Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion

Filed PUF in error

I listed a file as a possibly unfree file in error. It really should be subject to a file for deletion, as there was a previous PUF discussion on the same photo. Is it too late to hat the discussion there and relist it here? I'm referring to [1] ScottyBerg (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

misplaced file talk pages

Is there a process, or a report, which deals with File talk: pages held locally on Wikipedia even though the file is hosted on commons? For example, what should be done with File talk:NuclideMap stitched small preview.png? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The only delete option would be WP:CSD#G8, that seems to imply it might be best to stay - maybe copy to the commons talk page, then delete the en-WP page?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug

There are 38 "images" in this cat. Do we think that the odds of recovery are now so poor that they should be tidied up and deleted?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, the category contains links to page descriptions that have text and clues that can still be useful, even if only to explain to a reader linking in from outside why they see no image. 84user (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of files "obsoleted" by svg versions

There have been FfD nominations (one a now-withdrawn mass nomination[2]) of files from which svg derivative works have been created. Usually these files have been tagged with Template:Vector version available which says that the originals should be kept when attribution is required by the licence. Even for PD files, where attribution is not legally required, it may be necessary or desirable to avoid plagiarism, Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Attributing_media_copied_from_other_sources. Sometimes there is no backlink from the svg and sometimes the original creator is explicitly attributed. On other occasions the backlink is the only attribution. Is there a policy for such deletions? I think each has to be taken on its merits (unless all are kept or copied to Commons). When the svg is on Commons any deletions here should be harmonious with Commons policy. I !voted "delete" here and here but I am already thinking I should change to "comment"! Thincat (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

URAA affirmed by US Supreme Court - deletion request opened

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) is a 1996 US law that restored copyright to many foreign works that had fallen into the public domain in the US. In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.

For some time, Wikimedia Commons has been accepting images that are copyrighted in the US under the URAA, on the theory that it would be held unconstitutional. Such images were tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. The English Wikipedia has also borrowed the template and the practice, but I have not yet opened a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)