Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18

File:Dr. Li Linsi.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, unclear copyright status. -FASTILY 04:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader did not understand the warning after 4 of his previous upload had deleted. For this one, the editor claimed it qualify for public domain according to China Law. However, as the subject of the photo was an old man who died in 1970, it had to be prove the photo was taken before 1967 and/or published on or before 1967 Matthew_hk t c 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it did not qualify the criteria in Template:PD-China. Matthew_hk t c 08:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

This image was taken in the late 1930s in China. It is now in the public domain in China because its term of copyright has expired there. According to copyright laws of the People's Republic of China (with legal jurisdiction in the mainland only, excluding Hong Kong and Macao) and the Republic of China (currently with jurisdiction in Taiwan, the Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, etc.), all photographs enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published, or if unpublished 50 years from creation, and all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator.

This file is also in the public domain in the U.S. because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you guess it was taken in 1930s? Matthew_hk t c 12:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken in the 1930s, which is not a guess, but specific answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

according your own judgement is not a reliable source. Matthew_hk t c 12:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person was born in 1896. And the photo was taken in the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person was born in 1896. And the photo was taken in the 1930s. Check the source here: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%8E%89%E9%BA%9F%E4%BC%BC/17955404?fr=aladdin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just repeat your bombardment. baidu-baike is a wikipedia-like project of baidu, which is NOT a WP:reliable source. Since the photo with white hair which most of the time appeared on the old age Chinese only (young people did not grow white hair, and no such gold hair in Asian), you own judgement of 1930s is not reliable. Matthew_hk t c 13:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person was born in 1896. And the photo was taken in the 1930s. Definitely before 1967. Check the sources here, which are the most authoritative sources, People's Daily and Sina: http://book.sina.com.cn/excerpt/rwws/2017-02-20/1722/doc-ifyarrcc8218665.shtml http://sd.people.com.cn/n2/2017/0103/c368172-29544492.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable source regarding the photographer and when it was taken. All your source was just confirm the photo was pirated everywhere without any credit. Matthew_hk t c 13:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was obviously taken before 1967, and has been in the public domain for quite a long time. The author is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 14:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the photographer is unknown, it is obvious that the photo has been in the public domain for quite a long time. So many reliable sources: http://history.huanqiu.com/people/2016-08/9294256.html http://sd.people.com.cn/n2/2017/0103/c368172-29544492.html http://war.163.com/16/0811/11/BU6E3TLR00014U9B.html https://news.jnu.edu.cn/mtjd/dt/2016/07/14/23360238421.html http://book.sina.com.cn/excerpt/rwws/2017-02-20/1722/doc-ifyarrcc8218665.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 November 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:Chitradurga1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CC-by-sa template was added by an unrelated editor in 2006, but the original uploader included nothing about any license, just saying "for use on Wikipedia". Without evidence of the license, this should be deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete the uploader ~~was an alternative account of @Prasannare:,~~ at that time did not have unified login. Prasannare last edited in his mother wiki in 2016, may be leave a message to him in en and kn-wiki? Matthew_hk t c 14:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seem it was taken from kn to en by another (unrelated) account. The original file was located here kn:ಚಿತ್ರ:Chitradurga1.jpg, and the original uploader seem did not filled the copyright parameter properly, so may be delete it. Matthew_hk t c 14:57, 18 November 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:Kundali 2017.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: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 00:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim that the file is self made. No evidence that the uploader is associated with the producer of this program and the claimed source url does not exist. Different versions of this promotional image and parts of it are available online.[1][2][3][4]. Should probably be converted to fair-use. AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly mislicensed. Licensing changed to non-free title card and a fair use has been added. Discussion should be good to close now. Salavat (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still an issue with the image source url being invalid. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, missed that part. Have changed the source to gopress.in .Salavat (talk) 11:03, 20 November 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:Yigal Gliksman (2005).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 19 November 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.