Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23

File:Thomas A. Zlaket.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license; C-SPAN is not PD-USGov. — Train2104 (t • c) 04:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it I agree. Is it possible to change the license to fair use? ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that has been done, but the image now fails WP:NFCC#1, because the subject is still living. -FASTILY 03:57, 3 March 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:Amman in 1930.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, possible copyvio (see watermark in bottom left corner) FASTILY 08:12, 23 February 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:Astana Ministerium nach Brand.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 05:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused locally, Wikipedia is not a file webhost FASTILY 08:31, 23 February 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:Fashion-net-mainpage-squircles-2016.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission for dual (or any) licence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of permission to release under any license. The page from which it was taken is clearly labelled "Copyright © 1995–2017 Fashion Net Inc". Furthermore, there is no evidence of the uploader being the author of the work(s) displayed. There are multiple images in that screen shot by multiple photographers. It also violates the criteria for non-free fair use of the images, both in terms of its size and in the lack of critical commentary on the image itself. At most, the lettering of the top logo only could be used in the infobox, i.e.

FASHION NET

THE WORLD'S HUB FOR FASHION SINCE 1995

Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 24 February 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:Professor Amanda Fisher in 2016.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader asserts they are the copyright holder but the EXIF states "Copyright owned by Layton Thomposon." OTRS confirmation would be needed Whpq (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has swapped image - metadata now correctly assigns license/copyright

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:White-rock larkspur.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Public Domain Mark with no other evidence of public domain, see c:Template:Flickr-public_domain_mark — Train2104 (t • c) 14:45, 23 February 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:Screenshot from p.332 of MIT SP303 SoMA filing.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. Missing evidence of permission. The submitter owns the copyright, and it's not clear if they have waived that right upon submission to the local government -FASTILY 04:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local government files are not necessarily public domain, especially not something submitted by a citizen for review. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could be a bit more clear. I don't know what you mean by "something submitted by a citizen for review," and I'm not sure those words apply here (it as submitted by a large educational institution to a local government for review). Your use of the word "especially" confuses me too: you're suggesting the public domain status of a government document might change depending on who the submitter is, and whether they are a citizen (as opposed to a non-citizen)? ^{[citation needed]}. I'm still under the impression that such submissions are in the public domain in Massachusetts, although I don't have a rigorous citation for you. In any event, it's hard to be too concerned, because it's clearly fair use to snip an image from a large public (whether public domain or not, clearly it is public) document for purposes of discussion on a talk page. jhawkinson (talk) 14:56, 23 February 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:Javad Bahonar.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Iran with no date stated — Train2104 (t • c) 15:10, 23 February 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:University as Family, sculpted by Oliver LaGrone 1975.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid PD tag — Train2104 (t • c) 15:11, 23 February 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:Marla Malcolm Beck.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 ⚡ 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own work claim. Picture looks professional. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:17, 23 February 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.