Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

File:Tuanzebe cropped.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 ⚡ 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claim for being copyright holder is unlikely. See File:McTominay cropped.jpg where the same claim was made but the image was cropped from a copyrighted video. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it unacceptable? I'm sorry I dont know a lot about copyright, if it's unsuitable please delete it - Hoanganhminh01

@Hoanganhminh01: Copying or cropping somebody else's image or video does not transfer the copyright to you. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then what can I add to those pages, I just want to help by adding pictures of players who dont have a picture yet. - Hoanganhminh01

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:MPRCFrontEntrance.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: Pretty clear case of missing verifiable source. When/If the source is produced, then the file may be restored -FASTILY 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source information is insufficiently detailed to verify the copyright claim. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken by the National Archives (U.S. government agency) and shows the front of one of their buildings. Sent to me by that very same agency from one of their employees who was on the staff in 2012 when the building opened. Should be pretty clear cut, but I'll put further details. -O.R.^Comms 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be proved. There are millions of photos in the National Archives and it is unrealistic to assume that anyone wishing to use this image should have to search through all of those photos to check if this image is one of those and if it is listed as taken by a government employee. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the same employee who e-mailed it to me can also e-mail the permissions e-mail. I also added the address and phone number of the building if it can be verified that way. If its a big deal, I can ask the archives to contact Wikipedia. Maybe see what others think? -O.R.^Comms 17:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find some information in a book, would you list the source as The Library of Congress with no additional details? If not, then what is the difference from what you have specified here? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 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.