fair use. The same applies here. Modest Genius ^talk 12:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so to clarify, both Modest Genius and Andrew Davidson are stating that it is permissible to upload any image of any dead person the instant they are dead and use such images under fair use until such a time an alternative is available? Is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The point of death is the clear point at which the person's status changes. They are no longer available to pose for a photo or facilitate release of a free image. We have to draw the line somewhere and this is the most sensible way of doing it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But free images can and do exist, they just haven't been made available to Wikipedia. The subjects are not needed to pose, or to facilitate the release. The person who took the photo facilitates the release. Do you understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. My point was that there isn't a good reason to delete these two files, not that there should be free for all for every dead person in the future. That's not the question under discussion. Please don't put words into my mouth. Modest Genius ^talk 15:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is what you're saying. By voting to keep these images which were uploaded moments post mortem, with no searching for free alternatives or routes to free alternatives, you are voting to allow any image to be uploaded from anywhere at any time just as long as the individual it depicts is of a dead person. Please think clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't what I'm saying. The fact is that no suitable alternatives have been found. There is therefore no reason to delete these images. Exactly who searched and when does not change the key fact that no alternatives are currently available, therefore fair use is justified. If that changes in the future then we can reassess. This is a deletion discussion on two files, not a debate about how much due diligence searching must be done, when and by whom. Modest Genius ^talk 17:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think again, use some of that genius. There's nothing remotely special about these files. If you're voting to keep them, then you're endorsing the process that put them here, namely the inclusion of any random image uploaded moments after the death of the subject, claiming "fair use" in a lazy and offhand manner. That's what you're doing. Focus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit tired of you questioning the intelligence of those who don't agree with you. What matters is the current status of these files, not how they got here. The fair use of these files is valid. The process we went through to establish that fact doesn't change it. There may be a case for more care in future uploads, but there's no case for deleting these files. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the genius. It's not intelligence, it's competence. There's no case for keeping these files, and doing so opens the floodgates, so well done to you and those who really don't get that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been practice at NFC that when a person dies, we do not allow non-free photos of that person to be used for about 3-6 months (roughly the same period that BLP extends after a person dies), as to give time for editors to try to find any existing free alternatives, including approaching the family/friends of the person after a sufficient period of mourning to ask for images. This is based on the fact that rarely for BLPs while they are alive are there active searches for free images, so the moment of death does not replace the expected level of effort required by NFC to show that a free image could not be obtained, now that it is impossible to actually create a new free image. If, while the person was alive, there is documented efforts to try to secure a free image without luck, then based on that effort, it is reasonable to waive the 3-6 months period, but that's not shown for the images in these cases. There may also be other reasonable mitigating circumstances (for example, an important person in an otherwise impoverished part of the world were digital photography is a rarity, expecting to find a free photo would be highly unlikely, so again, we may waive that period), but there's nothing with these subjects that would suggest such circumstances exist. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please, for the extremely sensitive out there, other people who are not so affected by the death may have images that are willing to release to Wikipedia. Just try asking, don't just assume someone already has done. If we all did that, no-one would ever call 999 for emergencies (i.e. "I'll assume someone else must have already called this in, I'll be on my way..." – better to have asked twice than not at all) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masem's claims are not supported by any evidence and seem bizarrely counter-factual. For example, the claim that free images are not sought while people are alive seems quite wrong. We have thousands of BLPs and many of them have images which editors have gone to some trouble to obtain. For example, I took a picture of Andrew Ritchie which is used in his article. That was comparatively easy to do while he was alive. I regularly start other BLPs such as Juliet Sargeant and will be alert to the possibility of getting an image for that. But once people die, such activity becomes a lot more difficult because they can no longer be contacted or photographed. The idea that getting images should only start happening when they die seems ludicrous. Andrew D. (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, do you think you can rebut people (Modest Genius, Andrew, Finn) voting "keep" to convince people to change their minds or influence an administrator's decision? I've done massive rebutting in one or several discussions, but that backfired. I want to discuss this behavior at your talk page, but... Well, you know how you and I have been at each other's throats. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about really. This is the venue for the discussion. If the aforementioned editors want to allow any picture of any dead person to be uploaded at any point after their death without any kind of further justification, that's their problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: you can use up all you have to influence the consensus, but we still like to stick to our votes until you feel tired out. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "influence", I'm arguing a position. I couldn't care less in particular what you think, discussions above show several editors here lack the competence to be trusted with some tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about your real-life competence? If you are desperate to replace the images with free replacements, wanna ask any company or close relative or friend or anyone else related to the subjects to release the pictures for free? Hmm... Reg Grundy is buried in Australia; Sally Brampton, UK. I don't think you live in either countries, do you? If not, I guess one of the companies outside home countries should possess photos of them, particularly the US, but they like to earn money. Where can we get nearby photos of them? George Ho (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about Ho? Find the pictures on the web, just as I already have done. Discuss changing the terms of licences. You really haven't got a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you're here George (and "Genius" and Davidson), would one of you please upload a picture of Burt Kwouk (e.g. this one so I can include it in the article please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that while two images above are under discussion. If I do that, someone else might nominate it as FFD cyclically. But I hope this discussion ends sooner, so I can do so afterwards. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If TRM wants an image loading, why doesn't he do it himself? Note that we already have an image of Kwouk (right). Andrew D. (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as you know Davidson, I do not believe this approach to be correct, but you and your cohorts obviously do. P.S. Please do not abuse the placement of fair use images. I have removed that because it has no rationale for inclusion on this page, as I'm sure you're aware. Stop abusing fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reinserting File:LOTSW new trio.jpg (as link actually). George Ho (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That image has now been added to the article. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image has now been removed as it is not being used correctly, having no fair use rationale for inclusion in the Kwouk article. I'm sure you already knew that so why you left it there, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. This should not be taken as support for deletion of File:Sally Brampton.jpg. I've never heard of Sally Brampton, so I can only speak about Reg Grundy, who is somewhat of an Australian icon. Claims that "no effort at all" has been made to obtain free images are misleading. Grundy was a high-profile individual in Australia but avoided the spotlight his entire life, so the possibility of getting a free image was exceptionally low. To make things worse, he moved to Bermuda 34 years ago, further reducing the possibility of a free image. I doubt that anyone back in 1981 thought "Hey, Reg Grundy is going to move to Bermuda soon. One day there might be a thing called 'The Internets', another thing called 'Wikipedia' and people might give a damn about copyright' so I'd better get a photo of him now, just in case." Now that Reg is dead, the possibility of obtaining a free image is pretty much non-existent, so WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @AussieLegend: Do people in Bermuda not have cameras? Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a long way away (from some places), maybe the technology hasn't got there yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The more relevant question is, do the people in Bermuda know who Reg Grundy was? While he was exceptionally well known in Australia he was probably a relative nobody in Bermuda, which is what he wanted. He probably wore shorts all the time so he didn't stand out. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant question is actually did anyone take any photos of him, in Bermuda or elsewhere, that they either have already released under a free license or are willing to release under a free license? We cannot assume the answer to that question is "no" just because he is now dead. If he had friends in Bermuda, even if they didn't know he was a megastar in Australia, one may have taken his photograph when they went out for a drink or played golf or something. If that photo is released under a free license then we don't need a fair use one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have to assume there are no free images until one is found, and there is no evidence that any exist or are available. "Aliens built the pyramids!" Using your logic, we must assume this is the case. Until such time that you've been able to doorknock everyone in Bermuda asking for free photos, and been rejected, we can't assume that free imagesexist. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's not how Fair Use has ever worked on Wikipedia, otherwise why are there hundreds of thousands of BLPs without images? Commons is not flooded with free images of dead people waiting to be replaced with free substitutes. Keeping this image and the Brampton one will open the floodgates to people uploading any image of any dead person they like without any thought whatsoever. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. We're talking about a 92 year old man who lived away from the spotlight, and who moved away from his home country 34 years ago to somewhere where he wasn't a celebrity, and who has only ever given one on-air interview. Based on the evidence we have, you can't assume there are are any free images to use. It's not as if he was a celebrity who you could just happen upon and take a photo. In Australia that's unusual anyway, although my son's friend did spy Russell Crowe in Hexham today, and for a person who was private, it's incredibly unusual. If Taylor Swift died tomorrow there are a gazillion free images (like this one), but that's not the case for this person. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you're missing the point, it is not correct to default to "use fair use until a free version is available" the second after someone dies. It never has been because if it were the case, we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of bios of dead people without images, that's safe to assume. I have already found images on Flickr of Grundy, yes the licences are incompatible with Wikipedia, but has anyone tried to request the licence be modified to a Creative Commons licence? I doubt it, because people can't be bothered to make the effort and just upload any old free image (e.g. a screenshot in this case) moments after the individual has died. You have disproved your own point in any case, thanks for that! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's inappropriate to use a non-free image for a living person because there is a reasonable expectation that a free image could be obtained. This is not the case with dead people, as the expectation no longer exists. If you really have found incompatible images on Flickr, you're one step ahead of the rest of us. If you can get one of these images released under a compatible license I'd be happy to change my vote. Until then... --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The point is that effort should be made to obtain a free version, or "create" one from a non-free version by making suitable requests. That should happen before any free version is simply uploaded and used. There has been no discernible effort made in this regard at all by anyone except, ironically, me. If you want to allow all dead biographies to have a free image uploaded to them, that should be clearly stated, as we are missing hundreds of thousands as it stands and that can be easily remedied. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes effort should be made, we have the principle WP:AGF as it states we stop assuming good faith when there is obvious evidence to the contrary so before I express my opinion could you show us that obvious evidence(to quote @The Rambling Man: There has been no discernible effort made) that people havent been trying for the last 15 years to obtain a freely licensed image of Reg Grundy. Gnan garra 01:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        A specific request for a photo was made in 2014. This suggested using the Free Image Search Tool. I have already conducted a free image search using Google's selective options and I gave this Free Image Search Tool a try too. I didn't find anything. Such searches are all that can be reasonably expected in the circumstances of a recent death and they have been done. A fair use image is therefore reasonable and appropriate as our policy specifies. Andrew D. (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Lazy editors would think that I guess. A grand total of two minutes work I suppose. In the meantime, you've been told of the existence of other images and their owners, but I don't see any effort at all being put into requesting those images be released. Typical. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Today, as it happens, I have made arrangements to photograph a collection of 19th century paintings which a distinguished scholar has advised are of historical importance. I'll upload these in due course and I have plenty of other topics to work on such as my latest article Alexander Chaffers, for which I have already made an image search but not yet found anything. There's an infinite amount of useful work to be done and so we have to prioritise so that we get the best value from our limited volunteer resources. Reg Grundy has already had more than his share of attention and we should not waste any more time on a wild goose chase. This is pragmatic efficiency not laziness. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's laziness, pure and simple. The files were both uploaded moments after the deaths of these two individuals. There is no way the research was conducted to ensure correct usage of Fair Use (which you yourself seem incapable of following correctly). Why is it a wild goose chase? Why isn't it due diligence and legally cautious to spend some real quality time ascertaining if a free image can be made available? As for adding the "photo wanted" tag to the talk page, you must be joking if you think that covers it, do us all a favour. If you and your cohorts are right about this, why are there hundreds of thousands of bios without images? It is safe to assume (as you like to do) that this approach is therefore incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update having made an effort to contact Surrey County Council and request they change the licence on Sally Brampton's image, they have agreed, and the file is now available at Commons. That is how you do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, no need to reply all you lazy users. I'm working on a suitable replacement for Reg too, which is more than all of you have done. I believe the point is proven, making more than a two-minute search and nothing else can actually provide a fair use image. Some of you should learn from this, although I doubt some of you are capable of doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thank you for putting in the effort to source free images. If you let me know (here or on my talk page) which image(s) of Reg Grundy you have contacted rights holders about then I can try others if you wish (I'd rather not duplicate your efforts). Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf sure, I'll go via your talkpage as it's clear that no-one else here is interested in actually solving the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start calling people lazy, which is pretty uncivil, I suggest you revisit this discussion that I was forced to start because you refused to do so, even though you seemed to know what was needed and I didn't. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, WMF will not be sued for the misuse of accessibility of a list. You must have spent a while looking back over four years to find that, and actually re-reading it demonstrates that I offered a good deal more to that discussion than you ever could hope to. Now then, have you made any requests for free Grundy files? Because I have. Now if you would like to help with this issue, please do so, if you don't want to help, I suggest you refrain from embarrassing yourself further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, getting freely licenced images can be extremely difficult, but it is not impossible. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody has been able to find one so far, including one editor who assured it could be done. Was Reg buried or cremated? If the former we could always dig him up. That's about the only way you're going to get a photo now. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "assured" any such thing. Please redact that, and please refrain from your disgusting attempts at humour. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused everyone of being lazy several times now and said I'm working on a suitable replacement for Reg too, which is more than all of you have done, yet there is no evidence that you have made any discernible effort in actually doing so, despite your claim from over three weeks ago. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I offered no guarantee, but have emailed the Australian Film Institute and am waiting for progress. Which, needless to say, is more than you have done beyond offering a false claim and a sick joke. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments above fairly clearly demonstrate that no free equivalent is available (and obviously can't now be created). As also noted above, many of the ways one might theoretically try to get around that unavailability are, shall we say, undesirable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. In my opinion, keeping the image goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify? Is this an argument against non-free images in general? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a way. I don't have a problem with fair use images that attract critical commentary in the article. But I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository of non-free images of dead people, for example. Photos of Grundy are available online, so I don't feel the need to compromise the "Free" nature of Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to convince me otherwise.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this is more a "I don't like it" vote? We have plenty of articles about dead people with non-free images in them because non-free images are permitted where there is no reasonable expectation that a free image can be obtained. If you don't like that, then there are more appropriate places to discuss this as that is a wider issue. The discussion here is about whether or not it is appropriate to use this image in this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:00, 26 June 2016 (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:BCAP Logo.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, above TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2016 (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:98.7 DZFE.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused file. Sixth o f March 14:50, 21 May 2016 (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.

Brazilian Olympic Committee logos

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 File:Time Brasil.png from Brazilian Olympic Committee#Olympic bids ★ Bigr Tex 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in Brazilian Olympic Committee#Olympic bids. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but there seem to be some problems with each.

The rationale for "File:Time Brasi.png" says the image is being used to identify the committee and the caption given for file says it is the new logo for the Olympic team ("time" apparently means "team" in Portuguese). The file, however, is not being used in the main infobox, but rather in the "Olympic bids" section where the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary as is generally required by WP:NFCC#8. Not sure why the logo is not being used in the main infobox, but its current usage does not satisfy NFCC#8. Would either {{PD-Brazil}} or {{PD-logo}} be applicable here? Suggest remove from article, unless the file can be moved to main infobox or somehow converted to a free license.
"File:Time Brasil (Brazil Team) logo.svg" is also being used in a manner contrary to what is claimed by its rationale. Since the file's caption says it's a former logo of the team and since the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary in the relevant section, this particular usage clearly fails NFCC#8. Suggest remove from article, unless the file can somehow be converted to a free license.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2016 (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.

Iraq Football Association logos

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 File:Iraq football association.png from Iraq Football Association#List of Presidents of IFA and File:Iraq Football Association logo.png from all except Iraq Football Association. ★ Bigr Tex 00:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos of the Iraq Football Association.

"File:Iraq Football Association logo.png" is currently being used in the main infobox of the association's article which seems consistent with the non-free use rationale. File, however, was also being used in Iraqi national football team (actually it was being used twice: main infobox and gallery of team logos), Iraq national under-17 football team, Iraq national under-20 football team and Iraq national under-23 football team. The consensus established by previous FFD discussions about similar logo usage has been that use in the stand-alone article about the federation/association complies with WP:NFCC, but any usage in individual team articles does not because of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I removed the files from the individual team articles per WP:NFCC#10c, but I also do not think a valid rationale can be written for such usage per No. 17 of NFC#UUI. Usage in the gallery of team logos would also fail WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFG) and WP:NFCC#3a (no need to use the infobox image twice). Is it possible that because this is an Iraqi logos that Template:PD-Iraq or some other free license applies. WP:NUSC#Countries without copyright relations with the United States lists Iraq as a country which does not have "copyright relations" with the United States so I'm not sure if that means this has to be non-free. If it can be converted to a free license, then it would not be subject to the NFCC; otherwise, I suggest keep for "Iraq Football Association" and that the file not allowed to be used in the individual team articles.
"File:Iraq football association.png" is a former logo of the asscociation which is being used in Iraq Football Association#List of Presidents of IFA. File has a non-free use rationale, but this is no longer valid because the logo has be replaced in the infobox by the new logo mentioned above. Current usage is primarily decortive since the context required by NFCC#8 is now lacking. File's usage also fails NFCC#3a since it is essentially the same as the current logo being used in the infobox with only (at least in my opinion) some minor differences in coloring and the addition/removal of some text and stars. File was also being used in Iraq national beach soccer team, but I removed it per WP:NFCCE. Suggest remove from "Iraq Football Association" unless the NFCC#8/NFCC#3a concerns can be resolved. It should also be clearly indicated that the file shuld also not be used in any individual team articles per No. 17 of NFC#UUI.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A previous FFD discussion about the use of File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg can be found at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 27#File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg. This looks to be exactly the same logo as "File:Iraq Football Association logo.png". I am pinging the administrator, @Explicit:, who closed the previous FFD for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out, the removal of the logo in the previous discussion was completely wrong. Why was it closed so quickly? The only reply to the discussion was from Faycal.09 who disagreed with the logo being removed from the national team pages. The discussion did not have enough replies in order for it to be closed, and the fact that there were zero replies that agreed to remove the logo from national team pages means that absolutely no consensus was agreed on and it shouldn't have been removed. The discussion was not allowed sufficient time to develop, so the logo should be added back to the national team pages. It should only be removed from the national team pages now if a consensus about non free logos being used on the national team pages is reached over at WP:FOOTY or elsewhere (which could well happen). Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The file's usage was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 27#File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg. It was properly closed by the administrator according to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions. FFD files may be closed after 7 days. If you disagree with the close, then please discuss it with the closing administrator per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you disagree with how the NFCC is being applied in such cases, then you can discuss it at WT:NFCC. The discussion ongoing at FOOTY is a WikiProject discussion, but that does not change the result of the FFD discussion or the NFCC itself. Re-adding the logo like you are doing just because you don't like the close is likely going to be seen as disruptive. You've recently mass removed logos (including freely licensed ones and ones with rationales) over this which seems to have been a bit pointy; now, it seems you are resorting to edit warring to get around a properly closed FFD, which is not really the way to go about achieving your goal. Explicit has clarified at User talk:Explicit#Iraq Football Federation logos that his close still applies, so you're welcome to discuss your concerns with him there. If the discussion at FOOTY eventually leads to a change in the way the NFCC is being applied in such cases, then most likely it will be retroactively applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marchjuly: Thank you for clear reply, I will discuss with the administrator who closed the discussion. Also I just like to say I am not trying to be disruptive or annoying, but you have to understand with my point of view and why I am frustrate because the logo I uploaded is not being allowed to be used because of a discussion where the only person who replied didn't even agree with the removal of logo, and meanwhile other logos of the exact same nature are allowed to be used and not mine. The reason for mass removal of logos was because I thought that the rule applied to my logo would apply to all the non free logos, I know now that discussion would have been better but I thought I would be saving others time. Maybe my inexperience with this side of Wikipedia led to me to make rash decisions but I think still you should understand I did not had bad intentions. Thanks Hashim-afc (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the clarification and I understand your frustration. Please try to understand that I also am trying to do what I feel is best for the encyclopedia and trying to follow a consenus which I feel has been established. This will hopefully be eventually resovlved one way or another in a way which will help clarify how the NFCC applies in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Marchjuly: I have just seen this discussion about the Gabon FA logo and that logo was allowed to remain on the Gabon national team page on the basis that the Gabon FA lacked notability. I am wondering: what makes an article lack notability? Because perhaps it could be seen that the Iraq FA also lacks notability, just looking at the article it is a stub with very little information about it. In that case, the logo would be allowed to be used on the national team page. What do you think about this? Hashim-afc (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In general, I would assume that an article lacks Wikipedia notability if its fails WP:GNG. There are also more specific things such as WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NBOOK, WP:NSPORTS, WP:NORG to help interpret how the GNG applies to specific topics. Some Wikiprojects also create their own guidelines to provide further clarification. WikiProject FOOTY has WP:FOOTY#Notability, but I couldn't find any mention of national organizations. As for the Gabon fle, I'll ping @Masem: and @Hammersoft: for comments. Just for reference, my last comment in that discussion was a question, not a statement of agreement. The Fédération Gabonaise de Football just includes a few external links and a reference to a DVD, which might be seen as not satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH (in the absence of a FOOTY guideline which says it does), so maybe that is what Masem meant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2016 (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.