Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this page. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2018 September 23}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader= |reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext |Uploader= }} for each additional file. Also, add {{ffd|log=2018 September 23}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext |Second_file.ext |Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ffdc|File_name.ext|log=2018 September 23}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1920, not 1926.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions[edit]

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

September 17[edit]

File:3-Benzoyloxycyclohexen-Synthese.svg[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 03:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:3-Benzoyloxycyclohexen-Synthese.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChemDoc 2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low quality image (frame size is too big in relation to actual content) Keministi (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Stinson Hall, Woodlawn School.jpg[edit]

File:Stinson Hall, Woodlawn School.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Woodlawnschool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Un-splittable file, No confirmation of a 'free' license for either version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Defensive bearded dragon.jpg[edit]

File:Defensive bearded dragon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Enlil Ninlil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Un-splittable file, Unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mishkinqalam.jpg[edit]

File:Mishkinqalam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cunado19 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Un-splitable file. Unclear which revision the attached information is supposed to be associated with. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Japan election 2005 prior.png[edit]

File:Japan election 2005 prior.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TakuyaMurata (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsplitable file, No license or incomplete information for overwritten/reverted revisions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep: perhaps I don't understand the issue but it was created by me and is licensed under GFDL. If more info is needed, I can provide but I need to know what is missing. -- Taku (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that a different image has become intertwined in the history. Namely - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/0/06/20050913233749%21Japan_election_2005_prior.png. Your version IS correctly attributed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:GPS-broadcast-signal.png[edit]

File:GPS-broadcast-signal.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stimpy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently un-splittable file, Most recent revision on Commons as File:GPS signal modulation scheme.svg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Fyodor Petrovich Tolstoy 2.jpg[edit]

File:Fyodor Petrovich Tolstoy 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kmorozov (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently un-splittable file, No license information for most recent revision ( most likely pd-art). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:DubCrtHouse.jpg[edit]

File:DubCrtHouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jesster79 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently unsplittable file, both versions for meta-date in summary, and the image is in use. If it can be split to two files both should be on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dover Hotel, Petty Street, Dover, Stewart County, TN.jpg[edit]

File:Dover Hotel, Petty Street, Dover, Stewart County, TN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hlj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently unsplittable file, In-use, Given meta-data relates to previous upload. Most recent revision is not PD-US as it was taken in 2006 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:DJ Z-Trip (2006).jpg[edit]

File:DJ Z-Trip (2006).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fallerd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently un-splittable file, Which (or both) of the revisions was under the given license? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bond hill, cincinnati.JPG[edit]

File:Bond hill, cincinnati.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aharon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently unsplittable, information block relates to most recent revision, apparently this was uploaded because of a lack of clarity about the original upload under this name. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:RRF TRF.GIF[edit]

File:RRF TRF.GIF (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hammersfan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently unsplittable, Which version is current? File notes it has been superseded anyway, but is is still in use in one article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:RussiaNorthOssetia.Highlight.png[edit]

File:RussiaNorthOssetia.Highlight.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hajor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Which revision does the added information block actually refer to? Lack of clarity regarding this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ryan Miller (musician).jpg[edit]

File:Ryan Miller (musician).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joeblack982 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Ryan Miller (musician) (2).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Apparently un-splitable file, unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @ShakespeareFan00: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm confused why it can't be split. I just did it - split into File:Ryan Miller (musician).jpg and File:Ryan Miller (musician) (2).jpg. (I did it more because I wanted to see for myself what the problem with splitting is, not because there is actually a use for the images.) Since neither image is used, I think it's fine to delete both. --B (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    @B: The problem is that there is no upload in the file history, it only shows up on the file page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Until 2009(ish?), the upload never showed up in the file history - only in the logs. If there were an image where we really wanted both versions and we had a reasonable expectation that the license applies to both versions, does that really matter? We upload images to Commons all the time where the author of the image isn't going to show up in the history. As long as we edit the description page to say who that uploader is, I don't see why that shouldn't suffice. (It's probably mostly an academic point - with 99.99% of images where there is an unrelated image in the file history, one of them is a copyright violation anyway so we rarely are going to want both images.) --B (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:San Giovanni Lipioni seen from Il Monte mountain(2006).jpg[edit]

File:San Giovanni Lipioni seen from Il Monte mountain(2006).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benghazi69 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently un-splittable, unused barring one redirect. Meta-data for revisions seems to be in the edit summaries. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sign of Albertaco's in the Cypress location.JPG[edit]

File:Sign of Albertaco's in the Cypress location.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Glynnpeters (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Aparrently un-splittable, Only used in user space, intervening image is 2D artwork (and thus not necessarily subject to FoP exemptions.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete both No FOP for signs. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Picture 172.jpg[edit]

File:Picture 172.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aldapies (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently un-splittable, Information for original upload is apparently only on the file description page for that upload. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Gabolandpm.jpg[edit]

File:Gabolandpm.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Balochworld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image of living persons. need permission via OTRS. the uploader has submitted many copyvios. Saqib (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Pirma.jpg[edit]

File:Pirma.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Craver (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of unidentified subject with unclear permission. Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Goniatite drawing.jpg[edit]

File:Goniatite drawing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dlloyd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Technically un-sourced, but pre 2006 upload and in use, Hence FFD referal ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Stevan Harnad.jpg[edit]

File:Stevan Harnad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elseware (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Various portrait images, claimed GFDL, but technically unsourced or lacking in ways to confirm that license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn - The most recent uploader, who I'd reached out to left an Own work tag for the more recent revisions, so the FFD can be withdrawn. The issue of the previous revisions can be handled in a different discussion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Pir Saqib Shaami.jpeg[edit]

File:Pir Saqib Shaami.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ejaz92 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a photo of a person who does not have a corresponding article. For the last three years, there have been various and sundry attempts to turn the image description page into an article. The person depicted seems very possibly notable and the photo would even be potentially useful in an article about this person. The problem is, however, that it appears to be Flickrwashing. The source given is a Flickr account with two images, one of which is clearly a screenshot from a video of some sort. It was uploaded to Flickr two days before it was uploaded here. It is highly unlikely that the license is valid. B (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:TREX 600 NSP.jpg[edit]

File:TREX 600 NSP.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leeph (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image description page says "Photographer: Paul Chapman" but gives no indication whether Paul Chapman is the uploader or someone else. This is a very nice photo and it would be nice if we could keep it. (Unfortunately, the uploader does not have email enabled.) B (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


I am the uploader - leeph and the helicopter pictured as the subject of the image is my property. The photographer Paul Chapman is an aeromodeller friend of mine. I don't fully understand your message about the photo 'it would be nice if we could keep it' without letting me know why it is that you might *not* be able to keep it?

I'm afraid I am a novice Wikipedia user and therefore I am not au fait with your processes and policies, and I am assuming that this has been flagged for lacking the appropriate copyright statement/permission for use. Please advise what you need me to do. I can obtain written permission from the photographer if needed.

leeph (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2018 (BST)

@Leeph: Please read WP:COPYREQ which will explain how to confirm the permission.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:RichardKillblane1.jpg[edit]

File:RichardKillblane1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Killblane (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Purportedly a photo of Richard E. Killblane with no real source (I'm not sure if it is him or not). It was obviously taken by a US service member, but we would need to know that it was taken in his official duties, not just while he was taking photos for fun. There is an unquestionably PD photo of him at https://www.army.mil/article/178622/rpoe_deployments_to_be_documented that we can use, so unless we can get clarification, I don't know that we need this one. B (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:StonerFunniesCover.jpg[edit]

File:StonerFunniesCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Etzedek24 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I improperly uploaded this as PD, this issue is one of several that are not PD in the series due to reprints of newspaper comics still in copyright. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridge Street under water 6 September 2008.JPG[edit]

File:Bridge Street under water 6 September 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tzdelski (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Presumed own work, and in use hence FFD referral. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:SWIMflag2.jpg[edit]

File:SWIMflag2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smac02155 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, purpose or link to notable subject unclear. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Elon Musk's submarine.jpg[edit]

File:Elon Musk's submarine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diego Moya (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC violation on basis of 8: Contextual significance. The article and section dedicated to the submarine no longer exist. There's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk. This picture isn't necessary to the an article about Musk at all, especially when the vast majority of the content discusses the fallout resulting from his participation in the cave rescue rather than the submarine itself, which is only tangentially related to Musk. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I also just noticed that the fair use rationale is "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art" which doesn't seem to be valid to me. The submarine is almost certainly not copyrighted as a work of art. It's literally just a tube from one of SpaceX's rockets. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • The upload wizard described the rationale as "Other 3-dimensional creative work" (engineering are creative works, right?), which "described this item" better than the only other option (architectural work). If a more accurate template doesn't exist, I'll replace the template with a rewrite of its contents to specify a single-purpose engineering device.
    It is not accurate to say that the "vast majority of the content discusses the fallout" nor that "there's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk", when in the current version the two first sections (those under titles "Tham Luang cave rescue" and "Device viability") are dedicated to physically describe the submarine and its operation. The image has in essence as much or as few contextual significance as it had when it was placed at a stand-alone article, since the content is basically the same. Diego (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    You changed it to "unique historic image" but that's still the wrong one. That's for something like File:TrangBang.jpg. I also disagree with your assessment. "Device viability" just discusses commentary on how the submarine was too large to go around corners. The picture is also meaningless for understanding how the submarine works, as it's just a bunch of tubes; the text is more than sufficient. A diagram might be better for that purpose. I also dispute the need to fully understand the structure of the submarine on a page about Elon Musk. It's entirely tangential to the article topic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    The reliable sources that covered the design of the submarine disagree with your personal opinion on what is connected to Elon Musk. I've added several references discussing the video from which the image was taken. [1][2][3][4] They are certainly not equal to the coverage of File:TrangBang.jpg, but they are proof that this is one of several historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events; otherwise independent reliable sources wouldn't have used it in relation to this incident.
    By the way, we do have previous WP:Consensus that the topic of the submarine is relevant to the Elon Musk article. Diego (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is in no way a historic image. A historic image means that the image is meaningful historically. I don't think any historians would ascribe that attribute to the image of Musk's submarine. I'm not saying that the submarine is irrelevant, just that the design of the submarine is tangential to the topic of Elon Musk, and therefore a photograph of a bunch of tubes, underwater, from a distance, is not crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk. Therefore, it fails the contextual significance requirement, in adddition to not having a valid fair use claim. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    There's no need in NFCC to have an image "crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk" directly. To be contextually significant it's enough that it's crucial to the understanding of the submarine, which is a topic covered in that article by community decision. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for the relevant policy regarding topics covered as part of articles for larger topics. Diego (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I am confused by this assertion. WP:PAGEDECIDE doesn't seem relevant to whether an image should be included, whereas NFCC8 states "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". My argument is that the image provides minimal if any additional understanding at all, and that removing the image would not be detrimental to one's understanding of Elon Musk, the article topic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    My argument is that Elon Musk's submarine is the article topic at that point and section, for all purposes with regard to content guidelines, as determined by the redirect and the merge discussion.
    We can have different assessments on how relevant the image is to the coverage of the submarine in the article. You have your opinion, I have mine, plus the independent sources discussing the submarine and the video.
    I disagree with your analysis of policy, in special with your implication that moving the stand-alone article to a section changes its contextual significance. If the image is contextually significant given the text and references in the stand-alone article, that can't change merely because you move the same content and references to a different place - the local context of the image is exactly the same, only now referenced to the larger context of the host article. That's how PAGEDECIDE is relevant.
    NFCC and NFCI concern themselves with how the subject is covered in reliable sources and how the image is connected with the surrounding text. Neither care about the structure of how we distribute that content among different articles, except to avoid unneeded duplication (and get adequate FURs for needed duplication). In all cases the "article topic" in those guidelines is whatever subject is being discussed with regard to the non-free image used for illustration of that subject. Diego (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    It specifically says the article topic, not the section topic. Besides, the section is about the controversy and backlash surrounding Musk's PR campaign, so it's not about the submarine itself. A more relevant image would be the tweet in which Elon Musk attacked the rescuer, or perhaps the letter in which the rescuer's lawyer says he's suing Musk. The shape/build quality or whatever of the submarine is almost entirely irrelevant to both Elon Musk as a whole and to a section that is about a controversy that Musk created when he called someone a pedophile without evidence. Do you see how the submarine is just a minor tidbit in that section? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    We must be reading different articles and policies, then. The article I've seen contains five paragraphs (about half of the section) describing the way the submarine is built, and how its viability or lack thereof as a rescue device (which is what was being tested in the one-off procedure illustrated by the image) affected the perception of the controversy. And the policy literally says " There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic". Diego (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    We are not. Two sentences describe the physical characteristics of the submarine: "Engineers at Musk's companies SpaceX and The Boring Company built the mini-submarine out of a Falcon 9 liquid oxygen transfer tube" and " its design, a five foot long, 12 inch wide sealed tube weighing about 90 pounds propelled manually by divers in the front and back". The rest of the section describes the incident itself. Word count wise, that represents about 5% of the section, and less than 1% of the article. This is absolutely not an image crucial to the understanding of Elon Musk. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is not required for the reader's understanding of the topic. Even if it were, the submarine is not a work of art. In the US, copyright does not protect the utilitarian aspect of objects and this submarine is completely utilitarian. Therefore it is replaceable fair use since anyone could take a photo of it. Or, for that matter - and I know this is a crazy idea - you could contact the company that made this thing and ASK them if they would provide us with a photo licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. (I know, that's crazy. But sometimes it works.) --B (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Brian0918 colors.jpg[edit]

File:Brian0918 colors.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian0918 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused Wikipedia screenshot ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Oswald dome fire tower sign.jpg[edit]

File:Oswald dome fire tower sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bneu2013 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of third party artwork with separate copyright ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - I took the photo with my phone. I am currently using it as a citation. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per violation of own work: "Own work: You own all rights to the image, usually meaning that you created it entirely yourself. In case of a photograph or screenshot, you must also own the copyright for all copyright-protected items (e.g. statue or app) that appear in it". Uploader admits that they do not own the copyright of the photographed subject. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

File:Fire Bugle Call.jpg[edit]

File:Fire Bugle Call.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jazzmanian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned sheet music, and incorrect as well according to the file's talk page. xplicit 04:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

fixed image to be correct.Jazzmanian (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

also fixed the SVG file, so anyone wanting to put this call into a page can use the SVG. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bugle_Calls_Fire.svg Jazzmanian (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg[edit]

File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cheapthrill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC#1, free images of the movement exist and are already in use at Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. The poster itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary, failing WP:NFCC#8. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep There was more than one movement, each produced its own posters. This "children and other living things" poster is from the middle ground: a historically significant group and deserving coverage, but not as widely known as the "No thanks" posters. It would be an editorially bad decision for WP to present the movements as a single group, united behind a single banner. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Andy Dingley: if the poster itself is historically significant, then that needs to be cited and discussed somewhere. As it is, the poster is just being used decoratively where any anti-nuclear poster would serve the same purpose. --B (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if someone can come up with a valid WP:NFCC#8 rationale; as it stands this FFD would be closed as "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:BJPenn2.png[edit]

File:BJPenn2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by East718 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

missing verifiable source FASTILY 06:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The primary Filckr account given as the source of this photo appears have been deleted and I'm unable to find an archive of it or the photo in question. I did find the same image being used here, but it looks like that version was upload at least two years after the file was uploaded to Wikipedia. File is also being used here which attributes it to Wikpedia. FWIW, there are a few archived versions of other photos from the Flickr account found here; some of those are released under a "Some rights reserved" license, but others are released under a "All rights reserved" license. Anyway, there are other images of Penn in c:Category:B. J. Penn (martial arts fighter). So, if the consensus is to keep this, it probably should be moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mello-Yello-Fountain-Burger-King-Marquette-MI.jpg[edit]

File:Mello-Yello-Fountain-Burger-King-Marquette-MI.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrmiscellanious~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously tagged as F4 (no source) but was advised this was the incorrect approach, for pre 2012 uploads. Treat as own work despite the product logos included? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Abelard Sign.JPG[edit]

File:Abelard Sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rustalot42684 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Was F4, but was told that was the wrong approach for older uploads which may actually be own work. The concern here is that what's shown is a 2D sign. Is the stylised A simple enough to be below the threshold of originality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg[edit]

File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghoul flesh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The current file was already subject of a discussion, but the two previous files in the history ... do we have a license statement for them as well? Paging @Jeff G. and Ghoul flesh: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Ghoul flesh, Whpq, AMK152, and Madman2001: There are three photos in the history. The first (with the gray brick background) was uploaded 18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC). The second (with the black background) was uploaded with a comment mentioning https://i.imgur.com/2bSJXli.png 11 minutes later at 18:28. The third, a crop of the second, was uploaded two minutes after that at 18:30. The OTRS ticket originated four days later, on 21 March. The ticket covers the second photo, and by extension the third. I asked if it covers the first on 30 June in response to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 17#File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg and what became User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/July#File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg, but I have not received a reply in the intervening two months. I concur with Stefan2 that the first now "needs to be deleted per WP:F5."   — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just going to add that if the oldest version is not covered by the OTRS ticket like the others, it can't be accepted as non-free content anyway per WP:NFCC#1 and should be deleted per WP:F7. Although the end result would be the same, F5 deletions imply that the only problem with the file was WP:NFCC#7, and files deleted per F5 are sometiimes restored if a non-free use for the orphan is found later on. F7, on the other hand, tends to indicate a more serious problem than just being orphaned and thus seem to be very rarely restored after the fact. Regardless, the two versions which have been verified under OTRS probably should be moved to Commons as soon as this FFD and the local file deleted per WP:F8, unless there's a real need for {{Keep local}} to be used here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ana's Cross.jpg[edit]

File:Ana's Cross.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gilderien (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Challenging the {{Keep local}}. It was originally added citing that this image has no educational value, but I believe it actually does; it depicts a monument in a national park. It's also worth noting the Commons version of this file is being used on another wiki, so obviously it has some cross-wiki value. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep this copy overlapping the Commons file. ~ Rob13Talk 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have always been a proponent of giving uploaders wide latitude when it comes to requesting that files be kept local. Not doing so may make them unlikely to upload further in the future. There are many reasons to make such a request (e.g. keeping it under the local rules as opposed to the arcane common ones). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This image was a user page photo for Gilderien that is unlikely to have encyclopedic use. He is obviously welcome to upload (within reason) images for his user page. If they are in use, they are retained and if they are not in use, we don't need to keep them. This shouldn't be controversial. It never should have been uploaded to Commons to begin with because it's a userpage photo with no general encyclopedic use. If it's not going to be used here, it should be deleted both here and at Commons. --B (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: c:COM:INUSE does seem to allow photos for userpages to be upoladed and kept as long as they are in use. So, deleting it from Commons might not be as clear cut as deleting the local version of it here may be. Regarding the local version, WP:MTC used to have a section titled "What not to transfer" which stated the following:

    Some users request that their work remain on Wikipedia, and does not move to Commons. Don't fight them over it; with tens of thousands of files to transfer, it's not worth it. There is no commonly used template to indicate a desire to keep one's files off Commons, however many users who wish to keep their work off Commons use custom templates or the {{keeplocal}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} templates, neither of which are designed for that purpose. The {{esoteric file}} template can be used for files of no interest outside Wikipedia, for instance self-portraits uploaded purely for use on a Wikipedia userpage.

    but that seems to have been removed here as part of a major revising of the MTC page in November 2016. Whether that was the result of talk page consensus or just a bold edit, it does seem that the project was once a little more tolerant of "keep local" requests perhaps for the reasons given by Godsy above. Even so, it would be helpful if the uploader can clarify the particular reason(s) why they want a local copy of this to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Policy is unclear on what to do in cases like this.
WP:F8 says that files like this can't be speedily deleted under criterion F8. However, no one is proposing speedy deletion of this file, so the CSD policy doesn't apply.
The general WP:DP doesn't specifically address files like this, but indicates that any file may be deleted at FFD provided that there is a consensus to delete it.
The WP:OWN policy tells that no one owns a page on Wikipedia, i.e. the uploader alone can't decide that the file can't be deleted. The section on user pages indicates that a user doesn't own his own user page, but then indicates that the user has a lot of power over his user page, indicating some kind of partial ownership. The file's only use is on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, where users are presented in a way somewhat similar to user pages.
WP:NOTHOST indicates that we don't host stuff for the sole purpose of hosting them. The section indicates that unused files are to be deleted, but isn't clear on what to do if hosting a file is unnecessary because the file also is on Commons.
Someone mentioned that the file is in use on a different project. From what I can see, the file is only used on testwiki:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host breakroom. I'm guessing that this is a test page where someone imported a Wikipedia page for the purpose of testing something and that any other random image could achieve the same testing purpose, so the file's use on that page doesn't really indicate any cross-wiki value. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: Shadows the identical file on Commons that is within Commons c:COM:SCOPE. Should be deleted to reduce maintenance burden. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Many files that are kept locally "shadow [an] identical file on Commons that is within Commons c:COM:SCOPE." It is unlikely that maintenance will ever be necessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg[edit]

File:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

should be non-free reduced; claim that "People click through to view the image. They don't just view it in the article" by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Fastily see my comment on Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair above. These images are not decoration. They serve an encyclopedic function in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Besides the file size, the use of the painting as the infobox image seems to violate NFCC#8, since it obviously doesn’t visually identify the artist and there’s no critical commentary. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need to identify the artist. The image show a piece of her work discussed in the article. I grant you the critical commentary is not extensive but it is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Your response indicates you either don't understand WP:NFCC#3b or have never bothered to read it. -FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I was replying to Ytoyoda. Enough with the aspersions please Fastily. I have already replied re 3b (minimalism). It does need to be at the minimum size, but not at such low resolution that it ceases to fulfill its encyclopedic function. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
What is the exact encyclopedic purpose that it requires to be available at a larger resolution than the thumbnail that appears in the infobox? If a higher resolution is necessary to view certain details, then why not crop to show the relevant details? And then if there’s an encyclopedic purpose to the image, what the hell is it doing in the infobox where it’s easentially decorative and fails NFCC#8? Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Possible keep, but only if more of the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is provided. However, if the file is kept, it should be reduced per WP:NFCC#3b.

    I don't think the file should be being used in the main infobox. That image should be for the purpose of primarily identifying the subject of the article. The picture of the work would make sense in the main infobox of an article about the painting itself, but not in one about the artist. This doesn't mean that a non-free image pof the work cannot be used in the artist's article, it just means it should be moved to the body of the article near the content discussing it.

    The work is just mentioned once by name in the caption, which isn't really the type of contextual connection for non-free use NFCC#8 is looking for in my opinion. The connection should really between article content and non-free image, not the image and its caption. So, it would be better to add the relevant sourced critical commentary content about the work itself or commentary on how this work is considered to be particularly representative of the artist's style to the article body and then move the image near that content in support. Otherwise, I don't think it quite meets NFCC#8. In addition, the source cited (at least the part I can access) makes no mention of the painting itself, so basically the caption appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. NFCC#8 doesn't mean (again in my opinion) to simply write a description of the what the work looks like; it means to show that the work itself was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. If you could basically pick another work by the same artist's and support it with the pretty much the same caption or commentary, then there's no real justification for using any non-free examples of the artist's work. So, if the rest of the source goes into discussion of this particular work, then content summarizing that commentary that goes beyond a simple discription is what should be added to the article.

    As for NFCC#3b, I'm not an admin so I cannot see the previous versions of the file; however, the resolution really should only be what is necessary for the article and not what is desired for the file's page. Mention was made above of File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg, but that was reduced by Ritchie333 per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23#File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg and I think something similar should be done here. The source for the file should be more than sufficient for readers looking for a higher resolution of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete The image should not be used in the infobox since it is not an image of the article subject. Since the article doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary on the work, WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. If the image is kept, it needs to be reduced to < 100,000 px per WP:NFCC#3b. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not OR, the critical commentary was in The Times where they discussed the objects in the work and interpreted them as a critical commentary on western military activity in the Middle East commenting on the "deconstructed" U.S. flag, the Arabic newspaper, and the Sun and Moon which related to their discussion of her "obsession" with astrology also mention later in our article. I moved it all to the body. My point about the size it merely that particularly with artworks, people don't only view the thumbnail they also click through to see the file so it needs to be of reasonable resolution when they do or the encyclopedic function is not served. It's already quite small at 332 × 500 but that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reduce according to our guidelines and keep - there is nothing that you have to see to understand the topic that you can't see in the inline version. Yes, to fully appreciate a work of art, it's nice to have a life-sized version of it, but we're not in the business of hosting high-resolution images of non-free works. If you want to study a high-resolution version of a copyrighted work of art, you go elsewhere to do that. No non-free image should be any larger than its size in the article. Wikipedia articles can be printed, or displayed in other formats where there isn't a "click-through" image description page and so if an image description page is required for the reader's understanding, then something about that process is wrong. --B (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reduce. The image should be kept, as it's no longer in the infobox but accompanies sourced critical text in the relevant section. The text – "In 2013 she produced Sun and Moon as a commentary on military action in the Middle East which featured a Sun and Moon, a carousel horse, and a tank against a split background with an Arabic language newspaper in the top half and a deconstructed American flag below" – really needs this image to be seen to be intelligible in any meaningful way. But the default thumbnail size (220px) that it's currently rendered in the article is sufficient for this purpose. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 07:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Map of the METTIS transport network, the public transportation in Metz, France.jpg[edit]

File:Map of the METTIS transport network, the public transportation in Metz, France.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bava Alcide57 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned. No source given for the blank satellite photo, so we don't know whether it is a PD (US government) photo or from something copyrighted (Google, etc) B (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Frankie Valli - Lady Put the Light Out (audio sample).ogg[edit]

File:Frankie Valli - Lady Put the Light Out (audio sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mozart834428196 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Audio sample from a song with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:1964 tracksuits.jpg[edit]

File:1964 tracksuits.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mozart834428196 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image used to illustrate track suits. It's claimed use is to illustrate the history by there is no sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Refugee-rights rally outside Bank of Queensland.JPG[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 02:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Refugee-rights rally outside Bank of Queensland.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whywhywhy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

@Fastily: Uploaded by a long-vanished user. There is NOT an affirmative statement of authorship here, but WhyWhyWhy also uploaded File:Urban mounted police on horseback (rear view).JPG, which was taken with the same camera 30 minutes earlier and in which he does make a statement "I created it and choose these rights". Based on that, I think we can accept this image as created by WhyWhyWhy. B (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Psilocybe graveolens.jpg[edit]

File:Psilocybe graveolens.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cresus22 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is from a user-authored image site - https://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/64347 - where users can pick a license at upload. (The CC at the bottom is not just a blanket statement for the site - it means that it was picked for this image in particular - their terms of use say that users are given the option to pick a license and, indeed, from clicking around I found an image with a non-commercial license.) But this image has emblazened on it "(c) D.D.K 11-09-09 all rights reserved". So do we accept the license as valid? B (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:JohnBull.jpg[edit]

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: withdrawn per User:Whpq's good work --B (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:JohnBull.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MXocrossIIB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No real source - just an uncyclopedia upload. The source site has no claim of authorship and people there just upload whatever they want - they are not as concerned with copyright as we are. B (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • It appears to be derived from a World War I recruoiting poster which dates to 1914. I've not been able to find any more information about the poster. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've dug up some more information. The poster is actually from 1915. Australian War Memorial and Toronto Public Library identify the poster as being public domain. Is cropping out the head and feathering the bottom sufficient to create a copyright on the derived image? -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
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:ChySkillz - 1993 - Slam.jpeg[edit]

File:ChySkillz - 1993 - Slam.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Felix Montana (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as work, but appears to be a screen capture from a third party work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:COA darbhanga.jpg[edit]

File:COA darbhanga.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abhiran (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Assuming this is own work given the self tag, but the uploader appears to be blocked. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Variable resistance exercising device.png[edit]

File:Variable resistance exercising device.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hroth69 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is claimed as self, but it closely resembles a patent diagram. Perhaps the uploader can clarify if it's their own invention patent they are uploading? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Mixed case law on whether parents are subject to copyright protection. Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. --B (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Keep - On further review, this image is from US patent #4,256,302[2] with a priority date of March 10, 1976. No copyright notice was included and so it is public domain regardless of the legal status of patent drawings (which are probably not protected anyway). --B (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lions in the Desert.png[edit]

File:Lions in the Desert.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NE Ent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by larger File:Lions in the Desert by Henry Ossawa Tanner - Renwick Gallery - DSC08398.JPG (different format, so doesn't qualify for anything speedy) B (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom NE Ent 00:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:NabilAyers.png[edit]

File:NabilAyers.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Music fam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:OTRSN, the email received was not sufficient to confirm permission of this image. B (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

File:Gambia FA-1.png[edit]

File:Gambia FA-1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by version without artifacts: File:Gambia FA-1.png. Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Poly.pov[edit]

File:Poly.pov (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cyp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused (see WP:NOTWEBHOST), unsuitable file format for Wikipedia. Since this is just a text file, it should either go on Github or be copied to a page in the Wikipedia namespace FASTILY 01:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep or redirect to User:Cyp/Poly.pov (yes I know this is cross name space but I believe we can make an exception here). This file routinely goes through a delete/restore cycle; when it is deleted, it is restored by request on WP:REFUND, as the nominator already knows. It isn't "unused", it's being used on multiple reference desk pages, as can be seen if you click on "what links here". Here are the WP:REFUND archives:
Either redirect it or leave it alone. The reference desk links should be reason enough to keep at least a redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:ExpressRailMTR.svg[edit]

File:ExpressRailMTR.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaJaWa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This really doesn't seem simple enough to be in the public domain. Jc86035 (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Convert to FU and remove from {{MTR}} - agree, it's obviously copyrightable. It at least needs to be removed from the template and probably some other places. --B (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In which article should it be used?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this isn't actually the official icon. I'll make it a bit more different and move to Commons.   JaJaWa |hello  07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@JaJaWa: It isn't actually the official icon? Where did it come from? Who created it? "Unofficial" icons shouldn't be used in articles so making a different icon is not likely to be the solution. --B (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - If as stated by the uploader that this is not an official icon, then it really should not be used as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the use of hame-made unofficial icons would be very misleading. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hon.Felix Dias Bandaranaike.JPG[edit]

File:Hon.Felix Dias Bandaranaike.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masako Kawasaki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hon.Felix Dias Bandaranaike.JPG Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Magog the Ogre: if you look at the contribution history of Photos by Anuradha (talk · contribs), they seem to be a professional photographer. They are banned for abusing socks, but their photo uploads are all taken with the same camera, so there's no real reason to doubt the authenticity of Photos by Anuradha's licenses. Based on WP:DUCK, the uploader of this file is one in the same with Photos by Anuradha (talk · contribs). So, while we don't have proof in the form of an OTRS email, we do have a professional photographer asserting that copyright has been assigned to him. --B (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@B: please add your comment at the Commons discussion. It should be deleted here regardless. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I added my comment there. Please note that if it's deleted at Commons, it probably is acceptable for fair use here (though would need to be removed from most of the articles where it is used). --B (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Switching to delete. It's not right that we have a backlog because Commons has. Copyvio issues need to be dealt with in a timely manner. If something new turns up in the Commons discussion, we can always undelete. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ciel brand water by Coca Cola.jpg[edit]

File:Ciel brand water by Coca Cola.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Balintawak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

TOO refferal, over packaging artwork. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a photo of a beverage in an article about the beverage.

This is common practice.

See: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquarius_Bottle.jpg

There are page issues from 2010 you could have worked on.

User:Balintawak —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy

If the file is tagged as freely licensed but you have reasons to suspect this tagging is false: list the file under files for discussion, by adding the ffd template on the file and then adding a listing to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion pages following the instructions in the tag. Same if you think it should be deleted for some other reason: list the file under files for discussion, by adding the ffd template on the file and then adding a listing to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion pages following the instructions in the tag. This process may be used for images that are low quality, obsolete, unencyclopedic, likely to remain unused, or whose use under the non-free content rules is disputed.

Balintawak (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:FCSANPedroLogo.png[edit]

File:FCSANPedroLogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Experio2018 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying the self claim, as this looks like a third party logo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

it's not my self work, of course it's a third party logo :) it's a mistake, i will fix it. Regards Experio2018 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Don't forget to add a filled out {{Non-free use rationale logo}} for it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Kokila manjula sree in USA.jpg[edit]

File:Kokila manjula sree in USA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Devbhoomi1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very improbable that the uploader is the copyright owner of this file, seeing its exif data and all. Also, this file will soon serve no encyclopaedic purpose, as its subject's page Tiruppavai Kokila Manjula Sree is about to be deleted.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bible Hill Crest.png[edit]

File:Bible Hill Crest.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was seemingly also uploaded to commons, by a user name that suggests a link with the organisation represented. Was there an OTRS ticket associated with that upload? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Vignelli 1972.jpg2008.jpg[edit]

File:Vignelli 1972.jpg2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Vignelli 1972.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

4MPixel non-free images needs community agreement to remain. I strongly suspect that these may be the biggest NF images in Wikipedia. I also wonder if we actually need two such images Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

4MB is tiny compared to most photos... many of my photographs are gigabytes in size... Regardless, the text and font in the images (maps) are unmistakably relevant to the notability of the iconic stylized maps, and parts of the text are actually also the subject of discussion in Massimo Vignelli's article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@: Not tiny for non-free - quote from WP:NFC At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
We're looking at pixel count, not file size. 4MP = 4 million pixels. Non-free generally aimed to be 0.1 MP or less.
As for illustrating Vignelli's article, you can use closeups of the maps that are closer to 0.1MP, as used in this article [3], and have external links to the full versions (or even here {{external media}} to use in the body of the article. --Masem (t) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:NFCC#3b. The options are to reduce to thumbnail size, use closeups, or delete. Masem's idea makes the most sense. No opinion on how many images we need (WP:NFCC#3a). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A portion will not suffice, you're wrong. This is an artwork; it wouldn't be right to only show portions of a Picasso work just because it resembles the whole. Your argument is basically like having this photo at 50px or showing only the top right corner of it; it's a useless and poor representation of a work of art. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:WestCoast Industrial Valves And Pumps Logo.jpg[edit]

File:WestCoast Industrial Valves And Pumps Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GJN06243 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as own work, but likely a third party logo in the design. Unused, so if non trivial cannot be retained under NFCC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sister Sparrow & the Dirty Birds - Fight.jpg[edit]

File:Sister Sparrow & the Dirty Birds - Fight.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mburrell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Album cover used non-transformatively in an article ABOUT THE BAND. There has been some disagreement over whether to include it. Bringing it here for discussion. @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: @Mburrell: B (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well sure, it has been removed from the artist page. The clock should be ticking for seven days, and if I have not created an album article, it can be deleted. Or it can be deleted hastily, and if I create an album page in the next seven days, I will re-upload it and attach it to the album page. Mburrell (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:OpposingColors.gif[edit]

File:OpposingColors.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Agriculture (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

⚠ Seizure warning Rapidly color-changing gif box that looks like it belongs in Encyclopedia Dramatica. No encyclopedic use. B (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Carol with scarf 5.jpg[edit]

File:Carol with scarf 5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jheditorials (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The email quoted on the image description page says "I give permission to put my picture on your site". It was in response to a message asking for GFDL permission ... but the reply didn't say GFDL. B (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:SKETCH ACTRESSES.jpeg[edit]

File:SKETCH ACTRESSES.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Manavatha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
  • See also for consideration under this nomination -

Wikipedia is not a web host. As these images do not appear to have a use in any existing article(s) and are only being displayed on the uploading user's page, I believe they qualify for deletion under NOTWEBHOST. StrikerforceTalk 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all unless satisfactory copyright permission provided. I don't believe the motive was bad: the editor appears to have intended to illustrate articles with no image, as in this version of Best Actress. However, the author, source, and permission are all given simply as "GOVINDA", which is wholly unsatisfactory; these may well be copyright violations. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: No evidence of copyright violation - appears to be a sketch, likely something the uploader did. A better tactic may be to talk to the editor and help him fill in the gaps in the source info. As far as NOTWEBHOST, plenty of folks have pictures of themselves and families on their user page. It doesn't seem to be overly promotional, so what's the harm? This whole deletion seems kind of WP:BITEy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. No opinion on the copyright status, but these files don't violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. They are in use, and if you have a problem with how they are used on the user page, WP:MfD is that way. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Domingo Pilarte, UFC Fighter.jpg[edit]

File:Domingo Pilarte, UFC Fighter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DomPilarteUFC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A Screenshot from a broadcast/livestream is not necessarily own work as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Whilst the User name of the uploader clearly indicates a direct link with the subject of the photo, It was my understanding that sports footage is generally owned by the broadcaster/live-streamer. If the uploader does have the rights to the footage, it wasn't clear on the file description page.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg[edit]

File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Melensdad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While anyone who lived through the 90s can understand wanting to take a shot at Barney, I'm pretty sure he's copyrighted. B (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:UAB Obelisk.jpg[edit]

File:UAB Obelisk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bingcrosbyb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably a copyvio. Google finds it to have been used on an official UAB site ... it's not there currently, but see https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.uab.edu/news/media/k2/items/cache/ff9d018aae83fbc06b5feba5a75d8897_XL.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.uab.edu/news/campus/item/937-uab-schools-ranked-in-top-10-by-us-news-and-world-report&h=450&w=600&tbnid=LVz0Tf9geUReNM&tbnh=194&tbnw=259&usg=__fAafm2E9EV-2JicdRqhoMDDLfrQ=&docid=dXggvN50xGlO2M which Google says is this identical image B (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:ItalianImmigrants.JPG[edit]

File:ItalianImmigrants.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TMS63112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo is own work, but the sculpture is by an artist who only died this year, When was it first installed/ unveiled, so I know if these needs to be a photo of art license tag (non-free use). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This falls under consideration of Freedom of Panorama. If the statue were in, say, Germany, the law there holds that the photographer can license their work without regard to the rights of the sculptor (as best I understand it). If this were a building in the U.S., the photographer could license it without regard to the rights of the architect or builder. But as a work of art on public view in the U.S., a photograph of it is a derivative work and for use here would need a fair-use justification unless the sculptor's estate (or whoever now owns the copyright) agrees to a release. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Am I understanding correctly perc:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States that if this status was erected before 1978 without a copyright notice, then the picture is in the public domain? Because best I can tell this statue was erected in 1972. I'm guessing there's not an accompanying copyright notice? But I live in the area and can check if folks feel that's necessary (if I'm misunderstanding the freedom of panorama rules, then the point is moot and I won't bother making the hike). Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    The photo is not public domain, it is copyright by the photographer. But as the statue or sculpture was erected between 1923 and 1978, if without a copyright notice, then it does appear that the photo would escape the derivative work restriction. So I guess a check is needed or an inquiry to the Hill 2000 Organization to determine if they've restricted photography before 1978. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

File:Pcom seal.jpg[edit]

File:Pcom seal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Donaldal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of a 3D version of the seal of the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine and a derivative work of the seal (e.g. File:PCOM seal.sm.jpg). I can't find anything giving a year for their seal so I'm not sure whether it is still copyrighted. B (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Snoop true ingredients.jpg[edit]

File:Snoop true ingredients.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tastykicks (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like a photo of the jumbotron, in which case it would be a derivative work of whoever was producing the video. B (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif[edit]

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ritchie333 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious claim of being too simple to be eligible for copyright. Simple shapes are ineligible, words are ineligible, but when you put lots of simple shapes and words together, it's less easy to argue that a threshold of originality has not been met. B (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep Your personal opinion has been noted. It's sat fine in an article for years, that was listed on the main page and which I hoped I could improve to good article status if I ever got round to it. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not trash one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie, I don't see the necessity for an assumption of some sort of intent to "trash" the encyclopedia on B's part. That it has sat fine for years is not an indicator of whether it is a copyright violation or not, and determinations of whether something violates copyright aren't a personal opinion Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the "write" bit is "draw a similar image and licence it CC-BY-SA". I can do this (or get Pants to do it), but I'm not going to drop everything and jump to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've worked for and with architects for many years: floor plans such as this one are not copyrightable. There's nothing creative about it, hence nothing to base a copyright claim on. Editors who work in image space should be aware of how copyright works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Per this article, floor plans are copyrightable. This may not apply here, as no copyright applies if the plan is "standardized configurations of spaces and generalized notions of where to place functional elements", but still Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
That article is misusing "floor plan". Floor plans do not, by definition, include architectural or design features such as built-in desks; the very feature used to define their hypothetical example. The last copyrightable interior design I saw was one based around a spiral staircase and had a per-floor footprint of 350 square feet and 4 floors, total. Again, not exactly a floor plan, but an architectural design, of which the floor plans played enough of a part to be copyrightable.
Floor planning is nothing more than dividing an existing space into rooms. Not generally copyrightable, as it's all basic arithmetic and geometry, and frequently governed by local building codes. Very unique floor plans may be copyrightable as I just described of course, because they required creative input. But this, and floor plans that follow this basic scheme of rectangular rooms, standard-width halls and standard-size doorways and windows will never be eligible for copyright. At least in the US. I can't speak for any other nation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"This may not apply here" - exactly, hence it's a matter of opinion and not a clear-cut case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Almost anything anyone says in one of these discussions is a matter of opinion. And no, it's not a clear-cut case. If it were, it wouldn't even be here - it would be speedy deleted as F9. None of us are lawyers (or few of us anyway - there are a few lawyers hanging out here) and we are trying to do the best we can based on our understanding. --B (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. No encyclopedic value. This is not taken from anything resembling a reliable source on the subject of architecture. Instead, it comes from a Harry Potter fan fiction collection (although its specific source seems to be an essay about "real world" locations used in the books). There's no reason to treat this as in any way reliable. Note also that in the very first paragraph on the author's home page she gives us the very important information that, when engaging in astral projection, "it's important for your self-image to include clothes". It's also not at all clear that this "sample" is original work, or whether it's been copied from another source of unknown nature, which may expressly claim copyright. Finally, if it is accurate, it can be replaced by a clearly free recreation, like a map or chart can. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh good grief. I was about to ask if this was something about a different image and then I looked at the source website and saw that yes, this floor plan is from somebody's Harry Potter fanfiction. --B (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's still a pretty accurate depiction of the average 2 up / 2 down house, which are still widespread all over Britain. If there are actual inaccuracies between the plan and a genuine Victorian terraced house, I'd be interested to know what they are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's going to be published in a Wikipedia article, there needs to be a reliable source for its accuracy. --B (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Only if the information is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Are you seriously challenging that the floor plan of a British terraced house - for which there must be thousands if not millions across the entire country - is wrong? That sounds like this old joke..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if this is representative or not. I'm assuming "yard" is British English for foyer or something? (If yard really means lawn, nobody has a bathroom in the yard nowadays ... except maybe in West Virginia.) I googled and found a handful of different designs. Here is one - [4] - for example that would be more definitively PD-ineligible. It's much more basic and doesn't have "coal" or the bathroom in the "yard" so I think we'd be more content in accepting it without further verification under the principle that the sky is blue. --B (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Full disclosure, Ritchie pinged me from his talk page.) I don't know that I know enough about architecture to know whether this is a sufficiently standardized concept so as to be ineligible for copyright. It is an arrangement of simple geometric shapes yes, but I don't know how "simple" their arrangement is because I don't know enough about the subject. So, something like this is labeled as too simple, because the components are more-or-less the essential elements of a bicycle. But how many knowledgeable people tasked with illustrating this would illustrate it in a sufficiently identical way so as to be mostly indistinguishable?
Hmm... I supposed I'm inclined to think that we should just recreate it with a modicum of creativity in the arrangement and then license it all brand new. (Meaning not a 100% recreation. And honestly, who has a bathroom in their back yard anyway?) I don't have the software to do that. I could recreate is basically using lines and shapes, but it would surely be easier with someone who had drafting software. I would be more inclined to keep crops of just the staircase bits. Those seem essential. I imagine most knowledgeable people would recreate those almost exactly. The entire package is a bit more questionable. I'd be interested to hear Majora's opinion. GMGtalk 20:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
(off-topic) The typical terraced house, when built, didn't have anything so fancy as a bathroom - come on! You had a tin bath in front of the fire and that was it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Technically blueprints and floor layouts can be copyrighted. As for the threshold of originality you have to take into account country of origin as well. We have many floor plans on Commons but they are either released by the creator or old enough to have fallen into the public domain. This being from the UK does not help as their TOO is sweat of the brow. Would this meet that standard? Probably. It is certainly a debatable aspect of the drawing. As for US a source pretty explicitly says that copyright would exist in a floor plan. So again, it is dubious that this would fall under a non-copyrightable state. --Majora (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it was definitively from the UK or not. TOO in the UK is plainly idiotic. Regrettably, I'm inclined to think the safest best here is just to take User:MjolnirPants up on their offer to whip up an original version. You can take a shit in the UK and if it was bad enough to break a sweat it's copyrightable. GMGtalk 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • See my response to Galobtter above. The fact that some floor plans can be eligible for copyright should not be read as a blanket statement about all floor plans. I reiterate: Floor plans such as this are not eligible for copyright. There's nothing creative whatsoever in a layout like this, and so nothing to base a copyright claim on. That being said, I'm more than happy to create a replacement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not a question of whether or not you could build the house described in these plans (bathroom in the yard and all) and not run afoul of copyright. It's also a question of whether this particular image has spark of creativity necessary for copyright protection. --B (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Name one creative element, and then I will consider that a valid question. I'm sorry if I seem like I'm being unduly harsh on you: I don't mean to be. I'm not trying to suggest that this nom is a colossal screw up or anything. In fact, it looks like a mostly harmless mistake of the sort that might be rather easy to make to me. I'm only stressing my responses because your assertion that this is or may be copyrightable just does not jive with anything I learned in 20+ years working in the field. There's nothing unique about the floor plan, the font, the placement of text, the word choice, the linestyles or line weights, the scale, the descriptive text... There's literally nothing about that work that requires even the faintest whiff of creativity. There's a reason they call it technical drawing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, if you went out and drew something like this yourself or went out and built this house, it would be 100% okay. In the US, there is the doctrine of independent creation where if you have a copyrighted work and I create something similar, it's not infringement if my creation is independent (I didn't see your version, didn't base my work on your version, have never heard of you, we just so happened to make similar things). Certainly, that doctrine would protect you if you made something that was very very similar to this image. But this discussion is about THIS PARTICULAR FILE, not whether or not you would run afoul of copyright if you made a similar-looking file. --B (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am discussing "THIS PARTICULAR FILE". Kindly re-read my comments with that in mind. And for the record, "THIS PARTICULAR FILE" was created in a fraction of a second at 2:01 PM GMT on November 19th, 2015 on the WMF servers when Ritchie uploaded it. Discussing a particular "file" is meaningless. We discuss a particular "work", which is represented in this file. And my comments regarding the text and linestyles and such in my last response above are comments directly and unambiguously about the work. There is no indication of any element in this work upon which a claim to copyright could be based. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more discussion on whether the file is copyrightable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I trust MjolnirPants's assessment as an expert in the field, but can you confirm that what you say is based on US copyright law? If so, we'd really need some confirmation as to what the case law in terms of drawings like this is in the UK, which seems to be the source country. Because TOO works differently and is significantly lower in the UK, the presumption should be that unless there is case law to the contrary, this is above TOO in the UK. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't point to more than the "minimum amount of creativity" requirement and a lot of examples, unfortunately. I mean, in this case, the design is "two rooms on either side of a staircase." So for example: you can't discern the individual architect by looking at this work. You can't even discern which school of architecture it belongs to. You can't tell anything about it, even to the point of differentiating two similar designs from two extremely different architects. I can't even imagine a judge ruling that to have required any creativity, especially when you consider things like standardized wall depths, staircase widths, door and window sizes and such incredibly common tropes as "cupboards below the stairs". This is the sort of thing that -were it actually contested in court- would rely on case law. I'm sure a qualified attorney or paralegal could dig up case law on both sides (copyrightable and not), but I'm not that, just someone with a lot of experience dealing with technical drawings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MjolnirPants. I feel your pain, but since I have poor imagination, I'm going to err on the side of caution and call this delete. Possibly above TOO in UK and it seems like this possibility can't be ruled out without actually going to court. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This is why I keep saying that people with no actual experience shouldn't be working in this area. No offense intended. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:1910AshtonWest.jpg[edit]

File:1910AshtonWest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Metrodyne (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Technically un-sourced, but as in use and pre 1923, a disscussion is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. No source, so it's not possible to verify PD status. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Schlüsselgerät 39.jpg[edit]

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. Issues with incomplete NFCC rationale appear to have been resolved Nthep (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Schlüsselgerät 39.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scope creep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Incomplete WP:NFCC#1 rationale: no evidence that free images can't be created.

Missing evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied.

Incomplete source - fails WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've put a Fair Use tag on it What is wrong with it? Your being absurd. The device no longer exists. So no free image be created. I have show you the email from Rene Stein, from the free book. So WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. scope_creep (talk)
Scope creep non-free files must be previously published (WP:NFCC#4), so it isn't enough if it was emailed to you. If this photo is from a book, then please identify which. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like the image is indeed published in the source link...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep now that NFCC#4 is met. FUR should be completed with "The device no longer exists. So no free image be created." – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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:PayU Corporate Logo.png[edit]

File:PayU Corporate Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ahadzhiyska1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A near identical logo was uploaded as File:PayU corporate Logo.png which is currently non-free. I think the files are dplicate to each other, so one of them can be deleted if the licensing is clarified. The file nominated is currently unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:RaisingTheBar.jpg[edit]

File:RaisingTheBar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juniper-wood (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No reason to doubt the photo being own work, but the FFD referral is over the photo's subject, there being no information as to what is shown, or it's designer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:The Paradox Challenge.jpeg[edit]

File:The Paradox Challenge.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhyder Hawkman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is either fan-art (in which case value is in doubt) or it's a poster/title card and not necessarily the uploaders to re-license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:The ParadoX Challenge.jpeg[edit]

File:The ParadoX Challenge.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhyder Hawkman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is either fan-art (in which case value is in doubt) or it's a poster/title card and not necessarily the uploaders to re-license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:AguadeInglaterra.png[edit]

File:AguadeInglaterra.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Roundtheworld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How on earth is an 1828 work not PD-old-70 at least? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dome91305.jpg[edit]

File:Dome91305.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Montrose Patriot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early upload" attributed to someone other than the uploader name. No other source given. Not immediate F11 as a clarification is needed as to uploader- given source, relationship. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:BlivitCross.gif[edit]

File:BlivitCross.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lavintzin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early upload" - Attributed to David Tuggy , There isn't an obvious connection to the uploader name, but felt FFD was better than F11. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:UTAH SR-95.PNG[edit]

File:UTAH SR-95.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WikiDon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early upload", No source information, but not immediate F4 as sourcing wasn't enforced as vigorously back then. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rhodesian-African-rifles-cap-badge.jpg[edit]

File:Rhodesian-African-rifles-cap-badge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Humansdorpie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as GFDL, but I suspect the cap design is by a third party, and thus not necessarily the uploaders to relicense. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Krugerrands.jpg[edit]

File:Krugerrands.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Swiss Banker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early" upload - Unused image. Currency design, so a clarification on how this can be licensed as GFDL desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:SmallNid.JPG[edit]

File:SmallNid.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PIngp0NG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Whilst the photo may be the uploaders, the subject is a copyright sculpted work. Likely a Photo of art situation, so a discussion about how to apply NFCC desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Jantar mantar.JPG[edit]

File:Jantar mantar.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Krishnavedala (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is claimed as GFDL-self, but it looks given the sepia tone like it may have been scanned from a third party source. A clarification would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:India-partition.png[edit]

File:India-partition.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deeptrivia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, Source image was apparently deleted already. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ingo10k.jpg[edit]

File:Ingo10k.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Karl Dickman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused , esoteric file. What's this supposed to be for? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mach 3 Exploded Labeled.jpg[edit]

File:Mach 3 Exploded Labeled.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ziggles Metropolitan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, Un-numbered file is already at Commons, So unless a key is found this is effectively duplicate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Nepenthes mikei.jpg[edit]

File:Nepenthes mikei.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JeremiahsCPs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Licensing inconsistency, Metadata and uploader seem to be JeremiahsCPs as author/uploader. License credits a different user. Which is correct? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:NZ wiki meetup 200606a.jpg[edit]

File:NZ wiki meetup 200606a.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SimonLyall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is one name, license credits someone else. Not an F11, but a clearer indication of actual authorship, licensing would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:William the Silent.jpg[edit]

File:William the Silent.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adam Faanes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early upload", technically unsourced, but almost certainly PD by age, hence the need for a disscussion. Anyone know who the artist is? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn - As equivalent file was already on Commons at Commons:File:Antonio Moro - Willem I van Nassau.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Superheterodyne receiver block diagram.png[edit]

File:Superheterodyne receiver block diagram.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonnabuz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A better image File:Superheterodyne receiver block diagram.png now exists at commons. This image is a commons shadow. So I propose a deletion instead of page move. DBigXray 21:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lars Korvald PM.jpeg[edit]

File:Lars Korvald PM.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oddishskies (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

False licensing; w:Template:PD-Norway50 applies, not a US license. Possibly fair use eligible. Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

File:Lead - Tokyo Fever (Type A).jpg[edit]

File:Lead - Tokyo Fever (Type A).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xenobia4 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Lead - Tokyo Fever (Type B).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xenobia4 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Lead - Tokyo Fever (Type C).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xenobia4 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC#3, multiple non-free items are being used when one (the main cover File:Lead - Tokyo Fever.jpg) suffices. In Japan, it is standard to release multiple versions with multiple covers for one single, but their use is not justified under policy. xplicit 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Teubner covers Gk.jpg[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 07:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Teubner covers Gk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wareh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not sure what should be done with this image. This is a low-res scan of three book covers of three publications of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana from 1914, 1970, and 2004. Arguably, all three are PD-ineligible. The image itself is tagged with contradictory tags - both a fair use rational and a PD-because tag. If they are fair use, then it's dubious that this qualifies since free images exist, e.g. this 1855 book cover. B (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no claim that any of these are PD (though I would have guessed the 1914 one was). The purpose of the image is to show the iconic appearance of volumes in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana series over the years. The covers are minuscule portions of works and fair use. An 1855 book cover would not represent the information, which is what Teubner texts have looked like at different periods during the 20th century. Since Wikipedia articles routinely use "non-free book cover" to illustrate articles on an individual book, and since we have an article on the hundreds and hundreds of books in this series, this very modest and resolution-downgraded selection seems a fortiori to be within normal Wikipedia practice. Wareh (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. If I were still actively involved in Wikipedia, I might look into why the image quality was downgraded to this extent. I believe our principles governing illustrating book articles with cover allow better resolution, which would be an improvement. Wareh (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Wareh: I didn't even notice that there was a deleted higher-resolution version in the page history. The 1914 book was published in Germany? Germany is life+70 so the author would have to have been deceased since 1947 for it to be public domain. (The name is too generic for me to figure out if he died pre-1947 - maybe someone who speaks German would do better.) I'd be perfectly happy to just say it's PD-ineligible and restore the old image. But I wanted to bring it here for a second opinion. If we decide here that it's not PD-ineligible, then we can't use it under a claim of fair use regardless of the resolution since we have a perfectly good unquestionably PD image we can use. --B (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the 1914 book was published in Leipzig, Germany, and I can't find a biographical sketch of the editor (Karl Wilke) to confirm that he was dead by 1947; I assume Wilke counts as the author for this purpose and not Philodemus, whose text the book is an edition of. I'd certainly enthusiastically endorse your proposed solution ("just say it's PD-ineligible and restore the old image"), if this discussion does not elicit a second opinion that should give serious pause to that course of action. Thanks. Wareh (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to see whether Template:PD-US-1923-abroad enters into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • PD-ineligible. TOO in Germany is quite high. Same for the US, so we don't need to consider PD-US-1923-abroad. The covers always were in the public domain. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
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:Shane Ramazan TV show title screen.jpg[edit]

File:Shane Ramazan TV show title screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shane Ramazan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non Free image of a non notable "Shan-E-Ramazan" TV show, uploaded as GFDL. Uploader blocked for spamming. DBigXray 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tawian-us-beef-import.jpg[edit]

File:Tawian-us-beef-import.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 660gd4qo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tawian-us-beef-import.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 04:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have added {{ffdc}} to the article to attract attention here. This image could potentially be considered acceptable for fair use and so I think that delete or convert to fair use options need to be considered. --B (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ready, Woolen and Able.jpg[edit]

File:Ready, Woolen and Able.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Double or Mutton.png[edit]

File:Double or Mutton.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Don't Give Up the Sheep.png[edit]

File:Don't Give Up the Sheep.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:A Sheep in the Deep.jpg[edit]

File:A Sheep in the Deep.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sheep Ahoy.jpg[edit]

File:Sheep Ahoy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Steal Wool.png[edit]

File:Steal Wool.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Woolen Under Where.jpg[edit]

File:Woolen Under Where.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corinne le bouch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No explanation given for why this is public domain. The uploader was banned for copyright violations, so I assume that it probably needs to be re-tagged as fair use. B (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Robert Gagne.jpg[edit]

File:Robert Gagne.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Karhunkynsi244 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader tagged this image with {{PD-because|It is a photo I took.}}. That is not the same as saying "I took this photo and I irrevocably release rights to it" - rather, it merely expresses a mistaken belief that his work intrinsically lacks copyright protection. B (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:CI Games.svg[edit]

File:CI Games.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lordtobi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this {{PD-textlogo}} or is there sufficient creativity in the design to take it out of the simple bracket? Nthep (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment When I uploaded the file, I was not sure whether it is free or not because I am not sure how high the TOO is in Poland. @Nthep: If you believe the image is free under the laws of Poland, you can go ahead and just move it to Commons, as I won't be opposing the move. Lordtobi () 13:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as non-free. c:Commons:Threshold of originality does not mention Poland but I gather from individual deletion discussions that it's rather low. [5][6][7] – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa's father Herschel, 1922.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa's father Herschel, 1922.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Something of a mess of a licensing section. It is a 1922 photo from a private family collection. The description page says that it's a Wikipedia-only permission (not a valid license). If it was not published prior to 2002, then it will enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. We have no idea who the photographer was - or even if the photo was unpublished since Charles Mintzer wrote a book in 2001 about her - https://www.amazon.com/Rosa-Raisa-Biography-Selections-Memoirs/dp/1555535046 - so if he used the photo, then it's copyrighted for a long time. B (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Photo portrait of Rosa Raisa, 1927.jpg[edit]

File:Photo portrait of Rosa Raisa, 1927.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - no evidence it was ever published prior to the 2001 book and so no evidence it is PD. B (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Aida (1914).jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Aida (1914).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - this one MIGHT be legitimately PD. A simple photo in the UK created in 1914? B (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Francesca da Rimini, 1914.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Francesca da Rimini, 1914.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - probably legitimately PD as it is a simple photo taken in Italy in 1914 B (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Rachel in La Juive.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Rachel in La Juive.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jchrismucci (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - the article claims that this one is from 1922. It looks like a publicity shot and has a copyright notice that says it is from Chicago. So if it really is a publicity still distributed in 1922, it is legitimately PD. B (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Scandiani's telegram-Turandot cast selection, 1924.jpg[edit]

File:Scandiani's telegram-Turandot cast selection, 1924.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A scan of a telegram from 1924 from Rosa Raisa - probably copyrighted? B (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Turandot, 1926.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Turandot, 1926.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - simple photo from Italy in 1926 so probably legitimately public domain? B (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Maliella in I gioielli della Madonna, 1917.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Maliella in I gioielli della Madonna, 1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - 1917 photo from Chicago. Possibly public domain if it was published prior to 1923 B (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Norma, 1918.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Norma, 1918.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another photo from Rosa Raisa. The photo is from 1918 and the image description page says that the photographer died in 1948. So if it was ever published prior to 1923 it's public domain. Or if it was never published prior to 2003, it will be public domain in a few months. B (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Tosca, 1919.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Tosca, 1919.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - 1919 photo from Chicago. No evidence it was ever published prior to the 2001 book and so no evidence it is PD. B (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Elisabeth in Tannhäuser, 1921.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Elisabeth in Tannhäuser, 1921.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - 1921 photo - probably legitimately PD - the article implies it was published B (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Rachel, 1922.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Rachel, 1922.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - from 1922 and looks like a publicity still and has a copyright icon. So may have been published and may be legitimately public domain. B (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa Raisa as Gioconda, 1924.jpg[edit]

File:Rosa Raisa as Gioconda, 1924.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - tagged as fair use. There are some legitimately PD photos here so we don't need this one. It may be legitimately public domain if the copyright was never renewed - the description page says it is publicity material from 1924 B (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Giacomo Rimini, Mexico City, 1917.jpg[edit]

File:Giacomo Rimini, Mexico City, 1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuserthea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Another private photo from Rosa Raisa - unlikely it was ever published prior to the 2001 book and so no evidence it is PD. B (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tromso panorama.jpg[edit]

File:Tromso panorama.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lindsetmo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flickr says "all rights reserved". The uploader matches the last name of the flickr user and originally said "by me", but then struck it out. The uploader has only three contributions - two on this image and one on another. So the question is do we believe that this uploader is the Flickr user? B (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Stairs and lampposts outside the campus library (University of Washington, Tacoma).jpg[edit]

File:Stairs and lampposts outside the campus library (University of Washington, Tacoma).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Susan Kemp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An IP a few weeks ago added This is actually my photograph. Tim Bostelle. I took this photo on film (slide film) and uploaded it to my flickr account many years ago. This is not available for free use. to the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all uploads by Susan Kemp - https://www.flickr.com/photos/uwtlibrary/3113818895/ has this photo from the "UW Tacoma Library" crediting "Photo by Tim Bostelle". (All of the photos from that era that I clicked on credit him.) If that one is a copyvio, then surely File:UWB.jpg is too, which was edited with the same software two minutes later. All of User:Susan Kemp's photos are web resolution, but these two have different EXIF data than the others. Nearly all of the others are with a Nikon D70. Her latest two photos are with an Olympus camera. She doesn't claim to be the author of any of her uploads and so there is no reason to believe any of them are legitimate. --B (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:NPRCFrontFacingBuilding.jpg[edit]

File:NPRCFrontFacingBuilding.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OberRanks (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Husnockcruft. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: The image is cropped from the one at https://www.dpr.com/projects/nara-national-personnel-records-center - ([https://www.dpr.com/assets/projects/_banner/nara-main5.jpg direct image link). This is the construction company that built the National Personnel Records Center, not a government website. (I really don't understand what the point is in fabricating the source when we have perfectly good public domain photos available at https://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/nprc-st-louis/gallery.html ) B (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

File:WernerHerrmann.jpg[edit]

File:WernerHerrmann.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OberRanks (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious licensing information: Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. Not a suitable candidate for a FUR conversion as the article previously housing has been deleted at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Jan Zumbach.jpg[edit]

File:Jan Zumbach.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by superior version on Commons under the same name Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with the nom, The commons image is better and the wikipedia copy can now be deleted to remove the "shadow commons"--DBigXray 10:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:DiomedTwo.jpg[edit]

File:DiomedTwo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ki Longfellow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by Commons version File:Diomed by John Nott Sartorius.jpg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:DanAvidanImage.png[edit]

File:DanAvidanImage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anthonymous (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Better crop in the correct file format available at File:Ninja Sex Party on the set of Next To You (Danny closeup).jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Cambridge University Crest - embossed.png[edit]

File:Cambridge University Crest - embossed.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prisonblues (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

What is the source of the current version? Own work ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • "that I made"—seems so. Not sure this file is needed though. —innotata 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep/move to Commons - @ShakespeareFan00, Innotata, and Salavat: See [8] and File:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png which says this coat of arms has been in use since 1573. If that is true, then the design is public domain. Embossing it is, I guess, a creative act? But really the other versions of this COA (and there are several on Commons) are faithful representations and probably not sufficiently creative for a separate copyright. This image isn't used, but it seems to be of sufficient encyclopedic value to move to Commons as an alternate version of the logo. --B (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete here as unused on useful pages. If someone wants to transfer it to Commons they can do it. Personally I don't see educational value being met. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:WNPN-COVERAGE.png[edit]

File:WNPN-COVERAGE.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aaronread (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Google Earth imagery is non-free Wcam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: as pointed out in the Commons discussion, Google uses image processing to enhance source imagery, so we're always dealing with derivative works here. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.jpg[edit]

File:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Savidan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Licensing conflict: The license text appears to say GPL not GFDL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Yeah under the GPL. Not a good license for media, but can and should be kept. —innotata 00:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Innotata: @ShakespeareFan00: the current website for this project - http://requiem-projekt.de/impressum/ - actually says says GFDL. So from that standpoint it would appear to be good. The only hesitation I have is that I used archive.org to go to an old version of the site [9] and it says "Copyright: Images for viewing and use for scientific purposes only. For reproductions, please contact the copyright holder directly." I took a look at some of the pictures on their site, e.g. http://requiem-projekt.de/db/pic_ausgabe.php?pictID=767 and my example photo (not the subject of this IFD) says "Copyright notice: requiem". So I would assume that this means that the Requiem project owns the copyright to my example photo and they have released it under the GFDL. On the other hand, here's a photo http://requiem-projekt.de/db/pic_ausgabe.php?pictID=3245 whose copyright notice says "no entry" and who credits some third party website as the source of the image. So if someone can speak German well enough to navigate the menu at http://requiem-projekt.de/db/ and find this particular photo of Pope Clement's tomb, then we can know whether whether the copyright holder is the Requiem project or not. Unfortunately, the search is via drop down menus and I have no idea what any of them say - you can't just type in "Clement". --B (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:LMM blue 4 - 30cm.png[edit]

File:LMM blue 4 - 30cm.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cbrideson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is claimed as own work, but looks like a logo for a third party. Maybe the uploader can provide a clarification? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:William Jasper memorial.JPG[edit]

File:William Jasper memorial.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshua4507 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Implied NC term in text, is incompatible with PD license given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Julien Vinson.jpg[edit]

File:Julien Vinson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aymatth2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Julien Vinson.jpg DBigXray 09:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Is the commons version in the public domain? It comes from a compilation of photographs that the BnF presumably considers to be a collective work in the public domain since it was published more than 70 years ago. But can the photograph be extracted from the collective work and published in a different context? If it was created around 1880, when Vinson was in his mid-30s, the photographer could have been alive 70 years ago. E.g. if the photographer was 20 and lived to 90, he would have died in 1880+70 = 1950. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aymatth2, if you have doubts about that file, please nominate it for deletion at Commons and I'll switch to keep here. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I have done that, at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julien Vinson.jpg. Most likely the photographer died long before 1948, but in the absence of identification we cannot be sure. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg[edit]

File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benea (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg DBigXray 09:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Gene Kiniski.jpg[edit]

File:Gene Kiniski.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Armbrust (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Gene Kiniski.jpg DBigXray 09:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Stade de france.jpg[edit]

File:Stade de france.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Erebus555 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral as the primary subject of this work is an architectural work of recent construction. No FoP in France. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Who chopper.png[edit]

File:Who chopper.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Who (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If they are on the bike, who took the photo? Claimed as PD-self, presumably in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

My brother-in-law took the photo with my phone upon my request. «»Who?¿? 14:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay so you need to say clarify that relationship on the file description page. You've indicated it here though so
Withdrawn - Pending update to file description page by the uploader in clarification.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Will update it, at the time there wasn't a license for that. Also, i do have a habit of taking self pics with my cellphone and camera with a timer, many people do it and it is quite easy and possible to to a selfie from afar. «»Who?¿? 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Trisapeace.jpg[edit]

File:Trisapeace.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trisapeace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Second image taken by a third party, so later revisions of this file are not necessarily under a self license, but presumably it was uploaded in good faith... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:First-point-of-aries.svg[edit]

File:First-point-of-aries.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kwantus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Early" upload - Almost certainly own work, but as uploader is deceased, no way to confirm it. Not sure how this is supposed to be handled? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (1).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (1).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not a Czech bramboráček at all. Typical czech bramborák/bramboráček is flat round where potatoes are the main ingredients. Raw, not fried yet, bramboráček is so sparse, it can't hold its shape Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (2).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (2).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (3).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (3).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (4).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (4).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (5).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, but a local image description page exists. If you are wanting the image deleted, please nominate it for deletion on Commons. If you are requesting deletion of the local image description page only, use {{db-nofile}} if possible; if that is not possible, list it at WP:MFD. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (5).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (6).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (6).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:Bramboráček (7).JPG[edit]

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bramboráček (7).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmee2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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:MichiganTheaterlobbyDetroit.jpg[edit]

File:MichiganTheaterlobbyDetroit.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gsgeorge (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is licensed as GFDL, but I can't find a clear release for either third-party photo used in this composite. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Anne no Niki - soundtrack.jpg[edit]

File:Anne no Niki - soundtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scottandrewhutchins (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Anne no Nikki#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCOREMarchjuly (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:NXpals-out.png[edit]

File:NXpals-out.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xiong (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Incredible Hulk is a copyright character, and this file is otherwise unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Manual-Binary-anm-122.gif[edit]

File:Manual-Binary-anm-122.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xiong (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referal to FFD, owing to uploader noting that the animation may be inorrect. Is there any reason to retain inaccurate images/media? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. There may or may not have been a reason at the time; it was the only example. By now, it's served any possible purpose. — Xiongtalk* 21:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunsetwoodlands.jpg[edit]

File:Sunsetwoodlands.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Slivester (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Either the uploader intended this to be GFDL, or they didn't. The hard-coded permission notice would appear to make this Wikipedia only, which is a kind of image generally discouraged. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tyson.jpg[edit]

File:Tyson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevemay (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Single covers are not typically released under GFDL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:TokoHSbadge.jpg[edit]

File:TokoHSbadge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grutness (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a logo design, it's not necessarily the uploaders to re-licence under GFDL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:RCA CT-100 screenshot.jpg[edit]

File:RCA CT-100 screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HumanisticRationale (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RCA CT-100 screenshot.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Thomas Anthony Dooley III, MD.jpg[edit]

File:Thomas Anthony Dooley III, MD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ducksonthepond (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

old image of notable individual. Appears to be scanned. Dubious self-work claim FASTILY 23:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

September 23[edit]

File:Bernd Nieseecke.jpg[edit]

File:Bernd Nieseecke.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Captain Future (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that the photographer has released the photos with a suitable license. Schwede66 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is September 23 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 23 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===September 23===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.