Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27

File:F Morgan Taylor.jpg

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 per Ramaksoud2000 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Published > 1923, possibly non-free FASTILY 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-tag. See file description where there's an assertion of {{PD-US-no notice}}. Deryck C. 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan, we have no indication of when the photo was published regardless of when it was taken (per the license)... czar 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. The uploader said in the file description page, digitally enhanced detail of 1924 picture in private collection; picture was widely distributed, uncredited, no copyright cited. Unless we assume bad faith, I can't see any reasonable doubt that pd-us-no notice applies. Deryck C. 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan, what I get from that is (1) the photo was taken in 1924, (2) it was circulated, (3) no information about publication or the source for the scan. czar 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See commons:Commons:Publication#United_States. Wide circulation constituted publication. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:22, 24 December 2016 (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.

File:Hawks-Moody 1 - Copy.jpg

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. Public domain in the UK, but not the US. Since we don't have an author and this wasn't published until very recently, we'll need to wait out the copyright term of {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which is 120 years. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photo, dubious copyright ownership claim FASTILY 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows Hawks-Moody in uniform so it was almost certainly taken before 1922 per article content. Keep and tag as {{pd-1923-abroad}} + {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Deryck C. 13:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan, we have no indication of when the photo was published regardless of when it was taken (per the license)... czar 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-UK-unknown}} still applies because we can assert the picture was taken before 1946 (1922 or before in this case). Deryck C. 20:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was 'published'/put in the public domain for the first time when I uploaded it to Wikipedia after scanning it. Prior to this it had only existed as a physical copy in my personal collection. It is likely that it was taken in 1919. I hope that this helps. I am unsure how to add the 'personal' variant of the Creative Commons license which I have heard discussed elsewhere - I would be grateful if you would tell me how to do this. Hamlet94 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (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.

File:Mohammad Fazlul Azim.jpg

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: Uploader should be asked. We have no information on the sourcing. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the user name I'm willing to assume good faith, but a fuller clarification about the sourcing would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 27 August 2016 (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.

File:CNV00036.JPG

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: move to commons. Other images uploaded by this editor which aren't on the internet elsewhere were taken from the same camera, according to EXIF data, so we almost certainly "came first". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Clearer photos available at Commons:Category:Penshaw Monument. Kelly ^hi! 10:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Low resolution, but not bad quality. Reh man 09:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: http://www.seligman.org.il/sunderland_history.html has the same image, not sure which one came first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons Image falls within Commons's scope and is not poor quality. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:04, 27 August 2016 (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.

File:Twenty One Pilots cover.jpg

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labeled as own work, image is an album cover. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if related article is deleted, else keep and fix license. Reh man 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD not yet closed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 27 August 2016 (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.

File:Codevalley-logo.png

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: Convert to PD-textlogo Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the claimed permission on the site, though I may just be missing it. However, it's possible that the license can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Kelly ^hi! 08:25, 27 August 2016 (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.

File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG

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 czar 09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs better source, or someone to trace on dewikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

de:Datei:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG is the German file and tagged with a template similar to PD-100, with a caution note though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a message to radikalkritik.de. Hopefully their reply will clarify things, but regardless of response the image will qualify for {{pd-1923-abroad}}. --Deryck C. 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Dr. Hermann Detering of radikalkritik.de, translated by myself:

The photo comes from the State Archive of Bremen.
The photograph[er] is not given. The photo is copied from page 20 of Johannes Abresch, Enfant terrible im Talar. Albert Kalthoff (1850-1906), in: Geschichte im Wuppertal 5 (1996), S. 18-51. (= Enfant terrible)
A SW Version of the photo can be found on my website: http://radikalkritik.de/geschichte/ueber-albert-kalthoff#literatur

--I think it's safe to use {{pd-1923-abroad}} + {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Deryck C. 12:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on Deryck Chan's email correspondence on this one, the earliest publication date we're aware of is 1996. Note that the earlier date range is the subject's lifespan, not the actual publication date of anything. Unless we can find evidence this was published earlier, we can't assume it was published before 1923. These sorts of pictures are regularly kept by the family without publication, resurfacing years later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's "Enfant terrible im Talar", for those interested. Also Rob's right on the first publication, unless someone has new information on its creation/publication. czar 08:58, 4 January 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.

File:SplixIo patterns.png

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File appears to be computer-generated artwork based on parameters supplied by a human. The file is still licensed as Non-free screenshot of a copyrighted web page, and I'm not sure if that is correct. If the image is non-free, it should have the rationale completed. If not, it should be licensed properly. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC) |[reply]

Further comment The article the image was used in was A7'd due to promotional, bad sources. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (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.