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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as redundant to Commons version. While not technically F8 because its status is unsure, the discussion should be kept in one location where possible, and where we are unlikely to use fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KiethRomaFP2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A plaque in the United States from 2001 or later. This smells unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You think that a photograph of a plaque dedicating a Manhattan fire house to the memory a fire fighter who died in the World Trade Center disaster "smells unfree"? As a New Yorker I'm appalled. I've removed your ridiculous tag (and have also moved the image to File:KeithRomaFP2.JPG to correct the mispelling). Please edit with more sense in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The file was moved from File:KiethRomaFP2.JPG to File:KeithRomaFP2.JPG by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) at 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I understand that the image can evoke emotions, but I think that "...dedicating a Manhattan fire house to the memory a fire fighter who died in the World Trade Center disaster 'smells unfree'..." is irrelevant to whether or not the image is unfree.--Rockfang (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two similar cases: UK sign (kept) & Canadian sign (deleted) --Stefan2 (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are Commons images, so not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This image was apparently uploaded at Commons immediately after the discussion started here, so there is now also a discussion going on at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeithRomaFP2.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the image is free, and free images should be at Commons. It had already been tagged for transfer, so I transferred it. Since there's a discussion about it there, it should be deleted here per the normal transfer process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Commons, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and !voted to keep the file. [1] Given that, this discussion should be closed, and the files deleted from en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BIOLA on Hope.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't see any proof that is file is public domain. I tagged it with a ((Bsr)) template back in 2009 and nothing has been done since then other than a bot tagging. The uploader hasn't edited since 2007.--Rockfang (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See the full page at L.A. Public Library [2]. The image is from 1912. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link isn't working for me. What search terms did you use? I tried "biola", but I didn't see this image.--Rockfang (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the order number, 00017552, from the original file name. De728631 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw/Keep - It is indeed from 1912. I did a Title Word search for "Hope Street at 6th Street" and it was there.--Rockfang (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowley ATB SoundR-Hawaii.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source says "Crowley Maritime Corp" but there is no proof that confirms that or the license. MGA73 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No CC license on this page but a ©2011 Crowley Maritime Corporation. De728631 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowley Alaska CATCO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source says "Crowley Maritime Corp" but there is no proof that confirms that or the license. MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, the image seems to have been removed from Crowley's media gallery and they don't display any CC licenses on their web page. De728631 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TITAN NEW CARISSA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source says "Crowley Maritime Corp" but there is no proof that confirms that or the license. MGA73 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No CC license on this page but a ©2011 Crowley Maritime Corporation. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Crowley historic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source says "Crowley Maritime Corp" but there is no proof that confirms that or the license. Text also says "fair use" indicating that the file is not free. MGA73 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't this photo be from 1895, and as such PD-Old? DS (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen modern edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The design of the cover is copyrighted and is too prominent to qualify as de minimis. Chick Bowen 16:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This can't even be used under a fair use clause since that other book cover with Shakespeare on it is also copyrighted and we can't formulate a rationale for two images at once. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I cannot find a date for this sculpture, but as a hero of the Jews, it must be post 1945. Italian law is Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here (from commons:COM:FOP#Italy, even if the creator died in 1946, it would not be out of copyright until 2016 at the earliest.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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. We don't have enough discussion here to determine the disposition of dozens of these images, even if they are similar along a number of dimensions. Further, the policies and norms of wikimedia commons are not the same as those on Wikipedia. A big difference is in the terms and contours of copyright law. We can host material which is in the public domain in the US but not in another country while commons has decided to host only files which meet much stricter copyright stances. As such I am not willing to delete files here based on a policy on commons. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signature of Abhishek Bachchan.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag signatures can be protected by copyright. That is the case in the UK and according to what I have been told India have similar rules.

Same goes for:

1. File:Signature of Abhishek Manu Singhvi.svg
2. File:Signature of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan.svg
3. File:Signature of Amitabh Bachchan.svg
4. File:Signature of Arun Jaitely.svg
5. File:Signature of Azim Premji.svg
6. File:Signature of B. K. Birla.svg
7. File:Signature of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.svg
8. File:Signature of Bharatsinh Solanki.svg
9. File:Signature of Br. L. D. Lobo.svg
10. File:Signature of Brinda Karat.svg
11. File:Signature of Gautam Gambhir.svg
12. File:Signature of Jaya Bachchan.svg
13. File:Signature of K. Kamraj.svg
14. File:Signature of Kamal Nath.svg
15. File:Signature of Kapil Sibal.svg
16. File:Signature of Karia Munda.svg
17. File:Signature of Kumar Mangalam Birla.svg
18. File:Signature of Lata Mangeshkar.svg
19. File:Signature of Leander Paes.svg
20. File:Signature of Manish Tewari.svg
21. File:Signature of Nandan Nilekani.svg
22. File:Signature of Narendra Modi.svg
23. File:Signature of P. T. Usha.svg
24. File:Signature of Priyanka Vadra.svg
25. File:Signature of Rahul Gandhi.svg
26. File:Signature of Raj Babbar.svg
27. File:Signature of Rajeev Shukla.svg
28. File:Signature of Ratan Tata.svg
29. File:Signature of Somnath Chatterjee.svg
30. File:Signature of Sonia Gandhi.svg
31. File:Signature of Sting.svg
32. File:Signature of Sudeep Bandhopadhyay.svg
33. File:Signature of Venkaiah Naidu.svg
34. File:Signature of Vijay Mallya.svg
35. File:Signature of Vishwanathan Anand.svg
36. File:Signature of VJ Rannvijay Singh Singha.svg
37. File:Signature of Zakir Hussain.svg

MGA73 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Mass deletion of signature files was discussed at DRV here and the files were undeleted. The DRV followed an RFC which reduced Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons to an essay. My understanding is that signature files are sometimes permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of copyright in the country of origin. Individual files may be deleted on individual merits. Thincat (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the links mentioned above that says that signatures from India should be public domain or that WMF has desided that we keep them anyway. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't you? At the DRV I linked to above and here the closing admin's rationale says "Multiple signatures of living people – Undelete all. As the "undelete" !voters have pointed out, there is no consensus for mass deleting signatures like these, as evidenced by the discussion about WP:BLPSIGN. Such deletions are not inherently supported by WP:BLP policy, and so the images should be considered individually should anyone wish to delete them". The discussion was mostly (entirely?) about Indian signatures. This was the culmination of extended FFD, DRV, and RFC on guideline/essay discussions. I am not saying I agree with what was decided (as it happens I don't) but it was the consensus of a considerable series of discussions. If you are testing the waters again, fine, but a delete decision here would likely (and should) go to DRV. Individual FFDs have not been deprecated. By the way, I suspect most Indian signatures (but certainly not all) are copyright (opposite of US), but do you have a good reference? These files look to me to be licence tagged unsatisfactorily though they could easily be "corrected". So, they could be deleted on rather technical grounds though personally I dislike that sort of image deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Template:PD-signature to attempt to remedy the technical problem. Thincat (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The issue of "India" and "signatures" needs to be brought up at Commons talk:When to use the PD-signature tag so that an consensus is reached on if they are copyrighted or not. Nominator has not supplied any source that shows that signatures are copyrighted in India (just because they aren't in the UK don't mean they aren't in India), so deletion is premature.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it not uploader and those that want to keep that should prove that signatures are PD in India?

And also my listing here is not for all signatures on en-wiki. It is for signatures in India and I see no reason why all the signatures from India should not be judged by the same law. In other words: If one signature is a copyvio then all the other signatures is also a copyvio and should be deleted and if one is free then all is ok and should be kept. I tried to remove signatures from people that died more than 70 years ago since I think that they would be ((PD-old)). --MGA73 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl 1dhoktkds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• JPG Fun merges user photo with stock photo - http://jpgfun.com/girls_arizona. Stock photo is unlikely to be copyright free. Site page has jpgFUN.com © in bottom corner of every page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic user page fun with non-free material. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giske.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan file, dead link - cannot check permission, nothing on Web Archive. Current site is http://www.regjeringen.no/en.html?id=4 - cannot see any permissions for content copying.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outdated image of Trond Giske with others being available. Anyhow, I've checked it and there's a general policy of free use with credits on the Norwegian government's website. See also his current webpage that provides a link to free-use images on Flickr. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.