Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11[edit]

File:Summit League logo.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: Remove from all except Summit League. ★ Bigr Tex 20:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fee logo being used in Summit League, 2009–10 The Summit League men's basketball season and The Summit League Men's Basketball Player of the Year. File has a non-free use rationale for each use, but only the use in the stand-alone article about the league itself seems WP:NFCC compliant.

Use in the 2009-10 season is not really allowed because of No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI. The league's logo in this case is like a sponsor's logo and should not be used in an individual season article unless there is something specific about it which applies to only this particular season per WP:NFCC#3. Non-free use might be justifiable if this was the first or the only season the league used this particular logo, but the league was created in 2007 and there's no indication that is the case here.

Use in the player of the article is also not really needed for similar reasons. The logo is for the league and not specifically for the "player of the year" award (a logo/image specific to the award itself would most likely be OK) so this type of usage appears more decorative than contextual per WP:NFCC#8.

Suggest keep for the article about the league itself and remove from the other two, unless the logo is simple enough and can be coverted to {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2016 (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:Philip J. Cohen Dermatologist.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No information about where this image was taken or when, this image appears to have been just found on the internet and uploaded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living indvidual, so cannot convert this to 'non-free biog-pic' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2016 (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:Espirito Santo Map With Serra Municipality Highlighted.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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:EspiritoSanto Municip Serra.svg. grendel|khan 06:56, 11 August 2016 (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:Espirito Santo Map with Cariacica Municipality Highlighted.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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:EspiritoSanto Municip Cariacica.svg. grendel|khan 07:00, 11 August 2016 (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:Finca los Principes, Rioja.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 the article is not about the product, so image can't be tagged with non-free product cover Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether this photo should be tagged with {{non-free product cover}} or whether the copyrighted elements would fall under Commons:De minimis. Looking for the community's opinion. Kelly ^hi! 07:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I didn't check the tags given to all the other images at Wine bottle, with which I had thought this one was pretty comparable. It's hard to illustrate wire netting without showing the entire bottle. Bottles with the label turned away seem far less attractive, to me anyway. By the way, I found this one of Old Beardie's better offerings: "This smooth raspberry and cranberry-kissed wine is a beauty with lithe fruit notes and no ugly lingering tannins or woodwork. If you like unruffled, languid reds with silky notes and haunting mulberry and fresh herb flavours then this is your wine." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the label may be a little too prominent. And unlike a photo of the Louvre without the Louvre pyramid, a photo of this bottle without the brand may be simple to create. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have none of that French rubbish here thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The labels are non-free. They are original enough to make "'Finca los Principes' (2014) Rioja wine" copyrightable. Also, there are other free images to use. Finca Los Principes as of now does not exist, but if created, we can use the free image again but as depiction of a non-free bottle. George Ho (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2016 (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:Westhoughton Cowshead.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. The discussion has established that the cow's head is the main point of this picture, hence de minimis doesn't apply. Deryck C. 10:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2D graphic works aren't covered by freedom of panorama in the UK but this might be covered by Commons:De minimis. Referring for community consensus. Kelly ^hi! 07:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2D sign, prominent subject of image, so I don't think this is covered by UK FoP given the cow graphic right. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cow graphic right was kinda the entire reason. Maybe I could sneak back and paint the cow out? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2016 (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.

p.s. how would one illustrate that name, if not with a sign like this? Presumably no UK signs would be allowed to illustate the article for Street name sign, as they are all "2D graphic works"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkey 290.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Infected Mushroom according to the edit history, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 19 August 2016 (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:"Picture of an Indian Farmer".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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user profile image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2016 (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:1st Album Poster of "The Black Doves BD".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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed as own work, but seems to be an album cover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (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:1yongkang76.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2016 (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:6 months sober chip.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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per reasoning for previous nom of File:4 month chip.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How old are these chips? They may qualify as PD-US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (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:7 months sober chip.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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per reasoning for previous nomination of File:4 month chip.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How old are these chips? They may qualify as PD-US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (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:Wescott school picture.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Obsoleted by File:Wescott School front entrance web.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 11:25, 11 August 2016 (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:TheHubDisneyland.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo which prominently includes 2 works by other individuals, which would require a separate license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Derivative work of Partners. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (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:St Edwards Church.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Also, the image is watermarked "Alf Beard" and it's unclear whether it is the same person as the uploader. In any event, we have better images at Commons:Category:St Edward the Confessor's church, Cheddleton, Staffordshire. Kelly ^hi! 12:03, 11 August 2016 (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:RiordanBand.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 ⚡ 05:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous information added by myself in good faith reverted, on the basis that there's no obvious connection. FFD rather than CSD as it was a "presumed self", which I would have tagged this as had other contributors not called a related tag nonsensical. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2016 (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:St George's Church 1.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified subject. The "afterUpload" tool doesn't offer any clues. Kelly ^hi! 12:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, identified it. Moved to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 12:55, 11 August 2016 (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:Connect Sheffield columns.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, probably non-free due to being derivative of 2D graphic work. Kelly ^hi! 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, 2D map/sign prominent image, so not covered under UK FoP in my view.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2016 (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:Consolidated Aircraft Logo.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: Convert to {{PD-US-no notice}} Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the eagle I'm querying if this logo is simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not simple. But given the age of the company it's very likely PD either from age or for noncompliance with copyright formalities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 19 August 2016 (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:St ives rowing club.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 13:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does commons already have images of this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The club headquarters is probably notable as a listed building but I can't find any good photos of the front on Geograph. I'm guessing this must be the back of the clubhouse where it butts against the river. We don't have an article on this organization yet. I don't think this photo will ever be really useful though. Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it is readable enough. Are there any questions about the copyright status? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred it to Commons and used it on St Ives, Cambridgeshire. The local copy can be deleted. Deryck C. 10:45, 7 November 2016 (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:Norman Ivison 1.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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 19#File:Norman_Ivison_1.JPG

Delete, unused userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 13:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search suggested this person might be notable in Christian cricles. Anyone want to do dig into this more deeply before the image is deleted? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (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:St John the Baptist Church Withington Shropshire.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if the uploader is the copyright holder, as uploader was blocked for being a WP:ROLE account. This file could be replaced if necessary by File:Withington Church - geograph.org.uk - 809876.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 11 August 2016 (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:Mapa-climas-koppen.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source site says Non-Commerical license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2016 (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:Cathedral Landing Stage.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing adequate source/author information to verify copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kelly: so what extra source info do you expect to see? The description clearly states that the thing is from the Salford Local History Library, which has numerous photographs from the 19th century. It definitely is what it says it is. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sitush: We need to know who took the photo and when and where it was originally published. Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do? It says "author unknown" and that is a valid statement at Commons. Is it different here? As for details of first publication, well, a lot of photographs in the Salford collections have never been published - we'll struggle to prove a negative. I acknowledge that there is an earlier version of the file, uploaded only a few minutes before, and that it displays possible pointillist features that might be typical of newspapers but we'll have to wait for Richerman's response regarding that one as there are all sorts of possible explanations (not sure how familiar you might be with UK libraries and publishing). - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with Sitush here, It possibly PD-UK-unknown, as with many 19th century photo's it would take a lot of effort to find who the original photographer was for something that old. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't have any objection to Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown (as opposed to {{PD-old-100}}, which it currently has and we can't verify). Kelly ^hi! 18:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - But if the library catalogue, for example, says that it is 19C then surely that is verification? It is, for practical purposes, the source. Many UK libraries, and particularly the major city collections, have swathes of donated content etc in their local history sections and we have to trust that they have adequately documented the information. I think we're splitting hairs on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What I'm concerned about is infringing on someone's publication rights (presumably the Salford Local History Library in this case). That's why I'm hoping to find out what the immediate source of the image was. Did they publish the photo on a website? Or did a Wikipedia editor go to the library and physically scan the photo? Kelly ^hi! 07:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It was taken using a phone - see the EXIF. Sony Ericsson K800i. Salford Libraries have published very few of their vast image collection, unlikely the neighbouring Manchester Libraries, who have put literally thousands of them up on their own website, on Flickr etc.- Sitush (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I photographed it at the library and they told me that they're happy for their photos to be used as long as they are attributed as belonging to their collection. The PD-UK-unkown license is probably more appropriate. Richerman (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Commons with PD-UK-unknown license. Kelly ^hi! 10:44, 12 August 2016 (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:Pile of plates.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: Relicense to "own"; upload summary implies that the file is an own work Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is assumed own work hence the media by uploader, but the block notice on the account says they are deceased and thus cannot "claim" the upload. AGF and tag as own? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (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:Green Tips.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fall under British FoP as primarily derivative of a 2D graphic work. Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, 2D sign :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2016 (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:Submission Image.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 non-free poster of movie judged to be non-notable at AfD ★ Bigr Tex 20:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a movie poster for an indie film, the talk page of the uploader doesn't inspire confidence about notability. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submission (2017 film) - if it's somehow kept this should probably become non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 19 August 2016 (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:Carn Llidi.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author identified as J. Maffia, but uploader has identified himself elsewhere as N. Ritchie. See for instance File:St John's, Broughton.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded it for a friend who was happy for it to be used but I didn't know at the time how to add the permission. Perhaps best to delete it and I'll show him how to upload it himself. Richerman (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2016 (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:Whitesands Bay form Carn Lidi.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author identified as J. Maffia, but uploader has identified himself elsewhere as N. Ritchie. See for instance File:St John's, Broughton.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded it for a friend who was happy for it to be used but I didn't know at the time how to add the permission. Perhaps best to delete it and I'll get him to upload it himself. Richerman (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2016 (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:Duck Pond in The Dell.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified photo subject. Hopefully the uploader can give us more information. Kelly ^hi! 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Heaton Park based on uploaders history. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Heaton Park -I'll add that to the description. Richerman (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, If you have the original still, you might want to attempt a new upload, it may just be me but I was noticing what seemed to be something like jpeg artifacting in this image.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably just poor quality because it was taken some time ago on a mobile phone. Richerman (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons:Category:Heaton Park. Kelly ^hi! 10:17, 12 August 2016 (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:MiamiHeatOld.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: Convert to {{PD-US-1989}}. Copyright registry searched. No listing exists. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historic National Basketball Association Logo being used in History of the Miami Heat#1987–1995: Early years without any critical commentary about the logo in violation of WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the date of the logo, it may qualify as Template:PD-US-1989 if it was not registered - it's barely within the right timeframe and it doesn't appear to carry a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:30, 19 August 2016 (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:Lakers60th.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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historic National Basketball Association Logo being used in History of the Los Angeles Lakers#2007–2013: Bryant and Gasol dynasty without any critical commentary about the logo in violation of WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 22:40, 11 August 2016 (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:Stadium headshot, 2010.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 ⚡ 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, appears distorted to me, not enough context provided to determine future encyclopedic value. ★ Bigr Tex 22:44, 11 August 2016 (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.