The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

In 2006, this photo was uploaded under the claim that the photographer died 100 years ago. That means that if the license tag is correct, the photographer must have died in 1906 or earlier. The photo's subject was born in 1893.^[1] That means that if the photographer took the photo in 1906 or earlier, Booker must be 13 years old or younger in the photo. That does not appear to be the case.

Since we cannot know for sure the date of this image's publication, the date of the author's death, or the original source of publication, we cannot know the copyright status, and the image should be deleted. I have uploaded a verifiably free alternative, Joseph Robert Booker.png, for use if this image is deleted. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 02:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As the copyright status of image is dubious and cannot likely be confirmed with enough certainty to satisfy the requirements for use on Wikipedia, and because thanks to @Three Sixty we now have an alternative that does, I concur that this image should be deleted. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is a wanted poster image of the PRC and is of administrative nature and is not subject to copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reauthorized according to ((PD-PRC-exempt)), then moved to commons, and the fair use file deleted according to F8. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons as PD, then Delete original file: I agree with @Fumikas Sagisavas that the file in question should be moved to Commons under the ((PD-PRC-exempt)) license, then the original Wikipedia upload should be speedy deleted, as it will be left meeting criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY as a result. FHSIG13 ^TALK 03:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relicense and move to Commons per nomination. Not a faithful digitization of unique historic image, but even if it's unique, it's still in public domain as @Fumikas Sagisavas and @Fhsig13 said. Kys5g ^talk! 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus -Fastily 19:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaceable with c:File:RWBY logo.svg, c:File:Team RWBY Volume 9.png and many other screenshots in c:Category:RWBY per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this nomination and fully oppose it. The replacement images you chose are not "better" as one is just a screenshot and the logo doesn't help readers as the title is the same (and it will lead to reader confusion). It has every right to remain as the image in the infobox, considering the four characters pictured ARE the protagonists. This nomination should be withdrawn immediately. Historyday01 (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per @Historyday01, the "replacement" images suggested by the nominator are essentially derivatives of the image in question, which do not serve to adequately identify the show. As such, the original image does not fail WP:NFCC#1, as the other images would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose, if used in its' place. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. You articulated it much better than I did, and I'm not sure why the image was nominated for deletion in the first place. Historyday01 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As a rationale to support the deletion of this image has yet to be provided, obviously aside from the erroneous one provided by the nominator, I am recommending a Speedy Keep, per WP:CSK Applicability point 3 (erroneous nomination rationale). -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support Speedy Keep as well. The reason supplied by the nominator is clearly erroneous. Historyday01 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with license change: Even though the nomination is erroneous, I think it's acceptable because the film is licensed under a Creative Commons license, which cannot be revoked and replace with fair use in any way and it is very absurd to use it under fair use terms. Kys5g ^talk! 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fastily 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image does not have specific and specific commentary about it in the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Whilst media reactions have lots of content in the article, the existence of this image there doesn't significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: After reviewing the article, I agree with the nominator that the critical commentary is insufficient, as it refers to the image in question. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The newspaper image has images of person and it's unacceptable to do so. Kys5g ^talk! 08:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No change. Image is still non-free. Whpq (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IEs4Linux screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blurpeace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This screenshot of a program designed for Linux, has screenshot of IEs4Linux which is licensed freely under GPL license Kys5g ^talk! 12:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo, keep as non-free. This software uses Wine (software) under the hood to run a full blown version of IE which is non-free software. This screenshot contains non-free components of IE, is a derivative of non-free content, and therefore cannot possibly be freely licensed -Fastily 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How about dual-licensing? Kys5g ^talk! 05:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, if you really want to, go for it. Doesn't change the fact that the file is still non-free. -Fastily 06:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Non-Free but add Dual-license: While I agree with @Fastily's rationale for keeping the image as non-free, since the softwares' copyrighted internal components keep it from being moved to PD outright, I also agree with @Kys5g in that dual-licensing makes sense for the sake of clarity. FHSIG13 ^TALK 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My original choice was relicense to GPL, but after reading @Fastily's comment, I think there is no way to prevent it from fair use. It contains libraries required (Wine DLL extensions) for running IE, which is copyrighted but depends on Wine to run a Windows program so dual-license is the best choice I can choose. Kys5g ^talk! 06:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 08:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think the Meimad logo is copyrightable. It consists of two Hebrew letter "Mem", spaced with "Yod" and a dalet. Kys5g ^talk! 13:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense per nom, ((PD-textlogo)). ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-license: Per nom and @Three Sixty, this looks like a clear case where ((PD-textlogo)) applies, since text is the image's sole component. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicence. PD-ineligible-USOnly (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 17:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poundland logo 2024.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davey2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Consists of only text, probably ((PD-textlogo)). ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My original plan was to have the previous revisions deleted and then have it transferred to Commons but I guess it'll end up at Commons before the revisions are deleted. Not embarrassed with the revisions but I just hate unnecessary clutter which is imho what those revisions are but that all being said I recall there's a debacle with Commons and UK logos so dunno if this should be there or the 2022 logo should be here,

Anyway I'm currently indeffed there hence why it's been done this way, Fwiw File:Poundland logo 2022.svg is currently at Commons too, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, according to C:COM:Threshold of originality, the UK has a very low standard for copyright eligibility. However, it is almost definitely PD in the United States, so it could be re-licensed as ((PD-USonly)) and kept locally if it's unacceptable on Commons. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 20:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense: Even though British threshold of originality standards is very low, this logo is even doesn't reach its TOO limits because it contains only text so it's copyfraud to license it under fair use terms. Kys5g ^talk! 06:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense: Per the above, this image consists of only text, so on that basis it can be moved to Commons as ((PD-textlogo)) straightaway. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - I've relicensed the image to PD text logo, once the prev revisions are deleted I'll request for it to be moved to Commons, Many thanks all, Warm regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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