Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 25

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alma Cook red carpet Tubeathon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cameronsaydes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image was orignally attributed to Vivien Killilea with no evidence that the image was released under a free license. After I tagged the image with {{di-no permission}}, the summary info was altered to state the uploader is the copyright holder. OTRS verification would be needed to confirm the uploader holds the copyright. Note that the original author information is correct as this image is licensed through Getty and states the photograpoher is Vivien Killilea. Whpq (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2018 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alma Cook performing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cameronsaydes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image was originally attributed to Nate Crossley without evidence of permission. After I tagged the image with {{di-no permission}}, the summary info was altered to indicate the uploader is the copyright holder. Unless Nate Crossley is a pseudonym for Vivien Killilea (see this file deletion discussion for File:Alma Cook red carpet Tubeathon.jpg), then this claim not at all credible. Whpq (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2018 (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: Unclear copyright status. Defaulting to delete until these can be proven to be free -FASTILY 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aristiderazu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment (The Attack-1917) during Marasesti Battle ,personal album of Aristide Razu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aristiderazu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These are very interesting pictures and I'd love for them to be kept, but they need clarification on their copyright status. The description claims that they were part of an album given to Aristide Razu and published by his descendant. However, there's no information given about the actual photographers, who would hold the copyright. There is also no evidence the rights to the images were transferred to Razu or his heirs.

The uploading user was indefinitely blocked a few months ago for disruptive editing so I don't know if they'll be any help clearing this up. Also see c:COM:CRT#Romania for info on Romanian copyright law. clpo13_(talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh, tough one. So, PD-US-1923, for which it is currently tagged, would not apply as it wasn't published before 1923. It sounds like these were personal photos given as a gift and never published. As such, for US law, we'd be looking at the life of the author + 70 years. And indeed the author, being the photographer who gave them as a gift, assuming he did not also sign away copyright. Hard to say for sure how long that person would've lived, but it doesn't seem a stretch to say they might've lived another 30 years, making these still in copyright. Now then, these were taken in Romania. Romania's laws are considerably different. See commons:Template:PD-RO-photo for a short overview. I'd want to look into the latter more before !voting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 2 June 2018 (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: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Master-bill.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Office in a small city hopper 1953.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

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 only on bio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Natura Morta', oil on canvas painting by Giorgio Morandi, 1956, private collection.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Delete: None of the articles discuss the work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep important crucial work by an important artist...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from all articles except the artist's bio. Those uses are unsupported by sourced critical commentary regarding the painting itself, and the use rationales are based on inchoate and undemonstrable assertions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2018 (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⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferari Fauj.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arfeero (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a screenshot from a movie. The non-free usage rationale states that the purpose is "[t]o illustrate Ferari Fauj". It is not the subject of significant commentary and its useage is decorative failing WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The images does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the film. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:30, 26 June 2018 (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⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarolCleveland.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian0918 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understand of the article topic. There is no need to visually identify the associate Pythons. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Replaced with free image of the person depicted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2018 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surve-at-party.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder but this is a Youtube screenshot. There was no link provided to the original Youtube clip but an IP editor added one although it is not at all clear that it is the correct one. If the provided link is correct then this is a copyright violation as the licensing is standard youtube not creative commons. If the provided link is not correct, then the image needs to be deleted as it does not provide a proper source. Whpq (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The provided source is not the source. Even if it were, it is not licensed under the terms on the file description page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 26 June 2018 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:QOJ2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sreejithk2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While the rationale states "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." There is no actual critical commentary about the album's cover art on the band's page where it appears. Therefore, the file does not meet WP:NFCCP#8.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Usage clearly doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:35, 26 June 2018 (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.