Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

August 13

File:Tank Commander Nishizumi Film Poster.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 ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a film as such but a poster, so I'm not sure the license given is applicable, also the other license note here is possibly a bit misleading, just because it's propoganda doesn't make it PD automatically. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then just retag as {{PD-Japan-organization}}. Or is Indonesia the source country? There's both Japanese and Indonesian text on the poster. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Tank Commander Nishizumi is the work in question - this was Japanese propaganda, so I am going to assume it's most plausibly of Japanese origin and aimed at Indonesians. Kōzaburō Yoshimura died in 2000, if he's the copyright holder to the poster this would not PD under the URAA yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.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 Widely available images are not the same as public domain images. ★ Bigr Tex 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear if uploader is photographer. Kelly ^hi! 11:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The picture belongs to the Ateas article, the most famous Scythian king, and articles on Scythians and their kingdoms. The legend shows his name as Atail(s) "Father of the country". Photo in the public domain, published and republished for a century, also posted in various postings on coins. I do not know who removed the illustration and for what reason. On certain subjects, WP works in mysterious ways, most pertinent contributions get wiped out. I hope that the picture would remain and used. Barefact (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that the photograph was published a century ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Barefact. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if author holds copyright; more discussion required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coin is PD, but irritatingly (commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet) the photography has its own copyright. I'm afraid this one will merit deletion unless we can find out when it was photographed - Barefact, where do you know from that this picture was published and republished for a century? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that the photograph (as derivative work of the public domain coin) is in public domain. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stefan2: F. Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechischen und römischerı Münzkunde (II. Abteilung), RSN, XIV, Geneve, 1908, стр. 163, табл X, 22.

G. F. Hill, Greek coins, acquired by the British Museum in the 1905—1910, NC, 1912, London, стр 137, табл. VI, 5.

Анохин В.А. Монеты скифского царя Атея// "Нумизматика и сфрагистика", т.2, Киев-1965, стр 3-15

The most detailed examination of the coin is given in Anikhin 1965, http://coins.ucoz.ru/load/5-1-0-23. Numerous photos of the coins were widely circulated from 1940s among numismatists. My photo came from a prominent professional numismatist scientist in Russia from his private collection. The undated photo from private collection is in public domain as stated. Illustration belongs to the articles Scythians and Ateas. Barefact (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barefact I cannot find the photo in the first two sources. If it was published in there the photo would fall under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references (could cite more, they repeat the same source) attest to the timing when the coins became known to the western numismatists. The coin 1 of Anokhin was the first that came to State Historical Museum in Moscow (ca 1940s-45). The coin 2 of Anokhin fairly soon came to Hermitage ca 1950). The depictions of the coins, including the British, must have been around for a century. Since 1950s, more coins were found, at least some in good condition, with clear legend. Their pictures floated around between professionals and affectionados long before the concept of copyright came to Russia. Much later, the picture that I have, about 10 years ago, started showing up on Internet, it is clear that it is the same coin, but its fate I do not know, probably it remains in private hands. Since my picture was widely available, it is clear that it belongs to the public domain, which I stated when I posted it on WP under a free license to illustrate the original legend. Unless something had changed, it should remain under a free license.Barefact (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we need some evidence that this specific photo is in the public domain. "Widely available" does not equal "public domain". Kelly ^hi! 17:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kelly, the file was on English WP for 10 years, and other than the transfer to Commons with its more stringent requirements, there is no urgency to delete it. It can remain on WP without being transferred, it is OK with WP policies, and if you would request me to add something to that respect, I will do that with no problems. The photo is in sharp contrast with other exemplars in removing any ambiguity in the reading of the legend, it shows the undistorted name as was minted by the issuer. That was a reason for removing the image from the files, in an ideological dispute that I did not want to engage in. Still, the factual part can't be obfuscated, the images (more than one now, of different coins with legible legend) are widely available, and the flow of events has already nixed the ideological objectors. The ambiguity of the reading, and speculations on the readings of worn-out legend are gone. The illustration should be reinstated on the pertinent articles without engaging in editorial wars. Otherwise, WP would deserve its reputation of a propaganda bullhorn for the politicized subjects of history and languages. Unjustified deletion is a radical solution, contrary of a norm that doubt should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. In the past 10 years many things have changed, the knowledge has matured, the radicals have matured, and it is no doubt that WP has matured too. Unless something had changed, the illustration should continue its life under a free license, and be restored to the articles where it belongs.Barefact (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:INA Parade.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. Setting aside the issue of source country, all potential source countries had this under copyright as of the URAA restoration dates (see WP:URAA). That means this isn't PD in the United States for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license, claimed as PD-India, but the file description mentions Singapore, not India. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The event in question apparently took place in Singapore but at the time there was some sort of self-proclaimed Indian nationalist government there. Indian National Army, Azad Hind. I don't claim to remotely understand this situation. No idea what copyright law would apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further discussion on applicability (including contesting on file page)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the file page has a claim in it that it would be PD under Singaporean law as well, which was added by Ekabhishek. The claim of PD in Singapore checks out (commons:Template:PD-SG-photo). As far as I know India is not the legal successor of the Indian National Army and thus Indian copyright law does not apply - maybe the copyright terms of the United Kingdom (Singapore was part of the Commonwealth back then) would apply instead, but I think Singapore would be considered the country of origin nowadays. Perhaps ask for a second opinion in commons:COM:VPC? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, now adding commons:Template:PD-SG-photo) would solve this issue.--Ekabhishek^talk 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I noticed that the file has been copied from National Archives of Singapore (NAS) and NAS is clear that "Graphics and images on this website are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced or appropriated in any manner without the written permission of their respective copyright owners". If someone wants to verify, I would suggest writing to NAS for permission. In addition, see also this NOTE: For instances in which the copyright owners are unknown: Under the Singapore Copyright Act (Cap. 63), the term of protection for "literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works" which include photographic images are 70 years from the end of the year in which the author or copyright owner died. If the work is published after the death of the author or copyright owner, it lasts for 70 years, from the end of the year in which the work was first published. Please refer to the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS)'s official website or your lawyers for more information on copyright. Hence, if you are seeking permission to reproduce and use photographic images for which the copyright owners are unknown, you will have to first resolve the copyright issues. Personally, I find this situation unclear and would go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.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 as G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reuploading this image as a png file which is a better quality image format, and I don't need this file anymore so I would like it deleted. Kamran Mackey (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ShareX Screenshot.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 F8 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File has been moved to the Commons, so I don't see why this version of the file should remain on Wikipedia. Kamran Mackey (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The file still exists - please check File:ShareX Screenshot.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs)

@VarunFEB2003: Yes, because there is a Commons file of the same name. The FFD decided to remove the local file, thus now the Commons file shows under this name thanks to InstantCommons. Also, remember that a) pings only work if you sign a post and b) why did you alter the bot note? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the bot note into a new line not altered it, check it! and I had signed my post but it got somehow removed! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 10:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel the need to alter the bot note? Also, no sig visible in the edit history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GBook.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 G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google screenshot, Not wikipedia. Can't convert to fair use as it's not in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I am using it and have corrected the error too. Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 08:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No way is this "own work". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not own work. Ayub407^talk 11:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No more in use. Can someone delete it for me. Redrose? Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 14:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But can you still explain what license what be appropriate for such an image. Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 14:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HE Hoda Kanoo colour 2.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 09:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mangoo 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: Relicense to fair use. Majora (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work based on a free file. I think the changes might be sunstantial enough that a new copyright was created for the logo and we may need permission. Alternatively, could be tagged with {{non-free logo}}. Kelly ^hi! 09:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For precautionary purposes I have changed it to non-free. Closing. --Majora (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NVB picture.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 ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing OTRS evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old photos 1622.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old spice 005.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused product image. Kelly ^hi! 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:One Moment AVATAR.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paradise Fears in Orlando 2014.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed copyright with no proof of it being emailed or being released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Currently unused because I've replaced the article's image with one from Flickr. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sagebrush cooperative-area map.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Majora (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses , One PD tagged, the other GFDL in text. Which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the uploader released it under both. ★ Bigr Tex 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual licenses are fine. I changed the template to one that clearly shows that. Closing. --Majora (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mill-image-pending.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Majora (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses, one PD, one GFDL which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete either. I do everything as CC-BY-SA 3.0 now. But in this case CC-0 is OK is fine. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparency it would be preferable if you made such an update yourself:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with an image with multiple licenses. That is why it says "You may select the license of your choice." Closing this as keep. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Najmul millat.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. OTRS permission required. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work in upload summary, but notes from family archives on page, Who created the image originally? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the picture was taken from the family archives and with permission digitally restored to a better condition. I'm related to Najmul Millat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inamabidi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, You should add the explanation you gave above to the {{information}} block on the file description page. Was the image "published" prior to the restoration? I.E Did it appear in a book, newspaper etc, other than just being a photo in a family album? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Universityofpennband, 2015.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to assume good faith , but metadata suggests previous publication at facebook. Clarification from uploader would be desirable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan Ruddock & Henry Kono at Galway Summer School 1997.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Majora (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as nominal fair use, but there doesn't seem to be a license tag and it's tagged as OTRS-permission. What is the correct status? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG OTRS questions seem more stuff for the WP:OTRSN than for FFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing section fixed per ticket. Closing. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coffeetablebooks1.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, concerns expressed previously about included covers. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Covers may be subject to copyright. Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 10:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too big to be de minimis and likely all copyright. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns raised at FFD and DRV seem to apply to the copyright status of this file as well. That is it is not clear whether the performance is PD. Someone should email http://alisaweilerstein.com/contact/ and seek permission (see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission and Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission) and then relay it to OTRS; I am not sure what the procedure is anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the copyright concerns discussed at the previous conversations. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked out a way to request permission - let's hope I didn't bungle it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Odvar Nordli.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as Anon , but credits - Paul Owesen / NTB / Scanpix in the metadata. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SyrianVisa.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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 28#File:SyrianVisa.jpg}}

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:Syria exit stamp Damascus.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 (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily own work in respect of the exit stamp itself. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stamp is unoriginal text with some extremely simple shapes. It's well below the threshold of originality. [PS] It's also an official work, per the Commons template link given in the discussion above this one. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here wasn't about retain/keep , it was about correct attribution :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milton Banks.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 Majora (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to assume good faith, but the backdrop makes me wonder if this is a scale down from a studio image. A clarification from the uploader would be desirable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture was taken during a photo shoot but from a personal camera. User:Dbanks1112 Dbanks1112 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , I would suggest updating the {{information}} block that was added, Don't forget to claim your own uploads! :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, how would I do that?Dbanks1112 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added you to the author parameter in the information template. Closing this. --Majora (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cubix title card.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 Majora (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torrents are not a reliable source, nor does ripping a title card from one automatically entitle an own claim. In use so could be converted to non-free use I think. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to non-free use. Closing this as keep as the image is fine now. --Majora (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soumya got his first ton.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 as F9 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work, but previously published field say "Google Images" . Who really took the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soumya Sarkar.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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliamed as own but previously published field reads Google Image - Who really took the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The statue of Acerya Prafulla Chandra Ray.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work , but with a previously published field of " Previously published: Google Image". Who really took the picture? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unclear intentions! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 10:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Google image" provided no indication of its copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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