Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

File:Isat 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: delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Available under superior format at File:I.Sat logo.svg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 10:16, 20 January 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:Justice 1.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. Killiondude (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous non-free media: there is already a piece of non-free media in this article to identify the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple items of non-free content can not be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. --Saqib (talk) 16:16, 26 January 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:PaineLions.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: tagged as orphan. Killiondude (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded athletics logo. The new image, per both the SIAC website and Paine's own site (http://www.paineathletics.com/site/assets/logo.svg), can now be found at File:Paine College athletics logo 2018.svg. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:, unused non-free files should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} (orphaned non-free images) instead of being listed here at FFD. Orhaned non-free files will then be deleted within seven days. Salavat (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: I should have known that. I think part of me wanted to make sure there wasn't an issue with the replacement file. I'll withdraw so this can be closed, then? —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 20 January 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:Spar Street's painting Lift of Freedom, with U.N. Messenger of Peace Dame Jane Goodall.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable license statement (not online, no archive available). More importantly, it's unclear what is licensed (photo vs. painting), and freedom of panorama wouldn't apply to the painting in most countries including the US. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:27, 20 January 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:TANGO6 Gene Location on Human Chromosome 16.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No license statement seen on the page? Listing here mostly because I might be missing something - the page is quite dense. Could someone sanity check me here? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an image from GeneCards, which is certainly not CC-licensed. It's also redundant to the image in the infobox at TANGO6. (The text content of the sandbox looks OK on a skim, though.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:15, 21 January 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:Predicted Protein Interaction of DEPDC1B.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing unclear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. This is an image from the STRING project, whose products are under a CC-BY 4.0 license. However, the data represented in the image is out of date. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:22, 21 January 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:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.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. The question here is, "Does Bewes's notability rest in large part on his earlier visual appearance, satisfying points one and eight of WP:NFCC?" The consensus here is, "No, his appearance is not why he is notable. He was simply younger at the time of his peak." ℯ xplicit 05:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is dispute as to whether inclusion of this file in Rodney Bewes violates WP:NFCC#1. This is a procedural nomination so that interested parties have a venue to discuss; I am neutral. FASTILY 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @BeckenhamBear, @George Ho, @Stephen. -FASTILY 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before voting, I would like to say about this image. I'm unsure whether it's replaceable by File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg, which depicts him at an a very later age and is awaiting an OTRS verification, in contrast to this non-free image that depicts the actor/character at a younger age in the '70s. Also, I'm unsure whether BBC has U.S. commercial interests in this screenshot, even when it is a non-profit British television service. The deletion of another file at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 was endorsed due to BBC's commercial interests in that file. However, I would say that being a mere screenshot of a fictional element is not a sole reason to remove or delete the image itself. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I added File:Rodney Bewes 2004 (cropped).jpg in the article, but I put it as part of the body article for now until the outcome of this discussion is made. –George Ho (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Moved from the bottom of the section to flow the discussion (...or something like that). George Ho (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am using the following policy to justify use of this photo:
- Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo mentioned above is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. This one does. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least).
- An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo).
- For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (First he's deceased, and second the rest applies here too, His fame dates from the 1960s and 70's, he never looked remotely the same since out of that era. His features differ greatly from those in the nations consciousness. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliably-sourced prose at Rodney Bewes as to the subject's appearance. Is there an explicit policy or guideline exemption to WP:NFCC#8 for biographies (alive or dead)? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for @fourthords, Sorry, not sure what you mean? Did you mean inclusion as opposed to exemption? I think the images that can be seen on the internet show the difference already. The uploaded photo conforms to all the "base" written policy. It fully complied with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW, regarding :Non-free biographical images of the deceased. We're losing sight from the reason the Admin deleted the image in the first place; which was (rm NFU image, no evidence of sourcing another image). He was wrong. He didn’t want to give up and then invoked "A screen grab from a TV show showing an actor in a role is not fair use to illustrate the individual, it should only be used to illustrate the role. There was no evidence that anyone had attempted to source a free image of the individual". Wrong again on both points. The topic then started to ramble and was pushed into the whole question of finding an image that connected the man to his fame. That is then when WP:NFCC#8 was mentioned on a secondary qualifying level as the man's appearance had significantly changed so as to be unrecognisable from the days of his fame? When the reader sees the image they should connect the life story article to the man. If they see an image of him at age 79 they just don't do that. That leaves us with this justification: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" Answer: NO. and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Answer: NO. This one TV role in civvies is the only achievement (43 years ago) of this man’s life as far as the great majority of general public is concerned. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more elaborative and see if I'm making sense. We're discussing the retention of File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg, which is only being used in the article Rodney Bewes. The non-free content criteria says that "all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 […] criteria are met." The eighth of these criteria says that "[n]on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I've read the article at Rodney Bewes, and it has no reliably-sourced prose about Mr. Bewes' appearance at all. Which, then, is the information already in the article that readers simply cannot understand without seeing this photograph of Mr. Bewes? That's the requirement. If that question cannot be satisfied by the article, then this copyrighted file fails the requirements set forth by policy, and may not be used.
Also, please don't "[c]ourtesy ping" me. You didn't, actually, but please don't do so in the future, either. Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You want referenced prose that says his appearance has changed? We all do as we get older, some more than others. In this case more. The two photos mentioned show that already. If you read a modern biography of a media person, and you cant connect that prose to an image. Your none the wiser. Anyway it still stands the image was compliant with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want anything in particular. I'm just explaining that the non-free content criteria (a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations") requires that the copyrighted media used in an article be necessary to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you remove File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg from Rodney Bewes, there is nothing reliably-sourced in that article that would be any more difficult to understand. It's unnecessary, and therefore does not meet our requirements. Delete it, barring new reliably-sourced prose that requires its replacement. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying it doesn't matter if you cant put a face to a "name" in a media article. Keep --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing of the kind, and claiming I did changes none of our relevant policies, guidelines, and/or manuals. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Answer No. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies for my absence w/o notice.) I've just re-read the article, and can't find any prose that requires copyrighted imagery to understand. Can you point us to such? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By prose I assume you mean narrative. This not a discussion about narrative its about imagery. Instead of reading the article, please read the policy, which is what this discussion is about. The usefulness of the image in understanding what the article is about is self evident. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "prose", I mean "the ordinary form of spoken or written language, without metrical structure, as distinguished from poetry or verse." Copyrighted imagery is only used when "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (WP:NFCC#8) That's the policy I've been discussing since 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC). Ergo, I'll ask again: what prose (or if you prefer, 'what ordinary written-language content') in the article requires copyrighted imagery to understand. Can you point us to such? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that a free to use image of the deceased individual has been sourced, there is no need to use a copyrighted screengrab of a television program. Step hen —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 7 January 2018
No it's not a moot point (again). Nothing has changed. After all this time wasting, You still have not answered where your getting your (made up ) policy from? This file (File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg) is still OK for use on Wikipedia, allowed under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia: Non-free content, because the man isdeceased. As the source programme is still under copyright, and any similarimage meeting the stated purpose would by necessity be derivative of the original programme, a free replacement cannot be provided. The new picture (still) does not look like the subject in his “known for days” the guidelines suggest that there is still a case for inclusion of File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg. Here are three points (again) I'm giving you: First: Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo you quote is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least). Two. An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, … , is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo). Three. (the guidelines can be clarified, taking a ruling from the stricter regs against Live person images). For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (he's deceased, and the rest applies here too). This time wasting exercise was started because you flew in the face of the laid down policy, and refused to quote where you derived your (rejection) policy from (unsurprisingly because you made it up, and that is not what an Admin is supposed to do). You were not elected for this role. Your opinion has only been disruptive without recourse. You are either right or wrong, and despite several cordial entreaties for you to explain your stance; you have not. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeckenhamBear, you already voted "keep" above. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This screenshot of Bewes was removed, reinserted, and re-removed. Is this okay while this discussion is still ongoing? George Ho (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it doesn't change the discussion. The photo required here is one that is recognisable to Joe Public. A photo that will allow the reader to match the narrative to the person, and that is the non-free image. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm having second thoughts about this screenshot. At first I wasn't sure whether it's irreplaceable. However, I realize it might not matter much. I went to BBC Motion Gallery via Getty Images, a commercial multimedia agency (which provides videos besides photos), after I read the Using BBC Content webpage, which says to email Getty Images team to buy (yes, buy!) a screenshot. There, you have to request clip previews. Seems that BBC and Getty Images have commercial interests in selling reuse of partial or whole episodes of Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?, including this screenshot, no matter how much value any screenshot has, even when the series has been released on home video (well... for private exhibition/home use). Such educational usage would fail to comply with WP:NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) and wouldn't be acceptable per rule #7 of WP:NFC#UUI. A counterexample would prove me wrong as there are other BBC content used in Wikipedia, but I'm uncertain whether the rebuttal would overcome my latest argument. George Ho (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. I appreciate what your saying. Nevertheless it changes nothing, the image has always been copy write, we know that. I wish to apply the policy as written, of using a copyrighted photo under fair use (with all the safeguards) because he is dead, and and no other adequate image is available. Simple. Until a PD image of him surfaces from the seventies (in this particular case), we should be able to use it. This is not a question of community consensus, its what the policy is saying. Metaphorical question: Are we inclusionist or deletionist. The projects MO is "inform the world". --BeckenhamBear (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with one possible exception: The free version from Commons seems more than sufficient for primary identification purposes in the main infobox. The fact that the subject is deceased does not change that in my opinion. I only think an NFCC#1 exception would be granted for this if the primary reason for his Wikipedia notability was his appearance (i.e., it was something which received significantly coverage in reliable sources at the time). The NFCCP do not really allow exceptions for non-free use simply to compare and contrast how an individual appeared in his/her "hey day" when perhaps they were most active career-wise and recognizable to Joe-Public and the reasoning given in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI as well as what has been discused about the this type of use in BLPs various times at WT:NFC (links can be provided, but just searching "retired" in the archives will get most of the latest ones) can also be applied here as well, even though Bewes is deceased; moreover, if non-free photos of people in their prime were considered the norm and not the exception to NFCC#1, there would be lots of non-free images being used in the infoboxes BLP or biography articles of athletes, actors, musicians, politicians, celebrities, etc., which is something pretty much never allowed. The article is about Bewes from the beginning of his life to the end, and he most certainly looked different at different stages of his life; while it's true that a certain generation may more readily recognize him from the non-free screenshot, a Wikipedia article is not written for a certain generation and a non-free image is not used for nostalgia purposes. So, the Commons image is more that sufficient for primary idenitification and the non-free is not needed for that. I'm not trying use WP:OTHERIMAGE to argue the file can't be use here, but I also don't think the reasons given so far for wanting to use the non-free instead of the Commons file clearly show how all ten criterion have been met (particularly WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8) and that satisfying some of the criteria in not sufficient. It is the burden of those wanting to use a non-free image to provide a valid non-free use rationale per WP:NFCCE. WP:FAIRUSE is only a guideline and the items given in WP:NFC#UUI are just examples of types of non-free usage generally considered acceptable and being deceased is one example of such usage; WP:NFCC is the policy and it is this which needs to be satisfied. Even for deceased individuals, non-free use is not assumed to be automatic simply because they are deceased; all of the non-free content use criteria still need to be met.

Now for my exception, if this image is can be used in the body of the article near sourced relevant content discussing Bewes appearance at that particular time of his life or his appearance in that particular show, or can be used in support of sourced commentary which discusses how his appearance may have changed since his "hey day" (e.g., he had an accident or otherwise needed/underwent surgery which drastically changed his appearance ala Al Yankovic#New look and career to present), and the non-free use rationale is changed accordingly to reflect the specifics of that use and clarify how this new use provides the context to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, then maybe this could be kept. However, simply claiming the screenshot is historic/iconic because it's old or shows him in his "hey day" as opposed to how he looks after naturally aging is not really historic per WP:ITSHISTORIC; I believe there needs to be critical commentary in reliable sources telling us that his appearance was historic/iconic for such a claim to hold water.

Finally, the WP:IMAGENAZI responses to some of the comments being made is not very helpful; If clarification is desired as to why a particular !vote is made, then it can be asked in a more civil manner. If clarification was repeatedly asked and not provided, then the closing admin will likely note such a thing per WP:MEETOO and take it into account when they close the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument above. One more question: What about WP:NFCC#2 and video clips of BBC content at Getty Images? George Ho (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot to think about here. Need time, to learn and study the entire policy. In the meantime I direct you to WP:NFC#UUI IMAGES 1. "For some ... retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." On the other point, Rodneys appearance changed more drastically than Yankovic, who only took his glasses off and changed his haircut from what I can see. BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Rodney's notability "rests in a large part on their earlier visual appearance" or his change in appearance was the the subject of sourced critical commentary, then add the relevant content and supporting citations to the article. This would, in my opinion, make the claim that the non-free use of file is justified much stronger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're coming full circle here. Rodneys notability (as evidenced in the EN:Wiki article") is best known for playing Bob Ferris in the BBC television sitcom The Likely Lads (1964–66) and its colour sequel Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? (1973–74). Bewes' later career was of a much lower profile (little or no TV), but he continued to work as a stage actor". This is referenced in "The Times". His appearance demonstrably and radically changed as seen in the photographs on the web. I quoted WP:NFC#UUI, It does not demand cosmetic surgery as a justification. Frankly his appearance has changed as much (or more) than Yankovic who only had his eyesight corrected. Rodney is not Kim Kardashian and therefore we must rely majorly on photography, rather than narrative. I would submit that imagery is as influential as the written word. I also give you WP:NFLISTS 5. "For media that involves (live) actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media." No mention here either about narrative. By using this image I only seek to "improve or maintain" the article in question; without invoking IAR. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:24, 4 March 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:Drumm at Bodenstown.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg. Possibly fair use candidate? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (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) 10:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has free equivalent on Commons. --Saqib (talk) 16:21, 26 January 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:Yoo seung.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image is sourced as 'own work' however the image is clearly not their own work. Image looks to be a picture taken of a computer screen. Struggled to find original source, but image can be seen in use on other websites using reverse image search Alexanderlee (talk) 18:34, 20 January 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:Mary FallinGovernor.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid PD icense. This is not a US government photo. Mary Fallin is the Governor of Oklahoma State. Photo with copyright notice at bottom of page. Not a free file. We hope (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:31, 21 January 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:Jari askins.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Not a US Government photo. Jari Askins is the Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma State. Photo at top right with Oklahoma copyright notice at bottom. Not a free file. We hope (talk) 22:30, 20 January 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:Hughgaitskell.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Hughgaitskell.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 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:Rabbutler.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Rabbutler.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 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:Christopher-Birdwood.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Christopher-Birdwood.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 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:Lansbury.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 ⚡ 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken from Gueen's Wharf wesite which has a copyright notice. No dating for photo, so no way to determine when it was taken. File lists photographer as Bassano Ltd but the page lists no photographer. We hope (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo 7 Council 1938, WRI George Lansbury head crop.jpg PD photo this one replaced. We hope (talk) 01:28, 21 January 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:Hastingsleesmith.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: Relicensed as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken from Jewish Chronicle website which has copyright notice. Photo has no dating and there's no photographer named; file information lists the photographer as Bassano Ltd. We hope (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would support a re-license of this as non-free as there is no image of the deceased person. We hope (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo has been relicensed. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 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:Malcolmmacdonald.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Malcolmmacdonald.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 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:Richardstokes.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Richardstokes.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 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:Arthurjones.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Arthurjones.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 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:Emanuelshinwell.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26#File:Emanuelshinwell.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 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:Georgetomlinson.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: Keep as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken from website with copyright for Bolton Council. No dating for photo. We hope (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would support re-license of this photo as non-free for the deceased person. We hope (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-licensed it JimmyJoe87 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now licensed correctly for use in this article. We hope (talk) 13:28, 21 January 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.