Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 10

< October 9	October 11 >

October 10

File:Pangasinense People.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: relisted on 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pangasinense People.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.

Henry Kulka images

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: It's been suggested that the files may be PD in their country of origin, but it seems folks are not 100% certain about this. There is also weak consensus that 14 images is excessive, but it's not clear from the discussion which images should be removed. Given that this has been open for several months and no new comments have added since October, I'm closing this as no consensus/not actionable as-is, with no prejudice to individual renomination of the files below -FASTILY 05:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen non-free files of buildings or interiors designed by architect Henry Kulka all uploaded by the same person and sourced to the Kulka Foundation currently being used throughout the article about Kulka. All the files are licensed as {{Non-free destroyed architecture}}. While it might be possible to justify the non-free use of a couple of photos representing Kulka's work, fourteen seems quite a bit excessive in terms of WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, there are also five images from Commons being used in the article which means (assuming their licensing is OK) that WP:FREER also comes into play and some of the non-free images might also not be needed for general illustrative purposes. All of the non-free use rationales provided for the files contain the statement "To illustrate the specific architectural points described in the paragraph to describe the specific, unique architectural structure described in the Henry Kulka Wikipedia text." or something similar which I think is something that needs to be closely examined to see if this is really the case per WP:NFC#CS and assess when omitting any of these files would actually be detrimental of the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. For example, seven non-free and three Commons images are being used in Henry Kulka#Work in New Zealand which seems quite excessive and also not really needed per WP:FREER.

In addition to the non-free use issues, there are also issues with the file syntax in that thumbnails are being fixed to a specific pixel size which is something that is not recommended at all per WP:THUMBSIZE as well as some MOS:SANDWICHing issues; these things, however, should be fairly easy to sort out once the non-free issues have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I did some basic research on the Villa Khuner photographs 1 2. Those images are commissioned by Henry Kulka for his 1931 publication Adolf Loos. Das Werk des Architekten and taken by Martin Gerlach,^[1] a photographer who died in 1944.^[2] I would argue given German / Austrian copyright law, those photographs are now public domain and the files should be updated to add Template:PD-URAA.
Overall I am admittedly hesitant to remove fair use photographs for buildings truly destroyed or otherwise permanently damaged, rendering the photographs possibly irreplaceable. Although that's not to say some of these photos shouldn't be removed. I just think deleting them all would be a bad idea. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for trying to dig up more information on these. If some of them are PD, then that would mean they're no longer subject to WP:NFCC. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to simply preserve images just because they are rare or might otherwise be irreplaceable as explained in WP:IRREPLACEABLE; so, just keeping them for that reason regardless of whether their use complies with the NFCC is not really something we should be doing. If someone wants to preserve the images for posterity, they can download them and host them on some other platform. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Yes, thank you Elephanthunter. Based on what you say, it sounds like the files should be moved to Commons. I'd imagine there are additional knowledgeable folks there who can further evaluate the URAA claim if you are not certain. I'd be happy to move them over if you update the copyright tags. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons as PD per above rationale. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not excessive: The fourteen images are not an excessive number of images to illustrate the diverse and important architectural points in Kulkas work alongside descriptions in the Henry Kulka article. The not-free use exceptions and image numbers conform to the Wiki rules and Wiki exceptions rules. Each image has been chosen by a group of experts (academic) associated with the Kulka Foundation, a Registered charity to study and curate the works of Kulka. Each photo has been chosen by experts on Kulka to illustrate a unique category of information, whether 1) a period of work of Kulka with Adolf Loos, 2) relating to raumplan theory, or 3) an important typological variant, or 4) a new geography after forced exodus during world war 2 or 5) the separation between his European and South Pacific work or 6) the difference between his commercial structures or his private commissions.
The suggestion to remove these expertly chosen images from this site is inexpert, cavalier and would clearly be detrimental to enabling readers and scholars to get an aesthetic sense of interiors and exteriors that informing about specific aesthetic differences in time-place and in context. Taking these images off would be detrimental to the readers proper understanding of these differences and points in the evolution of works as physicalised ideas.
For example one editor above suggests that seven non free use photos are excessive for his work in NZ but Kulka’s predominant career was in NZ as the chief architect for Fletchers the country’s largest commercial building company and he separately ran a private practice - it is reasonable to have three or four images for each practice set. The initiating arguments hint at a dispassionate motivation behind the suggested removal and reclassification. ‘The Kulka Foundation’ refutes the approach to dissembling a thoughtfully published set of accompanying images.
Copyrights: All images uploaded under non-free use are those where Kulka, who died in 1970, through his Estate in NZ and Europe, still has a potent copyright interest either 1) by way of his financial commission, 2) his copyright in the architectural object-subject he created or co-created, or 3) by virtue of his 'direction of the taking of the image’ under the copyright laws at the time of image production by collaborating photographers. To move the images into Commons as some of the inexpert but no doubt well meaning editors ( indicating ‘ basic research was undertaken by them’) suggest above, would be a copyright violation under both Austrian and NZ copyright laws. The aforementioned comments and suggestions regarding the Khuner photos are an example of a route to copyright abuse because Kulka was a co-creator ‘of’ the Khuner structures themselves, and a director of the image notwithstanding its being taken by Gerlach, and Kulka a commissioner of their execution. The copyright is therefore Kulkas. The uploader has consulted copyright specialists qualified from the University of Oxford and can provide administrators with opinions and the statement of ownership of the owners of the copyright. The other images under non free use were permitted by the Kulka Estate, on the request of the Kulka Foundation. That Registered Charitable and Curatorial Foundation comprises a group of scholars in modernist architecture with specific knowledge about Kulka and his Czech, Austrian and South Pacific ouvre. Expert and professional legal intellectual property advice was sought by the uploader (representing the Foundation ) for each and every image - who commissioned it, who directed it, whose attribution of the object taken. Legal documentation and proofs were kept of such advice for each image and were shared with the Adminstrator. Please note, violations of the Kulkas Copyright found on the internet Commons do not make it safe for Wiki editors to use this violation as a modus/pretext to move the non-free use classification of the image to Commons, particularly after we submit this addendum fore warning. That would be a wilful wrong.
We request that the images be left, as they have been carefully published and categorised, to enrich the understanding of Kulkas’ work, which, being a building art, must be viewed as an image accompanying a description of attribution, provenance, typology, chronological order, geography and creative differentiation - which the article with the image selection does.
Note: We request that the administrators kindly remove the ‘files for discussion’ notices’ from each image please. --Wasuwatanabe 02:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim number of images Obviously, if any of these actually do turn out to be PD, then they should be moved to Commons and kept. But regardless of who the person is, WP has a non-free content policy with the goal to limit the amount of non-free image usage, including a per-page issue. Henry Kulka does not seem to have as many notability buildings like Frank Lloyd Wright (where these buildings would have their own pages and thus the images could be there), so we have to be much more selective as to what images are used. We need to go by what sources are available to give us critical commentary as to use only those images that best reflect those sources. (And to that end the article is drastially missing sources on much of its content which is not helpful here). For example the interior shot of the Harvey House is support in text via the "violin" comparison (with source) so that would be one to keep, but the next one down of the Meyer house has no discussion in the text and thus inappropriate to have. What the exact number is appropriate is hard to say, but based on how few seem supported by text, I think we're looking at 4-5 non-free at most, and that discounts what images are also PD that can be used. --Masem (t) 04:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.
^ WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (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:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.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. Consensus is clear, use of this image is not compliant with WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8. However, no prejudice to restoration if the article in question is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 05:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use in Shannon Miller which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, and in 1996 Summer Olympics which fails WP:NFCC#10c. I'm not seeing any sourced critical commentary in Shannon Miller#1996 is specifically about this imagery of the medal that justifies it's non-free use per WP:NFC#CS. More specifically, an image of the medal that Miller won at that Olympics doesn't really need to be seen for the reader to understand that she won the medal per WP:FREER, and the non-free use rationale's claim that image is needed to "illustrate a point in the article" is pretty by definition decorative non-free use. I can't see any way to justify the file's use in the Miller article and suggest that it be removed from that article.

The non-free use 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports actually makes more sense per WP:NFCC#8 since perhaps there's some sourced critical commentary about the medal's design could be found and added to that particular section and help justify it's non-free use; however, the file is currently without a non-free use rationale for that article which means it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. This could possibly be a keep if the file's use in the 1996 article can be better justified; otherwise, the file will most likely need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a low resolution photo of the item. It doesn't lack contextual signifigance. If the article points out, in the lead, that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games, having a representation of what that looks like is helpful and in context. In addition, since the medals for each games are different, showing the ones for these particular games, such as in the 1996 Summer Olympics article, has value. Both of these are more than mere decoration. I expanded the rationale to reflect this. Clearly this low res picture doesn't degrade the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the medals are different for each Olympic Games and sourced critical commentary about the design of the medals for the 2016 games can be found and added to 1996 Summer Olympics and then a corresponding non-free use rationale added to the file's page, then it might be possible to justify the file's use in that particular article per WP:NFC#CS. A separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use per WP:NFCCE; otherwise, the file can be removed simply for not having one and there doesn't seem to be a way to write a valid rationale based upon how the file is currently in 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports. As for the use in the Miller article, I disagree that a non-free image of a single medal represents that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games. A visual representation of that is borderline decorative non-free use to begin with, but this isn't even a picture showing Miller with or wearing all of the medals she won. There have been quite a number of multiple gold medal winners over years at various Olympic games and such achievements can be more than sufficiently understood by readers of such articles without actually seeing images of the medals they won. So, the reader doesn't need to see a non-free picture of a gold medal to understand that Miller won any gold medals in 1996; moreover, there's nothing special about the design of this medal that's really contextually tied to Miller, at least nothing currently in Shannon Miller#1996 or anywhere else in the article, that would be hard for the reader to understand if they didn't see this particular image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that there needs to be critical commentary about design differences to be relevant to the depiction. Miller wasn't wearing them at the event. If you can find an image of her wearing them, that would be a good replacement. Until then, images of Miller and of the medal will have to fill that void. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Shannon Miller. The fact that she won a gold medal can be explained in text. There is no need to include an image of the medal.
The image currently fails WP:NFCC#10c in 1996 Summer Olympics. WP:NFCI §2 says that logos can be used for identification and for Olympic games I think that the same can be said about the mascot and maybe the medal. Is the medal always the same? If they only change the roman numeral, the city name and the year, then I think that the image runs afoul of WP:NFC#UUI §14. If, on the other hand, the image also changes, then it is maybe only WP:NFCC#10c which is violated in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the medals aren't all the same. Any easy way to demonstarate that is..... by photos. Question: What makes this picture unacceptable but makes ones like this [1] ok? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which means there are way less restrictions placed upon how they may be used. The file being discussed here was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content and, therefore, its use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained in WP:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia. Please note that uploading a file to Commons doesn't automatically mean its licensing is OK because files are constantly being deleted from Commons for a variety of reasons; however, that's an issue that would need to be resolved on Commons. If you have a concerns involving the 1964 medals photo, you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC, but there could be a variety of reasons the photo might be OK, including the information found in c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and c:COM:Switzerland. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say I had a concern. I asked what the difference it. I'm actually trying to improve Wikipedia, but I'm starting to get tired of you talking to me like I'm an idiot. I have over 40,000 edits on English Wikipedia and have uploads at the commons as well. I'm asking how to do it better, so giving me some useless "things get deleted" wikilink as if I don't understand the basics borders on insulting. Clearly, you're not going to try to help see how we can retain the picture. Your interest in in deletion only. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid. You asked a question and I tried to answer. Since you're question involved an image on Commons, I just tried to point out that such things cannot be resolved here on English Wikipedia. Anyway, my apologies if the wording of my post or the links I added somehow seemed insulting because that was not my intent.
        I did explain my concerns about the file and what I think is needed to keep using it both the Miller and 1996 Summer Olympics articles. You seemed to disagree; so, there seemed to be no need to restate the reasons why I nominated the file for discussion.
        I am curious though as to why you think the same file uploaded to Commons under a different name is now your 100% "own work" and OK to release under a free license. Is there some reason for you to believe the engraving and design of the medal is not protected by copyright? Such things actually are often eligible for copyright protection per C:COM:CB#Jewelry and c:COM:CB#Engravings. So, unless you're actually the creator of the medal, then your photograph would seem to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights that need to be considered: the one for the photo and the one for the photographed item. Since the photograph entirely focuses on the medal, it would be hard to argue de minimis in this case, which means the copyright status of the medal needs to also be taken into account. I thought this was the reason why the file's licensing was converted by you to non-free per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 28#File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg.. If something has change since then and you can clarify what it is, then perhaps this FFD can be quickly resolved. The file uploaded to Wikipedia is now orphaned non-free use and will be deleted per WP:F5 if it remains as such. However, if the Commons file cannot be kept because of c:COM:DW, it will end up deleted as well. Maybe it would be better to re-add the non-free file to the articles where it was being used until any issues with the one you uploaded to Commons are resolved or this FFD is closed, whichever happens first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't magically think it's my own work etc. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. The focus may be on the medal, but the low resolution photo hardly diminishes the original copyright holders commercial opportunities. Nothing has changed from the conversion. I still believe all of those to be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that Miller won a gold medal is adequately conveyed with the text and does not need a non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The medals from each Olympiad are different. Merely saying she won a medal implies that 'if you've seen one, you've seen them all'. We show a picture of James Dean in a race car, but why? If we just say he drove race cars, that should adequately convey it, right? Picture= 1000 words. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the image does not detract from the understanding in the article. Why must we see this image and medal to understand the article on Miller. Also, WP:THOUSANDWORDS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said you "must" see the image to understand the article. I don't need to see the picture of a race car to understand that Dean drove race cars, but seeing it gives me some more context. The article on Mount Everest has over a dozen pictures of the mountain. We don't need them, but the different views provide more information. Since all Olympic medals are not designed the same, why shouldn't there be at least one picture to show the differences? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2021 (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:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.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: relisted on 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.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.

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).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: Keep. If anyone has an official photo/screenshot, feel free to overwrite this image -FASTILY 04:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a LucasFilm image of Star Wars Stormtrooper. As actors/cosplayers playing Stormtroopers wear the same indistinguishable costume/armour (apart from obvious derivative cosplays), it seems that cosplay images can perfectly replace the fair-use file. Given that we have ample cosplay images of Stormtroopers on Commons, it is doubted that whether WP:NFCC#1 is violated. The file is therefore nominated to be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also asked for further copyright advice on WP:MCQ#Star Wars Stormtrooper and File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png, but it seems that no response have been made.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but overwrite with an image from official media because according to Fandom (which is listed as the source here, unacceptable) this image originates from http://www.anovos.com/collections/the-imperial-collection/products/star-wars-classic-trilogy-imperial-stormtrooper-pre-order (dead link) which was "awarded the STAR WARS™ high-end costume and high-end collectibles licenses" so the current image is no more valuable than a photo of a cosplayer wearing the same thing. 廣九直通車, according to Commons we have to use the separability test. While a large portion of the suit would be considered utilitarian, particularly the lower part of the helmet doesn't appear to be, containing many details without any function. It has been a source of debate for well over a decade on Commons though. @Clindberg: would you agree that at least the helmet is eligible for copyright protection? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe a U.S. court ruled they were copyrightable (but it was a summary judgement, as the defendant did not show up) -- but they are not copyrightable in the UK, actually. See Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you know of a "real" ruling? The Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth article mentions a case in California where Lucasfilm won by default, i.e. the court never considered the question whether the costumes were copyrighted because the defendant never showed up in court. I don't think that a default ruling is suitable to determine if something is copyrighted or not.
  - For Commons, it is also necessary to determine the status in the source country. The French supreme court has ruled that furniture can be copyrighted and that photos of furniture can infringe the copyright of the furniture, so photos of costumes could be an issue in France. However, Wikipedia only looks at United States law and United States law exempts utilitarian objects from copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably there was a valid copyright registration for Lucasfilm to file suit in the first place -- if they have one of those, then I believe copyrightability is prima facie assumed by the court. I think a defendant would have to disprove it during the case, and the defendant did not show up. I'm not sure they had a sculpture registration directly, though General Mills has a couple of 1978 registrations on derivative stormtrooper toys. Those mention the movie itself as the underlying work, so Lucasfilm may have been relying on the character copyright embodied in the movie in order to file suit, rather than a direct sculptural registration. The U.S. Copyright Office searchable records only start in 1978 though, so it's possible there was something earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Clindberg, I can see why the "it's a sculpture!" argument would fall flat. It clearly isn't a sculpture, it's a functional helmet. It will protect you from rain and foes armed with paintball guns. I wouldn't count on it as a bike helmet, but that's not a requirement to be utilitarian. What would be interesting (assuming this isn't what happened) is if Ainsworth had used all the holes in the lower part of the helmet to turn it into a functional gas mask, respirator or diving helmet. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's possible (but I have no helmet to check) that the holes actually allow for air to circulate so the actors won't suffocate/overheat. If that assumption is true it would make this considerably harder to judge, I think. But until we know more, I think it's safest to assume non-free. Besides that, I'd really prefer to see a genuine depiction from the movies in this case. A cosplayer ultimately isn't a Stormtrooper. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Alexis Jazz: The Copyright Office has generally said that Halloween masks would tend to fall outside of the "useful article" scope, and are often registrable. See here. From that, Although a mask alone is not considered a useful article, a legitimate question arises regarding registration practices in instances where a copyrightable mask is combined and sold as a unit with an otherwise uncopyrightable costume. In such circumstances, the Copyright Office will register the "work" on the basis of the copyrightable authorship in the mask. A helmet could be an interesting part of that -- the helmet portion can be utilitarian, but if the portion in the mask area is considered "separable" or not utilitarian, it could still be a problem. It's in the gray area, for sure. There is also the possibility there is a "character" copyright on the details of stormtroopers, and a costume could infringe that (but not sure we delete photos of cosplay on those grounds, if the costumes themselves are legal). And photos which are not focusing on the mask portion may be fine, as well, if the copyright is just on the mask, much like a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle -- only photos focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep non-free image but replace, per above - I uploaded this image in the first place because every cosplay image previously used in the article was systematically deleted from Commons as a copyright violation (see Costumes and cosplay). I'm sort of shocked that there are so many such images on Commons now, perhaps the community has begun taking a less aggressive stance? In any case, I was unaware this was not an official image, so if a non-free image remains then I agree with Alexis Jazz it should be replaced with an official one.— TAnthony^Talk 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Alexis Jazz and TAnthony: Commons had a deletion case involving a image depicting a Spiderman cosplay (which of course is the kind of character where the costume covers the full body of the actor/cosplayer), and the file involved is later closed after lawyer's opinion is solicited. Do you think such safeguard on Commons is sufficient to ensure that related files on Commons won't be suddenly deleted?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  廣九直通車, that 2009 email from Godwin has been superseded by the 2011 email from WMF legal which was discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - My fault for not noticing that advice has since been superseded by another one. Fine then, I'll withdraw my request for deletion, and will wait for the replacement. Thanks for all of your comments!廣九直通車 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the movies currently. TAnthony, can you supply an image from the movies? Or if you can find a suitable image at https://www.youtube.com/c/StarWars/videos I could take a screenshot. I found no great image in the trailers for the recent Star Wars movies on that channel but there's much more content there. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (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:Regiment of Artillery 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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certain these would all fall under the license of non-free symbol as copyrighted designs of the Pakistan Army and that they have just been mis-licensed. I however came across this file on Commons which threw some doubt into my mind. If the decision is that they are non-free then they should be removed from the List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Army articles. The few symbols that are used in the infobox of the specific military unit should be re-licensed and kept (namely File:Regiment of Artillery logo.png, File:Punjab Regiment logo.png, File:Pakistan Armoured Corps logo.png, File:Corps of AAD logo.png, File:Corps of Engineers logo.png, File:Army Ordinance Core logo.png and File:EME Core logo.png). Salavat (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: I've relicensed all the above files for their respective articles except File:Baloch Regiment logo.png + removed all files from other articles except their respective articles and also removed/relicensed all the files uploaded on commons by User:GC Saab. I hope deletition will now closed since I've removed all confusions/perspectives regarding copyvios.Wallu2 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2021 (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:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.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: relisted on 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg (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.

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg

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 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg (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.

File:Love Train - O'Jays.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. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 03:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US release lacks a picture sleeve, yet the US market share was larger than the rest of the world at the time. Yeah well, I'm summarizing what the uploader (the same who uploaded this image and the other image I previously nominated) said at the other FFD discussion. To put it another way, the American music industry has been very important. Out of huge single releases at the time, Americans received the single release using just a generic sleeve. The US release hasn't been distributed with a picture on the front cover.

I don't think a picture sleeve of an overseas release of "Love Train" by the O'Jays is necessary. The free image exists (File:Love train by o'jays US vinyl.png) and is concurrently used there. Furthermore, the song can be already well understood without a picture sleeve identifying singers (or band) who recorded the song or a song title. The (overseas, or German/Dutch) picture sleeve may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1. Moreover, the picture sleeve wasn't well identified without a caption. Whether enjoyment of the article or the song may be affected by deletion of the sleeve isn't part of NFCC. Understanding the song (or the single release) with or without the image is part of the NFCC.

Well, it's not like "I Need You (Eric Carmen song)", whose non-free lead image was kept by default. Rather I hope to compare this with "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing". This isn't the case of whether the song has more than one version. Instead, this is more about identifiable releases (of the same version of the song). George Ho (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where are you getting information about the sleeve cover? It looks like you also changed Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing to say that it was artwork for the German single [2]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
45cat.com shows images of the Dutch and German releases, which contain the same picture sleeve. The US release lacks one. Even the German release of the Donny and Marie Osmond version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" has a picture sleeve, while the US release doesn't. I can show you images from discogs, a user-generated website, if you like. If you don't believe in 45cat or discogs, then I don't know how else to convince you. If only eBay listings show more images of the releases.... George Ho (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very surprised that neither 45Cat nor discogs (2 US entries) have one. I tend to believe them, even though they are "not WP:RS." Maybe, as US artists, the company assumed the American public would know better who they were buying? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If curious, you can look up sources discussing vinyl singles sleeves or use the Wikipedia Library. You'll learn history of releasing singles before CDs. George Ho (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. The first has "No preview available" for me. I'm not sure there is anything there which might answer the question here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2021 (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:ZTE Orbit phone.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well within the bounds of WP:NFCC#1. This is a defunct phone with defunct insecure OS from almost a decade ago, with batteries that are rated for 2-3 years. The chances of a new free equivalent being created is zero, and I don't see any existing free replacements. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible that the batteries no longer work, but most phones can get electricity by connecting a cable to the phone if you wish to run the software. Note that the software is unfree, but the photo still fails WP:FREER. Also, there is no software seen on the back of the phone. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (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:Gojira - Ocean Planet.ogg

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free music sample claimed to be used for the purpose: "specifically discusses the themes Gojira evokes in its album From Mars to Sirius" but no such discussion about this song exists in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. At 33 seconds, also fails WP:NFCC#3b. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, I was just talking to the uploader about this. A fix may be in the works. I cannot say the same about the other sample you nominated. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is addressed, then we can re-examine this but I would think that the From Mars to Sirius article would make much more sense as the place for such material and this sound sample if such critical analysis were to be added. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After a few hours of thinking, the file moves to the From Mars to Sirius article. I uploaded another version of the sample: 30 s, 55 kbps. Oroborvs (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggested that the album would be the more natural place for the file and its accompanying sourced critical commentary. The image has been moved but there has been nothing about the song sample. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The primary purpose of the non-free music sample was to illustrate the theme of the From Mars to Sirius album in Gojira's article, but I have no problem if it has been moved to the album page since its use on the latter is more relevant. Oroborvs (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2021 (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:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg

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 2021 November 28. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg (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.

File:Overwatch loot box.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: relisted on 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (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.

File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Etudes-Tableaux, Op. 39, No. 5.ogg

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 per Commons discussion. ✗plicit 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Etudes-Tableaux, Op. 39, No. 5.ogg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:29, 10 October 2021 (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.

Paris logo

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 2021 November 28. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:City of Paris logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Logo of Paris.svg (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.

File:BrazosValleywithRiverMap.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, superseded by File:BrazosValleyMap.jpg. ✗plicit 11:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (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:DJHSS 3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP India, freedom of panorama does not extend to 2D works. Photos of this plaque cannot be released under a free license. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 October 2021 (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:Cat 2 Olga 50 kts 989 mb 012310.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 ⚡ 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, the source link is dead and the file is not used anywhere onwiki, no obvious use with current WPTC image standards. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (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:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.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-1923-abroad}} -FASTILY 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this tagged as non-free instead of {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2030}}? This was previously listed at FFD by Marchjuly (talk · contribs) in February this year, but the discussion was only about the copyright status in the source country whereas Wikipedia looks at the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How I've been told is that works that are not free in their home country but are free in the US need NFURs anyway. I don't think that adding a {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} would disrupt or conflict with anything else listed. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is free in the United States but not in the source country, then it is treated as a free file on English Wikipedia, but should be tagged with an appropriate template like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of this statue have been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 14#File:Den lille havfru.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 17# File:Mermaid Statue Copy in Dallas Texas.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 1#File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 14# File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 10#File:The Little Mermaid en.jpg, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/January#File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg and its the last one which led to the most recent FFD at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 4#File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg. If an error was made and the file is currently incorrectly licensed as non-free, then it was certainly an error made in good faith. It appears this file is a different from the ones discussed prior to 2013 and it was never licensed as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It was tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} with this edit in 2015, but it remained under only a {{self}} license until earlier this year. Photos of the statue were uploaded and deleted a number of times over the years under different file names (File:Den lille havfru.jpg, File:Mermaid Statue Copy in Dallas Texas.jpg, File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, and File:The Little Mermaid en.jpg) and people just probably never made the connection between them before until Stefan2 did here. Whether all the deleted files can be restored is unclear; if, however, the consensus is that this latest one need not be non-free, then the non-free license should be replaced per Stefan2 above. Finally, this is not really a discussion for this FFD per se, but there should be some way to better tie in discussions about essentially the same file under different file names so as to perhaps avoid things such as this. There's nothing like a {{Afdx}} template for FFD discussions and the talk pages of files that end deleted typically aren't tagged with {{Oldffdfull}}: even if they were, file talk pages almost always are deleted when a file is deleted. So, unless you've been involved in previous discussions about such a file or just happen to notice something odd, any re-uploads or a deleted file are likely going to go unnoticed for quite some time. So, if this file's licensing is changed as Stefan2 suggests, there should be something added to it's talk page which connects it to all of the previous discussions about previous photos of the statues for reference purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the photos was deleted because there was no evidence of permission from the photographer. I think that the rest can be undeleted and tagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, unless there is reason to believe that there is no evidence of permission from the photographers. If you read The Little Mermaid (statue)#Copyright issues, you will find that the heirs suddenly dropped a claim for compensation in the United States. It doesn't say why the claim was dropped, so maybe they just tried to back off quietly after they discovered that the copyright already had expired in the United States.

Commons sorts many deletion requests into categories, so deletion requests for photos of this statue would normally be sorted into both c:Category:Undelete in 2030 and c:Category:Danish FOP cases/deleted, making them easy to find. It would be useful to have a way to also sort deletion requests on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2021 (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:CHippendale plaque in Otley, where Thomas Chippendale was born.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use. As far as I'm aware, the plaque still exists, so someone could still go there and create a free replacement of this photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image fails WP:NFCC#10a due to having an unspecific source. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just replaced the image at the article Thomas Chippendale with a free one, File:Thomas Chippendale's blue plaque - geograph.org.uk - 1937847 (cropped).jpg. Ham II (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice. I spent some time searching for a replacement but did not manage to find one. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2021 (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:Srch9.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not on the linked web page.[3] No other source provided by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (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:Party affiliations in the European Council (21 February 2009).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Lacks explanation of what the colours mean. Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2021 (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:Structure-E-saxmeleto.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2021 (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:Traxxas tmaxxs.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (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:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Seems unrelated to the image listed as source. Unclear where the photo of the euro coin comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ideally we could replace it with something since it's still used in a lot of places, mostly historical or archives. — 🦊 21:01, 10 October 2021 (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:TimberJimVan.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the Image creator has given permission to use on the Wikipedia website. This sounds more like {{db-f3}} than public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2021 (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:Denver Basin Cross Sections.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2021 (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:Nese 2018 cropped.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2021 (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:Male Bathroom Symbol.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2021 (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:Expandable Water Toy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (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:CSG Willem van Oranje.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused textlogo. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (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:Katzsh.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to he:קובץ:Katzsh.jpg which is listed as non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2021 (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:Morphiceptin.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (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:Polke Spiderman.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one. Both are missing evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (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:Body burden of lead fancient and modern humans compared.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 as F3 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source claims to be cc-by-nc-sa, not cc-by-sa. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2021 (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:MGS sports hall interior.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although it says author donates, it doesn't say who the author is. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (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:Trump's face, cropped from the public domain official portrait.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (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:RPRhartaadminitial.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Administrative map of Romania, 1950-1952.svg. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (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:Ven Ho Yuen Hoe—Singapore.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by Aldwinteo (talk · contribs): This is a derivative work.
File uploaded by Marcuslim (talk · contribs): Delete per WP:F1. Dupe of File:VenHo.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (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:Luis Alfredo Garavito (Apr. 23, 1999 mugshot).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garavito-1999.png. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2021 (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:Ppl07-08.svg

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 ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (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:The Salt Company 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to Draft:Salt Network which was deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (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:Soviet Major General Tikhon Fyodorovich Yegoshin.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source ru:Файл:Егошин, Тихон Фёдорович.jpg is listed as non-free. The file information page references obsolete law. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2021 (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:Jansher Khan while in press confrence.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark suggests it comes from a TV programme or something. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (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:K-pop artists through history.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unsourced. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (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:Fabian Society coat of arms.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete, unverifiable source. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (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:Worcester Six memorial at Franklin Street Fire Station.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: Converted to non-free -FASTILY 22:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:FOP United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free since there are no free pictures (per FOP and de minimis) available for any memorials of the fire and I believe an NFUR could be written to satisfy NFCC. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader (on Wikipedia) of the image. Consistent with the above, I've converted the rationale to non-free, and have updated a lower-resolution version of the image. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2021 (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:Maldives Visa Requirements Map April 2015.svg

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 ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, all data is ^{[citation needed]}. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (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:Los-angeles.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source. Impossible to verify public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (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:Timothée Chalamet Wonka.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

potential copyright infringement, non-free image for non-encyclopedic purpose HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:19, 10 October 2021 (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:Song of the Korean People's Army, Instrumental Version.ogg

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 ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music by Ra Kuk (라국/羅菊), no evidence of permission. Sound recording and performance of unknown provenance. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be properly sourced to the sound recording and converted to nonfree. This is not a Chinese copyright work, this is North Korean. The copyright terms there is Life+50 generally, or if it was collective, publication+50. Assuming the adoption date is the publication date and that this work is considered a collective work, that means it expired in 2019 (2018+51=2019) and would thus be subjected to URAA. If it is not, then the original copyright is life+50 and would be based on when Ra Kuk dies or has died. Furthermore, all sound recordings have an additional copyright and almost all of them would be in copyright at this point. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to jawiki (ja:朝鮮人民軍歌#来歴) the song was made in 1968 (1968年、リ・ボムス(리범수)が作詞し、ラ・グク(라국)が作曲した。). I can't find any information about the composer other than his name. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2021 (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:Betty Chancellor actress.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. No prejudice to restoration if someone is able to create a valid fair use claim for it. -FASTILY 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting copyright information. Both cc-by and cc-by-nc-nd are mentioned on the file information page. No evidence of permission for either licence. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say there is no evidence of permission. But I see clearly: "Evidence: The license statement can be found online at:....." What more evidence can there be? I have an email from the National Portrait Gallery dated July 17 2019 which says: "You are welcome to upload this to Wikipedia under our free Creative Commoms BY-NC-ND licence: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw204576" It is signed Matthew Bailey, Rights & Images Manager. I do not begin to understand the complications of this. What can evidence consist of? Obviously not a piece of paper. This is annoying. Rory Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryjohnston (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Roryjohnston: You uploaded the file under a {{cc-by-4.0}} license. Can you provide a link which shows that the file has been released under that license? The link you provided above shows the file released under a cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 license, but this license is not accepted by Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia needs a license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to download this file at anytime and reuse for any purpose; so, any licenses that place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use aren't going to be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. This is what I believe Stefan2 meant by "no evidence of permission". Wikipedia needs something that specifically shows that the photo has been released under the licensed you uploaded it under. If you just made a good-faith mistake when uploading the file, then that's OK. Perhaps you just choose the license you thought was closest to "cc-by-nc-nd-3.0"? However, it's still a mistake that needs to be addressed. One possibility would be to discuss whether this can be converted to non-free content. Such a thing isn't always possible, but it might work here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This image is likely still in copyright thought many NPG images now on the commons are actually in the public domain but claimed to be unfree by the NPG with a restrictive licence as this one has. It is a good candidate to convert to non-free in a reduced size. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The picture may well be out of copyright. It came from Bassano Ltd. so the photographer's name is not known. British copyright law does not allow for corporate authorship so since 1935 is more than 75 years therefore public domain. If it were non-free content would the thumbnail on my mother's page have to be smaller? I could look out an alternative picture.Roryjohnston (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Non-free content needs to comply with WP:NFCC#3b (WP:IMAGERES) and it seems that the currently file would thus need to be reduced. How much it will end up being reduced is unclear, but most of the time it is a bot that does the reducing. The standard image size for an infobox like {{Infobox person}} is touched upon at WP:IMAGESIZE and I imagine the bot reduces things partly based upon that; in other words, the bot will reduce image to default size considered OK for Wikipedia. Finally, you seemed to imply above that Chancellor is your mother and also stated as much on your user talk page. If that's the case, you should carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference. I've added some links about this to your user talk page, so please take the time to look them over because it might help you avoid problems moving forward. I'm not trying to say you've done anything wrong, but COI editing is an area where problems between editors can quickly develop; so, the more transparent you are about this, the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free or delete if NFCC can't be satisfied, since the CC-BY-NC-ND is incompatible with Wikipedia. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:29, 15 October 2021 (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:Omernos-new1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one. Unused userphotos, no foreeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2021 (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.

[1] "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.

[2] WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)