Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24[edit]

File:Shanghai0182.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. Whpq (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, blurry, better alternatives available at c:Category:Shanghai. ✗plicit 00:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a higher-quality photo of this development (former article at Wan Bang City Garden) is identified. The closest alternative I see is File:Buildings in WCG.jpg, and it shows a different perspective. - Eureka Lott 17:39, 30 October 2022 (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:Richard O'Kelly, Brentford FC assistant coach, 2017.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source page on Flickr indicates a non-free license. Doesn't qualify for fair use as subject is alive. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Flickr started showing license history as of today, and this photograph was under a free license. So copyright is no longer an issue. However, the quality is pretty poor due to the small size. I suggest we keep this until a better alternative could be found. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good news. It's always been an issue before where licensees have changed to an unacceptable license and there is no record of the original irrevocable free license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2022 (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:Antonino Giuffre.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. Whpq (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date can be found for this image; US copyright cannot be assessed and image is not suitable for Commons. This could possibly be converted to non-free content, but I am uncomfortable doing so with so little information. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:53, 24 October 2022 (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:Quarter Horses 1950.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 ⚡ 11:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File description suggests that this might be copyrighted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:07, 24 October 2022 (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:NWSS09.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 ⚡ 11:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File description suggests that this might be copyrighted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2022 (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:Parade 06.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 ⚡ 11:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File description suggests that this might be copyrighted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:07, 24 October 2022 (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:Rav Yeruchom.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 ⚡ 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be PD but certainly impossible for this be released under CC license considering that the subject died nearly 90 years ago. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is actually quite possible for this to be released under a CC license. This is a cleaned up and colourized version of a PD photo. See c:File:Yeruchom Levovitz.JPG. Colourization requires decisions on colour and shading choices that give rise to a derivative work. However, for an encyclopedia article, we should not be using colourized photos like this as we do not know if the choices are accurate. Commons will accept colorized photos, but I have doubts whether this image is actually completely own work as claimed. See this article from 2015 which shows the image with a different colourization. I strongly suspect that the image here at enwiki is derived from that image by altering colour levels and whatnot. Looking closely at the image shows the choices in cleanup left the same white specks and marks in both images. That would make it a derivative of a derivative work and there is no declaration of a free license a the jardindelatorah site. --

Whpq (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2022 (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.