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. Uncontested substantial keep argument.  Sandstein  07:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Stewart - Katharine Hepburn - Philadelphia Story.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, and unclear if it is actually free (uploader has long history of copyright violations) FASTILY 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being unused is not a rationale for deleting a PD image. Likewise being "unclear" about its status is an opinion which needs some facts. And not assuming good faith should not be a rationale. On the keep side, this is an obvious studio image without a notice. The front includes the title of the film and the name of the studio. It even has "Made in U.S.A." If they meant to copyright it, the notice would have been on the front along with the studio's name. As the image description page states, such publicity photos "have traditionally not been copyrighted." --Light show (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2017 (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 Daylen (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC) |  | | |}[reply]

File:Zebrabowl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Craiger19 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file summary states that the photo was taken by C. Edelbrock; however, the license used on the file claims that the uploader is the copyright holder of the work. The uploader of the file was Craiger19, who has had copyright violations of the English Wikipedia in the past (see User talk:Craiger19). Daylen (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file uploader has provided confirmation that they took the photo on my talk page. Daylen (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (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 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whilst the composition may be the uploaders, Nazi era milltary awards are not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright on images of Nazi awards and decorations, unless they are copied from a previously published source within the past 75 years (original sources created by the Nazis themselves are no longer under any copyright that I am aware of). This image were created completely from the ground up by a graphics program I designed in Windows Paint specifically made to create and draw Nazi era decorations (I've used it in several professional papers and publications outside of Wikipedia without issue). File:HimmlerAwardsCase.jpg was created using the same program, and this image was approved over at Commons. There should be no issue here. -O.R.^Comms 17:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:These awards which are shown are all obsolete and the ones from World War I are either over or almost over 100 years old from the German Empire which has not existed since 1918. The rest are of Nazi Party or Nazi Germany awards and both have not existed since 1945; the Party is banned and that government defunct and like the Bundesarchiv Bild (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) photos from that era would not have copyright issues. And the composition of said photos are OR's own work. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As to the relist, there is no copyright on a drawing of a Nazi or Imperial German award. As stated above this was made from scratch in a graphics program and is not a copy of a photograph or other such work. In addition, the awards themselves depicted are creations of defunct states 75-100+ years ago. Also, an image using the same program was accepted without issue at Wikipedia Commons, along with several other similar works by other editors [1]. -O.R.^Comms 15:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC) commons.[reply]
• By policy, I was asking where you're getting that Nazi-era German government has no enforceable copyright. Because all other signs point to it using the usual Germany 70 p.m.a. unless you can show that some other case or copyright policy applies (and not by conjecture). Additionally, the image in question cannot have been "made from scratch" if it combines multiple images from other sources, which it appears to do. If the images are the uploader's own, that should be noted. I'm relisting this for outside opinions. czar 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 70 year rule would appear to be fine here. The last time Nazi awards were displayed as actual decorations was May of 1945 which is now nearly 72 years ago. -O.R.^Comms 18:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since these are drawings of Nazi awards, and not photographs of the awards themselves, I really don't know what else to say. The awards themselves were also never actually worn by Adolf Hitler, so this is not even a drawing of an actual award spread on a uniform, rather a conjecture of what one would look like. As for the drawings themselves being under some type of copyright, that would mean that every time someone draws an Iron Cross or a swastika it is under some type of copyright which doesn't make sense to me - also, in the professional world, books with drawings and depictions of Nazi awards are routinely published. Further, a third of those awards are Imperial Germany which certainly has no standing copyright (over 100 years old at this point). We almost need a new tag to denote the status of drawings of military awards created independently by users, but that is way above my level. I'll bow out at this point and leave it to more experienced users. I've published images like this professionally for about the past thirteen years with no issue. Why it is of such concern here is a bit bewildering. -O.R.^Comms 18:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat that these are drawings but they look like low-res copies of images, complete with the white outlining. Am I missing something in that respect? czar 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too technical, here, but they are from a "ribbon rack" program that I designed to show various spreads of Nazi awards. The individual awards themselves were drawn as JPG (and later PNG) files using Windows Paint and then later Adobe Photoshop. Of course I had to use original photos and other pictures of awards as templates to make the drawings, but no photo was directly scanned or copied. I've used this program for other professional publications over the years and have refined it as better image software becomes available. This is one reason I was actually thinking a different licensing tag would be more fitting, but I don't have the knowledge for that. I also don't have an enormous stake in this article, so I leave this one up to the community consensus. -O.R.^Comms 19:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• License photo as CC 3.0 but add non-free tag (e.g. ((non-free fair use)) or ((non-free symbol))) and rationale. Those materials are not seized by the US government, so their copyright may be protected under URAA. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IAR because the image is breathtakingly ugly, with poor cropping, jagged edges, etc, and gives off the vibe of an amateur Geocities homepage circa 1992. We can best improve the encyclopedia by removing such sloppy work. I'm editorially removing it from Military career of Adolf Hitler for these reasons.  Sandstein  08:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really seem to be a rationale reason to delete an image on this site...saying its ugly. Also, reasons to include the image in an article is a separate issue from the license for the image to be on this site (which is what this page is about). I would recommend bringing up the image inclusion on the article talk page. With that said, I've been leaning towards letting the image go from the article for some time since it doesn't seem to be helping the content of the page that much. -O.R.^Comms 22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The image lacks contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. A more relevant image would be of the 1914 Iron Cross, as it's a well established fact that Hitler was proud of this decoration, which can be explained via an appropriate caption. Including the complete Smörgåsbord of awards is unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2017 (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 2017 July 20.  Sandstein  08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Joseph DeMartis.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 ('Garden Island makes a winning work').png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jkokavec (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used for purely decorative purposes, the newspaper article itself is not discussed in the article. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This statement is completely untrue. See [[2]]:

  Smooth Island has been the subject of a range of artistic works. Michael Weitnauer[50] won first prize at the Wrest Point Art Award with his painting of Smooth Island.(The Mercury, 7 January 2002).

• Please be more judicious with your deletion requests Train, as your behaviour is verging on WP:DISRUPT. Your recent behaviour towards Smooth Island (Tasmania) this includes 1) removing image links from an article for a issue relating to style guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smooth_Island_%28Tasmania%29&type=revision&diff=783389251&oldid=783305926), just to subsequently tag all of these these images for deletion because they became orphaned (due to your previous actions) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AExaminer_p4_23-1-15.pdf&type=revision&diff=783389321&oldid=783305585). I am trying to make genuine constructive changes to this page and your repeated deletion requests are making me want to stop contributing to the Wikipedia project. If this constant meddling continues, I may have to escalate my concerns formally. I don't want to fight, I just want to keep improving my pages. Please stop making this a negative experience, Train2104. Jkokavec (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Jkokavec. I self-reverted the addition because, by looking at the article, the painting Norfolk Bay is an oil landscape of Garden Island (Huon River), not Smooth Island. --George Ho (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, I didn't realize that Garden Island may sometimes refer to Smooth Island, so I reinserted the content. George Ho (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article should be used as a source instead of a display. I already did that (there are more diffs, but I'll provide just one). George Ho (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The painting does not materially improve readers' understanding of the island depicted, per NFCC#8, let alone the newspaper image of and text about the painting. The painting itself is too insignificant an aspect of the article to require illustration.  Sandstein  08:48, 20 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alucard 16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo for a TV series being used in the infoboxes of the main series article (Big Brother (U.S. TV series)) and also infoboxes of individual season articles (Big Brother 16 (U.S.), Big Brother 17 (U.S.), and Big Brother 18 (U.S.)). Generally, such logos are acceptable for the main series aritcle, but not in individual seasons because they are considered to be child entities of the series article per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Individual season specific logos would be acceptable to use, but the default is not to use the series logo when season logos do not exist as explained in WP:TVIMAGE. Suggest keep for the main series article, but remove from the season articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is with this TV series CBS hasn't created a variation of the logo for this TV show since the sixteenth season. The logo is the same for each season that is broadcast on CBS there is no variation between the episodes per season. The show isn't released on DVD/Blu-Ray and online places like iTunes and Amazon video that have episodes you can purchase use clips from promos that CBS produces and some of the generic logos they use are used for multiple seasons as well. There is actually a different logo that can be used for the overall series if need be but again doesn't solve the fact that three seasons share the same logo. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no discussion has happened for five days I was WP:BOLD and replaced the image on Big Brother (U.S. TV series) so it would have its own image. The new image is one CBS used during promos and on the website to promote the eleventh season. This particular image would be better suited for the series article because it is similar to the logo used from season two through fifteen. If I'm understanding policy and consensus correctly this should allow the season articles to continue using this image. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo was used for the first time in Season 16 and this could be supported by citations to a reliable source, then I coold possibly see how the non-free use for that particular article could be justified if such content was added to the article. Even so, the use in the other seasons would still not be appropriate for the same reasons I gave in my post above. The default is simply not to keep using the same logo over and over again just because individual season specific logos do not exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the image and it does have valid source its from the second episode of the sixteenth season. This same logo is also present starting in the second episode of the seventeenth and eighteenth seasons. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:09, 26 June 2017 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shreya Ghoshal at MITE - Sentia, 2017.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vikranthakur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that copyright holder licensed image under Creative Commons. ... discospinster _talk 19:51, 11 July 2017 (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.