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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jewish Charities 1941-12-22.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by UpdateNerd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jewish Charities 1941-12-22.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I couldn't find anything in the copyright renewals from 1968 to 1970. The photo is however credited to "Kaufman", not sure if that changes anything. Salavat (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 10 April 2023 (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: Textbook derivative of non-free content. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 06:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jagdeo Jayanti By RJD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Admantine123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File was originally tagged with ((dw-nsd)), but the uploader removed the tag after adding the name of the political party who created the poster to the file's description; however, as explained to the uploader at User talk:Admantine123/Archive 4#Image source problem with File:Jagdeo Jayanti By RJD.jpg, there is no freedom of panorama in India for 2D graphic works per c:COM:FOP India, which means the photographed poster should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it can clearly shown not to be for some reason per c:COM:India. I don't see anyway to justify the non-free use of the poster as ((non-free poster)) per WP:NFC#CS given the way it's being used in Rashtriya Janata Dal#Organisation, which means the file should be deleted if the poster itself can't be shown to be either within the public domain or otherwise released under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This poster along with a number of similar posters were installed at number of places in Patna City. This was done to invite common people for a program organised by Rashtriya Janata Dal.They lease out the task of creating such paintings to informal workers who are the creator and they are very difficult to contact even by the Rashtriya Janata Dal political party. But since this was displayed in public places, i believe that it is in public domain. Admantine123 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being displayed in public places doesn't necessarily make something "public domain" and Indian copyright seems to be clear that there's no freedom of panorama for 2D works publicly displayed in India. Furthermore, having an anonymous author doesn't necessarily mean something can't be eligible for copyright protection. Once again, under Indian copyright law, anonymous works that are published are eligible for copyright protection for 60 years after first publication. So, unless there's a clear reason why the poster is public domain under Indian copyright law, I don't think this can be kept since it's a derivative work and lacks the consent of whomever created the poster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2023 (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⚡ 06:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morristown, TN ICE raid protestors.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AppalachianCentrist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is an image from the Bristol Herald Courier depicting a protest after the 2018 Southeastern Provisions raid. Per WP:NFC#UUI, paragraph 7, fair-use photos from press agencies or photo agencies are explicitly banned, unless it is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This point is only exacerbated when the protest was only described in a short sentence in the article (An estimated crowd of 300 individuals led a protest ... across the United States.). Without further elaboration in the article on why it was important to the article, the file's contextual significance is doubted.

While I'm not sure about the background of the protest, it could be possible to ask for them for media taken if there were organizations in charge of the protest. The file therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI, WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#1 for the reasons above, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2023 (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, with no prejudice to restoration if someone is able to create a valid fair use claim for the image -FASTILY 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROXs42Bb image.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 2632cgn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image appears to be owned by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. [1] Its copyright terms indicate a non-commercial license. [2] Ixfd64 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there seems to be no other image of this planet on Wikimedia. If it's under a non-commercial license, the current public domain template can be replaced with ((Non-free fair use)) & ((Non-free use rationale)). SevenSpheres (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add some information. The original image is not by NAOJ, but they took it from Currie et al. [3], which was published also in arxiv under its own non-exclusive licence [4]. There is also an image of the same exoplanet by Kraus et al. [5], which was later published by the McDonald Observatory [6], and "Commercial use is prohibited without permission" for this image. [7] Meli thev (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2023 (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, with no prejudice to restoration if it can be demonstrated that this image is indeed freely licensed -FASTILY 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlicensed. This is not how licensing works. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, questionable licensing with no usage in the main space. Salavat (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedWolf: long shot, but any chance you remember what you were doing here/if the file was licensed GFDL by default somehow? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 April 2023 (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.