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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:TangDynastyInTheStudio.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smuntcasher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of a band being used in an article about an album. The non-free use rationale claims it is being used as the primary means of identification but in fact is being used decoratively. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a valid NFCC, and we have a free image of the band anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 4 July 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.

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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Headshot - smaller.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brodieanderson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like an official legislative portrait (of Scott Kawasaki), which as a work of a state not a federal government body would not be automatically public domain, and needs documentation if it is indeed released under a free license. —innotata 06:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I'm unable to find a previous publication of this image. It does look "official" but I think it may just be a promotional image. The name of the uploader is also the name of Kawaski's chief of staff/aide, so it is possible that this is actually the uploader's own work. Absent evidence of prior publication, we should probably default to keep. As it's unused, however, it should probably just be copied to Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we (and Wikimedia Commons!) need some documentation/proof of this, and there isn't even any explicit statement of who this photo is by. —innotata 16:41, 9 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger Richard Nixon Bob Hope.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Louisdicenzo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC#8. Claimed purpose of being "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" is obviously wrong as the article is about Ron Jaffe and this is a photo by Jaffe and not of him. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image itself so its use within the article does not meet the level needed for significant context. Whpq (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not satisfy NFCC #4 or #8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repair use rationale, retain this as a single example of Jaffe's work while removing the other two nonfree examples from the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My understanding is that we don't typically include examples of artists' work within their articles unless the works themselves are the subject of analysis in the article (and, in turn, in the sources cited). This particular image doesn't look to be mentioned in the article. It does mention being a photographer for the Nixon Library. Interestingly (concerningly), not only is there no source, but I have been unable to verify this with anything resembling an independent/official source (other than Jaffe's own website). I've removed it (including the image) accordingly. Increasing my concern is that among the article's sources, only one says anything about Jaffe (the Fstoppers blog post). The others are just his name in a photo credit. This does highlight a challenge in determining notability of photographers (we need to write a Wikipedia article, not provide a directory of accomplished photographers, so we still do need coverage about those photographers). Considering AfD, but will have to look a bit more first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:51, 5 July 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.

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: Use only in Arshile Gorky. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Master-bill.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Never been to spain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep important early work by an important artist...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but restrict usage. It looks to be a perfectly valid use in the Arshile Gorky article, where the image is subject to specific sourced commentary. Remove NFCC rationale for abstract expressionism, where the image is not used or mentioned. Remove from Western painting, history of painting, and 20th-century Western painting, where it is mentioned but without a source and, in some cases, in a gallery. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 4 July 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.

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. Mostly due to redundancy to File:Office in a Small City.jpg and because the other uses don't appear to be justifiable under WP:NFCC according to the feeling of most participants here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Office in a small city hopper 1953.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VolatileChemical (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete: Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. File:Office in a Small City.jpg is used for the article about the work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep important work by an important artist...Modernist (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A visual work of art speaks for itself; does not need further explanation as acknowledged by the Wikipedia Foundation years ago...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument that does not need further explanation as acknowledged by the Wikipedia Foundation years ago has already been addressed here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica. The WMF did pass wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, but there is nothing in the EDP that specifically supports what you're claiming. If this was something established through consensus at a later date, then it would help if you can provide links to the relevant discussion in support. The NFCCP does allow non-free images of art work to be uploaded and used, but only as long as each use complies with relevant policy. Non-free files of paintings such as the one being discussed here are probably fine per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI when it's used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the painting itself. It may also be fine when used in the artist's article as an example of their work if NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 are met. In other more general articles, the consensus appears to be the non-free use requires a much stronger justification then simply mentioning either the artist or painting by name. So, instead of simply repeating visual art speaks for itself for evey keep !vote you make, it would be more helpful per WP:MEETOO and WP:ITSOBVIOUS if you could clarify how you feel a particular use actually meets all ten non-free content use criterion for a particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those conversations took place in 2006-2008; the links exist - I'll find them when I have time. Paintings need to be seen...Modernist (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't matter what the WMF said unless it is incorporated into our policy. Our policy can be stricter the the WMF requires. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'm saying that is wrong. If that is the current policy then the policy is in need of change per WP:UCS; visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to propose a change in policy, then the place to do so would be at WT:NFCC. This discussion is related to the non-free uses of this particular file and whether all of some of them comply with current policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This not necessarily a discusssion about whether the file should be kept or deleted. It's a non-free file which is being used in multiple articles which means it might be possible for it to be kept in some, but removed from others. So, simply saying "Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion" is not as helpful as specifically stating which uses do (or don't) satisfy NFCC#8. At the same time, simply seeing "Keep important work by artist" also does not seem to specifically address how each particular use of the file satisfies the NFCCP, but is more of a WP:MEETOO or a WP:ITSOBVIOUS type of argument that doesn't address the specifics of the issue.

This file is being currently used four times in three articles: Edward Hopper#Selected works, History of painting#Towards mid-century and History of painting#Figurative, landscape, still-Life, seascape, and Realism, and Western painting#Realism, Landscape, Seascape, Figuration, Still-Life, Cityscape. There also seems to be another non-free version of the painting File:Office in a Small City.jpg being used in Office in a Small City. There's really no reason to have two non-free versions of the same painting per WP:NFCC#3, so there's no need for both of these to be kept. I'm not sure which of the two should be kept, but maybe that is the first thing which should be resolved. As for the non-free use of the file which is kept, it seems quite acceptable for it to be used in the stand-alone article about the painting itself; however, the current uses in the other articles are questionable and should be more closely examined.

1. The use in the Edward Hopper article seems pretty decorative to me and is something which can be more than adequately dealt with by a link to the painting's stand-alone article per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Basically, the image is being used in a table of selected works which is problematic per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFCC#8. The painting itself is not critically discussed anywhere in the article (it seems to be only mentioned by name three times: main infobox, the table, and a nav template), so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking in my opinion. While non-free examples of an artist's work or particular style can sometimes be justified in articles such as this, there are some PD images of this work which could serve such a purpose. Moreover, a table of selected works by its very nature does not really mean that this particular file needs to be seen by the reader, and the use of four non-free images just to illustrate individual entries in a table is not really NFCC compliant in my opinion. Finally, two of the table's entries, Early Sunday Morning and Office at Night have links to external websites added in lieu of the non-free images being used in those articles. While linking to external websites like this might not be OK per WP:ELLIST, etc., it does show that a link instead of an image might be a reasonable alternative to actually displaying the file. Instead of link to an external website, a wikilink to the file's page could be used per WP:COLON; this could be done for the other non-free files being used in the table as well.
2. The uses in the history and genre articles also have basically the same problem as the use in the Hopper article. Not only does neither article seem to have any critical commentary on the work itself, neither article even seems to even mention the painting by name. Rather, the file is added to a gallery of other files which is almost never allowed per WP:NFG. Furthermore in both articles, the PD-licensed File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg appears to be being used as an example of the same type of work by Hopper which means that a non-free example is not really needed for this purpose. There’s no justification for using the painting twice in “History of painting” per NFCC#3a; moreover, there’s only one boilerplate copied-and-pasted non-free use for one use in the article, so it’s not clear which use it’s for per WP:NFCC#10c.

My suggestion would be to certainly keep one of the two files for use in the stand-alone Office in a Small City, and maybe possibly in the Hopper article if the file can be better incorporated into the article in a manner that meets NFCC#1 and NFCC#8: illustrating a single entry in a table as the file is currently being used doesn't do this in my opinion. However, I suggest remove for the other two articles since there's clearly no content in either of those articles about this particular painting which requires that reader see this file, so omitting the file is not going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC); [Edited post to mention multiple use in same article. —08:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete - Delete only because there is a valid use of this image -- in our article about the work -- but it is already served by File:Office in a Small City.jpg. The other uses are in articles which do not pay this image specific commentary backed by sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 4 July 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.

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 only in the Lucian Freud article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Remove from 20th-century Western painting, History of painting, and Western painting at a minimum since the work isn't discussed in those articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep important work by an important artist...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has a detailed FUR and discussion of the painting in the Lucian Freud article. These are sloppy scattergun nominations, typical of of the NFC warriors on here and extremely disappointing that the nominator didn't even bother to notify me. (Notification made by Fastilybot on 25 June, some 8 days after the original nomination.) Totally unacceptable. Cactus.man ✍ 11:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Remove from all but Lucien Freud. In that article, but not others, it is the subject of particular commentary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from all articles except Lucian Freud in the absence of sourced substantive commentary regarding the particular painting depicted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:41, 5 July 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.

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: no consensus. On the WP:NFCC#8 question I am not seeing a killer argument on either side. Maybe trim the sample so that it fits under the guideline, though, although MOS guidelines are by no means a policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eminem - Walk on Water.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davey2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taking to FFD since speedy deletion was contested. WP:Manual of Style/Music samples (WP:SAMPLE) says not to include more than 10% of a song's duration within audio samples, with 30 seconds being the absolute maximum length allowed. 33 seconds is therefore too long for a song. The track also happens to run for 5 minute and 3 seconds (totaling 303 seconds). Even if this hadn't exceeded the duration limit for samples, it fails criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) by offering no discernible enhancement for the article except for maybe providing an ear treat for Eminem and/or Beyoncé fans, which isn't by itself a strong enough reason to maintain the file. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Being 3 seconds over isn't a valid reason and is something that can easily be rectified, If went by your logic there would be no audio samples here, Anyway keep as It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus. –Davey2010^Talk 09:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing of encyclopedic value to be found in that sample which can't be sufficiently conveyed in prose. Please read the "Policy" section of WP:NFCC and its eighth criterion, especially if you haven't already, which says 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. No significant understanding of the song would be lost by removing this sample. I'm primarily concerned with meeting WP:NFCC requirements. We're also not just supposed to keep audio samples around just for the sake of having audio samples or for decoration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time of uploading I'm convinced there were composition sections but maybe not, Regardless of that I disagree entirely and actually believe there is encyclopedic value in this audio sample, As I said by your logic we should would delete every audio file on every article ..... The file was added purely for encyclopedic value but that being said if others believe this isn't encyclopedic then I'm more than happy for it to go but at present I'm not really seeing a valid reason to do so. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a relevant or convincing point here and you know it. Keep the focus on THIS file here. Other files are for separate conversations. Anyway, how does it benefit the article at all per WP:NFCC requirements? I fail to see how it enhances any major aspect of the page in ways that words alone would be much less helpful for, and remember that WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep the sample. One could easily write about the chorus and other lyrics within the "composition" section instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said it was ..... I'm simply stating your logic here ...., As for the "ILIKEIT" - Please reread my reply where I stated and I will quote for you again "if others believe this isn't encyclopedic then I'm more than happy for it to go", I could also turn the tables and say to you "IDONTLIKEIT" isn't a reason for deletion, Well obviously I believe NFCC #8 is met but no doubt you disagree and that's fine, I believe this has contextual significance but like I said If others believe other wise then I'm more than happy for it to go - I'm entitled to my opinions and badgering me over it isn't going to change my mind .... I believe it should be kept rightly or wrongly and that's it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Trim - if it were the whole song, I would say delete, but only being 3 seconds over isn't egregious and can easily be fixed. I don't think anything much would be lost by trimming back even 8ish seconds (half Beyonce half Eminem or something). I don't understand the rest of the reason for deletion. Of course a sample of a song enhances an article about a song. I don't know why that needs to be debated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure why it's over 30 but it goes without saying I'd be more than happy to trim if kept :), –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I should've been more explicit; a song sample would only really enhance an article enough to meet criterion#8 of WP:NFCC if it contained an aspect of the track that got highlighted in the media (i.e. highly similar instrumentals to some other work or controversy over certain lyrics). They otherwise are just decorative above all else. I can't say the portion used in this same got any distinct attention. For good examples of audio samples that actually benefit articles per WP:NFCC requirements, see those in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or Cher. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "if it contained an aspect of the track that got highlighted in the media (i.e. highly similar instrumentals to some other work or controversy over certain lyrics). They otherwise are just decorative above all else" - Again by that logic we wouldn't have any audio samples here, Also worth noting audio samples should only be used in song article articles as opposed to any random article, –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know that's a blatant exaggeration of my point. Whatever articles they are used for should pertain to a specific major aspect. That isn't always a song page, especially when the track doesn't have its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I think the point is indeed a valid one and one that isn't exaggerated, But the track does have its own article and whilst there isn't a composition section yet we have to remember there is no time limit on these things, Personally I feel the sample is more encyclopedic than the single cover...... but both have precedence especially when it comes to their encycolpedic worth. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you most certainly did exaggerate about how frequency of use would be affected per my earlier comments, and don't try to pretend otherwise. Samples would just be used in fewer places rather than erased entirely if more people used them appropriately. A good composition section would be helpful though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BE BOLD. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not that it's of any relevance but the reason the file is a mere 3 seconds over is because the file was cropped cut online and somewhere along the lines I miscalculated .... Just thought I should explain that for anyone that cares, Like I say if kept I'll take the 3 extra seconds off, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 30 June 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.

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 only the puppet image. Per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:HapptimeMurdersConceptArt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheMovieGuy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:HappytimeMurdersConceptArt2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheMovieGuy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I can understand possibly having one concept art image on The Happytime Murders, but it's hard to justify having both. I would suggest keeping the one that depicts a scene but deleting the one of Phil (which is the second one). Elisfkc (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There’s nothing to justify removing one either. Why does it need to be removed? A legitement reason? I cant find one. One could say excess but really? Having two concept arts is perfectly fine. I see no reason to remove either of them. TheMovieGuy

• Keep - OP doesn't really make an argument on why a deletion of either file is needed, unless there is some super-secret 'one concept picture of an unreleased film only' rule. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for File:HapptimeMurdersConceptArt.jpg, the crime scene, and Keep for File:HappytimeMurdersConceptArt2.jpg, the puppet character based on WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The puppet concept art is useful in illustrating the kerfuffle with the muppets. There is no sourced commentary about the crime scene concept art that would support its inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 4 July 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.

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: Unclear copyright status, so defaulting to delete. Looks like this may be eligible for restoration in on Jan 1, 2019 however. -FASTILY 01:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Runciman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Graemp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The licensing is confusing; so is copyright status. Is the image in the PD or still unfree in the US and/or the source country, the UK? The "keep local" tag is used, yet "PD-URAA" is also used. However, the US publication is unknown and not verified, despite claiming "circa 1916" as year of creation. Moreover, the possibly early UK publication was 1924, shown in this link. If the work was done by anonymous, per current UK law, the UK copyright would have lasted until 1 January 1995, seventy years after the presumed first availability.

However, a print seen at the NPG website (archive) looks probably similar to this image due to similar pose, position, and shadows. The background is different, showing books (or cardboard picture of books?). The one we're having at Wikipedia must have used plain background color. I do not know how the photographers or developers changed background for different printing, but I'm pretty sure both this one and the NPG one are the same. Moreover, the NPG website identifies Walter Stoneman (d. 1958) as its photographer.

Assuming that both are the same, the 70 years p.m.a. should be taken into account. If 70 p.m.a., then the UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2029, seventy years after Stoneman's lifetime, thus making the image non-transferable to Commons for now. Nonetheless, because the possibly early publication was 1924, the US copyright will presumably expire on 1 January 2020 as the URAA would have restored the US copyrights of works that lacked formalities, required by the US Copyright Act of 1909. We can consider it non-free for now, but we are awaiting the US copyright to expire in two years. I wonder whether we should necessarily tag it as unfree and add a needed rationale per US law, to which Wikipedia bounds. However, if kept, it should be also tagged as "do not transfer to Commons".

Moreover, two other images are also used at "Walter Runciman", one of which is nominated for FFD. Also, I'm unsure whether I can consider File:Viscount Runciman of Doxford.JPG (now at Commons) a free replacement to both this image and the current infobox image. The Commons one is a sketch portrait and different from the other two.

Of course, other opinions may differ on this situation, but the current version of the file page still looks confusing. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the original version that was published in The Times and the better current version a few weeks later. I then made an edit relating to the 1916 creation date. I have no doubt that I was referencing the NPG image in this edit. It was not unusual for The Times to use portraits that were created 8 years previously. The image itself looks like it was taken from another publication, probably the Illustrated London News. The ILN carried out the sort of background editing shown here. The Times image also has a background edit, which means that The Times could have used the ILN edited image, which in turn means that the ILN image publication would precede the Times date.

The 1916 NPG image would have formed part of Stoneman's National Photographic Record which was exhibited around the UK from 1917 onwards as well as being exhibited at the NPG. Such exhibition of an image can be equated to publication.

It is also highly likely that the image created in 1916 was print published in some form or other on numerous occasions between 1916 and 1923, thus defining it as being in the public domain in the US which is what matters most to wikipedia.

It should also be noted that the NPG has made the original 1916 image freely available to be used by Wikipedia under a Creative Commons licence.

The keep local tag was used to deter other editors from transferring the image to Commons where it might have encountered problems and got deleted. Commons and Wikipedia seems to operate differently when assessing public domain status.

I agree that the information on the file page is confusing and would be happy to see it improved as a result of this discussion. Graemp (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: If deleted, I can wait until 1 January 2020 (expiration date of US copyright) to have the image undeleted just for this wiki. However, until the UK copyright status is resolved, the photo cannot be transferred to Commons. I'm unsure what to think about the freer image: File:Viscount Runciman of Doxford.JPG. It's just a sketch of Runciman... but nicely drawn and more realistic. If the sketch is a "free equivalent" to represent Runciman, then the other image may fail NFCC, IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, 1 January 2019 then per below source but just for the US copyright. We just have at least seven months left. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free image. Published 2/1/1923 in Illustrated London News (Accessed from Illustrated London News Digital Archive, subscription or UK library card required). http://find.galegroup.com/iln/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=ILN&userGroupName=esusslib&tabID=T003&docPage=article&docId=HN3100256792&type=multipage&contentSet=LTO&version=1.0 Graemp (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is obviously unfree in the UK as the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years. The earliest known publication is from 1923, which makes it {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (unless earlier prints exist). At the very least, the photo will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2029}} next year. Since the discussion already has been ongoing for four months, maybe we just leave it open until next year and then close it? The current US copyright status is unclear as it could have been published somewhere earlier. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 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.

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: Trainwreck. A.K.A each file needs to be nominated separately, otherwise it's difficult to tell what the consensus for each is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:DeviantArt screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Pornhub main page screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SolarStarSpire (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:YouTube homepage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Containing unambiguous copyrighted works, for which the non-free web page rationale does not apply. wumbolo ^^^ 15:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying previous discussion participants: @Wcam, Daylen, CFCF, Mahmudmasri, and Rhododendrites: wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Which images in the screenshot do you refer to specifically? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those that are not part of the website (user-submitted content that is shown in the screenshots). wumbolo ^^^ 16:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: The photograph featured in the Flickr screenshot has been released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, so I think that resolves that problem. I call a Keep for the Flickr screenshot, while I do accept the concerns about the other nominees and call a Delete for those nominations. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Previous discussion referenced is Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_14#File:Flickr_screenshot.png. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - these are the 4 that seemed unambiguously problematic in the previous nom (per my comments there). In short, there are many copyrights in play here, since Flickr, et al. do not own the images depicted -- only the website. It is not a valid NFCC to lump a bunch of different copyrights together in order to illustrate one of their articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops missed the comment by PTG above. Keep the Flickr image only and include derivative copyright info. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care either which way about these images, but that reading of fair use rational is asinine. It risks causing major issue in the future and is not supported by any interpretation of the underlying law. The person who made this report, and anyone voting delete should take a long hard think about that this would mean for fair use. If a literal reading of WP policy flies in the face of common sense and legality, we change policy — we don't pretend policy is law. The report has no backing apart from a fundamentalist interpretation of our rules (and a pretty iffy one at that), not of the law. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Flickr screenshot per PhilipTerryGraham. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If kept I'll pixelate all of the Pornhub, YouTube and DevArt pictures which would make the copyright issues moot wouldn't it?. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just adding it here but I do disagree with modifying the images - The images are very very small to the point where they're unusable .... I feel we're being unneedlessly pedantic for the sake of it tbh, If the images were large like "usable-large" then sure but as I said the images are well below 60px I'd imagine so like I say unusable, The above is a suggestion but I'd rather these were kept without any modifications. –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The current version of the YouTube homepage screenshot wasn't uploaded by me:) I can't remember what my version looked like, as it was back in May 2014 and there have been various versions since then. The current version seems to be producing complaints about the use of the thumbnails, which are non-free content. I don't have an issue with this as they are so small as to be of no real value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find this type of argumentation problematic, since the non-free criteria already require that images are unusable. If we can recklessly use 60px images, why do we have NFC in the first place? wumbolo ^^^ 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic we would have to delete thousands of screenshots etc .... that's disruptive on all levels, And I would hardly call it "reckless" .... The images are all low resolution and there is no free equivelent so personally I would certainly say NFCC #3 and #1 are certainly met. –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the YouTube screenshot, why don't we just use the official Wikimedia Foundation YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/WikimediaFoundation) as the screenshot? All of the videos are under Creative Commons licenses. Daylen (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The screenshot of a website in the infobox is traditionally one that shows the homepage. Using Wikipedia's channel page might please the purists but it isn't very informative. The YouTube main page features thumbnails of a range of videos. I'm a bit concerned by the interpretation of WP:NFCC here, because it doesn't say that copyrighted material is banned outright, but does say that it should be of reduced quality. The thumbnails are so small as to be of no real value and are for illustrative purposes only. It's not as if we are violating the copyright of the video itself, which would be more of a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ianmacm: I'm a bit concerned by the interpretation of WP:NFCC here, because it doesn't say that copyrighted material is banned outright, but does say that it should be of reduced quality. WP:NFCC also says that non-free media should be tagged with non-free media rationales. If you don't believe they are de minimis, then you have to provide a fair use rationale for every copyrighted work inside the screenshot. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Additional copyrighted works in the image are de minimis. You can't possibly take a useful screenshot of Flickr without including something that is not owned by the website itself. The same goes for just about any website, and is especially true of websites that have user-generated content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If it is such a big issue, the thumbnails can be blurred. Personally I think this is looking for problems where none exist, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ianmacm: since when does blurring copyrighted work make it, what, "not copyrighted"? wumbolo ^^^ 17:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your reply makes no sense .... if an image is blurred then that image could be any image ... with me ? and blurring an image would obviously make it unrecognisable and unusable ..... but that's a solution looking for a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A blurred version of an image is a derivative of that image. wumbolo ^^^ 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it may be derived from something, but that is not the same as "a derivative work" in the legal sense.

  You can not use deductive reasoning to understand the law!

  I can't believe no one was has said this before, but Wumbolo stop doing that! It's creating a mess for all of us, and is a massive time-sink. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well yeah but like I said blurring an image would make it unregnisable and as such there could possibly be no copyright issue here .... If for arguements sake there was a copyright claim then it would purely be on guesswork but like I said the images are too low imho to be copyrightable (blurred or not). –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: or pixelated. The bottom line is that if you lose the thumbnails you might as well lose the screenshots altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Since there doesn't seem to be any support for the Flickr screenshot being deleted, and there does not seem to be a clear consensus around the other nominations for deletion, I'd suggest we'd close this discussion as a "Keep" for the Flickr screenshot and a "No consensus" for the other screenshots. We can try to hold a broader discussion on non-free screenshots such as these on a WikiProject or similar host with a large enough audience and likely participation in the discussion, since the core issue of this discussion seems to have potential to have a wide impact across Wikipedia, as some of the comments suggest it would. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Go back to first principles rather than treating exact rule wordings as doctrine. We host nonfree images because they are necessary to illustrate some topics; these are. We don't host stuff that's reuseable beyond reprinting the article; these aren't. I don't think this needs a broader discussion, but if you do go ahead and start one. —innotata 02:59, 12 July 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.

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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diego Grez-Cañete (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is under NFCC terms, but the equivalent at commons c:File:Logo del Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre (diseño antiguo).jpg claims it's PD per Chilean copyright terms. The Commons version is significantly lower quality however. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:PadreMartinezStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carptrash (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Review requested due to Commons:Deletion requests/File:PadreMartinezStatue.jpg, License on photo is not at question, the issue is the subject of the photo, which is sculpture of a living artist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the issue is here if not the license. Yes, it is a sculpture by a living artist. Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that it would need an additional license for the 'subject' of the photo, which would have to be under NFCC terms. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the statue is "Antonio José Martínez (January 17, 1793 – July 27, 1867, dead for 150 years, so getting his permission requires going places that I am not really prepared to go to. Yet. Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "subject" being the statute/sculpture of course. We don't have a Wikibook on Mediumship (yet). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carptrash: where was the picture taken? Since it's a US-based artist, I presume in the US? If so, there is no freedom of panorama in the US, so copyrights of works in public retain their copyright when photographed. So there are two copyrights in play. You own one of them, but cannot release the other. If the statue is in Mexico, however, then it's fine because Mexico has freedom of panorama. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick google shows it to be in Taos, New Mexico. Hence, Delete absent NFCC usage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Taos. While I was writing the Huberto Maestas stub/article he gave me permission to use my pictures of his work, but I probably don't have that correspondence any more. So do what you need to do. Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media on Wikipedia basically falls into two categories: freely licensed (I'm including public domain in this category) and that which meets WP:NFCC. In other words, if it's not freely licensed, it must fall under NFCC. Permission just to use on Wikipedia is more or less disregarded, since Wikipedia is free content reused for all sorts of reasons, excepting only media outlined at NFCC. Permission for our purposes needs to take the form of a legally binding statement that the owner releases the image with a compatible, irrevocable license allowing anyone to use it for any purpose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for keeping the picture. Should I care enough to want it I'll revisit the issue some other time. Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justin Wells Live.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cross33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal to FFD as this is uploaded under a self claim, but attributes "Melissa Stilwell" at the photographer, there being no obvious connection with the uploader name present. Was this actually from a social media site? OTRS or clarification desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 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.

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 as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micro-Cap12.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dog Haus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is claimed as self, but is a non-trival logo for a software product or company. There's no clear link shown between said product/company and the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:01, 5 July 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.

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. Only the delete arguments appear to offer any ... argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustonphilip.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mguidetti (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of its current usages discuss the painting in sourced prose so as to create a contextual necessity for illustrating the painting (WP:NFCC#8) where paraphrase alone cannot suffice. There is already an example of the artist's work at his article for purposes of style identification, but it too lacks by the same criterion. czar 21:35, 4 July 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.

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 July 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.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.

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 July 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of Art.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.

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 July 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CEC Bank SuperLiga rugby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RomaniaRugbyFan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying the use of a self license on what seems to be a 'Sports' organisation or brand logo. Whilst in may portions it may be ineligible, it's not necessarily a self license as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - copyright claim is clearly no credible, and image redundant to properly sourced and documented non-free content file File:Superliga rugby.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rugby Europe Men Seven`s Trophy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RomaniaRugbyFan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This has apparently been uploaded under a self-claim, but would seem to be a sports brand logo, in which the rights are typically held by the promoters of such events. Such logos are not necessarily uploadable under a self-claim. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - image is clearly a copyrighted logo so claim of being the copyright holder is not credible. I've uploaded a version that complies with the non-free content guidelines and is properly sourced to the Ruby Europe Severn' site, so conversion to non-free usage is not needed. See File:Logo final 7 trophy.png. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lovesotry back.cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bblueberry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is the rear cover art of a book, typically these are copyright to the publisher, It's not clear on the file description page what connection the uploader has with the author of the work shown or the publisher. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 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.

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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Debarun-Pal-2017.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theemperorstudios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal as the source listed has no indication of a Creative Commons license release. How is this a self work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a straight up copyright violation --Whpq (talk) 00:59, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Season two of Ek Tha Raja Ek Thi Rani's'poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TakDin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is either official poster art, in which case there is no indication on the file description page syaing how this can be uploaded under a self license, or it's fan art which may be out of scope. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Season one of Ek Tha Raja Ek Thi Rani's'poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TakDin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is either official poster art, in which case there is no indication on the file description page syaing how this can be uploaded under a self license, or it's fan art which may be out of scope. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CranfieldSignature.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Realtrcranfield (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused signature image uploaded by blocked user, FFD refferal on scope grounds. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 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.

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 as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:London.single.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bblueberry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If this is a book cover, then I can't from the file description page see an obvious reason why it's a 'self' license ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to non-free book cover and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:02, 5 July 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.

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 as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:London.love.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bblueberry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If this is a book cover, it's not obvious on the file description page as to why it's a "self license" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to non-free book cover and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:03, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angus McDermid.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salzburg1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This media was uploaded under a "self" license, but based on it's appearance, I'm wondering if it's actually an archive image from elsewhere, a clarification would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jr.Ntr-photo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Making a screeenshot doesn't necessarily mean it's own work. Where was the screenshot taken from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have edited the page once have a view——-User:Ashwini Gadade —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain the file.The file has been edited accordingly. User:Ashwini Gadade 5 July 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ballutta.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Danielson8181 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is uploaded under a self license, but is clearly an old photo. A clarification is needed as to whether this is indeed the uploaders own photo, or an archive image. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 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.

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) 12:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Metro Talk.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 12afser12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not necessarily self, as mastheads are typically owned by the media outlet they represent. Possibly ineligible though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to pd-logo and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely ineligible for copyright: just text in fonts. Move it to Commons. —innotata 23:16, 9 July 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.

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 Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zilla flooring truck.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Acroterion (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Prominent subject of image is 2D artwork, No FOP for such in US? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:04, 5 July 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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ravi-teja-photo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Making a screenshot does not necessarily make something own work, what was the original item the screenshot was made from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain this file since it has been edited accordinglyUser:Ashwini Gadade 5 July 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 5 July 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.

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: Deleted Not only it is not irreplaceable, it actually replaced a freely-licensed image from Commons. Don't see the need to discuss this further. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catherine Tresa photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taking a screenshot of another work does not necessarily make the screenshot own work. What was the original work the screenshot was taken from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have edited the page once have a view——-User:Ashwini Gadade —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain this file since it is edited accordingly User:Ashwini Gadade —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 5 July 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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mansi-srivastava-photo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as own work, but source is listed as a YouTube screenshot, What was the status of the YouTube item this was captured from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have edited the page once have a view——-User:Ashwini Gadade

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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aadhi-pinisetty-photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as seldf, but source given as a YouTube screenshot, what is the status of the original YouTube clip? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have edited the page once have a view——-User:Ashwini Gadade
• Retain User:Ashwini Gadade —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 5 July 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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunal-at-showbiz-with-vahbbiz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as self, but the source is given as a YouTube screenshot, What is the status of the YouTube clip/image this was captured from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 4 July 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.

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 under current license but without the "own work" claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guangxi Normal University Wangcheng Campus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChiyuZongzi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed as self, but a pixbay user is given as author. Is the uploader the pixbay user? If so the file descriptipn page doesn't make this clear. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShakespeareFan00, I appreciate you bringing up this concern. This file is not mine, in the sense that I am not the photographer. I downloaded this image from pixbay, where it had originally been uploaded by the aforementioned pixbay user under the CC0 (public domain) license. When I was uploading this file to Wikipedia, it seemed like the only method to upload the image under the CC0 license was under the category "Own work, CC0 license" (there did not appear to be any other way to upload a CC0-licensed image). I reasoned that since the image was in the public domain already, there was no problem redistributing in this way. Please advise if this is not the case, and if so, how I should upload someone else's CC0-licensed work. ~ChiyuZongzi (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a {{Cc-zero}} license tag. Even when it's listed as PD, it still generally not a good thing to claim it as self if all you did was uploaded it here... (by all means note that, but leave the original attirbution intact.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 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.

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 Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shivangi-at-Bright-Miss-India-perfect.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral, on the basis of past concerns about this user uploads. Willing to assume good faith if a clarification is provided. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page. Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original video to the person taking the screenshot. Subsequent to the nomination, the uploader has tried to convert to non-free usage, however, there is no proper sourcing and no proper rationale. Although these errors are fixable, there is no getting around WP:NFCC#1 as the image is for a living person and a free replacement could be expected to be created, especially for an actress.-- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have edited the page once have a view——-User:Ashwini Gadade —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ashwini Gadade: What you've done is removed the copyright license. All files are required to have and those that don't can be deleted per WP:F4. What you need to clarify is whether you are claiming copyright ownership over this image. Most of the images, videos, and other content you find online is most likely under copyright protection, unless it clearly states so otherwise. Downloading a file from some website or creating a screenshot from a YouTube video might not cost you any money, but that does not mean the file is free from copyright protection. So, unless you are the person who originally created the content you find online, you cannot claim it as your "own work". Now, Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyright content to be used in articles as non-free content, but each use of such content must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten criteria which each use of non-free content needs to satisfy. Non-free content use criterion #1 says that freely-licensend equivalent content should be used whenever possible. The long-standing consensus on the use of non-free images of living persons is that they cannot be accepted except in a few exceptional cases like those listed in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI. This is because it's considered reasonable that a freel-licensed equivalent image of the person can either (1) be found or (2) created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of the non-free one. The person finding or creating the image doesn't have to be you, me, or ShakespeareFan00; it can be anyone. Moreover, such an free-equivalent doesn't need to currently exist; it only needs to be consider reasonable that such a free-equivalent can be created someday. Shivangi Joshi is still living and apparently still acting; so, it seems reasonable that someone somewhere could take her picture and release it under a free-license accepted by Wikipedia. For this reason, a non-free image of her is never going to be allowed. Are you familiar with Bollywood Hungama? Images of Indian actors and actressess taken by Bollywood Hungama photographers are often uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because Bollywood Hungama some of it's images under the license c:Template:BollywoodHungama. So, if you can find an image of Joshi taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer, then maybe it could be uploaded and used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFCC#1. The uploader has add a {{non-free video screenshot}} copyright license for the file. There's no reason to expect that a freely-licensed equivalent image of the subject can neither be found nor created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free. I've given a more detailed explanation of this above, but basically the actress is still living and still active professionally, so someone somewhere might someday take a photo of her and release it under a free license. This probably could be tagged with {{rfu}} for speedy deletion per WP:F7 since further discussion doesn't seem really necessary and the consensus against this type of non-free use is fairly well established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 5 July 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.

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: Deleted Obviously invalid copyright licenses, not used in any articles for which a non-free argument could be made. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zain-imam-photo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ashwini Gadade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral to FFD based on past concerns about uploads from this contributor. Willing to assume good faith, if clarifications provided. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is clearly a screenshot, and is confirmed on the file's talk page with this statement, "Why is the file proposed for discussion?It is a screenshot. And doesn't harm any image use policy.". Taking a screenshot does not transfer the copyright from the original image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patpicfen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Myosotis Scorpioides (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was uploaded under a self-license but attributes " Fenella Stoner" , if this is the uploader it's by no means clear on the file description page,. Image is unused in any event. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 5 July 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.

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) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church lane, Navenby (c. 1907).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Myosotis Scorpioides (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

1907 is not an automatic PD for the UK. However assuming it's not been possible to determine a likely author, it maybe PD-UK-unknown? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably PD in the UK as you said, but English Wikipedia only follows US law and it dates to before 1923. (A postcard was considered to be a publication, so there's no issue of this being unpublished.) —innotata 23:19, 9 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peterchurch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Myosotis Scorpioides (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sourced to Flickr, but insufficient sourcing provided to confirm the licensing option used to upload here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proper source provided to verify license.--Whpq (talk) 01:04, 5 July 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.

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 July 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldnav.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.

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 July 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIHM logo.png (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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:AJDessler Rice.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reiff (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is uploaded under a 'self' license, but it attruibted to an existing portrait in an identifable location. Who created the original portrait? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Taking a photo of a portrait does not transfer copyright. --Whpq (talk) 01:12, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Namibian Air Force Tech wings.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ViceAdmiral (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

FFD query/refferal as the subject of this image is a military insignia design, the copyrights typically held be the issuing military authority or agency. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - File:Namibian Air Force Pilot wings.pngShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:53, 4 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stremblay.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nora.gomez (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is unused, and is far too small to be of any reasonable use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:06, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crest of Wantage Hall.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vkvk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was uploaded under a self license, but it appears to be an organisational logo or crest, the rights in the design belonging to the organisation concerned. When was the design first issued or used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:07, 5 July 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat5Diagram.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Titoxd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Jpeg source for this image was superceed by SVG, making this PNG version obselete as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:07, 5 July 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.