The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whitman Mission (painting by William Henry Jackson).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Martin1971~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While it's true this painting was posted on a National Parks Service site, that does not imply it was painted by a NPS employee. William Henry Jackson made this painting in 1930, and I see no suggestion he was employed by NPS at all, much less that he painted it as part of his official duties. Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:44, 10 May 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gina G-Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit (ESC 1996).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of a specific performance of a song. The lack of such image would not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 11:33, 10 May 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gina G-Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of a music video for a song being used decoratively. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 11:35, 10 May 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:José Vega Santana a.k.a. Remi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 12:33, 10 May 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SavageTalesPoster3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thomsonobrien (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is clearly a copyright violation of some other movie poster. Uploader said 'Own copyright' but I don't believe this. No source has been indicated as well. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - regardless of the copyright issues, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Savage Tales of Frank MacGuffin shows we don't need this image anyways. -- Whpq (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 10 May 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. Consensus here was that, Crown Copyright or not, it being licensed under fair use does not justify its use because it violates WP:NFCC. ℯxplicit 01:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doug Ford Jr. on Political Blind Date with Jagmeet Singh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

the uploader claims "crown copyright" but TVOntario's copyright statement at https://tvo.org/copyright makes no such mention. Freedom789 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As the Government of Ontario's partner in digital learning, TVO exists to ignite the potential in everyone through the power of learning. We support Ontario’s transformation of learning inside and outside the classroom through powerful digital learning technology, and support citizen engagement through in-depth current affairs journalism from an Ontario perspective. A public agency funded primarily by the Province of Ontario, as a registered charity TVO is also supported by sponsors and tens of thousands of donors." from https://tvo.org/about Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it Crown Copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You may use the Archive Content at your own risk for non-commercial personal purposes..." - use on Wikipedia is non-commercial but not personal. Freedom789 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged, the materials may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes if no changes are made to the original content."https://www.ontario.ca/page/copyright-information-c-queens-printer-ontario#section-0 Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that quote is not TVO. TVO makes no mention of Crown Copyright for its productions. Freedom789 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the same page it says: ..." information and materials created by government ministries, agencies, third parties, external stakeholders and other partners." TVO is an agency of the Crown. Btw, how did you come to be involved with this photo, did Hullabaloo ask you to put it up for deletion? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an assumption and without any corroboration from TVO it's an unsafe one. TVO is a broadcaster so the situation is more complicated. According to the series website Political Blind Date is "produced in association with Open Door Co. and Nomad Films".[1] Can you prove that Open Door Co and Nomad Films have no copyright rights over the film? TVO is not the Queen's Printer or some goverment department producing a manual on energy conversation. Freedom789 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think I am reading the words published by TVO and the Crown of Ontario with the simple English interpretation of what they are saying. To me it seems that the argument against using this photo is based upon far reaching and speculative fear concerning remote and unwarranted copyright concerns....in other words, I think this discussion is creating an issue where none exists. If you'd like, I will call TVO and ask them if we can use this photo in Wikipedia, would that satisfy you? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on copyright' - The file is being used as non-free content. As such, the issue of whether this is Crown copyright, or regular copyright has no bearing on whether the usage satisfies the non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the copyright statement can be fixed, but the usage of this non-free image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 as it's use illustrates a minor point and it;s removal from the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article's subject. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because the subject is a politician with fixed opinions expressed in most of the article as well as references to altercations and combativeness displayed by the subject, whereas the photo depicts a completely different mood, yes "mood", which the subject was able to display in the course of the "blind date" episode, something which Singh described as "very warm and friendly". In fact, I think the removal of the photo's casual and friendly smiling faces would absolutely detract from a reader's understanding of the article's subject and limit said understanding to the boring and inaccurate one dimensional presentation often existing by default with controversial subjects, imo, which limits the broader and more complete bio which is achievable in an encyclopedia with less technocratic management. I believe if you think about this a little more, you may agree with my point, especially since you clearly understand the concept of detracting from a reader's understanding of a subject...with "understanding", I'm sure you will agree, meant to imply whole understanding rather than partial. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's appearance on Political Blind Date along with the fact that he and Jagmeet Singh were able to get along are already documented in the textual description, so this fails also fails WP:NFCC#1. And his appearance on this show is a minor part of Ford's biographical information and as such, I maintain that WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a fair point, about the text, yet I think the "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies in this case...at least to my eyes it does, and I do not think I am any different from the average reader in this regard.....I mean, I think the photo really adds a nice touch to the Blp, whether that is technically important or not, I think its important and is exhibited in lots of our articles. Can you say that to you, personally, the article is better without the photo? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Use of a TV screenshot in a BLP to "capture the mood" of the TV program falls far below NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are, I think (although you are using a different moniker here), the same editor who removed it and if so, you would have seen my suggestion that you take the matter to the talk page because there have been multiple discussions and acceptance of the photo there. I am wondering if this discussion is not more suited for the talk page, first at least, as this now feels a bit like forum shopping. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking nonsense and badgering every user who disagrees about this image. Despite what you say, there is no discussion regarding the image on the article talk page, and your arguments here have virtually nothing to do with NFCC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, I'll look it up for you later today. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For the reasons given above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:00, 12 May 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.