Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

File:Edith Klemperer with her light-up model of the brain, 1931.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 ⚡ 06:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed public domain because "Popular Science magazine has put all its back issues in the public domain"; I don't think this is true. (They have made them publicly available but not released any copyright restrictions.) It's possible that this image is public domain because copyright was not renewed, but a comprehensive search of the renewals database would be needed to establish this. Wikiacc (¶) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (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:Ins Cluster GT.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 ⚡ 13:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused, blurry/washed out, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned with no probable use. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Keeling.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 ⚡ 13:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bogus PD-old claim, was apparently published in 1955. Also unused and missing verifiable source information FASTILY 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently not PD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Eristavis Palace in Akhalgori. 1912-1913.tif

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 ⚡ 06:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo from a museum archive in Georgia (country), claimed public domain. Photo was apparently taken 1912-13, but the date of first publication is a mystery (if first publication was in 1926 or after, or if never published and the author is unknown, it could still be copyrighted in the US). Being claimed public domain under a provision of Georgian law that does not actually provide full public domain rights (it limits commercial reuse). Wikiacc (¶) 06:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since orphaned and Georgia law does not allow commerical reuse (NC license are not allowed). Indeed questionable license. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Knight in the Panther's Skin Theatrical Poster.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of a ~~movie~~ theatrical poster from Georgia (country), claimed public domain. The date is unclear (can anyone tell what it is?); if it's sufficiently old there's probably a case for public domain, but at present it's hard to tell. Currently being claimed public domain under a provision of Georgian law that does not actually provide full public domain rights (it limits commercial reuse). Wikiacc (¶) 06:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC), edited 05:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is actually a theatrical production, but it is from around 1900. It is certainly from before 1918, as the Russian on the post is from before the spelling reform implemented that year. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to {{PD-US-expired}} (as nominator) given the evidence presented by Kaiser matias. This is probably safe for Commons as well; anonymous works are only protected in Georgia for 70 years past publication (see c:COM:Georgia). But maybe the blurry text as the bottom has the identity of the theatrical poster's author. Wikiacc (¶) 05:28, 8 January 2021 (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 Arsenishvili Museum Founder.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 ⚡ 06:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader did not create the original photo. No information provided to determine whether the original photo is still copyrighted. Wikiacc (¶) 06:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned image with questionable license. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Manuscript of Lado Asatiani.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 ⚡ 06:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscript by Lado Asatiani (d. 1943). Unclear if it was ever published. Copyright expired in Georgia in 2013 (see c:COM:Georgia), so copyright might have been restored in the US by URAA. Wikiacc (¶) 06:30, 7 January 2021 (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:Replica of Zeus.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 ⚡ 06:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a sculpture. Not enough detail provided to establish if the sculpture is still under copyright. Image is unused. Wikiacc (¶) 06:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned image with questionable license. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Bikay1.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: Dubious own-work claim, would fail WP:NFCC#1 & WP:NFC#UUI if converted to non-free -FASTILY 07:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own-work claim. The original upload is watermarked and the uploader was blocked eleven years ago for uploading copyright violations. Ə XPLICIT 11:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as fair use for subject's biography. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is alive and converting this to a non-free file would violate WP:NFCC#1. Ə XPLICIT 11:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 does not prohibit use of Fair Use images in BLPs - I can't seem to find a non-free equivalent, so WP:NFCC#1 does not apply. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFC: Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. Ə XPLICIT 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well this seems to be the exception to the rule since not only are there no results for CC images for this person: [1], but also it does not seem that this person is very active any more as a celebrity (she's 31 and now college educated). Search her up [2]. I don't think an upload could be expected in this instance. I stand by my choice. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim of being b public domain is dubious. Conversion to non-free usage would contravene point 1 of non free content criteria as a living person.

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.