Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10[edit]

File:Nagasaki Sofukuji.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locally unlinked to articles. Different tint to Commons version Commons:File:NagasakiSofukuji.jpg so not F8. Cube00 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2014 (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:CastilloElNorro.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful picture said to be pre-1923. Link used as a source is not working. Unfortunately, it seems we don't know for sure what this picture shows or where it came from. damiens.rf 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree . This is a picture of Fort San Felipe del Morro and I highly doubt that it's in public domain. Looking at when it was uploaded (2005) this was uploaded at a time when our policies were not as developed as they are today. Looking at the original source, it seems to be from a personal website hosted at Virginia Tech rather than a publication by the university itself. The uploader probably assumed that it was a publication by the university itself and uploaded it in good faith. I can't find a reason to believe that the picture is in public domain and since we already have a free equivalent at File:FortElMorro SanJuan PuertoRico.jpg I can't find a reason for us to keep it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree . Mercy11 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2014 (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:Vientos.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of this image is unknown. The source used is a broken link to a webpage that existed under the webhosting service zonai.com. While a non-free image of this woman could be accepted (since she's no longer alive), we need to know where the picture comes from. This may be a photo from a photo agency, and our use would no be a fair use in this case damiens.rf 19:39, 10 January 2014 (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:Virgilio davila.JPG[edit]

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. The opinions in favour of deleting the image were more persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No real reason to believe this image was published before 1923. damiens.rf 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This file was nominated for deletion on 2009 December 29. The result of the discussion was keep. That discussion is found HERE. c Mercy11 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the previous discussion, it says that "The reason for pd is that he was mayor from 1905 to 1910". However, that is not a valid PD rationale. What we need is evidence that it is a published photo, which we currently don't have. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At Wikipedia we go by Wikipedia copyright policies and US copyright law, not by what some editor may have viewed to be in his opinion the reason for the image to be PD. Mercy11 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And US copyright law talks about publication, of which we have no evidence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mercy11 is right. Wikipedia policy allow the use of this image under NFCC#7. It just need a fair use rationale. Also note that the source is the official website of the government of Puerto Rico. --Jmundo (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2014 (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:TheFabulousWonderTwins and Cindy.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serial copyvio uploader - see user talk page and deleted contribs here and on Commons. Image is of "celebrities", is low resolution, and has no camera EXIF. Quack? Эlcobbola _talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (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:LouisandKids1.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serial copyvio uploader - see user talk page and deleted contribs here and on Commons. Image is of "celebrities", is low resolution, and has no camera EXIF. Quack? Эlcobbola _talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (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.