Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 14

September 14[edit]

File:SRmMuthiahChettiar.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 {{PD-India}} -FASTILY 09:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is very old. Could this qualify as public-domain? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like {{PD-old-assumed}}. — Ирука¹³ 06:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to {{PD-India}} as this is a photo that was published prior to 1963. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Seal finsbury.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely copyright has expired. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stockport-County-1914-15-400px.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. There is a consensus that the publication date is very likely to be1914 or very shortly thereafter. Whpq (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1913 was only 110 years ago, and the use of information from that site without prior clarification can only be non-commercial. Ownership of this site rights - a separate issue. — Ирука¹³ 01:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on age, wouldn't this be {{PD-US}}, as it was published prior to 1928? Also would be {{PD-UK}} if the original author died before 1953, or the author is unknown. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was published prior to 1928? — Ирука¹³ 08:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could use {{PD-UK-unknown}} if we knew where this photo came from and did at least some work to identify its author. — Ирука¹³ 08:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the image clearly uses screen tone, indicating that it is from a newspaper. Why would a photograph of a team that existed between 1914 and 1915, published in a newspaper, only have been published after 1928? Note also the text of the license template:

The copyright situation of this work is theoretically uncertain, because in the country of origin copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, and the date of the author's death is unknown. However, the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago, and it is thus a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired (see here for the community discussion). Do not use this template if the date of death of the author is known.

I do not know what "the use of information from that site without prior clarification can only be non-commercial" means. jp×g 22:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for investigation into potential authorship
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302, JPxG, and Iruka13: to let participants know I vacated my close in favour of relisting. -- Whpq (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a newspaper print from 1914. Sports teams generally have lineups that change from year to year. It stands to reason that a picture of the 1913-1914 team was taken in 1913 or 1914. It stands to reason that, since the photo was clearly scanned from newsprint, it was printed in a newspaper. The idea that "they took a photo of the 1914 team, in 1914, and printed it in a newspaper, and for some reason waited decades to do this" is absurd; is there any argument for why this would be the case? Why would this happen? Is there any argument at all to support the accusation? Again, it would be possible to apply this logic to any public-domain image whatsoever -- to arbitrarily claim that all the publication dates are forged, that the whole thing was staged a hundred years later and taken with antique equipment, et cetera. But there is a threshold for what is remotely plausible, and the claim that this was put in a newspaper and then kept under lock and key for fifteen years for no reason doesn't seem to meet it. jp×g 03:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This logic can only be applied if there is no evidence. Prove that this photo was published in the newspaper by bringing the ~~entire~~ newspaper sheet. Or at least give the name of the newspaper and the month in which the image was published. — Ирука¹³ 06:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logic can, and should, be applied in all circumstances. The thing you are claiming here simply doesn't have any basis. There is no reason to think that a newspaper photo clearly taken in 1914 was -- despite being published -- somehow not published for over a decade. Please provide an explanation of how this could happen. jp×g 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is very simple: this is not a newspaper photo. — Ирука¹³ 16:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for your claims. jp×g 08:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for your claims. — Ирука¹³ 11:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. By far, the most reasonable action is keeping. It looks like it was scanned from a paper, and newspapers almost always cover recent events, meaning its first publication was almost certainly before 1928. This is my opinion in general. Wikimedia Commons recently passed a similar policy, and we should have a similar policy here too. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is considered illegitimate by many. Even more people simply don't know about it. It doesn't look like it was used to sum up RFDs.

Although decisions in its spirit are, of course, made; including here. — Ирука¹³ 13:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Marina South Pier.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo with an undesirable reflection in the window. Better alternatives available on Commons at c:Category:Marina South Pier. ✗plicit 03:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tata Sky Logo.svg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality logo vectorization (WP:NFCC#5). — Ирука¹³ 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NFCC does not apply to public-domain images. jp×g 16:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This particular criteria applies to all files. But if you want bureaucracy -- MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука¹³ 16:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve the SVG logo vectorization in this file. VNC200 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to very low quality. Good quality raster images of the same logo can be found online, and should be used instead. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Бабушка и внучка у прядильного станка.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the photo is unknown, the {{PD-old-70}} tag is not applicable. Publication date unknown. The photo was probably taken in the USSR, but there is not enough data for licensing through {{PD-Russia}}. — Ирука¹³ 08:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Catholic Elementary School, Melaka logo.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicense at non-free logo. Whpq (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image can not enter the public domain in Malaysia until 2009, which is 13 years after 1996. — Ирука¹³ 13:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Robert Scott Duncanson - Landscape with Rainbow .jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to keep an image when there are higher resolution and quality copies of it. — Ирука¹³ 15:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Mwanner | Talk 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nikki Cross.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image, potentially of no real use, with sufficient quality replacements. — Ирука¹³ 15:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kharkov Governorate Brockhaus map.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is available under a verifiably free license and a higher resolution on Commons: c:File:Kharkov guberniya.jpg.

Ineligible for F8 as it's tagged KeepLocal. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no explanation was provided by the uploader to indicate why this should be kept local. I see no issues with the copyright that might get it deleted at Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.