Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5[edit]

File:Sheab pp.tiff[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of non-notable subject. Article was deleted at AFD. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2016 (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:An He - Reflections of Summer.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of possibly copyrighted 2D works Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Photos of 2D works are often considered acceptable if the original work is no longer under copyright protection as explained in c:COM:ART. Moreover, if the painting is in the public domain or has been feely licensed, a simple mechanical reproduction of it (i.e., a photograph of it) is not eliglble for copyright protetion as well. So, the copyright sttus of the painting needs to be determined. From this and this, it looks like the photo was painted by someone named An He, so that means it's unlikely the uploader's "own work". From this appears that He was born in 1957, which means the painting is not old enough for {{PD-Art}}. It's not clear, however, it has been released under a free license or qualifies as public domain per c:COM:PD-Art#Works first published outside the United States that were in the public domain on the URAA date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2016 (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:Charle's House-gantner -0325-48x36.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of possibly copyrighted 2D works Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks from this webpage that the painter is Paul Guy Ganter. Again, this is almost surely not "own work", but might have been released under a free license which would make it OK to upload a photo of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2016 (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:PRE-EJACULATE.jpg PRE-CUM.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dooscoop32 Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (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:Adriana Díaz.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from ITTF are likely not under a free license as claimed. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from ITTF. Kelly ^hi! 09:02, 5 December 2016 (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:Windows CE.png[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent at Commons was retained after a DR. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a CSD#F8 to me. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows CE.png and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg say deleted and keep respectively. @MBisanz and Magog the Ogre:, which would be the most appropriate outcome here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My close was in error, so you should use Magog's. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 13 December 2016 (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:Geep and the scary shadows.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned with no clear use for file on project. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book illustration example, Move to Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a licensing issue, no proof of permission Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (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:Lola Baldwin Portland Police Bureau.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: no info on first publication czar 03:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright statement in metadata is not necessarily compatible with Creative Commons license given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like this falls under PD-Art regardless. That said, when was the underlying photo published?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo itself was printed/created in 1890 but there isn't a clear date of publication. The photo seems to have originated at the online Oregon encyclopedia, run by Portland State University and the Oregon Historical Society. Perhaps they might have more information - their contact form is at: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/contact/ . Shearonink (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2016 (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.