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: Relicense to non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ontario Mining Cup Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Frontenac303 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo, highly unlikely to be made by uploader. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to "non-free logo". Salavat (talk) 12:56, 15 February 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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuru Nuru Gel Massage Bowls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nurugel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, low-res, no encyclopedic use, dubious own-work claim FASTILY 10:07, 14 February 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 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: Legal questions aside, "possibility that a free image could be created even if one cannot be currently found" is a problem under WP:NFCC#1. We have frequently deleted non-free images when a free image could be created, but didn't exist at the time Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Gordon 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beyond My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete, Nonfree image of living person in BLP infobox. Textbook NFCC violation, since by en-wiki policy and per the WMF licensing resolution, nonfree images of living persons are strongly presumed replaceable. The use rationale, "I have not found free images of this subject, and this image is used for public promotion", is clearly inadequate to overcome this presumption, and does not address the possibility that a free image could be created even if one cannot currently be found. The presumption of replaceability is reinforced by the source for this image, which promotes public appearances by the article subject in the recent past. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed replacable" is fine, but in point of fact, this person is notoriously camera-shy outside of PR-related images such as this one. I've searched diligently, and I have not been able to find any free images of him, despite his 60 year career. If someone can find an adequate free image to replace it, I'd be more than happy to use it, but this is one case in which the "presumption" is dead wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This presumption is based on a policy with legal considerations and has been tried and tested countess of times. In fact, there is a speedy deletion criteria that could have been used. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you expand on that? What specific legal considerations are there in using a press-release publicity photo? (I'm not being combative, I want to know for the future.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Wikipedia employs fair use in US copyright law through its non-free content policy. Because of this, it's one of the few Wikipedia policies that are very insensitive to WP:IAR type of arguments.

The legal considerations here are those related to fair use. Because of a couple of good reasons (like the fact that none of us are lawyers here, and the fact that Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia), Wikipedia has vowed to employ fair use in the least extensive kind of way. Only a few kinds of uses are acceptable according to our non-free content policy. The gist is that our non-free content policy is far more restrictive than fair use in US law is. This helps to keep Wikipedia a free content encyclopedia, and, makes sure that whenever we have to employ fair use, we're always on the safe side of the law. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand NFCC very well, but you said there were legal considerations. NFCC is not a legal consideration, it is a Wikipedia policy consideration. Use of this image is completely within the fair use doctrine - it's a publicity picture, handed out like candy to anyone who requests it. If you think there are legal considerations against its use, then say what they are, but quoting NFCC is not a relevant answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the banner that sits on top of the non-free content policy: "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you have nothing specific to say about the use of this specific image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 18 February 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: converted to fair use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leftenan Adnan bin Saidi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reid62 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am not convinced that this is the uploader's "own work". Neither am I able to find any proof that this image has been freely released. The best I could find was this entry at the National Archives of Singapore, but it seems the image is copyrighted. As I am not sure how to proceed, I thought to nominate this for a discussion. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The thing is the images shown in the SG archive size (cropped?) is much smaller than the image here. There are a ton of people using the images and it is really hard to find the original source. I also find out that the images at the Malay Wikipedia it take the image as fair use. NgYShung ^huh? 15:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fair use if no free use equivalent exists. It appears that the uploader's license is wrong, but we can feasibly support a fair use image of this individual for his article. czar 02:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Source of photo - @NgYShung: I am not sure what is the original source of the photo. But there seems to be a higher reso version in the Straits Times (article) and another at AsiaOne. The AsiaOne image is credited "Library". My guess is that it is a scanned image from either the archives or an old newspaper. I think Czar's suggestion to convert it into fair use is a good idea. In this case, I guess fair use can be justified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 23 February 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.