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⚡ 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joel Gilbert filmmaker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sweethominy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to be a copyright violation of Joel Gilbert's Twitter profile picture, which is used on his Twitter page. Image is a modified version of the original picture. Previously speedily deleted under WP:F9 (File:Joel Gilbert, Film Director.jpg), but I am listing this here to get more opinions on whether the uploader's copyright holder claim is legitimate. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the claim to be being the copyright holder is not supported in any way. If they are indeed the copyright holder, they can show that via proof through WP:OTRS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2019 (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 File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg & File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg, delete rest. -FASTILY 00:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofHesikhebEA37908.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA37907.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus license claims. (See here; this information [specifically the license mentioned on the aforementioned link] applies to all images in this collection.) The license for these images is actually "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"; the "NC" part is "noncommercial", and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be deceptive here. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter states "Mere mechanical scans or photocopies, made by somebody else, of an object or design old enough to be in the public domain (usually 70 years after the death of the author)". All of these images are thousands of years olds, and definitely fall into the category of mechanical scans or photocopies. Do you agree that I just need to replace the license information or do you think I am doing something illegal? Epachamo (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not thinking you are doing anything "illegal", but there is another possible issue here, even if these are too old for copyright. These pictures may still have their copyrights held by who took them (if they are considered unique/artistic enough), and the images may still have their copyrights held by whoever took them. At this point, I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no artist, but I do not see anything unique/artistic in the photographs. I'm also no lawyer, so I will concur with someone that knows better. Epachamo (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the photograph licenses are NC, this is a moot point if they fall under PD-Art (i.e. if the photographs are not considered creative enough to create a separate United States copyright). In any case, BY-NC-SA works should not be labelled as BY-SA since they are not available under the BY-SA (this is sometimes noted as one of the flaws in the Creative Commons branding, that a number of very different licences are bundled under one umbrella, with all the confusion this causes…).

Since Wikipedia is supposed to be libre content, with fair use provisions only for media which cannot conceivably be replaced with libre content (I go into more detail about what this means here), BY-NC-SA alone doesn't make the image acceptable. However, ((PD-Art)) content is acceptable both on English Wikipedia and on Commons. So the question is whether they fall under PD-Art (which is quite plausible). -- HarJIT (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofHesikhebEA37908.jpg and File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA37907.jpg, keep the rest. The website identifies these two as being inscriptions, so ((PD-Art)) doesn't apply per c:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art. The other two appear to be painted instead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Finnusertop, If I made a facsimile of it, based on the photograph, would that be legal? Epachamo (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*@Epachamo: I don't know. It all gets very theoretical when you have derivatives of derivatives. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the two files recommended for deletion, they clearly look like ink to me, despite what the museum states Epachamo (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, keep the photographs of painted media, as they would be ((PD-Art)). Inscriptions are technically 3D, so delete the photographs of those since the NC portion of the license is incompatible with our CC-BY-SA licensing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 1 September 2019 (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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venera9.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Comet Tuttle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deletion review has concluded that this file needs a fuller discussion to assess whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/fulfills NFCC#8: The image serves both to illustrate the surface of Venus and to illustrate the Soviet exploration of Venus. In the former application, it significantly increases readers' understanding of the Venusian surface, since no written description can fully convey the appearance of a landscape. A picture is worth a thousand words. In the latter application, it is the only available image depicting the exploration of the Venusian surface. Without it, readers would have a much poorer understanding of the area explored, the quality of the imagery returned, and the overall nature of the exploration. A2soup (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All facets of NFCC are fulfilled. Historically important image that no free alternative is bound to come any time soon. --Masem (t) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy pings for @JJMC89, @Marchjuly -FASTILY 00:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: As the main proponent of this image I don't want to canvass the participants there, but discussion of the use of this image (and other similar ones) at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Images of the surface of Venus should probably be considered in the outcome of this discussion. If anyone wants to ping the participants there, it might not be a bad idea. A2soup (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a good idea to have ongoing discussions about this on two different pages. The admin who ultimatetly reviews this is only going to consider the arguments made here. It would be better to add ((Moved discussion to)) to the MCQ thread to let others know this is where things are now being discussed. This would also ensure that there's information about this FFD in the MCQ thread for reference purposes, even after it has been archived. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although I can understand the arguments in favor of keeping the file, I don't really think the single sentence "In 1975, the Soviet Venera 9 and 10 landers transmitted the first images from the surface of Venus, which were in black and white." is really an overwhelming justification for non-free use of this file. Perhaps more sourced commentary about the file could be found and added to the relevant section. Moreover, even though the non-free use rationale is quite detailed as to how the file meets WP:NFCC, I think it's really ultimately in the article itself where the file's use needs to be justified. "Venera 9" is mentioned twice by name (three times if you count the file's caption) in the body of the article; if that's all it takes to justify this file non-free use, then using the color photos taken by Veneras 13 and 14 in 1982 (assuming they can be found) could just as easily be justified for the same reason. A weak justification for non-free use makes it easier (in my opinion) to apply the same reasoning to try and justify the non-free use of other similar files. Non-free use, however, is supposed to be the exception to the principle of using freely licensed content; so, if the use of two similar non-free images could possibly be justified for the same reasons, then perhaps neither image should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important justification isn't the sentence next to the image that you mention (although I'd argue that justifies it too), it's the word up at the top: Venus. That's the "article topic" mentioned in WP:NFCC#8. Omitting humanity's only images of Venus's surface from the article about it is detrimental to our readers' understanding. A2soup (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the article is about Venus which is why there are lots of free images about it used in the article; non-free content use, however, requires more of a justification (at least in my opinion) than simply being an image of the subject of the article and a brief sentence describing the image is not (again in my opinion) in and of itself a sufficient justification for non-free use. According to the article, color images were also taken at a later date. Would the non-free use of those images (just assuming they would be non-free) as well in the article be justifiable if they could be tracked down and uploaded? My guess is that the same rationale you seem be using to justify the black and white photos could just as easily be used to justify those color images as well, which (again in my opinion) makes the rationale for using the black and white one suspect. Moreover, Omitting humanity's only images ... sounds to me like trying to argue WP:IRREPLACEABLE. I think it would be better if more content (ideally sourced content) about this particular photo and how it perhaps how it changed the common perceptions about Venus surface was added to the article; in addition, perhaps the photo should be moved to Venus#Geography to bring it closer to the already existing article connect which at least attempts to do this. Finally, just in case you didn't notice, I didn't cast a WP:!VOTE; I only commented on what I think is a rather weak justification for keeping this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what Venus's surface looks like is obviously paramount to understanding the topic. The article talks about "Venus's surface is a dry desertscape interspersed with slab-like rocks" and "The Venusian surface was a subject of speculation until some of its secrets were revealed by planetary science in the 20th century. Venera landers in 1975 and 1982 returned images of a surface covered in sediment and relatively angular rocks." Neither of these written descriptions are able to stand on their own without the accompanying image and still get across to the reader. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a very rare case that nonfree media should be used in an article where free media for the subject is readily available, but well—this is clearly one of those rare exceptions where it's acceptable. Showing the Venusian surface is a crucial enough point to the educational value of the article that, in this particular instance, an exception should indeed be made. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 1 September 2019 (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.