Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2

File:Senator Willard R (Bill) Hansen.jpeg

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 ⚡ 12:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Iowa maintains copyrights. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:08, 2 November 2019 (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:David Goodhart at UCL, November 2015 en-wiki.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: no consensus. There is disagreement here whether the circumstantial evidence provided at Commons justifies deletion by enwiki standards. Perhaps clearer evidence of copyvio will arise in the future, but for now we don't have a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a crop from an image that was deleted at commons after discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthisvalerie, as he uploaded many COPYVIOS. The commons copy of the file has already been deleted and I expect the same for Wikipedia version. More discussion at c:User_talk:BevinKacon#David_Goodhart_at_UCL and File_talk:David_Goodhart_at_UCL,_November_2015_en-wiki.jpg DBig Xrayᗙ 07:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no evidence -- let alone proof -- presented at Commons for the file being a copyvio. The entirety of the discussion was that the editor had uploaded copyvios in the past, which, of course, is not in any way dispositive of the provenance of the present image. If the file is a copyright violation, please present the evidence that shows this to be the case, instead of simply assuming it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I think it would make your case stronger if you had the original file (cropped and/or uncropped) successfully undeleted at Commons first. Also, not all files were deleted in the original deletion discussion, so it wasn't a flatout mass-deletion based on the incredibility of the original uploader. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of swimming upstream at Commons. As Commons policy differs from en.wiki's, there should be no relationship between actions taken there and the proposed action here. It remains the case that no one has presented a scintilla of evidence to show that the image is non-free. On the other hand, a Tineye search shows no evidence of the image being online, which is prima facie evidence of it being as advertised, a free image created by the original uploader. I would have absolutely no objection to the image being deleted if anyone were able to show that it is non-free. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence presented at the Commons that this specific image is a copyright violation. What is the enwp-reason to call for this file's deletion? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:31, 7 November 2019 (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.