Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:24, 15 March 2017

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

File:USNS Comfort ribbons.bmp

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 ⚡ 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-quality, bad file format FASTILY 01:53, 10 February 2017 (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:BBCRadioGuernseySticker.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, possibly non-free derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 02:03, 10 February 2017 (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:St Andrew Wardrobe Service 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 10 February 2017 (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:Belton House 2006.Giano.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused derivative of File:Belton House 2006.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 10 February 2017 (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:Blackfriars Arts Centre October 2004.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 02:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am, I took the picture myself! Zerbey (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, copied to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 18:31, 10 February 2017 (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:Blow-tiki1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely non-free. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 10 February 2017 (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:Blow-tiki2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely non-free. Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 10 February 2017 (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:Wembley Park platform2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 10 February 2017 (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:Grantham station platforms.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Better photos available in Commons:Category:Grantham railway station. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 10 February 2017 (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:Grantham station entrance.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Better photos available in Commons:Category:Grantham railway station. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 10 February 2017 (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:Grantham station approach road.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Better photos available in Commons:Category:Grantham railway station. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 10 February 2017 (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:Whetstone.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 03:01, 10 February 2017 (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:BourneRedHall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission. Other photos available in Commons:Category:Red Hall, Bourne. Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 10 February 2017 (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:Ashover.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 03:08, 10 February 2017 (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:Lady Gaga John Wayne video.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unencyclopedic image that unfortunately describes nothing within the music video for the song. Can easily be replaced by just text. Carbrera (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no contextual significance and easily replaced by words. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:10, 10 February 2017 (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:Evil Grass.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Unclear what the photo is supposed to depict. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 10 February 2017 (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:Ingleborough from Wards.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. We have clearer photos, ex. File:Ingleborough mountain 02.JPG. Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 10 February 2017 (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:Tarn on Parlick.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Superseded by File:Parlick Fell (geograph 3344091).jpg. Kelly ^hi! 04:28, 10 February 2017 (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:Glider low over Fair snape fell.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 04:39, 10 February 2017 (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:Fair snape from the path.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Clearer images in Commons:Category:Fair Snape Fell. Kelly ^hi! 04:41, 10 February 2017 (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:Millenium bridge.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, low resolution. Superseded by File:Lune Millennium Bridge, west side.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 04:45, 10 February 2017 (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:Morecambe statue.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Clearer photos in Commons:Category:Eric Morecambe Statue, Morecambe. Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 10 February 2017 (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:Harris museum.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Clearer photos in Commons:Category:Harris Museum and Art Gallery. Kelly ^hi! 04:49, 10 February 2017 (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:CIMG6182.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 06:36, 10 February 2017 (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:Kenny1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear permission. Kelly ^hi! 07:06, 10 February 2017 (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:Boeing's Technical Award for 1970 (top invention).pdf

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 ⚡ 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:12, 10 February 2017 (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:AméricoJacomino.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 ⚡ 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no source, no date, unable to verify copyright status FASTILY 07:16, 10 February 2017 (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:Battle of Naseby monument.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source/authorship information. Other images available in Commons:Category:Battle of Naseby monument. Kelly ^hi! 07:22, 10 February 2017 (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:1616 Winnie after rehab.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: referred to OTRS processing. czar 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here, where uploader cites "Galveston Historical Foundation" as the copyright holder of the image. Dubious self-work claim FASTILY 03:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I represent Galveston Historical Foundation, the author of the photograph. Our intention in uploading the photo was to make it available for public use, and ensure the appropriate credit. After my initial uploading attempt, listing "Galveston Historical Foundation" as copyright owner, I was alerted that such a listing would require a link to page authorizing this use. It is not efficient for us to create such a linked page. Therefore, we agreed to change the crediting on this page to creative commons. In reviewing the guidelines for this new tag, I believe that any outside use of the photograph would still need to credit Galveston Historical Foundation as author, thus meeting our original goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjosantos (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template by dropping the "self" template and added "Galveston Historical Foundation" as part of the attribution to the photo. Looks like a confirmation, so move to Commons. If that's not enough, how about WP:OTRS, Banjosantos? --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Banjosantos, thank you for your contribution. In order to verify your affiliation with the foundation, would you please send written consent (sample here) to the listed email from an official foundation address, writing that your account is authorized to license on behalf of the foundation? czar 22:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a written consent form to the wikimedia permission email on February 1 and received an automated response. Is there anything I can do to verify that it was sufficient? Banjosantos (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Banjosantos, yes, would you please post the confirmation ticket number from the reply? czar 06:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar, Here is the ticket number I received in reply: 2017020210001245. Banjosantos (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (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:Kervaire spectral sequence.jpg

If this meets the threshold of originality and is non-free (which it is currently licensed as): it fails WP:NFCC#1. A free equivalent could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. There are also probably free images of spectral sequences. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a bit on the gray area. But I do believe the free equivalent cannot be created; that particular spectral sequence was used in the solution of a very difficult problem and the diagram requires a great amount of expertise to create. For example, I could create something (much) more trivial but that will be less interesting. Theoretically, yes, there can be a free equivalent, but that's like, theoretically, anyone can win a nobel prize. -- Taku (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: replaceable by TakuyaMurata's own admission. We go by the technical standard here. Even if you didn't know how to make a replacement, it would be still replaceable. It's due to the nature of the image in question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. My point was the replaceability here is only theoretical, but not practical. To use another analogy, yes, anyone can pick a stone on the moon by just building a rocket and going there. No big deal? If replacing an image requires years of training and supervision under experts in the field, then the image is not really replaceable. If we delete it, we delete it and will not be replaced in practice. -- Taku (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastbourne pier 1870.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#1 given the many free images on the article, but this could be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Could the uploader check if there was any copyright notice on the playbill? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no copyright regarding the image on the playbill. Surely, however, as an 1870 engraving, it is out of copyright? Furthermore, to my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't consider a front-on photo of a work of art to have it's own copyright. Also, "given the many free images on the article" - erm, this is the only image of the pier in the 19th century used in the article. It therefore has a unique place, given that the article covers the history of the pier. Malick78 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cannot see any reason to doubt this is {{PD-UK}}. The original dates from the 1870s and has no author I can find, it's later re-publication does not affect the copyright - Peripitus (Talk) 11:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby Doll Sample.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: It surely doesn't fails the 8th criteria of non-free content as in the whole article, the discussion is of the singer's voice in the song and the song's percussions. So, a 13 second would be helpful to readers to gain some understanding. ❤ TrendSPLEND^✉ 18:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thus not suggesting we also upload video clips because the some actor has won some award for the film? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: The first thing is that the whole article is about an audio song, and much part of its content is related to its critical reception (and this audio clip sums it all) and also I have never supported uploading video clips to Wikipedia...❤ TrendSPLEND^✉ 12:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the film articles are about the full film. Lets upload the full film then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: Ya, that's a good idea...!!! ❤ TrendSPLEND^✉ 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Such sample grossly fails WP:NFCC. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granby font sample.jpg

That file is marked as non-free but it seems to consist of assorted typefaces alone. Typefaces don't even constitute words. Still, its layout worries me. So, is it free or non-free? Codename Lisa (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while letterforms aren't copyright-eligible, I thought it was reasonable to mark it as a fair-use image as it is copyrighted on Flickr. Blythwood (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a single instance in which Flickr images have proper license. (Of course, I always visit Flickr destination from Wikipedia links, so no surprise.) In Flickr, frequently, non-free images are tagged as free and free images as non-free. The former is, of course, more rampant. So, forget Flickr, if it looks free, then it is free. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Apart from the relatively minor cases of Flickrwashing (users uploading other's assets), the vast majority of its contents are original to the uploaders and thus the licenses are accurate. Qualify your statement to be about uploading scans and others' work, and yes, I wouldn't expect the laity to assess copyright correctly—we have a hard enough time of doing it ourselves. czar 06:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts and typefaces: "According to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, typography and calligraphy are not copyrightable in themselves in the U.S." and this type specimen doesn't appear to have other copyrightable text elements. My question is how its British origins work: Is this public domain in US-only (to stay on enwp) or free (for upload to Commons)? czar 06:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are keeping this in English Wikipedia, its British origin is of no consequence. We can tag it so that is not moved to Commons. —Best regards, 07:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

... it is of consequence in that it would be inappropriate to tag it as US-only if it is also free in the UK. Would appreciate an outside opinion to this effect. czar 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the definite answer: This work is not free in UK. TOO in UK is very low. (See this: Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts) And anyway, Commons PD-Font template applies to US only. –Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[comment deleted] TJRC (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: This is not a deletion discussion, so please resort to a verdict more useful than a vague "Keep". —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UK copyright should not be an issue here. Yes, the applicable UK copyright act does recognize typeface as subject to copyright. However, it has a very broad exception to this in § 54(1): "It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface (a) to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing, (b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or (c) to do anything in relation to material produced by such use." This image is "material produced by such use," and is therefore non-infringing under even UK law.

I'm also not persuaded that this image is covered by copyright in any event, even in the UK. Yes, the UK has a lower threshold of originality than the US, but it still has something. If this image is, as it purports to be, an image of a mere digitization of an earlier apparently public-domain typeface, there is nothing original in the image, i.e., there is nothing subject to copyright in the file. The file does not incorporate any of Ashworth's original material and is not subject to any copyright Ashworth holds in his digitization. TJRC (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on whether TJRC's citation applies to this particular use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1924Stanfordcoaches.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 2017 March 4. czar 06:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1924Stanfordcoaches.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:1927NYYankees5.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 2017 March 4. czar 06:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1927NYYankees5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Social Blade logo 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not used company logo. Company article repeatedly deleted and salted. (Social Blade & SocialBlade) KTC (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2017 (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:Cabelas-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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been superseded with a new logo, File:Cabela's-Logo-1.png, so it is no longer used in any article and can be deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2017 (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:Green lanes Harringay.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused derivative of File:Green lanes harringey.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 18:52, 10 February 2017 (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:Turnpike lane tube ticket hall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too visually painful to use, and the image would have dubious value even if the quality were fixable. Alsee (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (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:Spriggan.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is on Flickr marked as "all rights reserved". As this is the uploader's sole photo contribution, I think we would need some evidence that this is their work. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can confirm permissions. Dang, it's a neat image. I left an extra note on the contributor's talk page, as well as a note on the file's Flickr page. Hopefull they will change the Flickr copyright status. Alsee (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: - I've located other free images of this sculpture and uploaded them to Commons at Commons:Category:The Spriggan by Marilyn Collins. Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, nice. And I see that you already replaced all usage of this version. Good work. There should be no hesitation to delete this file now. Even if permission is confirmed, the image adds negligible value to the alternate images we have. Alsee (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (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:McKechnie Field.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 F1 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is an unfree unused duplicate of File:LECOM Park.PNG. The old history version is an unfree unused obsolete logo. We could revert to the old version if we had a need for it, but that seems unlikely. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2017 (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:Wood green shopping city.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It makes my eyes bleed. Anyway, we already have vastly better images of Wood Green Shopping City in its article. Perhaps we could keep this image for use in the Defocus aberration article? (Just kidding, it still makes my eyes bleed.) Alsee (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Horribly blurry and an inadequate image for the article that does zero justice. Carbrera (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"'makes my eyes bleed": ditto, i.e. it makes the automatic focussers inside my eyeballs go into uncomfortable antics trying in vain to focus the blurring out: see eye strain. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image File:Wood green shopping city.jpg is now used in article Defocus aberration. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2017 (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:Alexandra Stan court.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: Resolved -FASTILY 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a self-made file; metadata indicates that it was scanned. Miniapolis 22:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now accurately tagged with an FUR, so this can be closed. Miniapolis 23:38, 11 February 2017 (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:Wood green mall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 22:55, 10 February 2017 (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:Flower, Sun, and Rain gameplay.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free file (GIF) with 321 frames. Using 321 non-free images is not minimal usage WP:NFCC#3. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I realize the problem. I don't know how to adjust the non-free license to accommodate for this. I used a GIF because it was the best way to portray the game's puzzle elements. I'd like to help fix this, but I'm not very experienced with image licenses. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a problem with how the license is written. It's a problem with the file itself. Using an animation is simply overkill, and highly atypical of non-free content. We don't choose the non-free content that best portrays something. We choose contextually significant content that we employ in a minimal fashion. There are frames in that GIF that show all of the elements that are being discussed: the suitcase, the jack, the device, the digits in a single frame. Such a frame would suffice. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I understand. I've replaced the image with a static image that has sufficient information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (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.

@@ Line 331: / Line 331: @@
 <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
+*'''Keep''' - I cannot see any reason to doubt this is {{tl|PD-UK}}. The original dates from the 1870s and has no author I can find, it's later re-publication does not affect the copyright - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 11:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Baby Doll Sample.ogg]]====