Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 27

< May 26	May 28 >

May 27[edit]

File:Sonic the Hedgehog 2.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an image having the same encyclopaedic value (Both show Aquatic Ruin. Both show Tails.) at File:Aquatic Ruins from Sonic 2 for Mega Drive.png. Why do we need 2 non-free images of the same thing? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two separate fair use images for two separate articles. The one used in Tails (character) is ostensibly a better depiction of the character in the level than the screenshot used to illustrate the game. That said, the character article lacks WP:NFCC#8 textual significance to necessitate a screenshot as illustration. Anyone who needs to see how the game works can read the game article and there is otherwise no discussion of depiction/gameplay relevant to the character article. czar 18:36, 27 May 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:HGParkway Western End.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. Well, if confirming copyright is no longer possible, deletion will have to occur Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tagged OTRS pending for a year. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 10:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to contact the original owners now, as completion of the project resulted in the shuttering of their Flickr account. All I have is the conversation I had with them on my flickr account. Why showing this isn't sufficient, is beyond me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket appears to be invalid because OTRS does not accept forwarded correspondences. The copyright holder needs to contact OTRS directly and confirm the permission in order for the ticket to be accepted. -FASTILY 22:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't... the account is inactive, I tried at the time. I'd willingly provide my login credentials to OTRS to verify the messages and their origin. Short of that there is no way to recontact the copyright holder, as the project finished a couple of years ago. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 4 January 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) 10:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Floydian, do you have confirmation, forwarded or otherwise, that the copyright holder affirmatively agreed to the stated cc-by-sa-2.0 license? If not (or no response), we will have to delete. There should be other ways of contacting the office responsible if old accounts/addresses are now dead, and if the office is hesitant to release under a CC license then we have our answer to the question at hand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have email communications with the construction consortium that built the highway. I sent this to OTRS on January 10, 2017 but was told I had to get the sender to email them directly, which is no longer possible. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:35, 28 May 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:David Adams (peace activist).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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uploader appears to be subject depicted in photo. If that is the case, then the uploader is probably not the copyright holder. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader asserted ownership. Either he was paying the photographer, or the photographer gave him the rights. The uploader should confirm, and probably should identify the photographer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader needs to go through the backlogged OTRS process to confirm copyright. If it is released to PD, please provide a full-sized photo and move to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone could offer to help since he's a new user, after a brief stint 10 years ago, and the backwaters of Wikipedia and Commons aren't navigable by most people (I barely keep afloat, and know very little about image upload). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Done Help offered. Green Giant (talk) 13:05, 25 January 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) 10:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update I’ve sent an email to the photographer, who had agreed to license the photo, and is sending a license statement to OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Green Giant have you gotten the permission? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: sadly it seems the photographer never got round to sending it. I've sent another follow-up email but in the meantime I won't oppose deletion because we can't hold on indefinitely. Green Giant (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Green Giant, any response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from the photographer on January 29 saying simply: "Dear David and friends, It was a pleasure to serve. I am glad that you liked these photos, David. Adriana. Hence, I have today written to her as follows: "Back around February 1, you agreed that I could use the very nice photo you took of me to post on Wikipedia. Wikipedia just wrote to me saying that they sent you an email at that time requesting permission, but that you never replied, so now they will have to remove the photo if they don't receive your permission. Could you please look back in your emails around that time and see if you find the request; in which case send the reply to them. If you can't find it, may I ask Wikipedia to contact you again?"Adams1peace (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it'll move things along. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the following reply from Danilo Parmegiani:
Hi David,
I remember that Adriana did follow their instructions to confirm the authorization of that photo. She confirmed she is ok to do it again if need be. Is there any phone number that she could call :for additional assistance?
Best,
Danilo Parmegiani
- Adams1peace (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adams1peace:. It's not really necessary for you to post private emails (and email addresses) anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages can be seen pretty much by anyone anywhere in the world, so the person who sent the email might not want it out there for everyone to see. Summarizing what the email says is more than sufficient.

As for what needs to be done here, please have the copyright holder follow c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. There is no phone number to call, so everything will need to be done via email. What you can do is ask the copyright holder to send basically a Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to Wikimedia OTRS for verification purposes. The copyright holder should make sure to include the name of the file in the email. The copyright holder should receive an automated reply from the system which includes an OTRS ticket number which is like a reference number. Tell the copyright holder to keep this number on file because it will make it much easier to make inquiries about the email at a later date if necessary. Once the copyright holder has an OTRS ticket number, you or he/she can then add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the file's page. This will let other editors know that the licensing of the file is currently being verified. After that, you and the copyright holder just have to wait until the email goes through the entire verification process. It might take some time because there tends to be a bit of a backlog, but an OTRS volunteer will eventually get to it. If there are any issues or questions about the email, an OTRS volunteer will most likely contact the copyright holder directly via email. Now, what you can do at the moment is add as much information about the origin, etc. of the photo to the file's page. You can use the template {{Information}} for that. Just complete it a best as you can, and an OTRS volunteer will add whatever is missing or make whatever corrections are needed once they verify the email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer, Adriana Parmegiani, sent in the consent form to Wikipedia permissions today and received an OTRS ticket number. I have entered a line for pending as well as a template:information on the File:David Adams (peace activist).jpg. with all the details. I hope this will eventually settle the matter. Adams1peace (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission received, VRTS ticket # 2018053110009711, file page amended. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:01, 31 May 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.

Tower of the Sun photos[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: Keep one, delete one. Consensus appears to be that the close crop does not meet NFCC#8 and does not offer enough additional information beyond what is in the first image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no freedom of panaorama for artistic works in Japan per c:COM:FOP#Japan, so I can see why a non-free image can be used here for primary identification purposes. There's really no sourced commentary in the article that specifically pertains to either one of these files, so the question is whether two non-free images are needed per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Both files seem acceptable to sufficiently identify the tower, though the "frontal view" image is more recent and better because it's not partially obstructed. Suggest keep for "File:Tower of the Sun - frontal view.jpg" and delete for "File:Tower of the Sun - 太陽の塔.jpg", unless the NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 concerns are satisfatorily addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gigantic sculpture with a museum inside. Not a small thing, not at all. All in three dimensions. Initially I uploaded these two images because you could get a good picture of the thing on the frontal view, where you could see intricate details on another. I would like to suggest to keep both images. Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it is. The problem is that the two images provide basically the same encyclopedic information so it's not clear why both are needed for primary identification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, very broadly speaking basically they are. I've updated the rationale for one of the images. Laitr Keiows (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Laitr Keiows, @Marchjuly is right that we only allow non-free images under very specific circumstances. In this case, the photos are sufficiently similar that one would be sufficient for basic visual identification. There needs to be textual necessity (NFCC#8) for the second, close crop, e.g., describing detail that cannot be adequately imparted by text alone such that it necessitates an image, for instance, sourced commentary about the face on the sculpture. I don't see this in the article now, so giving an opportunity to provide this context. Otherwise, the closer crop will be deleted and the more distant shot will be used for identification purposes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:42, 27 May 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:Walter Runciman.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: relisted on 2018 June 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Runciman.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.

Non-free road signs used in list article[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: relisted on 2018 June 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:British Columbia Highway 113.svg (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:Glenn Dumke.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: relisted on 2018 June 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glenn Dumke.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:Harold Hume portrait c 1940.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: relisted on 2018 June 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Hume portrait c 1940.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:Charles Millican portrait.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: relisted on 2018 June 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Millican portrait.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:Scihub raven.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: keep. The image, which has been previously published outside Wikipedia, is being used to identify the subject, which uses the illustration as its logo, so no outstanding issues with WP:NFCC#4 or 8. As for infringement, we have no evidence of either arrangement or disagreement between SH and KM, and fair use for purposes of topic identification holds, in my understanding, without regard to whether we correctly credit the original author. czar 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally discussed a few months ago, and that discussion was recently reviewed at DRV, where the result was to relist. My listing here is an administrative action only; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This file was also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 4#File:Scihub raven.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to multiple policy violations:

WP:NFC: Violation of legality of previous publication requirement (Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder). There is no evidence the image has been used in this way on the source website; in fact, its use on Sci-Hub in all probability has been a copyvio itself, as is nearly all other content there. The original author is Kate McLelland (www.katemclelland.com) - image description is incorrect.
WP:NFC: Violation of contextual significance requirement (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.)

Additionally, the stated rationale conflicts with WP:FURG: image is not a logo nor does it help to identify the article subject. It is just one of graphic motifs found on Sci-Hub website. It does not appear on the social media pages of Sci-Hub, or indeed on any other Sci-Hub associated materials apart from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While your first point may have merit, the claim that "It does not appear on the social media pages of Sci-Hub, or indeed on any other Sci-Hub associated materials apart from Wikipedia" is clearly complete nonsense. Those are all official social media accounts linked to on the main Sci-Hub website. It is clear that this image is being used as a logo or other similar visual identifier for Sci-Hub, and that is generally considered to be sufficient to meet the contextual significance requirement. Hut 8.5 21:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As was pointed out in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 28#File:Scihub_raven.png by myself and by Hut 8.5, the image (or a cropped version of it) is currently being used by Si-Hub on its Twitter, Facebook and official website, and has been used at least as far back as January 2016 on Twitter and the official website; so, that the claim that it is not being used on any other Sci-Hub associated materials is completely untrue. While the source url provided for the image is dead, there is an archived version of it at https://web.archive.org/web/20160116063451/http://sci-hub.cc/misc/img/raven_1.png which shows the image. The file is licensed as non-free content and Sci-Hub has been using it as its logo/identifier for more than two years, so the claim that it is not being used to identify the subject seems to be more opinion than fact; moreover, while the image also seems to not have originated with Sci-Hub, I don't think that such a thing is really needed to comply with the WP:NFCCP. Wikipedia is not claiming ownership over the file, and the non-free use rationale can be amended accordingly to reflect it's original authorship (including a better source url), when it was originally published (if known) and that it is simply being used by Sci-Hub as its logo. If the file was uploaded under a free license with copyright claimed by Sci-Hub, then I don't think Wikipedia could keep the file; that, however, is not the case here and I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's role to determine whether Sci-hub has made arrangements with the original copyright holder to use image as its logo or whether they are doing so under a claim of fair use. FWIW, I am only stating that it is my opinion that the image's non-free use complies with the NFCCP; if discussion on the article talk page determines that the image should not be used for other reasons, then the image can be removed and left to be deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose that the legitimacy requirement is removed from WP:NFCCP, please discuss it there. For now the policy stands for all media. That said, in my view the community is unlikely to agree to allow any stolen work on Wikipedia simply because the thief has posted it online.

You are right (and I was wrong) as to media profiles, Sci-Hub has been using various parts of this picture as social media profile images.

The "Well Read Raven" image by Kate McLelland can be legitimately used to illustrate her bio or perhaps (discouraged by Wikipedia) an article on modern art, as it will then be necessary to further the understanding of the article subject and will thus not be in violation NFCCP. But its use in other articles would be a copyvio in my understanding unless the copyright holder has granted permission. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are the original copyright holder of the image, then I'm not sure you can say with absolute certainty that the file has been stolen by anyone; moreover, it is my understanding that copyrighted content can be used without the copyright holder's permission in certain cases as fair use. If a better source for the image can be found for WP:NFCC#10a copyright verification purposes, then it seems to me that can be added as the source for the file and rationale update accordingly; however, I'm not sure its Wikipedia role to decide what Sci-hub or any other organization can decide to use as their logo. It seems that if McLelland has a problem with Sci-hub using her work, then she should make efforts to get them to stop using it. If such a thing were to happen, then I think Wikipedia would need to follow suit once they were made aware of the situation. As for being a copyvio, I think that would be the case if the file was being released under a free license, but I don't think the same can be said for non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would require that the image was posted on Sci-Hub under Fair Use, which obviously is not the case. Hence, NFCCP stands. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Kashmiri, where's the citation for Kate McLelland's authorship? Don't see it linked/mentioned. Only contention remaining appears to be WP:NFCC#4 re: whether the copyright holder has previously published this image.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it as part of her Gossip Wolf project czar 18:54, 27 May 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:Emir Sanusi.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: Withdrawn; will tag as fair use. Miniapolis 19:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Own work claimed, but apparently uploaded from Instagram. Uploader has had at least one other copyright problem. Miniapolis 19:05, 27 May 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:Kevin Owens.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. Because of the questionable copyright status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This file was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 16#File:Kevin Owens.jpg, where it was kept. The uploader has claimed to be the copyright owner since the initial upload. Is there proof to the contrary? If not, why exactly is evidence needed? ℯ xplicit 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The file was removed from Kevin Owens (basketball) in Special:Diff/709929427 by an IP who used the edit summary Deleted illegal picture. In which way is the picture illegal? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any more info on the photo's provenance—and it looks like none will be forthcoming—this photo screams "yearbook photo" based on the b/w, dust on lens, setting. We have no info on the date, uncropped image, circumstances of the photo. I'm inclined to delete as dubious assertion of copyright, especially if "image taken by uploader" refers to the scanning of the image and not the original capture. czar 19:17, 27 May 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:Donald Alastair Cameron.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: relisted on 2018 June 3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Alastair Cameron.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.

Files on Iridescent Interpenetration[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 all of them for now; if someone wants to use one image for identification purposes, they can ask on my user talk page or WP:DELREV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP#3a - Picture is used twice on the page, also a simple table with of pictures with no critical commentary is not suitable for a NF image Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly, these uploads are a violation of copyright law. First, the user uploaded over 70 images of Balla works, as they were "created before 1923", when none of these works were published before 1923. The uploader confused "created" and "published" (see this edit summary). Balla's works will be public domain on 1 January 2029. Coldcreation (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Swpb, this is an improper use of non-free images. Do you want to pick one image to represent the article (identify the subject for the infobox)? Otherwise the rest would need textual significance (per NFCC#8) to be included.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:04, 27 May 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.