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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclispe Mints.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mkl4119 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, too small to be of encyclopedic use, photo is a derivative work of the copyrighted box designs. B (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclipse mints (graphic).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mkl4119 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, a very nice image of mints that we could consider moving to Commons, but I have no confidence that this is actually a user-authored image. The user's other photographic upload is not remotely of this caliber ... and this image looks like it probably came from a PDF brochure or something, based on the size and how the gradient isn't smooth. B (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:P8260057-rm479-nsf.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lonbus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

"Author E. Pring", does that mean it is not self made? Web sized, no exif available. Deadstar (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that E. Pring is the uploader's real name, it was used in the other image uploaded by them near the same time and now on commons. I think this is just an image by a person who knows more about buses than image editing. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or "E. Pring" is their friend. Or "E. Pring" runs a bus website that this person downloaded it from. Regrettably, without a clear statement of authorship or identity, we can't just assume. --B (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I looked into this a bit more, and the image is used here on Timebus Travel , whose website has other images by "E. Pring" with a with a copyright sign beside it - here for instance. I can't find this particular image though. If uploader was E. Pring, I would have expected a larger sized image, that's all. Deadstar (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Now You See Me Now You Dont - Cliff Richard Album cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AusChartMan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused image file (PNG format), replaced by JPEG format file. AusChartMan (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Page the village idiot Underwater.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opalandtheidiot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused 2007 "art" picture, uploader name does not resemble author name "Dawn Rosa Cole" Deadstar (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paglisan sa dating bayan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amangpintor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image of a 1993 painting, painter Elito V. Circa, does not resemble uploader name. Deadstar (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billboard.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Funkymunky2404 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic. Apparently uploaded for article on Crazy Chris which has been deleted multiple times as non-notable.  ★  Bigr Tex 18:29, 4 March 2015 (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.

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: DEleted - Peripitus (Talk) 10:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Lou Harkness.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Mary Lou Harkness, 1974.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a: there is no need for two pictures in the article. Also a violation of WP:NFCC#10a: it can't be the intention that you should have to look through all issues of a newspaper or all pictures in an archive to identify the source of the image. One image potentially also violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 and thus WP:NFCC#2: the picture is sourced to a newspaper, without further information given. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rev Mother Maria Concepcion of the Nativity and Perpetual Help of Mary.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Startarrant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rev Mother Maria Concepcion of the Perpetual Help of Mary 1971.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Startarrant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:T.J. Maxx in Torrance.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vanished user lalsdi45ijnefi4 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obviously taken from Google Street View (you can see the cursor!) without attribution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You can also see a copyright notice above one of the trees. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (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.

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: 2 deleted, 1 kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chess Life.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Chess Life Feb 1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Chess Life & Review.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The article fails WP:NFCC#3a. Only one of the images should be in the article, not all three of them. Therefore: delete two of the above images. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different cover layouts and one of them was when it was Chess Life and Review instead of Chess Life. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced critical discussion about the different cover layouts. Also, if you look at an article about any other magazine, you will only find one cover scan. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was the reason I put in three. Chess magazine has more than one, and so does British Chess Magazine. In the case of BCM, someone was putting every cover on there, and notice on the talk page in 2011 that I stated that there were too many that were essentially the same. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of multiple covers is not the same thing as including sourced critical discussion about the different cover layouts. Without the latter, the former isn't permitted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As an FYI, I am in physical possession of a collection of Chess Life & Review issues from the 1970s similar to the File:Chess Life & Review.gif cover and I have confirmed that they do have a copyright notice and I have also checked and confirmed that Chess Life magazines from this era were registered, so they are not public domain. I then searched the 1968 registrations (looking for File:Chess Life Feb 1968.jpg) and did not find Chess Life on this page where it should have been if it was registered. So it may be that the 1968 one is public domain. Even if we presuppose that it did have a copyright notice (I have no idea - my collection does not go back that far), if they failed to register it, that means it is public domain, right? (Either way, obviously we should delete all but one - the only question is whether the 1968 one is public domain and we keep that one or whether they are all copyrighted in which case we probably use the latest one.) --B (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A registration is not needed, only a copyright notice is needed. The ones published before 1964 require a copyright renewal and a copyright renewal requires a registration, so it may be possible to find earlier covers which are in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I stand corrected. So it may be that pre-1964 ones are worth checking out to see if they were registered and the 1968 one is worth checking out to see if it has a copyright notice. I looked to see if I could find scans of the table of contents page of the older issues but I could not. (The table of contents page is where the copyright notice is on my copies from the 70s.) --B (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it really matters about getting a pre-1964 cover, I have them in a PDF. However, we are permitted to use one, right? If having three is a problem, how about keeping the most recent and deleting the other two? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the whole magazine in PDF? Can you look and see if it has a copyright notice? Anything published before 1978 without a copyright notice is automatically public domain. If you have the whole PDF and would like to send it to me to review, please use Special:Emailuser/B and I can reply with my email address. I found this auction on eBay for a 1953 Chess Review magazine that includes a scan of the inside credits page. This page is where the 1970s-era CL&R's have the copyright notice and this 1953 magazine has no copyright notice there. Ditto for this one. So the old Chess Review magazines may be public domain. --B (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the whole magazines 1956-75 on my computer, and I think I have later years on disc, up to some point. Each year is in a PDF, and they run roughly 100-300MB each. I checked 1968, and there is no copyright notice on the page that you would expect to have it. Jan 1975 does have copyright info. They are too large to email, but I could put it in dropbox for you to download. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spot-checked, starting with the first Chess Life & Review issue, in Nov 69 - no copyright. I checked Jan 70, 71, 72, and 73 - no copyright info. Jan 74 has copyright info. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like we have a solution - upload one of those and tag it with ((PD-US-no notice)). If you could send me one via dropbox to review - and because I enjoy chess ;) - I would appreciate it and I have sent you an email with my email address. --B (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the 1968 cover is one of those. Others I'd have to extract from the PDF somehow. I'll send you the 1968 file. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I have reviewed this and agree with your assessment that there is no copyright notice anywhere. So the 1968 Chess Life covers are public domain and we can use one of those. File:Chess Life Feb 1968.jpg is a good choice since the cover is just chess games and we don't have to worry about the photographer's copyright. I have updated the image description page accordingly and I think we can go ahead and delete the other two. --B (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that photos such as File:JWC Lombardy Fischer.jpg is in the public domain because it was published in 1968 without copyright information (Jan 68 issue, p. 21). I think there was quite a bit of controversy about the copyright status of this photo.  !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs)

The color photo didn't come from the Chess Life magazine did it? So there are two issues here: (1) the black+white one that was actually published might be public domain, while the original photo, which was never published, or which was only published in publications that obeyed the rules, is still copyrighted. (2) We don't know who took the photo and whether Chess Life actually had their permission to use it. If a Chess Life reporter took the photo, then yes, the photo they published is public domain, but otherwise it's murkier. For example, there was a court case Paramount Pictures Corp. vs Leslie Rubinowitz, et al. In this case, Paramount had distributed a copy of the first season of Star Trek for syndication with no copyright notice. Under the law at the time, it should have immediately become public domain. The courts (incorrectly in my view) ruled that when Star Trek sent the tapes to the TV station, they did so with lots of legal mumbo jumbo that clearly spelled out a reservation of rights and so even though the TV stations then aired the tapes (which themselves contained no copyright notice), that act was outside of Paramount's control. So, I am not a lawyer, but this seems potentially similar to this case - if some guy who doesn't work for Chess Life took the photo and then licensed Chess Life to use the photo, then Chess Life's failure to include a copyright notice doesn't cost him his copyright. --B (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2015 (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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:O'HigginsOrigen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cisumiv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR: it says "This is a logo owned by O'Higgins F.C. for O'Higgins F.C.." Not true: this picture contains several logos, not just one logo. Besides, the image fails WP:NFCC#3a: we do not need more than one logo in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2015 (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.