Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

File:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg

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, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious licensing information: Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks under the previous User:Husnock account, both currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources and violating copyright. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. Not a suitable candidate for a FUR conversion as plenty of free images of the subject exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that this has survived two previous deletion discussions, but all of the discussion seems to have focussed on the question of whether photos in a certain archival collection (works from Nazi Germany seized by the US government after the war) could be assumed to be PD. Nobody ever seriously questioned the basic premise of that discussion: whether the picture is indeed from that collection. We have no evidence of that beyond Husnock's say-so (and some anon IP who was almost certainly their sock [1]). Knowing what we now know about OberRanks'/Husnock's uploads, we can no longer take this claim for granted. Without some tangible evidence that this particular image is indeed contained in the collection claimed, i.e. a concrete and detailed catalog entry from NARA, we have to assume Husnock just grabbed it from somewhere on the web and faked the attribution, as he did so often. The image is claimed as copyrighted by Getty ([2]), so it's not safe to make any assumptions without evidence here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, we have plenty of free photographs of Himmler so we won't be losing much by deleting this one. Catrìona (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have seen this photo used in several RS books, but do not know the history of it. It is a good example of an early history photo as to Himmler and the SS. It may be a Bundesarchiv Bild photo, but that is just a guess. I know it is not marked as such, but it is a cropped photo. If the history cannot be confirmed, then I don't see how it can be kept. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 30 October 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.

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg

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 November 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.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.

File:Richmond Hill HS COA.jpg

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: Withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a school coat of arms so the copyright would reside with the school or board of education, so the public domain licensing is not likely to be true. This can be converted to non-free use but it's not clear if this is a proper image given the statement it was redrawn. It would be best to upload an image from an official source if this is to be used as a means of visual identification. Whpq (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks to be accurate per the sources. I have added a source, re-licensed to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I couldn't figure out why (or how) it was being used on Portal:Richmond Hill, Ontario. Hopefully a bot will swing by and remove it for being non-free. Salavat (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we sure this is a logo and not a coat of arms? AFAIK the logo is an image, the coat of arms is a description of an image and these two things are not necessarioly equivalent, copyright wise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the source provided in the NFUR added by User:Salavat, I am satisfied that this logo is legitimate, and as nominator, would like to withdraw the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 12:13, 24 October 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.

File:Uddhab Bharali.jpg

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own, but reddit given as source. Who actually created this photo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reddit is given as a source but with no specific URL to help identify the actual source. This article on Rediff (not Reddit) is from July 16, 2012 certainly predates this upload by several years. Licensing seems dubious as the editor has made other dubious license claims such as this upload of a logo licensed under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 24 October 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.

File:Malta Union of Teachers 2018 logo.jpg

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(d) to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third party logo design, but claimed as self. How is this self/own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a non-free logo. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:18, 25 October 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.

File:Asean-para-games-logo 2019.JPEG

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third party logo design, how is this own/self work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:19, 25 October 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.

File:SEAG Logos.jpg

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, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third party logo designs, How are these self or own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change licensing to non-free logo. The usage as a non-free logo though might be questionable/excessive in the 2019 Southeast Asian Games article. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the uploader has a history of copyright violations. These are obviously not own work as claimed. Conversion to use as non-free content is not an option given the current usage as these logos are not needed to understand any of the information about logos in the 2019 Southeast Asian Games article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 28 October 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.

File:Mont Nicol-Albert.png

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, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source image deleted for lack of license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file could easily find a use. It shows one of the features of this section of the International Appalachian Trail. It seems that the original uploader uploaded his own photos but he often forgot to indicate the license tags, so those files were deleted for that reason, and he reuploded some of them with a license, using a later account. Some of the files are now on Commons. For this file, he also added a link to an old webpage about the IAT, but that does not necessarily mean that it was the source of the file. It could be his own photo, like the others, and maybe he just wanted to add a link related to the topic as a sort of description. However, I couldn't find if he reuploaded this file later with the license used for the copy on en.wikipedia. The file is probably legitimate but it must probably be deleted by precaution. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 25 October 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.

File:Nokatakana.jpg

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, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derived from an image now deleted, so technically unsourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 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.

File:Tun-Razak-Exchange-TRX-Logo.png

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(d) to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is not necessarily simple ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a non-free logo. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 25 October 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.

File:НАДЪ ОЗЕРОМЪ-DVD1.jpg

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(d) to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but this is a DVD cover, How is this PD given it's not simple? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a non-free video cover. I have changed the licensing to non-free video cover and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 25 October 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.

File:Zombieshortfilmposternh.png

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned imaged, notability of filmed work promoted unclear. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:26, 25 October 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.

File:Zamora Memorial College logo.png

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(d) to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third party logo design, how is this a self or own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a non-free logo. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:26, 25 October 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.