Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8[edit]

File:Hafizuddin Ahmed - Bir Bikrom.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion as failing WP:NFCC#1 by @Whpq with the reason "living person" FASTILY 08:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FREER unless the file can be converted to a free license and subsequently verified per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, which seems like a possibility based upon the discussion at File talk:Hafizuddin Ahmed - Bir Bikrom.jpg. A non-free image of this person which pretty much never be allowed (not even per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but a freely licensed image is not a problem. This FFD, however, shouldn't remain opened indefinitely until the uploader is able to sort out the licensing. Even relicensing the file and tagging it with {{OTRS pending}} still implies that OTRS verification needs to be made. So, if this is going to take more than a week to sort out, then perhaps the best thing to do is to delete the file and then re-upload a better version to Commons once everything has been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from user The article series have originally published by The Daily Prothom Alo in 2012 about all the freedom fighters from Bangladesh. After some year this ticket have been released to prevent the the copyright restriction for this series only. I don't know anyone to contact and get the exact information, But the ORTS agents seems to be so busy, Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#ticket_information. I just need a bit help here. To any admin, If the need to be changed please do so, or let me know if I did wrong. Thanks. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 04:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS agent note: ticket:2018101610008188 only covers text and explictly excludes images. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:56, 11 September 2020 (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:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.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 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.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:MaryJaneHeaston.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source says "given the subject's age it should be public domain" while the PD template says "first published prior to January 1, 1925". It's not stated when or where it was first published, and I can't see that Wikipedia has an equivalent of Commons's PD-old-assumed (where "the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago, and it is thus a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired"). Lord Belbury (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2020 (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.