Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2

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: Tagging as Db-nopermission Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 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: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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg}}

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

File: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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:36, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly text logo, considered simple at Commons, below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:33, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple logo at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying on the basis that it's a text logo (slightly stylised). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:20, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:14, 3 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: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: Evidence of permission will be required. Notice will be posted for that information for 7 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 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: All deleted due to lack of clarity over copyright status. Can be restored if a check for copyright registration shows not registered/renewed. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status as this appears to be a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status as this is a text logo+3 rectangles. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:00, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status on the basis of this being a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 05:52, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status, as this is a mainly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 05:48, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplicate of File:Escudo de Estudiantil Porteño.png. Reh man 09:03, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplicate of File:Essilor logo.png. Reh man 09:05, 3 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: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: Keep Majora (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent image File:Эрик Долфи.jpg was considered freely licensed, actual status? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should contest the copyright status of the Commons copy. Deryck C. 10:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons files deleted. Closing this as keep. --Majora (talk) 04:15, 8 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: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: delete local copy. Copyright has expired. Deryck C. 10:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying non-free status as entirely text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:53, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this logo would qualify as PD-logo due to the presence of the snake symbol. As a result I have cleaned up the fair use licensing on the image page. Salavat (talk) 04:48, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple at Commons, so querying 'non-free' status Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Now on Commons as File:Edmund Rice Schools Trust logo.png. Reh man 09:00, 3 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple at commons so querying 'non-free' status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as file is now on Commons. Reh man 08:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader as the file has been accepted on Commons. I tend to err on the side of fair use, perhaps too much so sometimes. It seems both communities have embraced this as being below TOO, so I have no objection to it being deleted here and hosted on Commons. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:24, 23 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: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: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple at Commons, so querying why this is non-free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo, matching the status on Commons. This discussion should be fine to be closed and the image deleted on Wikipedia as a duplicate of Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplicate of File:Efounders logo.png. Reh man 08:43, 3 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: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: keep in Russian Football Union, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 04:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Russian Football Union, remove from all other articles, per nom – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 21 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: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: There is way too much at hand here that is unverified, including the claim on the Archives Canada site that the image was produced in england, triggering a whole new set of possible copyright issues. Given the length this FFD has been around, I'm going to close delete as insufficent information for copyright status determination but would be happy to discuss it out with someone till it's resolved, then restore the image. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 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: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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image does not have a clear source statement and we have File:Flag of Sint Maarten.svg already. I've deprecated the only remaining use of this photo, which is on the userpage of someone who isn't the uploader. Delete as low-quality, orphaned image. Deryck C. 10:34, 20 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: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: Keep Majora (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. Clear example of UA. Closing as keep per Jo-Jo and Finnusertop. --Majora (talk) 04:40, 8 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: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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6#File:You_Raise_Me_Up_by_Josh_Groban_US_CD_promo.jpg}}

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

File: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: Keep licencing as is -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 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: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: NFCC will be required -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 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: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: Keep Majora (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this with Foxtarrsteps further on their talk page. Quote: original artwork (on page 12) was published in 1914 in The Woollen Manufacture at Wellington Somerset by Joseph Hoyland Fox (publisher Arthur L Humphreys, 187 Piccadilly, W 1914). Following up on that lead, I found that the author Joseph Hoyland Fox has died in 1915.[1] Keep and retag ~~{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} + {{PD-UK}}~~ {{PD-old-100}}, with the possibility of transferring to Commons. Deryck C. 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tags already updated by Deryck Chan (excellent research by the way). Closing as keep and tagging as move to commons. --Majora (talk) 04:27, 8 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: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: No consensus Nthep (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a for using multiple non-free images and WP:NFCC#8 because removal of the image would not in any way reduce readers' understanding of the article. Full disclosure: I was canvassed to this discussion by User:George Ho. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aspects and Stifle: I removed the original 1992 release but then reinserted the 1994 Euro rerelease. I still think the US cover must go. George Ho (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To closer: shall local consensus override wide consensus against extraneous single covers? If not, is deletion the solution? George Ho (talk) 01:34, 1 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: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: Deleted - lack of description and context makes the image unencyclopedic Nthep (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 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:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 January 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: Kept, NFUR seems compliant for use in National Bank of New Zealand but probably fails the others. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file currently being used in Lloyds Bank#Expnasion, National Bank of New Zealand, Lloyds Associated Banking Company, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Bank Canada. Files has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but there are WP:NFCCP problems with each of these usages.

File is being used to illustrate a former logo in "Lloyds Bank". Although there is some discussion of the merger that led to this logo being replaced, the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Suggest remove from article unless the NFCC#8 issues are fixed.
File's usage in "Lloyds Associated Banking Company", "Lloyds Bank California" and "Lloyds Bank Canada" is problematic because of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Each of these is listed as a subsidiary of Lloyds Bank and the parent entities are generally not allowed to be used in stand-alone articles about their child entities. Moreover, the source url provided for the file, www.nationalbank.co.nz/rural/information/ruralreport/pdf/200812.pdf, is not longer working and the earliest archived version of it that I could find of it (here) does not indicate any connection to any of these three subsidiaries at all. I've tried searching for something to indicate such a connection, but have had no luck. This might be simply because all three subsidiaries have been defunct for almost 30 years. The connection between the logo and the subsidiaries is sketchy at best and very hard to verify so I suggest remove from each of the articles.
File's usage in "National Bank of New Zealand" is a bit unclear per NFCC#8 and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. According to the article, the bank was sold by Lloyd's to ANZ Bank in 2003, which would make it a subsidiary of ANZ Bank after 2003. The article says that an agreement was reached which allowed the bank to continue to use the Lloyds logo for a period of 7 years after the sale, but this statement not supported by a reliable source. However, based upon the archived url mentioned, it appears that the bank was using the logo as late as 2008, so it seems the logo is being used as stated in its non-free use rationale. The bank is listed as going defunct in 2012, which means, if the article is accurate, that it's possible that it was possibly using another logo after it's agreement with Lloyds ran out after 7 years and before it went defunct. the most recent archived version I could find of the bank using the Lloyds logo is from October 2012. This November 2012 archived version states that the bank "has joined with ANZ". So, I'm not sure how to reconcile what these websites with the "With the purchase, ANZ also bought the right to continue to use the Black Horse logo for seven years." in the article since the logo seems to have been used for more than 7 years after ANZ bought the bank. This is the only possible article where the file's usage seems to be NFCC compliant, but I am interested in hearing what others might think.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a source for the National Bank of New Zealand. See also, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Bank Canada. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2.27.75.26: The file is being used in five articles. Are you suggesting "keep" for all five articles, or only certain articles. I still feel that the non-free usage of the logo does not come close to satisfying in NFCC#8 in "Lloyds Bank" and the file should be removed from that article. As for the subsidiaries, while it's true that you've helped clarify the connection between Lloyds Bank PLC and the other four, they are still described as wholly owned subsidiaries of the former in their respective articles. The book Major Companies of Europe 1993/94: Volume 2 Major Companies of the United Kingdom clearly shows this to be the case for two of the four: The National Bank of New Zealand and Lloyds Associated Banking Company (as Lloyds Merchant Bank). So, I still think the logo should probably not be used per No. 17 of NFC#UUI, but others may feel differently on this point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17, which states: "The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." These subsidiaries did not lack their own branding (as evidenced by the links provided above and at NBNZ), in the way that the Audit Panel, for example, lacks branding distinct from that of the London Assembly. See Report and Accounts (p. 5), Lloyds Bank Limited, 1977: "The Black Horse sign is now being progressively introduced throughout the Group as the symbol of our presence in countries across the world" and Report and Accounts (p. 13), Lloyds Bank Limited, 1978: "Our adoption of the Black Horse symbol in New Zealand has also assisted in identifying the National Bank with the Lloyds Bank Group" (both available from Companies House). As for use in the Lloyds Bank article, the logo is the subject of sourced commentary in the preceding section. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source discussing the "black horse" in the previous section does not discuss this particular logo at all. I don't think there's a need for another black horse logo in addition to the one already shown in the main infobox per WP:NFCC#3a. How would removing this non-free file be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the sentence "When the bank took over that bank in 1884, it retained the black horse as its symbol" per WP:NFCC#8?

As for the subsidiaries, I do think the case has probably been made for "National Bank of New Zealand", but I'm still not quite sure about the others. I have no problem, however, going along with whatever the consensus turns out to be.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of "however" -- 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)][reply]

As I said, I think this is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17 for the reasons given above. I'm not clear how the case may have been made for NBNZ but not for the other subsidiaries. Why shouldn't they be treated in the same way? Should we remove the Banco Santander logo from Santander UK and other articles? What about the RBS Group logo at RBS and so on? I see that the HSBC logo is public domain under US law, but it is non-free in its home country. Should we remove that from the numerous articles in which it appears? With respect to Lloyds Bank, I have added some commentary which I hope will satisfy the requirements. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to argue that other stuff exists is usually not a good way to try and justify non-free usage. There are lots of non-free files being used in lots of different articles and quite a large number of them are being used incorrectly. Moreover, a logo considered to be public domain in the US can be tagged with Template:PD-USonly and used as such on English Wikipedia. Not being in the public domain in its country of origin probably means that the logo cannot be uploaded to Commons, but that does not automatically mean it is subject to the NFCC on English Wikipedia. If you feel the usage of any of the other logos you mentioned does not comply with the NFCC, you can tag the file with Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale or nominate it for discussion at FFD. That's what we are doing here: discussing whether the usage of this image complies with the NFCC. The discussion is still open, so others may comment either way and whomever closes the discussion will read all which has been written and make their close according to WP:FFDAI. As for the statement "Lloyds' iconic black horse device was retained and modified to reflect the TSB merger." you added to the the "Lloyds Bank" article, I don't see why three non-free images showing a black horse are needed to understand the meaning of that. That is just my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed discussing whether usage of the image complies with NFCC, but you have asserted that it does not and I am disputing that assertion. These were separate companies. Are you really suggesting that they should not have their logo in the infobox because it was shared with the parent? If so, I think that is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17 and I still do not understand how the case may have been made for one but not for the other subsidiaries. In terms of the Lloyds Bank article, I do feel it helps the reader to see how the logo was modified to reflect the TSB merger (the Lloyds TSB version has not been listed here). 2.27.75.26 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:59, 2 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:Long Beach Jane Doe.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Majora (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a fairuse replaceable image? We have File:700UFCA Recon 08-12-2014.jpg which is another reconstruction but that's just a creation by an editor from what I can tell. Note that List of unidentified murder victims in California uses the commons image and not this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is used because it was created by professionals - NCMEC has state-of-the-art technology as well. The watermarking part of the argument does not apply because it is only recommended for free images, which this image is not.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other image then? It isn't like that specific image is famous or something (like if it was the first reconstruction or some wrong reconstruction) so if someone can create a free version, isn't our usage of the non-free one problematic? I'm wondering about that other reconstruction entirely; we don't know anything about it other than one editor @CarlK90245: claims that it is another reconstruction and that editor is not a reliable source on whether or not they know how to reconstruct images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 23:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused on what the argument is. Are you now saying we should keep the fair use and delete the other file? Or delete both???--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Ricky81682
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please close this? Nobody has commented and it's been up for two months.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 00:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close this as keep. The fair use of this image is borderline. However, the two images really look nothing alike and the composite from the NCMEC gives the reader a far better understanding of the topic (the person) than the other one would. Anyone is free to reopen this FfD if they disagree with me. --Majora (talk) 04:21, 8 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:Drwhostub-03.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace, blurry, possibly uploaded as a WP:POINT FASTILY 02:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uploader was not contacted, give a week's courtesy to respond
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't uploaded for any malicious reason. As I recall I added it well over a decade ago now along with two or three others as an experiment for an image to use alongside a Doctor Who stub article notice. It didn't end up being used for that, and obviously serves no purpose so should be deleted. Angmering (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per uploader comment above. Reh man 08:35, 3 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:Marcelo Neves' 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: Copyright status questionable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous copyright violations by this uploader brings this image into question. Assuming that the uploader is Marcelo Neves that means the copyright does not belong to them and this isn't "own work". Copyright lies with the photographer unless transferred by contract or legal action. In that case, this photo is a copyright violation. Majora (talk) 00:43, 2 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:John Strickland Goodall00.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 10#File:John_Strickland_Goodall00.jpg}}

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

File:Undefeated-logo1.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: Tag as Copy to Commons Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be copyright infringement. I think it should be released under fair use. Fuortu (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would qualify for PD-logo and as such have changed the licensing status to reflect this. This discussion should now be fine to be closed and the image could be transferred to Commons as the website is United States based. Salavat (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, per Salavat. Reh man 08:34, 3 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.