Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

December 16

File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.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 in book article, remove from other articles as lacking contextual significance czar 07:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly questionable whether the file meets WP:NFCC#8 ~~even with its use in The Myth of the Eastern Front, let alone~~ on HIAG or Waffen-SS in popular culture. There is no reason I can see that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, or that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. There is no discussion of the book cover in the articles in question, and as it depicts a fairly nondescript soldier, it isn't clear what it conveys in any case. In addition to this, I am concerned that its use is a vehicle for promoting the book on WP, as the uploader uses the book extensively as a source on several articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the file description and usage rationale fulfils all the requirements. Based on the focus of his work on Wikipedia, to suggest that K.e.coffman has a COI is an extremely misplaced assumption - one which I may be investigating further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no claim of COI, but go right ahead and fill your boots. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the caption on the book article usage has been improved, and I therefore drop my suggestion of deletion from the book article. However, the usage on the HIAG article is extremely tenuous, as the man depicted isn't a Waffen-SS man, which is obvious from his insignia. Claiming that Waffen-SS units served in the Third Battle of Kharkov is completely irrelevant to the image. The same thing applies to the usage in the Waffen-SS in popular culture article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the book article but remove from two other articles. The image is essential for the book; it's also of the 1st edition. However, the other articles do not mention the cover art. George Ho (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all (as file uploader). The image's use at HIAG was discussed during GAN, and that was one of the images that was retained on recommendation from Diannaa. When Waffen-SS in popular culture was spun off from HIAG, I included the image on the same rationale. I also suggest that the nom strikes their non-AGF comment re: "a vehicle for promoting the book on WP". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed what relevance has the image has for the two articles on the Waffen-SS. It is clearly not an image of a Waffen-SS soldier. Your editing history shows you are obviously quite enamoured of Smelser and Davies, it has nothing to do with assuming good faith. Why not choose an image of an Avalon Hill wargame? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the captions to make them more relevant to the non-book articles: sample diff. Re being "obviously quite enamoured of Smelser and Davies", I could equally point out to the nom's use of titles from J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, which is critiqued in the book in question; see for example: Talk:Artur Phleps#Roland Kaltenegger and Otto Kumm. Does such use mean that the nom is "enarmoured" with Otto Kumm? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous assertion. I haven't created an article on Kumm like you have on Ronald Smelser, I haven't written an article on Kumm's book like you have on the one Smelser co-wrote, and I haven't used Kumm extensively on a significant number of articles like you have with Smelser and Davies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an assertion, but a question, obviously asked tongue-in-cheek. My point is that language of communications with fellow editors matters, and the noms continued allegations of me promoting the book matter as well: "Your relationship to Smelser et al begs the question, given your promotion of them throughout WP" (Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing). I suggest that the nom also examines my "relationship" with other historians, such as David T. Zabecki, Christian Hartmann, Jonathan House, etc, since these are the article that I created. Am I enarmoured with these authors too? Or perhaps I'm just interested in historiography of WWII and my editing reflects that? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen stay on point. I can see the image being used in the article of the book and would have added Keep as to that point but it appears the discussion as to using it for that article is now moot. I do recall from past experience that when a non-free image is used that generally it is not allowed for multiple articles. But certainly I would defer to @Diannaa: on this. Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to use a non-free image in multiple articles as long as there's a valid and adequate rationale for each usage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, there is no valid rationale for this image for the other two articles, as it has nothing to do with either subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the above opinion is in the minority. I would consider Diannaa to be one of the foremost wiki-experts on fair-use images. She participated in the GAN where the image was discussed and commented here. Diannaa did not raise any concerns, after reading the nom's comments I assume. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 15 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:Aarbind Jena Signature.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 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity's signature, unclear if @Teamarbind is authorized to release the signature under a CC license. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 01:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dubious claim & no value to the project (except for memorabilia collectors?). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 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:Aarbind Jena.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 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional/Press photo of a notable individual. Dubious self-work claim FASTILY 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dubious claim of own work. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 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:Aarbind01.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 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBHOST; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 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:Aarbind02.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 07:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBHOST; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 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:Navid Faridi Football player.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put an F9 tag on this file, but it was declined. It is copied from somewhere. At least the top half of the image was previously published here: https://ir.linkedin.com/in/navid-faridi-7aaa84106 No evidence that the uploader owns the copyright. Was deleted on Commons at commons:File:Navid_Faridi_Football_player.png. User:Nyttend said that anything from Iran is PD in the U.S., which is true, but according to this, we must respect copyright from nations that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:32, 16 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:Charlie Zeleny.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: tagged as in OTRS queue czar 07:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation, need proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Flickr account which were the source of the photos in question have had the the permissions updated and the description is as follows for each: Photo paid, commissioned for and licensed to Charlie Zeleny and allowed to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. This is for the photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Birthday_Concert_2011.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Behind_Kit_Studio.jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Drumset_2011.jpg. Here are the links to the Flickr photos in question: https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643773927/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643741211/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643775187/ & https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643776833/ DrumDocZ (talk) 23:32, 22 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:Charlie Zeleny Sideshot Live.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 17 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:Charlie Z Sidehawk Over Manhattan.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 17 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:Charlie Zeleny Latin Band.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 17 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:Charlie Zeleny Birthday Concert 2011.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. Person attempting to release under a free license is in the picture, so clearly not the photographer. Pending OTRS permission. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The metadata for this photo shows "Copyright 2011 Bryan Pace - All Rights Reserved". The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Flickr account which were the source of the photos in question have had the the permissions updated and the description is as follows for each: Photo paid, commissioned for and licensed to Charlie Zeleny and allowed to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. This is for the photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Birthday_Concert_2011.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Behind_Kit_Studio.jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Drumset_2011.jpg. Here are the links to the Flickr photos in question: https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643773927/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643741211/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643775187/ & https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643776833/ DrumDocZ (talk) 23:33, 22 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:Charlie Zeleny Drumset 2011.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. Now appropriately licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 in the Flickr description ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [6]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Flickr account which were the source of the photos in question have had the the permissions updated and the description is as follows for each: Photo paid, commissioned for and licensed to Charlie Zeleny and allowed to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. This is for the photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Birthday_Concert_2011.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Behind_Kit_Studio.jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Drumset_2011.jpg. Here are the links to the Flickr photos in question: https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643773927/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643741211/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643775187/ & https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643776833/ DrumDocZ (talk) 23:33, 22 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:Charlie Zeleny Studio Front Full Drumkit.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [7]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 17 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:Charlie Zeleny Behind Kit Studio.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 as above. Uploader is in photo, so not photographer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Flickr account which were the source of the photos in question have had the the permissions updated and the description is as follows for each: Photo paid, commissioned for and licensed to Charlie Zeleny and allowed to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. This is for the photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Birthday_Concert_2011.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Behind_Kit_Studio.jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Zeleny_Drumset_2011.jpg. Here are the links to the Flickr photos in question: https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643773927/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643741211/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643775187/ & https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliezeleny/6643776833/ DrumDocZ (talk) 23:34, 22 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:Charlie Z Terry Bozzio Duet Drum Channel.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [9]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 17 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:Charlie Zeleny Jordan Rudess Store Signing.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 17 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:Charlie Zeleny Live Sidehawk.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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement, no apparent proof of permission from copyright owner Bythebooklibrary (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the uploader User:DrumDocZ is the claimed owner of the copyright, Charlie Zeleny (who is also subject of the image and therefore obviously not the photographer), that Zeleny actually owns the copyright, or, if DrumDocZ is not Zeleny, that he has Zeleny's permission to release the photo under CC-BY-SA. The image is also on Zeleny's official photostream at Flickr and marked "© All rights reserved". See [11]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also added {{Di-no permission}} to the file page. File will be deleted on 24 December 2016 if evidence of permission is not filed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 17 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:Statue of Wendell Phillips in the Boston Public Garden.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of Wendell Phillips in the Boston Public Garden.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statute published before 1923 according to deletion request at Commons, so statute is in the public domain. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:02, 17 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.

Introspective

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: PD-ineligible-USonly czar 07:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rainbow color bars of Introspective may not be original enough for copyright in the US. However, having the bar banner saying "Introspective/Pet Shop Boys" (in CAPS actually) would make the cover itself potentially copyrightable. Similar to this, the Car Credit City logo may not be copyrightable, but its derivative logo is by containing the banner of the company's name. When I asked one of admins how original a logo must be for copyright, an admin said that having the name inside an eighth-note logo is original enough. Probably the album cover may be original enough for copyright in the US. George Ho (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear to fall below the threshold of originality and should be licensed under "PD-simple" or "PD-ineligible-USonly" due to the band being English. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the images different from the Car Credit City logo situation, Salavat? Actually, the album cover was in Commons until deleted for UK's very low originality standards. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as PD-simple. George Ho, the copyright office actually considered both versions copyrightable in the Car Credit City situation. Read the final decision. They basically say they aren't registering the first one because it's a key component of the second one, which they registered. They were finding that those curved shapes were potentially sufficient for copyright, but their rules won't allow them to register two works which are substantively similar. In this case, there are no such curved symbols to pollute things. The name itself is just text, which isn't copyrightable, and so can't really affect things here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as PD-ineligible-USonly please. George Ho (talk) 06:46, 15 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:Kepler triangle squaring the circle.gif

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 ⚡ 00:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Available on Commons as c:File:Kepler triangle squaring the circle.svg. XXN, 10:07, 16 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:The Dawn of Liberty monument Jeltoqsan86 2.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is tagged as free to use. However, per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union, the sculpture is subject to copyright as Kazakhstan lacks freedom of panorama. Also, even when tagged as non-free, the image either should pass or might fail NFCC. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 16 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.