< July 16	July 18 >

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

contesting keep local. Already on Commons, unused locally, no reason to retain local copy per WP:NOTWEBHOST. FASTILY 01:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 9#File:Sick men's ward and torture instruments in the Marshalsea.JPG. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If uploader don't have any problem. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:13, 18 July 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: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation/insufficient grounds for use; multiple non-free LP covers appearing in an article dedicated to an artist's fan-club Christmas records, generally (rather than to any of the records specifically): The Beatles' Christmas records. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain 1963 cover. The remainder can be deleted if necessary.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've opened a discussion here in the hope that FfD regulars (if there are regulars) can weigh in on the issue. The seven annual fan-club Christmas discs (1963–69) were compiled for a December 1970 release, and The Beatles' Christmas records has long included that LP cover in an infobox. That inclusion seems reasonable, but all the others appear to have been added for illustrative purposes – for the sake of it, really.

If there was an article on an artist's touring career, could we add (potentially dozens of) non-free images showing all the official tour programmes? Can an artist's discography page carry cover images for all their singles, albums, etc. That's the sort of issue I'm seeing this set a possible precedent for.

As far as retaining a specific cover out of the nine, the only one I can recall seeing any critical commentary for is the 1966 cover. Specifically, in Steve Turner's book Beatles '66 and Robert Rodriguez's Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock 'n' Roll – but even then, the validity of cover's inclusion would be marginal because (from memory) there's not much commentary to support the significance of the image. I've seen some description elsewhere of the 1967 and '68 covers, too, but again it's something descriptive each time. JG66 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - usage of these images is decorative and in aggregate they also fail WP:NFCC#3a. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of non-fair use of album covers in a list article against WP:NFLISTS. Aspects (talk) 19:41, 21 July 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: Withdrawn -FASTILY 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Invalid public domain reasoning. "his file is in the public domain, because He is the pioneer principal of the School of Arts and Science, Uyo who passed away many years ago." That the subject of a photo has passed away does not mean the photo is in the public domain. Whpq (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Given that a permission email has been sent, this deletion request is withdrawn as the permission will be sorted out via OTRS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Prince Otu Nyong (son to the 2nd principal) sent me this file via Whatsapp, he previously informed me via a phone call that he will obtain the file from the son to the man in the picture and will forward the file to me. The explicit understanding/agreement between Prince Otu and the man's son was that the file is intended to be included in the wikipedia informational article about the school that I was assigned to work on. Therefore, when Prince Otu forwarded the file to me via Whatsapp, we both agreed that the file will be used for that specific intent. Please let me know what licensing or copyright type/format I need to use for this file if "public domain" type is invalid. Thank you (I really appreciate the help). Emman369 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs to be freely licensed. ((cc-by-sa-4.0)) is the recommended license for images. But beyond the license, you need to identify the copyright holder of the image and provide that permission via OTRS. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Also note that the image cannot be just for the Wikipedia article. Anybody else can also use it based on the license terms. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a message to Prince Otu Nyong to inform the son of the pioneer principal (copyright holder) to send email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that the image file of his dad he sent to me via Prince Otu can be used in the school article I'm working on. I also advised Prince Otu to do the same regarding the image of the 2nd principal (picture of his dad). I hope those email messages will identify the copyright holders of the images as well as provide the needed permissions. Thank you. Emman369 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder sent his permission via email today 19 July 2019 to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and cc'd me. I also changed the licensing to ((cc-by-sa-4.0)) per your advice.
The second image file I uploaded (2nd Principal - School of Arts and Science, Uyo.jpg) has also been cleared by permission email sent from the copyright holder today 19 July 2019 to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with cc to me and the licensing has been changed to ((cc-by-sa-4.0)) per your advice. Thank you. Emman369 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked the image as OTRS pending (you can do this yourself by adding ((subst:OP)) to the image description). -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 19 July 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: Moot, this is now being handled by OTRS -FASTILY 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This school logo is claimed to be public domain as being below the threshold of originality. However, the logo is not simply a set geometric shapes. It includes drawn images of a book, flask which are complex enough to put this beyond the threshold. Conversion to non-free is not appropriate as the image is in use in a draft and not an article. Whpq (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the logo which will eventually be used in the final non-draft article be converted to free? If not, what are the other options? Thanks. Emman369 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't convert a non-free logo to free unless the copyright holder of the logo agrees to license the logo under a free license. What you can do is remove the logo from the draft article for now. When it is moved to article spae out of draft, the logo can be used for visual identification in the infobox as a non-free image under Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines.-- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has agreed to license it under a free license. Should he send authorization/approval email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to that effect? If not, what's the process? Emman369 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has been informed to send email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that he approves converting the logo non-free license to free license. Emman369 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 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: Delete File:Cohen Hallelujah Australia.jpg -FASTILY 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two cover arts of the early Leonard Cohen single release are used. One of them must be kept; per WP:NFCC#3a, one should be sufficient enough to represent the Cohen single release. Either the Spanish or Dutch (mis-identified as Australian; see these sources) must go. If the consensus hasn't decided yet, then the one uploaded earlier must be kept by default, i.e. the Spanish artwork. In other words, if no votes were made, then the Dutch artwork must go. (BTW, I was planning to replace them both with the more successfully charted release, but I could not find a more suitable artwork because the successful releases were digital, while the physical releases were very limited at best. Also, the Cohen/Buckley duet release doesn't qualify as Cohen's solo recording was more successful in charts, especially at the time of Cohen's death in 2016.) George Ho (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A second cover fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since there is no critical commentary about the second cover. The Australian/Dutch cover should be deleted since it performed better in Spain than in Australia and/or the Netherlands and the Spanish cover has been here for ten years. Aspects (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the song charted in Netherlands better in 2009. Meanwhile, it's nowhere found in 2000s and 2010s Spanish charts ([1][2]). Probably it charted in 1980s, but I couldn't find the 1980s charts. George Ho (talk) 00:04, 22 July 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.

July 17

File:Sick men's ward and torture instruments in the Marshalsea.JPG

File:BeatlesXmas63.jpg

File:Pioneer Principal - School of Arts and Science, Uyo.jpg

File:School of Arts and Science, Uyo Logo.jpg

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)