Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

August 15

File:BridgeShaws.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:BridgeShaws.jpg

Unused, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be either an 'erratic' (geolocial term) or it's an ancient standing stone, but there's no context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per - http://www.laganvalley.co.uk/places-to-visit.html , this would seem to be one of a number of Standing Stones in that region. 'Keep as documentary evidence of archaeological site. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG:, good research. However, while it appears at first glance to be the tomb at Giant's Ring, close examination shows that it's actually not. See for instance File:Giant's Ring - geograph.org.uk - 1121095.jpg and look at the stones supporting the large one at the center. I wonder if it was mididentified by the original uploader. Perhaps an admin could check the uploader's deleted contribs for a clue in case it was used in a now-deleted article. Kelly ^hi! 07:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted history doesn't contain much information, other than pointing to Belfast. Maybe this image is of something there?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if someone else has information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whose the Wikipedia expert on standing stones? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Rodw: and @Ethan Doyle White:. Kelly ^hi! 09:15, 19 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 Cranberries - Dreams (US single cover).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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:The_Cranberries_-_Dreams_(US_single_cover).jpg

I don't know why this image is needed other than to identify itself as the 1994 US rerelease of the song. I removed it because there is already the original 1992 artwork, but then Aspects reinserted it. Moreover, the uploader is inactive. Therefore, rather than the talk page, this venue seems more effective to discuss the use of this 1994 front cover. Then the administrator can decide what to do with this image. George Ho (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as stated on Template:Infobox album, "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.", which could be logically used for singles. The current consensus for alternate images on album/single articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable. Having charted on five U.S. charts show that it is widely distributed. Aspects (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readers already got the 1992 original cover, and they can already understand the rerelease by reading the whole article. How would the 1994 US cover help readers much? George Ho (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, Aspects: the song was a hit in home country Ireland greater than elsewhere. Here is the European reissue. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more discussion to assess whether the US cover alone does contribute enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:55, 15 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:Thomas & Sarah Fox.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Thomas_&_Sarah_Fox.jpeg

Curvature on image suggests this was scanned from another source, and so might not be self as cliaimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Hi - it is as claimed; i have procession of the original image at Tone Dale House, Wellington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtarrsteps (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to clear up copyright ownership and pinging Foxtarrsteps as physically owning an object does not by default entail that you own the copyright as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 15 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.

The Groove Line

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. The keep arguments failed to address how these images abide by the WP:NFCC policy. — ξ ^xplicit 02:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

File:Heatwave the groove line 1978 UK vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This image is the front cover of the Dutch release of the UK/US song, The Groove Line. I uploaded the UK side label to visually identify the release itself (not the band) and to illustrate the song's nationality. As for side labels vs picture sleeve, perhaps a central discussion is needed? But this is the discussion about one song, and that's it. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, perhaps some people would want a picture sleeve from overseas instead of a side label from home country. But I still think a side label is enough if the home country's edition was packaged in a generic sleeve. George Ho (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the alternate cover is significantly different form the original, it was not widely distributed, being just a Dutch cover where it did not even chart. Aspects (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Dutch picture sleeve? George Ho (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also add the British original! The Dutch label can go in a gallery below, if need be. Stereorock (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "add", Stereorock? George Ho (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to unclear comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stereorock and Aspects, I uploaded File:The Groove Line by Heatwave US vinyl single.png as free to use, especially since the early to mid 1970s Epic Records logo is considered not original enough for copyright protection. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dutch sleeve is valuable and interesting artwork which provides a snapshot of the group at that time. Side labels are generic and do not vary between songs except for just the text which already exists in the infobox. - JGabbard (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your vote to the very bottom, Mr. Gabbard. As said before, the US vinyl label is uploaded in Commons and free to use. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says that the non-free image must be irreplaceable if no free equivalent with the same purpose exists. However, three of them have the same purpose, yet the label of the US vinyl is free to use. Therefore, the picture sleeve fails. Unsure about the UK one, though I used it because two of the band members were British. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:FREER. If that applies, the Dutch sleeve and the UK label do the same effect as the US label. Dutch image should be deleted per that guideline as readers can understand the article content without the image. I don't mind UK label deleted if one opposes its existence. George Ho (talk) 00:10, 4 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:SH-collection BradRoss.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:SH-collection_BradRoss.jpg

These appear to be toys, but I'm not sure given that mostly functional elements appear. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting month old discussion. Personally sceptical; recreating a resemblance to a real stove in a toy is not "functional", but may be usable as fair use with a rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 15 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:Shakers engraving.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Shakers_engraving.jpg

This was at one point tagged with {{is-old}} which was later substed. It's almost certainly the correct license, but the exact source couldn't be determined at the time I was reviewing files like this. Shame to loose it on a technicality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess what the source is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the source, this probably falls under {{PD-old-70}} - it is highly unlikely bordering on impossible that an author of a "early 19th century" engraving was alive almost a century later in 1946. And unless the engraving was unpublished for more than half a century {{PD-US-1923}} would also apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 19 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:You Raise Me Up by Josh Groban US CD promo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:You_Raise_Me_Up_by_Josh_Groban_US_CD_promo.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyright? If so, I don't mind it being deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 29#File:Madonna - I Want You.JPG. If not, shall it be transferred to Commons? It contains just text and logos ineligible for copyright. George Ho (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some consideration, "selection and arrangement" copyright may apply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 15 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:Kinetic small.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Kinetic_small.jpg

A watch is a designed item, and thusly cannot necessarily be under Public domain unless it's purely functional elements. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: commons:COM:UA indicates that a copyright claim here would require some aesthetic elements, which I don't see.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: only utilitarian aspects of a useful object are shown. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 15 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:Flag of Sint Maarten.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Flag_of_Sint_Maarten.png

No image on sister project noted. Where did this image come from? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history, you will find that an IP translated the file name in the link. The original link, nl:Bestand:Vlag SintMaarten.PNG, is available in the upload log and on historical versions of the file information page. It was deleted on nlwiki by Siebrand (talk · contribs) in 2006. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The deletion reason is "unused". If no copyright concerns exist this should be closed as keep, probably.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 15 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:Venice-composers-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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Venice-composers-2.jpg

Partially derivative of a file deleted at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Karsh. Kelly ^hi! 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image is on en.Wikipedia, not commons. This image includes four photos. The first three are not challenged. This nomination concerns a Canadian photo of Britten. While the photo of Britten may not be free of copyright in Canada, it is in the public domain with respect to the US because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963, and the copyright was not renewed. Therefore, the copyright has expired in the US, and it can be displayed on en.Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above~; the Commons deletion is a non-issue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request on Commons suggests that these were only published in the United States. In that case, the source country is the United States, so there is no difference between Wikipedia and Commons policy: it's only the copyright status in the United States which counts. According to WP:NUSC#Subsisting copyrights, it is believed that this photographer has renewed the copyright to some of his photographs (although a {{fact}} tag has been added to that statement). Therefore, I think that a more thorough search for copyright renewals is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of the question about copyright renewal. Wonder about where the publication date comes from as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 15 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:Russian Football Union.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Russian_Football_Union.png

Non-free logo currently being used in Russian Football Union, Russia national football team, Russia national futsal team, Russia national under-17 football team, Russia national under-19 football team, Russia national under-21 football team, Russia women's national football team, Russia women's national under-17 football team, Russia women's national under-19 football team. File only has a non-free use rationale for "Russian Football Union" and "Russian national football team"; The statement "It will be used in the articles of Russian Football Union and related (Russia national football team, for example)" has been added to the rationales, but this is not really sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c (at least not in my opinion) so the file could be removed from the eight uses without a rationale for that reason alone. However, there is also the issue of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The consensus reached in previous NFCR and FFD discussions involving the use of similar logos in individual team articles has been that the use of such logos is OK for articles about federations/associations (i.e., parent entities), but not acceptable in articles about individual teams (i.e., child entities). The consensus established regarding this has been quite clear, and I don't see how this particular case is any different.

Can either this file be converted to either {{PD-Russia}} or {{PD-RusEmpire}}? The article about the football union does say it's earliest incarnation dates back to 1912, so maybe the logo is old enough for PD. The logo can be seen here, but there's no mention of who designed it or when it was first used. Is it possible that this coud be converted to {{PD-RU-exempt}} as a state symbol because it might have been created during the Soviet era when I believe everything was pretty much under state control. If the file can be converted to a free license, then it can be used in all of the articles since it will no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. If it cannot be converted to a free license, then I suggest keep in "Russian Football Union" and remove from all of the individual team articles. If that's the consensus, then the rationale for "Russian Football Union" should also be edited to remove the "and related (Russian national football team, for example)" wording.

For reference, this file was discussed previously at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44#File:Russian Football Union.png, but that seems to have been before No. 17 of UUI was added. Anyway, I am pinging the editor who started the NFCR disccussion, @Stefan2:, and the editor who closed it, @TLSuda:, to get their input. Also, it appears that File:Russian Football Union logo.jpg was used in "Russian Football Union" before the current file was added this edit. I can no longer see that file, but it if it's older than this one being discussed, then maybe it can be undeleted and converted to a free license for use in the team articles. The earliest archived version I could find of the union's official website which shows a logo is this May 2000 version, but I'm not sure if that's the same logo that was previously used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for more opinions on the PD question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 15 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:EFounders logo July 2015.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:EFounders_logo_July_2015.png

Considered simple at Commons, so querying why this is non-free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:35, 15 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:EJBCA 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:EJBCA_logo.png

Considered simple at commons so querying 'non-free' status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:35, 15 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:Edmund Rice Schools Trust Ireland 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Edmund_Rice_Schools_Trust_Ireland_Logo.png

Considered simple at Commons, so querying 'non-free' status Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:37, 15 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:Eesti Arstide Liit.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Eesti_Arstide_Liit.png

Querying non-free status as this is mostly text, the medical symbol in the middle being relatively common. May be just over TOO because of the symbol though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:41, 15 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:Eisenberg Paris Logo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Eisenberg_Paris_Logo.jpg

Querying non-free status as entirely text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:41, 15 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:Elisabeth Leseur.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Elisabeth_Leseur.jpg

Commons (which seemingly sources the local image) apprently thinks this is 'free' because it's old. So querying why it was considered non-free locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:44, 15 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:Emilio Esteban Infantes.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Emilio_Esteban_Infantes.JPG

Commons equivalent is tagged as PD-old-70 so querying why this was considered non-free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 15 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:Eric Dolphy.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Eric_Dolphy.jpg

Equivalent image File:Эрик Долфи.jpg was considered freely licensed, actual status? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 15 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:Esperanto magazine november 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 as G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent image of the same cover considered freely licensed with what appears to be an OTRS permission :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete this one indeed: I uploaded it before thinking about contacting the redaction team to ask them to participate in the OTRS – what successfully happened. — Aleks Aɴᴅʀᴇ (talk) 04:55, 15 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:Essilor new 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Essilor_new_logo.png

Commons:File:Essilor logo.png is tagged as simple, so querying non-free status as this a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 15 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:Estudiantil Porteno.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Estudiantil_Porteno.png

Duplicate of Commons:File:Escudo de Estudiantil Porteño.png which is considered to be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:49, 15 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:Eurogrand Logo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Eurogrand_Logo.jpg

Querying non-free status, as this is a mainly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:49, 15 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:EverQuest Next 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:EverQuest_Next_logo.png

Querying non-free status on the basis of this being a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:51, 15 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:EvrazLogo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:EvrazLogo.svg

Querying non-free status as this is a text logo+3 rectangles. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:52, 15 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:Extreme Networks logo - new.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status as Commons:File:Extreme Networks logo - new.png was tagged as simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:53, 15 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:Eyre Bus, Tour & Travel Logo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Eyre_Bus,_Tour_&_Travel_Logo.gif

Duplicate for Commons:File:Eyre Bus Logo.gif which is considered simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what the issue is here to discuss: are we trying to decide how free/unfree an image is, or how widely usable an image regardless of freedom, or whether the one image is more free than the other? I judged that it was appropriate copy, upload and use either image for the limited specific use for identifying the company (Eyre) in its own-subject article (which I wrote) that it was appropriate to use its trademark (expressed in an image from Eyre's otherwise copyrighted site). Has that changed? Are we asking if that's to be rescinded or asking if that's to be expanded or something else?KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, was that Commons, apparently thought the image was too simple to be under copyright ( see Threshold of originality Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 19 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:Zierer 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Zierer_logo.png

Querying non-free status as this appears to be a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:54, 15 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.

EbenezerMorley.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 as non-free --Majora (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim that the image may be under copyright because it came from a website, but the image appears to be well out of copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free: There are reasons why it could be copyrighted and we are unable to conclude a PD reason. We don't know when and where it was first published. The earliest source I've found is Butler, Byron (1991). The Official History of the Football Association. London: Macdonald. ISBN 0356191451. Neither do we know who the photographer is and when they died (a relatively recent death is not even a stretch: assuming that the photographer was 20 years, took the photo in 1924, and died at the age of 90, they would have died in 1994, just twenty-two years ago). (Keep in Ebenezer Cobb Morley, remove from Association football per WP:NFCC#8) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For precautionary sake closing as keep as non-free. --Majora (talk) 23:51, 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:Golden State Warriors.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Golden_State_Warriors.svg

Historic, non-free, National Basketball Association logo. Being used in Golden State Warriors#Franchise history without any critical commentary about the logo in the article which violates WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first and the last file fall under {{PD-US-no notice}} probably - it's uncommon for logos to bear a copyright notice and an used logo is invariably published, and the article indicates they fall into the right timespan. Ditto for the middle file under {{PD-US-1989}} but there we need to check copyright registration as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 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:Gold Star Studios - Wrecking Crew.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 for Wrecking Crew only. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo being used in the infoboxes of The Wrecking Crew (music) and Gold Star Studios. A non-free use rationale is provided for each use, but only the use in "The Wrecking Crew" seems justified per WP:NFCC. "Gold Star Studies" is essentially an article about a business and "The Wrecking Crew" are only one of the "artists" who used the studio for recording, etc. There is no mention of "The Wrecking Crew" anywhere at all outside of the image's caption and this particular image itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. The non-free rationale claims the photo is needed to show "the innards of the studio", but there is nothing in the second paragraph of Gold Star Studios#Peak years which requires that this photo be seen to be understood. The building no longer exists, so a freely licensed equivalent or its interior/exterior is no longer possible, but a non-free image of the building's exterior (such as this, this, or this), the studio's logo (apparently shown here) or perhaps even something like this of the two founders in the studio seem more appropriate for the main infobox if their respective copyright information can be found. Suggest keep for "The Wrecking Crew (music)" and remove from "Gold Star Studios". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people who are the primary subject of the photograph are the members of the Wrecking Crew. They are the focus of the picture, not Gold Star Studios, which is only in the background, and whatever reference to Gold Star is only contextual (this not an exterior photograph of the building, but rather an interior shot, where the studio interior merely serves the background placing the actual subject in context). The Wrecking Crew article should be the rightful place to present this image, provided it is only used in the info. box there and nowhere else. Fair use would permit that. I realize that the picture appears in the Gold Star article. If the image can only be in one article than it must be there not the in the Gold Star peice. As for the Wrecking Crew, it will in no way harm the commercial opportunities of the members of the Wrecking Crew, but rather enable them to have access to a wider audience through the greater dissemination of their likeness (the Gold Star Studio is no longer in business, so I don't think it could hurt their commercial opportunities). Furthermore, this picture was taken over 50 years ago. Ghmyrtle just went though the trouble of organizing an accurate caption to place under the photo for the Wrecking Crew article. The article addresses a worthy topic where this particular photo is needed. So, let's do the right thing and retain the photo at least for the Wrecking Crew article, where it truly needs to be. Perhaps someone could re-edit the rationale given in the image file to be more specifically tailored to the Wrecking Crew. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the image from the Gold Star article, and re-worded the rationale in the file description to refer to the Wrecking Crew, which is the primary subject of the photograph--the photo needs to be in the Wrecking Crew article. We can find an exterior shot for the Gold Star article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference Garagepunk66 and in case my original post wasn't too clear, I'm not suggesting that the file be removed from the "Wrecking Crew" article; I'm only suggesting that it be removed from the "Gold Star" article. Moreover, even though part of WP:NFCC#3 requires us to try and minimize non-free use as much as we can, this does not necessarily mean a non-free image can be used in only one article. Addition uses are permitted if they can be properly justified according to WP:NFCC. The problem in this case is that I don't thing non-free use of this file can be justified for the article about the studio itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was guessing. I just wanted to make sure that the photo's presence in the Gold Star article did not jeopardize its inclusion in the Wrecking Crew. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:51, 30 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:Plague Over England Bill Board.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Plague_Over_England_Bill_Board.JPG

Given the prominence of the non-free poster, I think this derivative work might also be non-free. We have other photos of this building at Commons:Category:Duchess Theatre, London. Kelly ^hi! 09:19, 15 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:Entwistle 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Entwistle_Station.jpg

Photo taken by a relative of the uploader? Possibly a case of an heir licensing the photo. Kelly ^hi! 10:10, 15 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:FIS Ski Flying WCH 2014 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple at Commons, after a deletion discussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:28, 15 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:FROG 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:FROG_logo.png

Querying non-free status, as a mostly text logo, and tagged as simple on commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 15 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:Fable 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Fable_logo.png

Querying on the basis that it's a text logo (slightly stylised). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 15 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:Farming Simulator 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: move to Commons czar 06:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status given this is a mostly text ( albiet gradiented) text, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo. Image should now be deleted as it is available on Commons. Discussion can also now be closed. Salavat (talk) 04:51, 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:Ferranti nobg.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Ferranti_nobg.png

Considered simple logo at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 15 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:Fete app 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Fete_app_logo.png

Mostly text logo, considered simple at Commons, below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 15 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:First Party 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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:First_Party_logo.png

Mostly text logo, so querying non-free status? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 15 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:AlexanderAndersonBrompton01.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, obsoleted by higher-resolution File:Brompton Cemetery, London 54.JPG (by the same photographer). Kelly ^hi! 15:52, 15 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:WernerHerrmann.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg

Not sure if this is "free" for commons purpose, Uploader seems to be considering as PD because it came from captured records. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its from Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) at the National Archives. All of that material is public domain and free to reproduce [1]. This was previously discussed at File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg. I pray hope we do not have to discuss it again. :-o -O.R.^Comms 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the previous OTRS ticket a general one? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OTRS was specific to SS files; however SS and Kriegsmarine are both part of Record Group 242. I received information this morning as to the specific registry entry in the National Archives that contains the U-boat material. It is listed in their computer as "unrestricted, use restriction - none" meaning no copyright or trademark restrictions. Per their research staff, these are public records freely available to reproduce. I added this information to the image page as well as the address to verify the image. If that's still not good enough, we could ask one of their archivists to send a permissions e-mail, but I kinda think that would be overkill at this point. PS, I have two other photos from the U-boat files. I'll wait a week or so to upload to allow any further comments on this thread. Thanks for your diligence policing these images; we certainly do need to make sure everything is in order. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 13:49, 16 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:Vasudeva Temple Old Photo.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Vasudeva_Temple_Old_Photo.jpg

Most likely own work, but the relevant fields appear to have been corrupted during the upload process. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 15 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:Sovereignty Council .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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old image, but I'm not so sure it is PD-US as claimed. Possibly PD-Egypt given the publication it appeared in. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's become part of the public domain. Because it is outdated. age of this picture is 58 years old It was published in Magazine مؤيد العودة (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "publication date" issue. Al-Musawar is a long running magazine and given its history I think the file would have been published there pretty soon after it was created. {{PD-Egypt}} names a 15 year copyright term for photographies recreating reality mechanically and I think this photo would fall under that. Most likely PD for a long time in Egypt and thus also missed the URAA recopyrighting, but I wonder if مؤيد العودة has information on when the image was published, say which edition of the magazine had a copy of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus The picture published in the edition of August 1958.مؤيد العودة (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then, add {{PD-Egypt|commons}} to the filepage and add the publication date to the information section; 1958+1+15<1996 so URAA does not apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done . The picture Licence has been modified , The date of publication is mentioned too . مؤيد العودة (talk) 08:14, 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:Suraiya receiving award from PM Vajpayee in a government funcyion.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of such images in India? That it was "taken" at a public function doesn't mean it's public domain. Who took the photo is important, where they official for the government for example? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 15 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:Soviet Major General P.G. Novikov.jpg

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

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

The USSR may have had different copyright standards to the US, but it certainly had them. Russia certainly did. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and from what I know Template:PD-Russia does not contain any provision that puts this file into the public domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown author, and since Novikov was a colonel between 1939 and 1941 the photograph cannot have been taken later then that time, so it might fulfill criteria #3 on PD-RUSSIA. Kges1901 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Copyright law of the Soviet Union. As far as I can tell, this is hosted on generals.dk, which claims copyright, and thus this picture can only be used on the Novikov page as Fair Use, single article only. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Sergeyevich Gorbachyov.jpg, File:Portrait photo of General A.D. Tereshkov.jpg, File:Major General I.E. Turunov.jpg, File:Soviet Lieutenant-General I.V. Boldin ca. 1942.jpg were uploaded by the same user with the same rationale and should be deleted and reuploaded as fair use. Kges1901 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these are considered Fair Use (and I can now see the rationale for that) then I will by happy to reuplaod as such.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy[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:Picture of sufi saint Syed Muhammad Ahmed Shah.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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Picture_of_sufi_saint_Syed_Muhammad_Ahmed_Shah.jpg

Source field says "Gives to me by S U Jan Mashwani" so who created the image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S U Jan provided and he will be contacted on +923133373833 directly. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 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:Cartoon of Justice Thomas refusing to explain Alice ruling.jpg

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

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - seeing this cartoon does not substantially enhance your knowledge of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International lawsuit. B (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its presence enhances readers' understanding of the scope, quality, and extent of criticism of the Court's opinion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it do this? Please explain to me how this cartoon enhances my understanding of criticism of the Court's opinion in a way that could not be accomplished through prose alone. --B (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Critique in comic-strip form is not something that can be reduced to words alone. However, there are a number of other reasons why this cartoon enhances a reader's understanding of "reception" section of this article. First, it provides a visual representation and reference of the Law Comics commentary. Second, the visual depiction of the characters, their expressions, and their spatial relationship provides necessary context to the excerpts of dialogue in the article. Third, the apparent levity of the comic strip provides a unique contrast to other commentary in this section, especially when contrasted with scholars like Quinn who characterize the opinion as "intellectually bankrupt." The use of the image is judicious, limited, and minimal; for readers who think that legal scholarship only occurs in dusty old textbooks, it helps expand their perspective about the quality and form of discourse on complex legal issues. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with Notecardforfree. The finger wagging and "Yes you do" response to Thomas's refusal to explain is a legitimate editorial comment and informs the reader. Thomas did ignore the need to explain. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An unregistered person just unilaterally deleted the image, alleging that it was "racially offensive." Notecardforfree properly reverted that; and I commented on that person's Talk page that his action was inappropriate and I supported Notecard. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little sources discuss the image. Tried to find other sources to keep the image, but found almost none. The passage didn't say much about Thomas fondling an eagle or making a mad look at a woman. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @George Ho: see my comments above. It is important for Wikipedia articles to discuss the full range of commentary and discourse about topics covered in our articles, including commentary in comics. The discussion in this article is sufficient to provide readers an understanding of the context and significance of this image, and there is no doubt that it helps enhance readers' understanding of this case. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is the court case, right? The image illustrates the opinion about the court case, but the opinion doesn't seem hard to understand. Also, I'm uncertain whether Law Comics is independently notable or the opinion violates WP:UNDUE. However, a reader wouldn't care less about the image as much as what the article says. If the image is removed, the readers would still understand what the court case is about without the image. Can you prove that the readers would not understand the case without the image? George Ho (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image helps readers understand the breadth, quality, and format of commentary about this case. To that extent, the article is not only about the case itself, but also its impact on society, culture, law, and legal scholarship. Indeed, the Alice in Patentland comic (from which this image is taken) has received coverage in more formal legal scholarship. See, for example, Robert M. Jarvis, The Patent Attorney in Popular Culture, 98 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 469, 511 (2016) (discussing the comic's notability). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the source. I see the source mention the comic on p. 503, but the coverage is too brief and lacking there to determine notability. I don't see the point of emphasizing one of opinions about the case other than showcasing the image. There is another article "Two Years after Alice v. CLS Bank," but I can't access it without buying it. George Ho (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Jarvis article may not have been the best example, but the whole discussion of notability is besides the point (at least not in this discussion -- feel free to discuss issues re WP:WEIGHT on the article;s talk page). WP:NFCCP permits the use of non-free content when it helps readers understand the significance of the article's topic. As discussed above, the comic helps readers understand the breadth and range of commentary on this case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: According to this article, the comic is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"NC" stands for non-commercial, which Commons do not allow. In fact, Commons wants images that can be used commercially by others. The copyright owner doesn't allow others to share it commercially. Therefore, the image is considered non-free. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for non-commercial CC files were previously used but then became deprecated. Also, c:Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses says such NC files are forbidden in Commons. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cited Wired article says that the Law Comics cartoons are "a series of comics that aim to make iconic legal cases more accessible to the masses." That is quite apt in this case. The comment on the Alice case does make more accessible one view of the case (one with which I disagree, but many scholars agree with the cartoon instead of with me). I second Notecard's views expressed above. By the way, Ho is off base in demanding that Law Comics has to be notable. The Alice case has to be notable (it is!). But those who comment on it do not. They just need to present content that is worth considering. Law Comics meets that test here. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article doesn't mention much about the comic, PraeceptorIP. It briefly mentions cameos but not much about Thomas' cameo and fondling with the eagle and the bubbled dialogue. George Ho (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's a nonfree image that is not at all necessary for the articles in which it is used. I am also objecting to the image's use in said articles but for different reasons.--Nowa (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It may not be licensed for purposes of Commons, but it is permissible on U.S. Wikipedia. It does not have to be necessary for the articles in which it is used--just helpful. It is helpful for the reasons stated by Notecardforfree. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete sure it is hard to find actually racist commentary in words in acceptable sources (plenty of that in trashy blogs and comment sections of course) but hey put it in a cartoon by depicting a supreme court justice as Mr. T and you can get it in Wired nudge-nudge wink-wink. Vile and probably a BLP violation. I'll note that Wired doesn't have a BLP policy; we do. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To those using the "Wikipedia is not censored" rhetoric to challenge Jytdog's, the section says in spirit that any "objectionable or offensive" material can be used for encyclopedic uses, not any other, especially when a content is against the rules. WP:offensive material says the same thing. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not Cartoonpedia. Appears to be a BLP infraction. QuackGuru (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The use rationale asserts that the image is used to explain commentary on a Supreme Court decision. The idea that prose commentary cannot be explained in prose is preposterous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-free, non-iconic. That cartoon is neither iconic nor well-known as notorious and seems used as decoration to grandstand on a viewpoint, as if remarks in text were just not dramatic enough to push the related POV. I think it is difficult for many users to realize Wikipedia cannot just use non-free images to illustrate a point, but rather a non-free image really must be iconic, or "notorious" in wp:RS reliable sources, or be a common logo (of low resolution); otherwise numerous non-free images get deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete not free, not of iconic historic value, nothing that can't be adequately explained in text. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:50, 7 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:RobertRawlinsonBrompton.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, obsoleted by higher-quality File:Brompton Cemetery monument 16.JPG by same photographer. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 15 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:Vb6c3199.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 ⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed work for hire, but I think we need evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 15 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:Flowers Theatre.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 ⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed work for hire, but I think we need evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 15 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:B5S2919.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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:B5S3533.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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:B5S3593.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 ⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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:Queen Salote in London.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 ⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the subject contains two free images; the use of a non-free image is questionable. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 15 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.