Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

October 31

File:Ebenezer Hawley House.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 ⚡ 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is uploaded as a non-free historic image, but it is dated circa 1765. Wouldn't this make it old enough to qualify as {{PD-Old}} assuming the date is accurate? File is also said to have been given as a gift to the Trumbull Historical Society in 1937, but it's not clear if WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied and when the file was first published. It's also not clear who created the image as required per WP:NFCC#10a. File has a non-free use rationale for Benjamin Silliman, but the way the file is being used in the article is decorative and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. If the file needs to be non-free, there seems to be quite a lot of issues which need to be resolved for it to be NFCC compliant and probably should be deleted if they cannot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 31 October 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:Elmer Layden.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 in Elmer Layden, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historic image being used in Elmer Layden, Four Horsemen (American football) and History of the NFL Commissioner. File has a non-free use rationale for "Elmer Layden", but is missing rationales for the other two article. File has been tagged with {{di-missing some article links}} since February 2011 and the way the file is being used in the non-biography articles does not, in my opinion, satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and the file can be removed from each without be detrimental to the reader's understanding. So, I suggest keep for "Elmer Layden" and remove from the other two articles, unless the file can be converted to some sort of public domain license so that it is no longer subject to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 31 October 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:Don Miller.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: remove from Four Horsemen (American football). — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historic image being used in Don Miller (American football) and Four Horsemen (American football). File has a non-free use rationale for the article about Miller, but is missing one for "Four Hourseman". File has been tagged with {{di-missing some article links}} since February 2011 and the way the file is being used in "Four Horseman" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a . So, I suggest keep for "Don Miller" and remove from "Four Horseman", unless the file can be converted to some sort of public domain license so that it is no longer subject to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to remove this and the Elmer Layden image from the articles which no use rationale is given, unless we can prove the images are in public domain. Lizard (talk) 07:20, 31 October 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:Coat of arms of Maurice Piat.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 ⚡ 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly fuzzy coat of arms claimed to be that for Bishop Maurice Piat and is claimed as own work. This looks like it was scanned from some source. Uploader has a history of copyright violations so I am doubtful about his claim of being the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has left a message on my talk page stating that the images are indeed either scanned or copied from the web. I suppose one might be able to make some claim for usage as non-free content, but I personally don't see that. However, I have let the uploader know about non-free content and its criteria for use. If there is no claim made for fair use, then these are clear copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: copyright image, no source and uploader has admitted work is not theirs. ww2censor (talk) 12:26, 2 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:Coat of arms of John Ribat.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 ⚡ 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly fuzzy coat of arms claimed to be that for Archbishop John Ribat and is claimed as own work. This looks like it was scanned from some source. Uploader has a history of copyright violations so I am doubtful about his claim of being the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has left a message on my talk page stating that the images are indeed either scanned or copied from the web. I suppose one might be able to make some claim for usage as non-free content, but I personally don't see that. However, I have let the uploader know about non-free content and its criteria for use. If there is no claim made for fair use, then these are clear copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless out of focus copyright image, no source and uploader has admitted work is not theirs. ww2censor (talk) 12:27, 2 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:WizSoHigh.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. Insufficient policy-based arguments to justify the use of a second cover, regardless of it being by a different music act. — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #3a. We already have a cover for this song (File:Ghost Loft - So High.jpg). Two separate copyrighted album covers are not necessary. One conveys the same information. Majora (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same song, one is on Wiz's album and one was off Ghost Loft's...Plenty of other articles have 2 covers. Also, literally every cover art is copyright to a label so what are you even going on about? BlaccCrab (talk) 22:23, 31 October 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:Sogologo.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Sogo logo.svg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:49, 31 October 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:Making Movies.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan + superseded by a vector version available on Commons SERGIO aka the Black Cat 23:43, 31 October 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.