Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30

File:Moses Baca mug shot.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: relisted on 2018 September 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moses Baca mug shot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:DOEACC Logo.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: relisted on 2018 September 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).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: relisted on 2018 September 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.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: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 00:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph apparently taken of a photograph in a museum, with no attribution or context for the original photo. Can't reliably flag it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it may have been a previously private photo donated to the museum. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The file is a picture taken of a plaque in position out of doors in the Tide Mills complex, It is Fair Use because it is used for educational or discussion purposes in that a point made in it is discussed either in articles using the picture, or in the description of the picture when uploaded, or in both. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtrent: There seem to be two copyrights which need to be resolved here: (1) the copyright of the underlying work, and (2) the copyright of the photo of the underlying work. The latter is easily dealt with by the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but it's the former which may prove to be more of a problem to resolve. Can you provide any more information about the underlying work? For example, who created it and when they created it, etc. Did you scan it from a book or was it part of some exhibition you attended? Any clarification you can provide will help in assessing its copyright status. Its possible that it's old enough ago to be within the public domain, but this just cannot be automatically assumed.
  If the underlying work's copyright status, however, cannot be verified, then the file most likely needs to be deleted. Relevant Wikipedia policy related to non-free content has been set up to be much more restrictive than the practice of fair use/fair dealing per WP:NFC#Background and files cannot simply be kept by claiiming WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It's unlikely that the underlying work would meet WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8 even if a non-free copyright license were added for it; so, the best chance for keeping it is to figure out whether its old enough, etc. to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (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) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs details of original publication to meet NFCC (esp. #4 since "on display" is not publication). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a public display board, mounted in the open air on the Tide Mills site. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 20 August 2018 (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) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retag as fair use WP:NFCC#4 is not a valid reason for deletion. The point of WP:NFCC#4 is someone cannot contribute a photo here for "fair use" and decline to publish it under a free license. We would insist that, if we're going to be the original publisher of a contributed photo that it be under a free license. WP:NFCC#4 does not require and has never required print or web distribution of the work. For example, we have plenty of photos of copyrighted statues on Wikipedia used under a claim of fair use and those statues were no more nor less published than this plaque. Though it is distinctly likely that the underlying photo is public domain, it can't be proven and unfortunately freedom of panorama in the UK does not apply to displays of this kind. --B (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my comment as NFCC#4 identifies either publication or public display as prerequisites. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we might have a case for relicensing here, but this file will need a WP:NFCC#8 rationale if so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded this file under less stringent (presumably) criteria on Wikipedia in 2006. I am not active here and have not been for some years now, and I have forgotten much of what I knew. A Fair Use rationale for the file is that there appear to be no other references which show that the village, now gone, of Tide Mills had a wind mill as well as a tide mill. I believe such a juxtaposition of mills is at least unusual, perhaps unique. Thus the picture acts as a reference for this twin milled status, and increases the reader's understanding of the site. I am sure one of you is competent to re-tag the picture and to add the rationale, and hope someone will take this task on. There is a danger that, when the display board falls into disrepair, the information it contains will be lost, and that Wikipedia will be the sole repository. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have made an attempt at a correct Fair Use Rationale, highlighting my comment above. Wiser editors than I may wish to rephrase some or all of it or to correct any area where I am in error. I believe that all the work is now in place, or at least in hand, to allow the file to be preserved. Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 31 August 2018 (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:SG 39 Cipher Device.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: relisted on 2018 September 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Sláinte.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 ⚡ 02:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no likely encyclopedic use. And bonus points for the humorous claim of copyright ownership: "I created this work entirely by myself, with my toe and a pulley device." B (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is factual. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Let me understand. So you asked your girlfriend to come out to dinner at a restaurant. You then packed a bag containing a tripod, pulley, and rope. She said "what is this for?" You replied "why, so we can take our picture, of course." She asked, "why can't we just hand the camera to the server and ask him or her to take it?" You replied, "because then, two months later, when I want to upload the photo to Wikipedia, I won't be able to because the server will own the copyright." She then said, "well couldn't we use a selfie stick?" You said, "no - this is 2008 - selfie sticks won't be invented until 2014 - and besides, using a selfie stick in a restaurant is gauche." She replied, "but rigging up a pulley system, taking off your shoe, and taking a photo with your foot isn't?" You smiled at her and said, "I'm glad you understand." --B (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2018 (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.