Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2[edit]

File:King's house.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced; several other photos uploaded by this user have been deleted for copyright infringement or incorrect attribution. Regardless, there is a better photo available. Jc86035 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely copyvio. Image doesnot appear to be taken by the user. Nom Jc86035, The "better pic" you have linked above is clearly not the same building, are you sure you linked the correct image ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:25, 9 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.

@DBigXray: I didn't rigorously check whether the photos were of the same structure, but each image was used primarily to represent the whole of Carcosa Seri Negara. Jc86035 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coracoid of a seriema.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PD-ineligible clearly does not apply and nothing I have seen from looking at the book makes me think this is from an old photograph whose copyright has expired or anything like that. B (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: photo clearly above TOO because of lighting and composition. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:30, 8 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.

File:ArnoldHoby.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a college football player born in 1961. The uploader claims that the copyright was not renewed, but unless he started college at age 16, there is no registration or notice requirement and unless he started college at age 2, there is no renewal requirement. B (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Improper licensing. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:24, 6 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.

File:Photo of Mollie Tibbetts.jpeg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file 1) Does not meet WP:NFCC 1, no effort made to get non-copyrighted media, as a recently deceased person in 2018 is likely to have many photos of the person that can be sought for release under compatible free licence 2) the person is not an object as described in the rationale, but more importantly the subject of the article is not the person, the subject of the article is a sad incident, and so the file does not meet NFCC as needed; and 3) under BDP, we should be respectful of privacy, especially since her family has asked for privacy and has asked her image not be used in general.[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom that WP:NFCCP#1 is invalid here. it is a recent incident and efforts should be made to get a free picture.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:42, 9 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.