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 ⚡ 08:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asserted to be own work, this is a publicity photo that is widely used including on IMDB. WP:VRT verification would be required. Whpq (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete the claim that this is own work is dubious based on where else it shows up and the resolution/format of the uploaded image. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 08:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal which fails WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). This image is currently not being used, and a bot has tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:F5 (WP:NFCC#7). This image has actually been deleted three times before, but was restored after its last deletion per this request so that it could be further discussed here at FFD. The image was being used in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal#Attalla v State of NSW and release of internal police report in this February 2022 revision of the article; so, I'm assuming that's the non-free use that needs to be discussed.

As far as I can see, there's no sourced critical commentary reagarding this particular screensaver currently in the article. The only time the word "screensaver" is used is in the second to last sentence in the "Attalla v State of NSW and release of internal police report" where is seems to be the "educational screen savers" that is being referred to. This brief mention is not sufficient to justify using a non-free image of the screensaver any more than using non-free images of any of the other training materials mentioned in that sentence would be justified. The screensaver itself is just bascially a photo of a police dog and some text about what constitutes a reasonable reason for conducting a strip search, but there are plenty of photos of police dogs already used in the article and the screensaer text most likely is already or can be covered in other ways in other parts of the article. None of the information provided to the reader by the screensaver seems to significantly improve their understanding of the relevant article content to such a degree that omitting the non-free image would be detrimental to that understanding. So, I can't really see any way for this to meet all ten WP:NFCCP given the way it is (was) being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File was originally tagged for WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 violations. File was obtained from NSW Police under Freedom of Information laws. Content published on the Force's website is automatically covered by CC 4.0 however as this content was provided directly to a third party it appears that this file is not covered under that policy. I've contacted the organisation who received the file to see if a release has been attached but in lieu of that, the content in the file is not replaceable and no free file exists nor can one be created. The file features an image from a package of training materials produced internally by NSW Police for it's officers.

Per WP:NFCC#8, the file features an image of a screensaver that was used by NSW Police for training purposes. The content is significant as it reveals that officers had been explicitly warned that indications from drug detection dogs alone were insufficient reason to conduct a strip search. The inclusion of this file allows the reader to see how the information was presented to officers by NSW Police, which cannot be achieved through the use of text alone, while also highlighting the extraordinary nature of the information being presented. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Decorative fair use, lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. -FASTILY 08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2022 (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: If you are the copyright holder and/or have been authorized to publish this file to Wikipedia, please follow these instructions to get the file restored. Thanks, FASTILY 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing fair use rationale. Same as other files, albeit different registration, at c:Category:ATR 42-500 of Air Botswana. No need to use a non-free file when alternatives are available. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Special:Diff/1106600610 if there is consensus to delete this file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I just got permission from the photographer to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Could I replace this image with the free file? BlueAcidball (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the photographer is the copyright holder (which is almost certainly the case) and is willing to give their WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT), then there's really no need to re-upload the file. The originally uploaded version could be restored and the file could be moved to Commons instead. Please understand though that CONSENT doesn't just mean giving you permission and it doesn't just mean giving Wikipedia (or Commons) permission; it basically means giving everyone in the world permission to reuse the photo in pretty much any way at pretty much anytime they want without placing any significant restrictions on such reuses. Moreover, once CONSENT has been given, there's really no take backs or changing your mind at a later date. For these reason, copyright ownership and CONSENT in cases like this often requires more formal verification as explained here. The easiest thing to do would be to ask copyright holder to send a CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT for verification. Once the email has be reviewed and verified by a VRT member, a template will be added to the file's page stating as much. The copyright holder should decide which one of these free licenses they want to release the file under and include that in their email. The rest will be taken care of by a VRT member as long as there are no problems with the email. One last thing, converting this file's license from non-free to free will make it no longer subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus it won't be deleted per WP:FREER. However, that doesn't automatically mean the file will be used or how it should be used. If other editors feel there are better photos that can be used instead of this one, a consensus on article talk pages may be needed to decide how this file should be used. That's more of a content discussion than a copyright discussion, and content discussion are best resolved on article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 01:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable whether this photograph is in the public domain. The uploader claims it is PD since it was published more than 70 years ago in Pakistan, but the photographer was American, working for an American publication. Short of other information, it's likely American copyright law applies, and the photographer died in 1971. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The PD licensing applied is for PD Pakistan which has two cases: (1) Photographic works published before 1972, or (2) For other works the creator died before 1972. The photographer, Margaret Bourke-White died in 1971, but this is a photographic work so case (2) does not apply. No evidence has been provided that this work was published before 1972 in Pakistan. The provided source makes two statements about this photo. The caption provide attribution "Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi", and Worldcat shows this book was published in 2010. The source also states that the photo "appears on the cover of the January 5, 1948 edition of Life magazine" which is an American publication. But as it turns out, the article is wrong about the cover as the actual cover is a different photo of the subject from the same photoshoot. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting into the weeds on this (and somehow I missed that Pakistan copyright is valid for 50 years, not 70). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:12, 29 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 01:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Permission to distribute and display this image on the web" is not the same as releasing it under a free license. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2022 (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.

August 25

File:Zenprofile.jpg

File:Lessons Learned Unit Screensaver.png

File:Air Botswana ATR-42-320, reg. A2-ABB.jpeg

File:Jinnah, GG of Pakistan.jpg

File:Ricky-TheHunted.jpg