< September 21	September 23 >

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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious licensing information: Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. Not a suitable candidate for a FUR conversion as the article previously housing has been deleted at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uploader has faked the provenance of many other images, including faking OTRS tickets, and without cast-iron provenance we really can't keep this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:55, 28 September 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by superior version on Commons under the same name Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom, The commons image is better and the wikipedia copy can now be deleted to remove the "shadow commons"--DBigXrayᗙ 10:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 15:56, 28 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Commons version File:Diomed by John Nott Sartorius.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 15:56, 28 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better crop in the correct file format available at File:Ninja Sex Party on the set of Next To You (Danny closeup).jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 15:57, 28 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the current version? Own work ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that I made"—seems so. Not sure this file is needed though. —innotata 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to Commons - @ShakespeareFan00, Innotata, and Salavat: See [1] and File:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png which says this coat of arms has been in use since 1573. If that is true, then the design is public domain. Embossing it is, I guess, a creative act? But really the other versions of this COA (and there are several on Commons) are faithful representations and probably not sufficiently creative for a separate copyright. This image isn't used, but it seems to be of sufficient encyclopedic value to move to Commons as an alternate version of the logo. --B (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here as unused on useful pages. If someone wants to transfer it to Commons they can do it. Personally I don't see educational value being met. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 22 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth imagery is non-free Wcam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam: In general, yes, but why is this particular image? In the bottom left hand corner, they say that the image is from the US Geological Survey. They can slap a copyright tag on it, but if the image is public domain and the map data, which they credit to various US government agencies, is public domain, then what here is copyrighted? --B (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@B: Please see c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Maps_&_satellite_imagery and c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/04#USDA_aerial_imagery_in_academic_paper. Google Earth uses a mixture of free and copyrighted imagery, and often times it is impossible to determine the real copyright status. Contents from federal government sources are not always 100% public domain also. --Wcam (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as pointed out in the Commons discussion, Google uses image processing to enhance source imagery, so we're always dealing with derivative works here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 22 September 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 September 30. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.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: Relicense as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed as own work, but looks like a logo for a third party. Maybe the uploader can provide a clarification? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 22 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implied NC term in text, is incompatible with PD license given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Julien Vinson.jpg DBigXrayᗙ 09:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the commons version in the public domain? It comes from a compilation of photographs that the BnF presumably considers to be a collective work in the public domain since it was published more than 70 years ago. But can the photograph be extracted from the collective work and published in a different context? If it was created around 1880, when Vinson was in his mid-30s, the photographer could have been alive 70 years ago. E.g. if the photographer was 20 and lived to 90, he would have died in 1880+70 = 1950. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Aymatth2, if you have doubts about that file, please nominate it for deletion at Commons and I'll switch to keep here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I have done that, at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julien Vinson.jpg. Most likely the photographer died long before 1948, but in the absence of identification we cannot be sure. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending outcome of the Commons discussion. Thank you, Aymatth2. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The commons deletion discussion was closed as Keep and PD. which paves the way for deleting this image. courtesy ping Finnusertop and Aymatth2 --DBigXrayᗙ 21:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Hold it a day or two. I am appealing the very rapid closure of the Commons request. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Commons request is closed. On appeal it was pointed out that if the author is not known we assume copyright has expired 120 years after publication, e.g. 2003. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg DBigXrayᗙ 09:39, 22 September 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: speedy delete. Armbrust tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD#G7, and I have deleted the file. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The non free rationale is now void as a public domain image is now available at c:File:Gene Kiniski.jpg DBigXrayᗙ 09:40, 22 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referral as the primary subject of this work is an architectural work of recent construction. No FoP in France. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:58, 28 September 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) 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are on the bike, who took the photo? Claimed as PD-self, presumably in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My brother-in-law took the photo with my phone upon my request. «»Who ?¿? 14:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you need to say clarify that relationship on the file description page. You've indicated it here though so

Withdrawn - Pending update to file description page by the uploader in clarification.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will update it, at the time there wasn't a license for that. Also, i do have a habit of taking self pics with my cellphone and camera with a timer, many people do it and it is quite easy and possible to to a selfie from afar. «»Who ?¿? 02:22, 23 September 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 ⚡ 04:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second image taken by a third party, so later revisions of this file are not necessarily under a self license, but presumably it was uploaded in good faith... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 16:05, 28 September 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 September 30. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:First-point-of-aries.svg (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Czech bramboráček at all. Typical czech bramborák/bramboráček is flat round where potatoes are the main ingredients. Raw, not fried yet, bramboráček is so sparse, it can't hold its shape Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason as "Bramboráček (1).JPG" Kmarty (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]