The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinity Western Spartans men's basketball 1986.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph from a 1986 sports event, claimed as self-made, by uploader with several other proven copyvios; can't find the direct source for this one online right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 13 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Multiple images in one.
• Upload by User:Nikkiwallace: copyvio from [1]
• First upload by User:Tjp7675: upload summary suggests ((PD-USGov-USGS)), but there is no source confirming this. Contradicts ((PD-self)) claim for File:Chs stadium.jpg. ((PD-USGov-USGS)) is correct, see section below. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second upload by User:Tjp7675: dupe of the file by User:Nikkiwallace
• Upload by User:Jarr50: No source and no licence. Seems to be some picture produced by some stadium or stadium construction company. Also here in different resolutions.
• Upload by User:Joesvendsen: No source and no licence. Also here but it is not clear when it first appeared on that website.
• Uploads by User:Ireland3000: copyvios
• Upload by User:Rhishavnc: No licence. Upload summary is "wooster website", so I guess that the image was taken from some unconfirmed website. Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please salt this name, since it invites being overwritten due to its genericity. (if any images from its history are kept, they need to use some other name) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean with salting? Making the page fully protected? There are also three different files with the same file name on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creation-protected, so that no future file may occupy this location. As Commons has a request to split commons:File:Stadium.jpg as well to separate files due to being overwritten, it would be good if Commons salted that name. But until such a time as Commons is salted, a fully protected placeholder file on en.wiki would be better instead of a possibly continuously shifting file on commons occupying the location, to prevent Commons from showing through. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those placeholder files are in fact very problematic since they very often prevent Commons files from being displayed. Recently, some user suggested their removal somewhere (possibly on one of the village pumps). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that's the point, since this title is excessively generic and therefore likely to be overwritten by random file upload, we should not be able to use it. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The idea is to prevent users from uploading files with those names, not to prevent users from displaying files with those names. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Isn't the idea to prevent random replacement of images used in articles by images of other things that can use the same generic filename? A such, the Commons file is highly susceptible to random replacement by a totally different stadium, leaving an erroneous image on any article that uses it without anyone knowing. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_September_13#File:Smile.jpg where the same reason was used by SkierDude to block commons on that file. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: withdrawn --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chs stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See #File:Stadium.jpg above. Stefan2 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a water mark of U.S. Geological Survey. It should be in public domain as a work of the U.S. Federal Government. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry, I didn't notice. The copy in the #Stadium.jpg discussion above doesn't have that watermark and I guess I didn't check this copy properly. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Deleted under F9. Sources (including this one) date it to at least 2010, while it was uploaded to wikia in 2011. Wikia is nowhere near a legitimate source for trusting their content to be legitimately freely licensed, especially for images. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sue Heck from the TV show The Middle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image taken from a wikia site where, it is claimed, it is under a free licence. Image can also be seen on this blog (http://www.sorozatjunkie.hu/2010/12/04/ki-vagyok-12/) from 2010. Neither of these sites are likely the owner and the claimed free licence is not supportable. I deleted this as an unambiguous copyright violation as it, from the duplicates I can see on the web and the lack of provenance at wikia, seems clearly a webscraped commercial image (c) to the show's producers/owners. Restored by another admin, as perhaps not quite so unambiguous. Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Copyright violation. According to wikia:community:Community Central:Licensing, the licence of anything on Wikia is CC-BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise specified. No licence is stated at wikia:themiddle:File:Eden sher.jpg, meaning that the uploader tried to license the image as CC-BY-SA 3.0. CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires crediting the author (wikia:themiddle:User:Salada22) and quoting the URL to the licence, but the file information page violates both things (credited to "wikia", link to CC-BY-SA 1.0 instead of 3.0). Besides, it is highly unlikely that the Wikia user is the copyright holder, so the Wikia licence claim is presumably invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• :A crop of this image appears at http://stockdata.indonesiafinancetoday.com/executive/INTP and the uploader stated on commons (when editing an identical copy of the image): "Original photograph was given by Amit Lohia". VernoWhitney (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dongding oolong tea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Both files are sourced but neither is licensed. Sources are given in the upload summaries. The licence was added by User:Shyam who is not the uploader of either image. The first uploader didn't specify any licence and the second uploader didn't contribute to the file information page. Furthermore, the first upload is a derivative work of some packaging. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:USSOglethorpe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The file claims to be PD as a photo taken by a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy but the source doesn't indicate that. An archive of the main page states that images in the public domain are marked with NA, NHHC,or USN. In this case, the image was not given a photo credit. A look at this page shows that it is not marked with any of those.  Ryan Vesey 21:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar image, of the same pixel dimensions, appears above a copyright notice on this archived page—it looks a little sharper to me, perhaps having less often suffered lossy compression. There’s also a contact address.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE (and WP:BLUE). A picture of a U.S. Navy ship that is clearly taken from another U.S. Navy ship is unquestionably "a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that it is clear where it was taken from. It could have been taken from a nearby cliff (if it's not in the middle of the sea) or from a civil boat or from a boat belonging to the navy of some other country. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLUE doesn't apply here, you need to supply a source for every image. This is also not common sense and common sense should not be used as a justification. There are a number of things that could make this not public domain. The image might not have been taken by a sailor for the reason provided by Stefan2. In addition, is it not possible that a sailor took this picture outside of official capacity? I would find it hard to believe that any photo taken by a sailor is PD solely because they were on a US navy ship. I've asked Moonriddengirl for some advice on this. Ryan Vesey 23:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think it's unquestionably "a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" even if made from a naval boat. The key words are "as part of that person's official duties". If a sailor took a camera on deck and took a photograph simply because he wanted to, the government would have no more claim over it than they would a short story he wrote. The website that published the photograph indicated that public domain images would be marked by their appropriate source. There's no indication of source, unfortunately, which makes it pretty challenging to determine copyright. :/ I wonder if it would be worth attempting to get permission from one of the ones we know to be copyrighted at this page. The website invites contact regarding photos and may be able to put us in touch with somebody or clarify? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.