Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3

File:2011-Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-Limited-SMH.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of unused free image of which the original article no longer uses. Original uploader request. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taste of Utopia.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Non-free content review - Seraphimblade said it best when he/she said "The buildings are still standing, it's entirely possible to take a photo of them. The article is not about the Taste of Utopia event (for which the nonfree image would be irreplaceable if no free ones exist), it is about the Golden Domes. That can be replaced with any image whatsoever of them."

In short, I believe this fails to meet the NFCC standards (1 and 8). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Golden Domes and also about the noteworthy events which have been conducted there. The event in question, the "Taste of Utopia" gathering, was particularly noted. The photo in question has been reproduced many times: [1]. That does not alter the copyright, but it does show that it is an important, irreplaceable photo. There has never been such a large gathering since this one, in 1983, and there is no indication that there ever will be another like it. Most important, the photo is subject of commentary in the article itself, which would not be as meaningful if the photo were not visible to readers. It significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Will Beback talk 05:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image is no longer in use in the article, therefore this can be speedied under CSD F5. cmadler (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:INANT.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless, duplicate of "(12)" Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various Maltese Flags

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these now have superior, more efficient vectors on Commons which can be found through each file's page if necessary, and the files themselves are now unused; the new SVG files have been used to replace them already. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Florida Gators Football 2.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Florida Gators logo is probably PD-text (or otherwise is suitable as a logo under NFCC), the helmet image itself is not. See also Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_11#File:LSU_Helmet.png for further discussion. cmadler (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lev1 aldridge.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is seemingly unused, and without further information on context, I fail to see how it can be used effectively. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grb kotromanica.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concern about the seeming lack of source. NOT a CSD as there is a 'dependent' Commons SVG version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:13 Street.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to the Commons file File:13th Street Universal.svg. There is no need for two identical logos. (Does not qualify for speedy because of differing formats). Sven Manguard Wha? 15:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ableconf.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, this SVG was done improperly and the quality does not scale. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:All Them Cornfields Cover.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. There is no artilce on All Them Cornfields and Ballet in the Evening, and I have serious doubts that this is a free use image. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If User:Paulfrost76 really created this, he needs to send a permission email confirming it. cmadler (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USS Betelgeuse.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - source is right on the image page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Author is still unknown, even after adding source Bulwersator (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The author doesn't matter when it's a work of the U.S. Navy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But is it certain that author was from Navy? Bulwersator (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, guess not, according to this, and the official NH&HC site does not list the photo. After I realized Benea had sourced them, I assumed he checked that the sourcing was correct. Sigh. Delete per not being a work of the U.S. Navy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete unless it can be shown to be work of the U.S. Navy, could be taken by a non-navy person or by a person on-board a non US navy ship. Mtking^(edits) 10:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW most older images from the U.S. Navy have no author name but are released as official navy photos, ex. File:Uss nevada.jpg. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI Just because a person is a "sailor" or on a naval vessel does not mean a photo is PD unless the photography was performed as part of the official duty of that person. There are probably millions of ship photos taken by sailors or "employees" within security guidelines that are strictly private photography.Palmeira (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and when they are released as "official navy photos" they were taken as part of the photographers' official duties. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provenance of this photo is unclear. The NavSource donor is USS BETELGEUSE AK (FBM) 260 REUNION ASSOCIATION where the photo is their lead. It looks like a scan and looks "official" but one has to realize not all such ship photos from the air are official photos in the PD. Some commercial firms flew from ports to gather just such photos for sale to crew members and others.Palmeira (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this can be reasonably assumed, given the content, location, and photo angle (i.e. either taken from an aircraft or an aircraft carrier) that this is a U.S. Navy photograph. And, even if it isn't, instead of deleting, why not just convert it to Fair Use with the appropriate tags instead of deleting? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No such "photo angle" and "location" (Norfolk, Va.) assumptions can be made. For example many of the photos at NavSource and, I believe, in ship's scrapbooks, may be "© Richard Leonhardt at NavSource" ("(* )All images credited to Richard Leonhardt or Dan Owens are copyrighted and may not be reproduced for re-sale. NavSource has the exclusive rights to reproduce these images from the copyright holders. These images can be displayed on ship's web pages for non-profit display purposes only, with Written Permission from NavSource and photo credit given to the images owners." at Important Image Use Information. If I recall correctly he is one of the professional ship photographers that flew on occasion to get such photos. Fair use is another question.Palmeira (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CSS Virginia smokestack.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete - seems uncontroversial, I've replaced any real use of this file with the Commons version. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's another navsource image, but in this case redundant to higher res image on commons File:Battered smokestack from C.S.S. Virginia 023.jpg Benea (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USS Virginia (SP-746).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as this is displayed as a photo of the Naval Historical Center, aka Naval History & Heritage Command, it is considered to be in the public domain in the United States. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USS Virginia (SP-274).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as this is displayed as a photo of the Naval Historical Center, aka Naval History & Heritage Command, it is considered to be in the public domain in the United States. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source (Naval Historical Center photograph collection tag) "Photo# NH 102357" is spread right across the top of the photo! That is the good reason anyone uploading or using one of these photos needs to refrain from cropping that tag out for "looking nice" or whatever. The tag is important provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USS Virginia (SP-1965).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as this is displayed as a photo of the Naval Historical Center, aka Naval History & Heritage Command, it is considered to be in the public domain in the United States. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source is right across the top of the image: "Photo# NH 102358" as part of the Naval Historical Center (now Naval History and Heritage Command) official collection. The original image is probably now in NARA. In any case, note the photo's date. Palmeira (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uss proteus ribbons.bmp

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uss carter hall ribbons.bmp

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smartgirl62.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charlestanqueray.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the person in the image died in 1868, seems to be out of copyright. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charlie Patton studio portrait.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

owner of the photograph requesting via OTRS that it be removed or he be paid for its use. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011122110016945

And? It is under fair use so we can use it in our free encyclopedia Bulwersator (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Reading Copyright law of the United States#Duration of copyright is it clear all the copyright hoops were completed and that this work has not actually become public domain ? Perhaps the person claiming it is should be contacted to confirm that it is. If it is still in Copyright the issue would seem to be with WP:NFCC#2 in that is it's use "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media", if it does then it should be removed. Mt king ^(edits) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What he actually wrote was "I found and first published that photo myself in my 2004 "Classic Blues Artwork From the 1920's" Blues Calendar. I purchased the original photo, for many thousands of dollars, from the photography studio where it was taken and bought the rights with it.ome years back I was approached by someone from Wikipedia to have this photo on Wikipedia and I denied the request because I keep strict control on the use of this photo and charge a fairly substantial fee for it's use. For many years, on Wikipedia, it simply had a note about the photo saying that the owner has not approved it to be posted on Wikipedia. Now, someone has just taken the photo and put it there, not even crediting me or Blues Images as the owner." Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the photo has a copyright statement on the bottom right, but the print is two small to read on the uploaded version. To me it seems likely that the photo could well have been used in some form of publicity or publication when first taken and copyright registered (as required at the time) and (if my reading of the articles is correct) unless that copyright was renewed 28 years later (sometime around 1957) at that point copyright would have lapsed, if it had been renewed in 1957 then copyright would have been extended to 1985 and by law extended to sometime about 2025. So the issue for the person who would like us to delete is, can they substantiate the claim that this picture is indeed still in copyright. Mt king ^(edits) 23:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 possibilities
- Image is copyrighted -> fair use ("Non-free media information and use rationale for Charlie Patton"), we may keep it in our free encyclopedia
- Image is not copyrighted -> move to commons, we may keep it

Bulwersator (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so simple :

Image is out of (or never in) copyrighted -> move to commons, end of issue.

Image is copyrighted : Evaluate does the use here meet WP:NFCC#2

I think it would be good to establish the copyright status first before we try and work out the WP:NFCC#2 question. Mt king ^(edits) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He died in 1934, I think we should determine NFCC qualification, first, since it might take time to figure out the copyright status. If we find out that it is out of copyright protection, it can be moved to commons. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep/Keep for now On balance I think that it's use here does not meet WP:NFCC specifically 1 and 2, I think that a free alternative could well exist given the age, and our use could well limit the market role of the picture. However I think it is up to the person claiming copyright to satisfy ORTS that it is in copyright, if they can do that then it should be Deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 23:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This picture which he shot himself is only one out of two. Sometimes this picture was just modified for campaigns. There was also one photo, but a fake. How much will he pay? ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Cubbon (detail).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image , which sadly because of it's sourcing (It's currently sourced to the UK National Portrait Gallery) cannot be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused - so this file should be deleted/moved to enwiki? And why orphaned but maybe useful image should be deleted Bulwersator (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, image which are sourced DIRECTLY to the UK NPG perhaps should not be on Commons, but uploaded locally. This is because despite in many cases the original art being in the public domain, the NPG has tried to assert that it has additional rights in respect of digital reproductions. As this makes the images potentially un-free in the UK (in many cases the origin of digital versions) it is felt that they are possibly incompatible with the allowed licensing policy on Commons. At present Commons consensus seems to be mark NPG sourced images as possibly restricted, but not to actively 'bounce' them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to be legitimately PD in the US. However, since Bridgeman v Corel is not the law in the UK, and the source website claims copyright, it can't be uploaded to Commons (because the requirement there is that the file be free in both the US and the source country). Although non-free content must be used in at least one article, there is no requirement for free images to be used (see WP:UNUSED), so there is no reason to delete this image. Further, I find that this image does have potential encyclopedic use, so it should be retained. cmadler (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Commons (if not already there). Per commons:COM:PDART such works are accepted there. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unit code black3651.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without description, unused, probably useless Bulwersator (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are multiple similar files Bulwersator (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VermigliAsper.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, which owing to it's apparnet sourcing to the UK NPG cannot be uploaded to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why orphaned but maybe useful image in public domain (at least in USA) should be deleted? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be legitimately PD in the US. However, since Bridgeman v Corel is not the law in the UK, and the source website claims copyright, it can't be uploaded to Commons (because the requirement there is that the file be free in both the US and the source country). Although non-free content must be used in at least one article, there is no requirement for free images to be used (see WP:UNUSED), so there is no reason to delete this image. Further, I find that this image does have potential encyclopedic use, so it should be retained. cmadler (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Materialscientist. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a different copy on Commons File:Pietro Vermigli by Hans Asper.jpg -- is it improperly on commons? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per existence of a high-res copy on Commons File:Pietro Vermigli by Hans Asper.jpg. What I know is that Commons does accept NPG images [2], that NPG sued [3] and got rebutted [4]. I don't know how it all ended, and am keen to learn, per my laziness to research myself :-P. Materialscientist (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mw37372.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, which owing to it's sourcing to the UK NPG can't be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why orphaned but maybe useful image in public domain (at least in USA) should be deleted? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - It appears to be legitimately PD in the US. However, since Bridgeman v Corel is not the law in the UK, and the source website claims copyright, it can't be uploaded to Commons (because the requirement there is that the file be free in both the US and the source country). Although non-free content must be used in at least one article, there is no requirement for free images to be used (see WP:UNUSED), so there is no reason to delete this image. Further, I find that this image does have potential encyclopedic use, so it should be retained. cmadler (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Commons (if not already there). Per commons:COM:PDART such works are accepted there. cmadler (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charteris.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: 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 ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, which owing to it's sourcing ( UK NPG) cannot be uploaded to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why orphaned but maybe useful image in public domain (at least in USA) should be deleted? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be legitimately PD in the US. However, since Bridgeman v Corel is not the law in the UK, and the source website claims copyright, it can't be uploaded to Commons (because the requirement there is that the file be free in both the US and the source country). Although non-free content must be used in at least one article, there is no requirement for free images to be used (see WP:UNUSED), so there is no reason to delete this image. Further, I find that this image does have potential encyclopedic use, so it should be retained. cmadler (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Commons (if not already there). Per commons:COM:PDART such works are accepted there. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SydneyGrundy1890.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, which owing to it sourcing (UK NPG) cannot be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image was "carbon print, published 1 July 1890", according to the NPG, and the photographer died in 1896. This image is therefore in the public domain. Can you describe why you think it ought to be deleted? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image may well be PD-US, but it's unused. Is it now policy to retain 'unused' images? Especially ones with problem sources like the NPG? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to commons. I do not believe it is policy to delete free images that are currently unused. NPG is not a problem source. Wikimedia stated: "It is hard to see a plausible argument that excluding public domain content from a free, non-profit encyclopaedia serves any public interest whatsoever." See National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_dispute#Response_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why orphaned but maybe useful image in public domain (at least in USA) should be deleted? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be legitimately PD in the US. However, since Bridgeman v Corel is not the law in the UK, and the source website claims copyright, it can't be uploaded to Commons (because the requirement there is that the file be free in both the US and the source country). Although non-free content must be used in at least one article, there is no requirement for free images to be used (see WP:UNUSED), so there is no reason to delete this image. Further, I find that this image does have potential encyclopedic use, so it should be retained. cmadler (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Commons (if not already there). Per commons:COM:PDART such works are accepted there. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dk killthepoor-back.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

About 700 maps uploaded by User:Keith Edkins

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I have asked User:Keith Edkins about the source a lot of old maps because I'm moving free files to Commons. Keith Edkins then made this User:Keith Edkins/ObsoleteMaps - a list of obsolete maps - and suggested that all of these files were deleted (once it was checked if the files was really unused).[reply]

I decided to make a notice here to give other users a chance to comment and hopefully help check if files are used.

Feel free to add a list of the files here and if you think that a {{ffd}} should be added to the files please let me know. I can add them with my bot. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As "All the png files listed below were uploaded by me" - delete after replacing by better versions Bulwersator (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Josly.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be useful Eeekster (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no context, doesn't appear to have an encyclopedic purpose. cmadler (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hawk logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems like vandalism. The uploader make a spurious vanity comment for the summary, so it seems like the image was used because it seems useful, to make spurious comments on the file page. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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