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: per nom czar 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gibson sprawl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fortinbras~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of cover art being used in Cyberpunk and Sprawl trilogy. No non-free use rationale has been provided for the stand-alone article about the trilogy, but this type of use of non-free cover art seems acceptable per WP:NFC#cite_note-2 and adding the rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c seems simple enough, but I do have some concerns. This file is a photo taken of the three books together, and I'm not sure if the photo itself would be considered a mechanical reproduction illegible for copyright or a derivative work which is creative enough to require a copyright. This might be moot point because it does appear from the file's description that the person who took the photo has agreed to release it into the public domain, but even so there is no copyright license is provided for the photo. Another possible issue is that stand-alone articles for each of the books show different covers being used for the books. Maybe the trilogy is a set with it's own unique cover art, but I have not been able to find a source for verifying this.

Regarding the use in "Cyberpunk", a non-free use rationale is provided, but this is an article a genre of science fiction and not specifically about the trilogy, so it's non-free use seems to fail WP:NFCC#8, despite the rationale's claim to the contrary. There is no sourced commentary of the cover art of the books anywhere to be found in the article and the trilogy itself is only mentioned by name in the caption add for the file. This type of usage is clearly decorative and does not provide the context required by NFCC#8.

Suggest add for "Sprawl trilogy" along with a rationale for the use to the files page if the photo's licensing and sourcing issues can be resolved. Suggest remove from "Cyberpunk" because the decorative way the file is being used in the article does not comply with WP:NFCC, -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 6 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⚡ 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mar Daniel Church Bakhetme.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Barcyy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is claimed to be used as the primary means of identification but is in fact used in the article with no substantial commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 02:02, 6 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⚡ 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SV100233.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mursel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of a Liberated Woman.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:07, 6 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Art2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aflunky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Random selfie from long-gone editor, who used it mainly for self-promotion (admins see also his deleted contributions) DMacks (talk) 13:41, 6 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las Tortugas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by June11wayne (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:V fail (I can't find this as being a current or former flag of the (or some of the) Cayman Islands. "Las Tortugas" seems only historical, no evidence would have had own flag? History of the Cayman Islands and Cayman Brac say that this name was only used before 1586. DMacks (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DMacks: this is a hoax file, like all the other flags uploaded by sockpuppets of banned user Caradoc29105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As part of standard practice when dealing with trolls, such material is usually deleted the moment it is spotted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:42, 10 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⚡ 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claimed as PD-US due to pre-1923 publication. However, since the relevant subject of the photo, Charles Aznavour, was not born until 1924, this can't be the case. First reported publication is 1976, so this photo is presumably still under copyright. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Invalid public domain claim.

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: use free use equivalent from commons:Category:Anaconda Smelter Stack czar 07:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anaconda NRHP photo1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joe Kress (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of a smokestack which is still standing in a state park. The stated purpose of the image is to include an unobstructed view of the base. As the structure is still standing, one could create an equivalent free image. Fails WP:NFCC#1 Whpq (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This image may be in the public domain, but I was cautious by claiming historical fair use. It comes from the National Register of Historic Places entry for the Anaconda Copper Mining Company Smoke Stack, and that site has the boilerplate warning "Permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this website. Digital assets without any copyright restrictions are public domain." Thus I do not know whether this image is copyrighted or not. But it definitely was photographed at the request of the federal government for its NRHP document. This makes the photographer, Maggie Smith of Anaconda MT, an agent of the government, which I believe puts the photo in the public domain. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, public domain status automatically attaches to "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties". That is not true for non-employee agents, even if they are contractors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even though the stack is still standing, ostensibly in a state park, it is located on a Superfund site (MTD093291656) where the public is not allowed so a corresponding free image showing the stack with its foundation cannot be created. The closest the public is allowed is the viewing/parking area 1.2 miles northwest of the stack where the foundation is blocked from view by a hill. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the importance of the base of the stack? A free image is still possible but without the view of the base. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 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.