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: Relist czar 05:33, 30 August 2016 (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 czar 05:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schunck 75yrs.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DirkvdM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as self, but attributed to a family album. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that it is my own photograph is indeed incorrect. Should I simply delete that tag then?

Who took the original? It may be that you inherited the copyright if it was from an ancestor. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no response received. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 29 August 2016 (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: Changed to fair use Majora (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a software screenshot, abliet text, so it's not necessarily Public Domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify as fair use? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2016 (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: keep Deryck C. 17:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Us94thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by B.Wind (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Wrong license. PD-FL-Gov? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be able to change the license to ((PD-FLGov)), which is more specific than the current one.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:34, 16 August 2016 (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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I need to explain this one: I see a rough consensus that we generally don't put up two different fair-use album covers for different editions of the same album except where there's an exceptional justification. Deryck C. 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheSign2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lillygirl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is the US cover of the single by the Scandinavian band, Ace of Base. Although the song is a worldwide hit, I'm sure omitting this image wouldn't affect readers understanding of the song or the release, would it? There is already the European image, so the US image is no longer necessary. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your flawed understanding and analysis, George Ho. You really just don't get it, do you? You have zero justification for why this image should be removed. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.50.4 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@165.235.50.4: Can you explain why my rationale is "flawed"? I said that we can't retain two front covers because they have the same purpose: identifying a release. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, let me say that while deletion discussions tend to produce all sorts of iffy comments and votes, that one might be the most inexplicable I've come across. This person clearly has a fine command of the English language and that command was used to cast a vote that will get totally ignored because it ignored policy and provided no substance, all for the sake of insulting an excellent editor. I kind of want to strike it just to amplify how useless it is.

That said, I don't agree that the only purpose of images like this is to identify subjects. I think having the additional image underscores something I've always found fascinating: creative works getting packaged differently for different places they're sold. See, for an obvious example, the album this song is from. Did they think the differing versions maximized sales potential in the US versus the rest of the world? If so, why? That could be a neat discussion to have, and if there is an answer, I actually believe it would help readers more fully understand the song. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been dealt with before in other situations, RunnyAmiga. In central discussions, consensus decided to keep just one unless there is enough sourced critical commentary. There is no need to present more than one cover to represent packaging. Just one image with substantial caption is enough, isn't it? Well... if individual discussions don't have votes of either sides, usually images are deleted. If keeping the extra image is reasonable, there must be sources about the individual covers themselves. There is a list of worldwide charts; isn't it enough for a reader to understand? Did I tell you before that the band is Scandinavian? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find reliable sources discussing the covers in Google Books and Google News. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus has been achieved, I don't understand the point of instigating this discussion in the first place. Delete it per the discussion in question. And even though I'm speaking as someone who hasn't been made privy to previous discussion(s), I'll say that "sourced critical commentary" is a truly bizarre standard. Is there sourced critical commentary for the single's main cover? Why does that standard apply to one image and not the other? Why isn't the US cover displayed on the article while the rest-of-the-world cover is up for deletion discussion here?

And I absolutely don't buy the idea that "[t]here is no need to present more than one cover to represent packaging." That is, on its face, false. The US version isn't some obscure, one-off, limited-edition image. There were at least a million copies of both covers manufactured. That's not to mention that, even if this were an obscure, one-off, limited-edition image, why would that matter? Are we really here to present the absolute bare minimum? RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:village pump (policy)/Archive 108#Adding extra cover arts in album and singles articles and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Alternate covers for albums/singles.... Anything else, RunnyAmiga? Also, the point of the discussion is keeping or deleting this image. Ask any administrator if you can. George Ho (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fall on the side of WP:NFCCP#8 until there is a specific policy on these alternative covers somewhere. I don't see how having two covers instead of one in an article where neither is discussed increases the readers' understanding of the topic of the article (a song).  ★  Bigr Tex 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BigrTex. Kelly ^hi! 07:29, 29 August 2016 (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: Removed from Bix Beiderbecke Majora (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is used in two articles. If free, shall the image be transferred to Commons? If unfree, how valid is a usage in each article? George Ho (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am wary of considering this PD-simple given the selection and arrangement of the disk. Also, the line at the bottom looks like a copyright notice to me. Bix Beiderbecke probably shouldn't have this image given that it'd violate WP:NFCC#10 and WP:NFCC#8 there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Bix Beiderbecke per Jo-Jo.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:44, 16 August 2016 (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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:EDCTP proposed expenditure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmschultes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral to FFD, as there was a recent discussion on commons about what license to apply to EU works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sfan00 IMG:, could you point us to the recent discussion on commons about what license to apply to EU works? Without additional context, I can't provide an opinion on what we should do with this image. Could you also explain what you think we should do?  ★  Bigr Tex 21:46, 16 August 2016 (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. Fails WP:NFCC#10a due to lack of a specific source. Stating the author as source when that isn't where the image was actually found is not sufficient sourcing information to support non-free use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free logo being used in National Provincial Bank and National Provincial Bank v Charnley. The file has a non-free use rationale for each, but no soure is provided for the image to verify whether the copyright information required WP:NFCC#10a. The article about National Provincial Bank says it originated in 1833, so perhaps the logo is old enough to qualify as public domain. If the logo needs to be non-free, then it's usage in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley" fails WP:NFCC#8. The article is about involving the bank and the rationale's claim that the file is needed "to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" is simply the boilerplate text the template automatically adds when the editor adding the rationale fails to properly fill it in. There's no reason for the bank's logo to be used here. Suggest keep for "National Provincial Bank" if a source can be found, and remove from "National Provincial Bank v Charnley" unless the file can be converted to a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for National Provincial Bank. The coat of arms is mentioned in the article and a source is provided there. The arms have not been in use since at least 1970 and the armiger was legally dissolved in 2016, so use in National Provincial Bank v Charnley seems reasonable. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is www.rbsbc.com/history/default.aspx the source of the image you're referring to above. That looks like a different file to the one being disucssed here. I think we need something showing this particular file not something similar to it or something which was partly derived from it. In addition, I'm also not sure if seems reasonable is proper justfication for using the non-free image in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley". That seems to be an article about a legal case that the bank was involved in and not an article about the bank itself, right? How are all 10 non-free content crtiteria satisfied for such a usage? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image at National Provincial Bank v Charnley, so this discussion is moot. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file still is lacking a proper source which I believe is needed to verify WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. It looks like the image may have come from here, but only the uploader knows for sure. The uploader Chrisieboy was notified of this discussion, but has yet to comment. I am unable to determine anything specific about the image's copyright status from that website, so I cannot say whether it is old enough for PD or whether is has already been freely licensed. Finally, if the freely licensed File:001 National Prov Bank Holyhead 18.08.13 edited-2.jpg is considered acceptable to identify the bank in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley", then it might also be considered acceptable to identify the bank in "National Provincial Bank" as well. If that's the case, then a non-free image would not be needed for the main infobox per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (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: no consensus due to lack of information. It's PD in India, but it's potentially restored under the URAA unless it was published in an earlier work in India. No evidence of such publication, so it's best to keep using this on a non-free basis. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:F. H. Gravely.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ravichandar84 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Published in a 1951 work, but this image may be earlier. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sfan00 IMG: Are you proposing that this image should be marked as free? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly based on the dates given in the description field, If it can be confrirmed as an 'Indian' published image (or for that matter official), then it might be free, as opposed to being a potentially retored one as at present.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2016 (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 per Jo-Jo's comment. Not public domain in the US, at least. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meera music.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kailash29792 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This looks like a recent album cover... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the picture is probably from 1945 when the film was made. Is this a screenshot from the film? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it may be free in India (1945+60 copyright term for cinematographic works+1=2006) but non-free in the US (1945+95 URAA term=2040) because of URAA recopyrighting (1945+60+1>1996). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 16 August 2016 (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 per Ramaksoud2000 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low res, Not clear if this is a self-portrait by the artist concerned, undated. Subject died in 1941, so it would be PD-70 if self portrait. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG:, I visited the source and found that they now have a higher resolution image of the painting. I uploaded a copy of the new image over top of the old. I believe in the new image, you can make out the artist's signature, confirming that this is a self-portrait.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would have fallen into public domain in source country in 2011, after URAA date, so still copyrighted in U.S. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:27, 24 December 2016 (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: one week to add valid fair use rationale czar 09:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Direct source link, No original publication data, No specific date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I have failed to make sure that the work was "first published" before 1956, even if it was "taken" before that year. Bad mistake. Not enough information. But this is not the commons. Does this hold under fairuse? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As visual example of an architectrual work in it's original form, I don' see why this wouldn't be fair use, you'd have to satisfy it met the Non-Free Content Criteria though, and it would mean adding a much sourcing as you can. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aditya Kabir: Would you like to make a go of satisfying WP:NFCC? You can try to complete a transclusion of ((Non-free use rationale)) on the file page. If this isn't forthcoming, the file will likely be deleted as copyrighted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:42, 2 January 2017 (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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fnc foxandfriends2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Orangeorangeorange (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The authorship information was added by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) in Special:Diff/561637088. It is unclear where this information comes from or how to verify if it is correct or not. Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangeorangeorange , seem a lot of their images were removed.

I added the information on it currently in good faith which seems may have been misplaced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked a few of the user's images and they have consistent metadata. I think it's likely that the uploader took them him/herself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons based on Calliopejen1's research, if we believe that there is future encyclopedic value.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:00, 16 August 2016 (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. Invalid license. We can only accept specific irrevocable free licenses, not a vague statement about attribution if you wish to use the picture. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SGI Indycam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vanished user sdfkjertiwoi1212u5mcake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The website only mentions a necessary condition (use of the image requires attribution), but it isn't revealed if this condition alone is a sufficient condition. Stefan2 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone contact the website owner at the listed email to get a better permission? I don't have time at the moment but that seems a more sensible course than outright deletion right now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 24#File:SHAPE-Structure.jpg))

File:SHAPE-Structure.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by とある白い猫 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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. Unused, and the consensus appears to be that this is out of scope. Additionally, the license this is offered under is very unclear on its requirements and certainly not irrevocable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attribution is not a PD license, and the source site did not seem to be live for me. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider checking the Internet Archive for dead sources. This is what the source looked like a few days before the file upload. I can't find the image on that page, but it is maybe possible to find it by clicking on the links on that page. The file is unused, so do we need to bother investigating the copyright status, or should we just delete it as out of scope? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attribution is an acceptable licence condition. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – HAARP has been mostly inactive for the past several years. When it was more active, it was operated in part by the U.S. Air Force. I'm not saying that this makes it a US-PD work, but that's something worth exploring. As for project scope, just about every time I do any work on Commons, I see hundreds/thousands more uploads from a few particular U.S. military and other US-PD sources which really aren't that useful for much of anything beyond making Commons out to be another government propaganda site rather than any kind of resource. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:35, 21 July 2016 (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: Keep based on original publication date before 1923. PD in the US. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moses in the ark.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TTLightningRod (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No original publication data, Looks old though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update : The Wonder Book of Bible Stories was published in 1925, Anyone want to check renewals? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2016 (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: no consensus ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Class 321 in Greater Anglia livery.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VinnieJarman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused diagram, replaced and superceded by File:Greater Anglia Class 321.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's freely licensed so being unused doesn't matter, and diagrams should be in png format rather than jpeg format so the file proposed for deletion is actually seems the more useful of the two. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the difference? For a 6000 pixel wide diagram there is no appreciable quality difference between JPG or PNG (and MediaWiki thumbnailing of PNGs still sucks). There is a slight difference in the height of the logo positioning. Which is the more accurate, keep that one. If we don't know which is more accurate, keep both. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Andy Dingley, at least one of the logos seems to have been moved a little bit horizontally too. If you zoom in, you will also see that there are minor differences in line thickness, and there are white/grey/black colour differences around the floor. Comparing File:Pudding Mill Lane DLR station MMB 18 321425.jpg to the two drawings, I'd say that the JPG file has better logo positioning than the PNG file. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the same conclusion as Stefan2 that the JPG version lines up better than the PNG, which I why I nominated the PNG for deletion. Cloudbound (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the PNG version should be corrected or the JPG version converted to PNG and any artefacts cleaned up. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do that? I'd rather have a good PNG in the article. Cloudbound (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to correct the PNG (cleaning up JPEGs is much more difficult) but it'll be a few days before I get time I suspect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thryduulf. Cloudbound (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2016 (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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanjung Kupang Memorial Signage.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cpboon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source, Most likley uploaders efforts (based on contribs) but not obvious from file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Stefan2's comments on the previous two entries.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This one was taken using the same camera model as the three ones above, thereby suggesting that the whole set was taken by the uploader. It would be nice to have a confirmation of this, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any chance we can move them to commons? Can we change the licenses to ((PD-self))?  ★  Bigr Tex 22:14, 16 August 2016 (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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanjung Kupang Memorial Entrance.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cpboon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source, most likely uploaders own work (based on contribs), but not obvious from file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently taken with the same camera model as the picture above, thereby suggesting that these two files are own works by the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any chance we can move them to commons? Can we change the licenses to ((PD-self))?  ★  Bigr Tex 22:14, 16 August 2016 (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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanjung Kupang Memorial Names.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cpboon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source. Possibly uploaders own work, but not obvious from file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it was taken three days before upload (according to EXIF), thereby suggesting that the uploader might have taken the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any chance we can move them to commons? Can we change the licenses to ((PD-self))?  ★  Bigr Tex 22:14, 16 August 2016 (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: keep. This discussion has established that the uploader is almost certainly the rightful author of the photo. Retagging image on that basis. Deryck C. 17:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No source, author, dates from early 1980's so can't assume it's PD by age. No original publciation data given in file description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image caption on en-wikipedia provides some data: it was taken outside Mount Saint Michael in Spokane, Washington, in August of 1979. I did a reverse image search and found that the only other places in which it appears on the web were other wikis. So, if it isn't the work of the uploader, it would likely have been scanned from a print publication... However, I'm inclined to think that, given the clarity of the picture (no dot-matrix artifacts of 1970s-1980s printing, and the vibrant colour), that it's actually from a personal photograph, and likely the work of the uploader.

Regardless of the provenance, the image should be kept. The subject retreated from public view in the mid-1980s after allegations against him, along with his poor health. Prior to that, it's unlikely there were many public photographs. He died in 2006, making the probability of obtaining any other photograph nigh impossible. While the work is probably Creative Commons now due to the high likelihood of it being the work of the uploader, it can certainly be rationalised as being permitted under fair due to the impossibility of obtaining any new (or even older) images of the subject. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE After having looked through some of the other contributions to Commons by the same uploader, I'm almost certain it is the work of the author. Several of his other uploads have been personal photographs of principals in the Traditionalist Catholic movement, especially the sedevacantist camp. As he obviously knows these people, I'd suspect he has since the beginning of the sedevacantist schism, and this picture also falls into that category. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the expectations on uploaders in 2005 were much less stringent. Based on Quinto Simmaco's research, I'd be willing to assume good intentions and presume that it's the uploader's own work and ((PD-self)).  ★  Bigr Tex 22:20, 16 August 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If this is from the early 20th century, then the uploader cannot reasonably the photographer. Still PD though in my estimation. ( And yes I was probably a bit inexperienced when I added the information here originally.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated the licensing to the most plausible license, ((PD-1923)). Still, that may not be accurate. Without knowing the source/publication date, we can't know whether this is public domain. Delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Publication date unclear. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:03, 3 January 2017 (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. No source, so can't use under fair use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firsova Nightingale Remember1.mid (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Meladina (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying on the basis that the underlying composition ( Opera) seems to be recent. fair use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2016 (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. Still no source. Originally tagged as missing source with a non-free use rationale many years ago. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firsova Nightingale Intro.mid (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Meladina (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying on the basis that the opera concerned seems to be a modern composition, . Fair use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (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 czar 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:270416 titanmethane 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rei (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not sure but ESA work is not necessarily US gov work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESA is something European. It has nothing to do with the United States Government except that ESA and NASA cooperate about various things. I think that there are some copyright tags which say that a subset of ESA's material is freely licensed, but I can't remember what those templates are called and I don't know whether this file is covered by any of those templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the permission description in the file. It points out that Wikipedia doesn't have an option for the ESA license, and explicitly spells out the ESA license. I did check into the licensing before posting that; the problem is Wikipedia's lack of options to choose from, not the license. -- Rei (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fairly exotic license. I am not certain if commercial use and derivative use are allowed, however; the fact that they require permission only for commercial promotion may imply that non-advertising but commercial usage is OK but that's just inference. There is ((Non-free ESA media)) but it refers to a page that specifies an explicit no commercial use rule.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the restriction begins, "If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion". If there was any ambiguity in the term "commercial promotion" (which is really just a synonym for advertising), the word "advertising" before makes pretty clear what is being restricted. They also reiterated this point earlier: "ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service..."

Wikipedia's licensing policy doesn't require that advertising be allowed, which is why I posted it. Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind Wikipedia requiring commercial use? Rather than split hairs over what exactly Wikipedia's policy states, it'd be nice to know what the intent was so that we could ensure that this was a proper fit. -- Rei (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that you should be allowed to use files on websites which need to collect funds, for example websites with large fundraising banners with photos of Jimmy Wales. Also, copyright-wise we require a licence which allows you to use the image in advertisement, but this requirement doesn't seem to apply with respect to personality rights. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the goal is that there not be a conflict with Wikipedia's fundraisers? Even though, according to your link, most images of people are already in conflict? Also, I didn't even realize Wikipedia was registered as a corporation - heh, shows what I know  ;)

Anyway, I think it should be compliant with that goal. They prohibit the use of the image being used to state or imply the endorsement of a commercial product, process or service I think that would be a major stretch to consider having such an image in an article as being "ESA endorses Wikipedia and wants you to give them money". The last part is a bit more generic, stating that if the "images are used in advertising or any commercial promotion". But it's not like the images would be in the banner, they're just on the same page as an ad. The images are widely used in the news media (that's what they're there for), which is almost universally associated with banner ads.

On the other hand, if Wikipedia were to for some reason start taking random images from its articles and putting them in its banner ads without checking image licenses, then that could cause a conflict. Otherwise, I don't see a conflict with Wikipedia's goals. -- 31.209.198.1 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ESA FAQ which states that "You may not modify the images." I found the FAQ from reading c:Category:European Space Agency and figuring out that it appears that ESA images are not free enough for commons. In that case, I don't believe that they are free enough for us unless used under our Non-free Content Policy.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:50, 16 August 2016 (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 Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-Free individual Unit logo being used in list of Units in The Rebel Legion article. These logos do not add to the Readers' understanding of The Rebel Legion and therefore do not meet WP:NFCCP#8. All except this one do not have a rationale at this time.  ★  Bigr Tex 01:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hello BigrTex,

The Logos are very important for the structure and history of the organisation. They help for navigation (orientation). I will fill every form you need for the logos! The logos owner is the rebel legion a world :wide non-profit organisation. (i am not in the command staff of the organisation, i am only here to fill the page.) i searched long time to find the NFCCP#8 in my language (german) so that i can understand what :you need me to add to the pictures. I could not find an equivalent. Please please please, can anybody show to me what is needed? i am not native speaker, it is too technical for my english.

Thank you. Leroni Verderoc (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NFCC#8. Non-free use could possibly be justified in stand-alone articles about each of the groups, but not in embedded lists like this. The logo being used at the top of the article for identification is more than sufficient for the primary identification of the organization, and none of the logos themselves are the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Non-free images for individual entries in lists like this is generally not allowed as explained in WP:NFLISTS and MOS:LOGO. The logos may be nice to look at, but that unfortunately is not sufficient justification for non-free use. Moreover, it seems that all of these are missing non-free use rationales which means they could even be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6. Although I realize that the uploader is a fairly new editor and thus probably is not too familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content policy, there is really no way to justify decorative non-free use like this. All the logos in The Rebel Legion#Temples of the KJO also fail NFCC#8 and are missing non-fre use rationales as well.

Finally, even if these could be converted to a free license, the way they are being used would still be problematic and discouraged per MOS:LOGO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: unfortunately these image fail WP:NFLISTS and WP;NFCC#8 and don't add anything to the readers understanding of the topic. The temple names are more important that such tiny images. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - these have no utility, per both WP:NFLISTS and MOS:LOGO. For that matter, 95% of this article is fancruft and has no place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: All of the logos listed here have been removed from the article by the uploader and are orphans. If they are not added to an article, they will be eventually tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. There still, however, 44 more logos being used in the article that were not listed in this FFD and these logos should be deleted for the same reasons given above. Listing them all here can be done, but it seems of a bit of waste of time to do so They could all be tagged for speedy per WP:F6, but I'm wondering if there's a way to tag multiple files for speedy deletion in a single operation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: All the non-free files, except for the one in the main infobox, have been removed and mostly like will end up being deleted per WP:F5. I think this discussion can be closed now, unless someone objects. -- Marchjuly (talk)

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 08:48, 16 August 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corfecastlegate00297.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Midgley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete - unused, low resolution. We have many higher-res photos at Commons:Category:Corfe Castle. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 16 August 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kerelaw House.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dreamer84 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unclear whether uploader is photographer. Kelly ^hi! 10:29, 16 August 2016 (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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 24#File:Dali_on_the_Rocky_Steps.jpg))

File:Dali on the Rocky Steps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Evrik (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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 F8 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Db05b0088s.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davidbryson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence the uploader is the owner of the sourced website. Sole photo contribution by uploader. Kelly ^hi! 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that http://photolibrary.cladonia.co.uk/about identifies a David Bryson as the uploader of photos, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just skeptical because the "Davidsonbryson" account seems to have been created only to add this photo. OTRS confirmation is probably desirable. The photo isn't currently used anywhere outside userspace. Kelly ^hi! 17:15, 16 August 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Digital camera pictures 140.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Isabella 321 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete, unused userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 11:04, 16 August 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, unused userphoto. Also missing source. Kelly ^hi! 11:05, 16 August 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, unused userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 11:06, 16 August 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DoyleNY.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by D C McJonathan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative of copyrighted poster. Kelly ^hi! 11:09, 16 August 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, unused derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 11:10, 16 August 2016 (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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 24#File:Plaque_of_Tide_Mills_Time-Line.jpg))

File:Plaque of Tide Mills Time-Line.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Timtrent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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: converted to F11: one week to add permission czar 03:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence the uploader is the record company. Kelly ^hi! 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in the name... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 24 August 2016 (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 czar 03:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birmingham Gay Village Garage Mural.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jenova20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo is missing evidence of permission. Also, there is no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK. Kelly ^hi! 15:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only because Flickr has moved the page since. It was uploaded correctly. Is there a way to see the old page cached or something? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guy has deleted his account and photos to create a "PRO" account, as this is his account now and there's a lot less on there. A google search didn't show anything either. Hopefully there's a way to avoid deleting this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We would also need the permission of the mural creator. Kelly ^hi! 16:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original mural was painted over, but i can't be sure. In any case I think it fails under Freedom of Panorama after reading up on it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:24, 24 August 2016 (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: WP:SOFTDELETE pending explanation on how the file was created. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear how uploader took the photo. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 16 August 2016 (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: Convert to PD-US-no notice Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Former logo of the American Basketball Association's Anaheim Amigos. Licensed as non-free, used in the article without critical commentary while a later logo is in the infobox. Source says that the logo was used in 1969/70 if that allows alternative licensing. Without alternative licensing, I believe that it should be removed from the article and likely deleted as an unused non-free image.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was used in 1969 it would fall under ((PD-US-no notice)) - used logos are invariably published and it's uncommon for logos to have copyright notices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (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: Convert to PD-US-no notice Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Former logo of the American Basketball Association's Kentucky Colonels. Licensed as non-free, used in the article without critical commentary while a later logo is in the infobox. One source implies that the logo was used in 1967-76 if that allows alternative licensing. Without alternative licensing, I believe that it should be removed from the article and likely deleted as an unused non-free image.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was used in 1967 it would fall under ((PD-US-no notice)) - used logos are invariably published and it's uncommon for logos to have copyright notices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (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.