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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrero Rocher Images.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lambda drive (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral as to TOO in respect of packaging artworkshown in this image. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. The logo on the top image would be above the TOO. Salavat (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2018 (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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diemonds Press Photo 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kiss rocker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal as this appears to be a promotional photo, It's uploaded under a self license, but credits a Facebook page as a source. Who actually created this, and what is their connection to the uploader? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2018 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The publication data given would indicate a US publication, hence this was tagged for Commons, which is contested as "Likely not ok for Commons, photo taken in Britain, likely published there initially". Hence this is not necessarily PD-US-1923 as claimed. If it's a British image PD-US-1923-abroad would apply. Tagging this (and related images) as wrong license was also contested, hence this referall. Either this is PD-US (and acceptable for Commons) or it's PD-US-1923-abroad (and isn't). Let's have a clear statment of whether this can or cannot be on Commons.... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Out of process: the image has been posted to Wikipedia, not Commons. Nominating it for deletion because a different tag should have been used to indicate that it's PD doesn't seem sensible either: just change the tag! Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is Files for DISCUSSION, not Files for Deletion. The desired outcome may well be a changed tag, but seeking additional opinions is hardly a bad thing is it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of wasting time with process wonkery? You've tagged these articles to be moved to Commons, and are now wanting to discuss ...what? Why not discuss this with Parsecboy in the first instance: they're a experianced and sensible person. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue is whether they are acceptable for Commons or not, Parsecboy explained to me (on a talk page) that they'd been uploaded locally because of an ambiguity as to their status. Before updating the license tag, I wanted more opinions. We seem to be in agreement that they are PD in the US based on date, (and the publication details). Where we disagree is that I think it's not entirely fair to tag it with PD-US, when it's not necessarily a US image originally. As PD-US-1923abroad is a more restrictive license than PD-US, I felt that a wider number of opinions was needed before I unilaterally changed the tag, especially given that the use of ((wrong license)) was objected to. I could have changed the tag unilaterally, but felt that wasn't the right approach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, whether the image was originally published abroad before the publication cited on the image description is irrelevant to whether it is PD-US or not. It was published in the US before 1923, so it is PD-US - a simple reading of #1 on the template documentation page should confirm that. The reason I uploaded it to en.wiki instead of Commons is because it is very likely originally a British work (given the subject matter and timing - i.e., taken shortly after completion, probably on trials), and we don't know the details of its creation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is crux of where we disagree then, using PD-US vs PD-US-1923-abroad, implies to some that it's PD globally (or at least anywhere that accepts shorter term) despite what the template actually says. I'm minded to withdraw all 4 noms on the grounds that no-one is in disagreement about it's US status. However I still maintain that if there is an ambiguity about the US publication noted being the 'first', the file description page should reflect that so that the file isn't selected as a Commons candidate by someone less experienced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except the template explicitly states that other jurisdictions have other rules, and that images PD in the US might not be PD there. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret the PD-US template to imply that the work is PD globally. There is nothing wrong with the licensing as it currently stands, and while a notice like the one you have added to the description pages in question does no harm, it's certainly not necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - No one is disputing the US status, which is what apparently matters. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2018 (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: withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Normandie-class illustration.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In response to an edit comment, "Not ok for Commons, no indication of copyright in France - need the author's date of death" . Either this is PD-US (And acceptable for commons) or it is PD-US-1923-abroad (and isn't). Lets have a clear statement as to this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As this is an artist's impression of a never-completed ship published in a US magazine over 100 years ago, its copyright status in France is irrelevant. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's (original if it exists) 'French' status is hardly irrelevant when considering if it can be moved to Commons or not. The current license tag and information would suggest a pre-1923 US image, which is acceptable for Commons. If the image cannot be transferred over because the image isn't in fact PD globally, then the information on the file description page ought to reflect that. I am somewhat fed up with "rest of the world doesn't matter' view sometime presented. Commons has different policy on this and an easier time for those contributors trying to identify candidates for Commons would be appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - No one is disputing the US status, which is what apparently matters. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2018 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brazilian destroyer Mato Grosso.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral per edit comment Likely not ok for Commons, photo taken in Britain, likely published there initially, Either this is PD-US (and acceptable for Commons) or it is PD-US-1923-abroad (and isn't). Let's have a clear statement on this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't Commons, and you are not contesting that the image isn't PD. Bad nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is Files for DISCUSSION, not Files for Deletion. Seeking additional opinions on an issue when there is an ambiguity is hardly a bad thing is it. ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the crux of the issue is whether the image is PD only in the US or is PD globally. As PD-US-1923-abroad is a more restrictive license than PD-US, I didn't feel confident changing it unilaterally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - No one is disputing the US status, which is what apparently matters. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2018 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:French cruiser Ernest Renan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per edit comment : - Likely not ok for Commons, photo taken in France, likely published there initially , Either this is PD-US ( and acceptable for Commons), or it's PD-US-1923abroad (and isn't). Let's have a clear statement on this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image has a credible claim of being PD in the US, which is the jurisdiction Wikipedia is located in. It is irrelevant whether it happens to be PD in other countries. More broadly, the reason given for the nomination here seems to be speculation: how do you know that the photo was taken in France and first published there? This ship would have visited other countries, and its entirely feasible for the photo to have been first published in the specialist source given. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is Files for DISCUSSION, not Files for Deletion. The desired outcome may well be a changed tag, but seeking additional opinions is hardly a bad thing is it? I'm also fed up with the 'rest of the world doesn't matter' view sometimes presented, Commons has differing policy, and it would be nice to have an easier time when evaluating if a file can be moved there or not. If it can't be moved to Commons, the licensing tag or additional information should reflect that, so that contributors that do a lot of work in images can spend more time identifying images that can genuinely be moved rather than having to bring up images with ambiguities in forums like this.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - No one is disputing the US status, which is what apparently matters. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2018 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pye Beaulieu 1910.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael Goodyear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently this is tagged as PD-US, The artist of the painting shown was British and died in 1960. Yes as a 1910 publication it's PD in the US ( pre 1923), but the first publication is likely to be in the UK. It is most likely this is PD-US-1923-abroad, but making a referral to FFD for a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's complicated, and it was difficult to find the best tag. It seems likely that this image was never actually published but was a photo of the actual work taken at the time by a member of the group and was among the family photos to which Delaney was given access.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 11:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I updated PD-art-US to cope with an out_of_copyright_in parameter, the logic could do with being cleaned up a little though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2018 (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 2018 July 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocket League The Vinyl Collection.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leominster flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andy120 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If this was created in 1983, then it can't necessarily be PD-art. However when does the seal shown date from, because if that's the sole creative element, the rest of this isn't that original Stripped pattern, stars and a motto... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2018 (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 2018 July 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Lane.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IQ125 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nonfree image of living person used as lede image in her BLP, therefore a clear violation of NFCC#1. There are a variety of unsourced and exaggerated claims made regarding this rather standard magazine cover, but without supporting reliable sources they cannot justify use of a replaceable nonfree image. In addition, given the claims of widespread pre-1963 US press coverage, there are likely copyright-nonrenewed images to be found. Finally, there's more than a whiff of sexism about the claim that an nonfree image of a woman should be used to demonstrate that she was "attractive". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The image has many reasons why it should be kept, see at the image location File:Lisa Lane.jpeg the detailed trilogy of "Non-free media data", "Non-free media rationale for Lisa Lane" and "Licensing". There are other SI images being used at Wikipedia for the same or similar reasons see: Category:Fair use Sports Illustrated magazine covers. The image is used for informational and educational purposes only, and it is not believed that its use in the article Lisa Lane infringes upon the rights of the copyright holder. The image is iconic as a magazine cover featuring the former United States female chess champion. To provide critical visual information regarding Lisa Lane's appearance and impact, the latter of which was enormously enhanced by this historically important magazine cover. No free alternative could possibly exist. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question is acceptable. The image depicts the person on the cover to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image and the effect on both the person the article is about and women in chess during that time period. IQ125 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the other images in the category are used in the bio of the person depicted on the cover, and all but one or two are used in articles regarding Sports Illustrated publications, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a means of identification, this is a living person, and woiuld fail WP:NFCC#1. With respect to significance in the article, the image asserts that it is historic as one of only two SI chess covers. But that assertion is literally the only sentence about the cover. As such, it fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. As well, the fact that she was one of only two chess covers on SI is adequately expressed in text so again, WP:NFCC#1 would not be met if this were to be advanced as a purpose. As for other SI covers, each usage requires its own specific non-free usage rationale. Whether or not those covers and their rationale meet the non-free conent guidelines has no bearing on whether this image's usage is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The cover is being used to show what she looked like, not as the fair use rationale claims "To provide critical visual information regarding Lisa Lane's appearance and impact, the latter of which was enormously enhanced by this historically important magazine cover." There is no information in the article about her appearance, impact or how the cover enhanced her impact. As a living person for identification purposes the cover fails WP:NFCC#1 and since there is already a sentence about the cover it fails WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2018 (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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torino Paralympic Mascot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EronMain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used in a section of the 2006 Winter Paralympics article, but there is no significant sourced commentary to support its inclusion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otto the otter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jaanusele (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used in a section of the 2002 Winter Paralympics article, but there is no significant sourced commentary to support its inclusion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. I'll also note that the NFUR claims the "image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic" which is also not true. Whpq (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2018 (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⚡ 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethan Anthony Couch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vwanweb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dispute exists as to whether file should exist, and wider community should be involved in such a decision Jax 0677 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous discussions at Talk:Ethan Couch#Image use rationale and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/June#Fair use rationale Ethan Couch. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As I already stated on the, now archived, WP:MCQ posting, I believe this fails our strict non-free policy WP:NFCC#1 because he is alive, not a known recluse nor serving a life-sentence without possibility of parole. He has been released and therefore a freely licenced image can be made or maybe one exist from before his arrest. Many article exist without images, even non-free ones, so this is not essential to the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plainly replaceable nonfree image of living person. Even during his brief incarceration this really wan't an acceptable use; now that he's been released, no basis for a nonfree use claim. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (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.