Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

April 21

File:Philip II Of Macedon-Thessaloniki.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content; there is no FOP in Greece FASTILY 03:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Googling the statue seems to be of the "late 20th century" (e.g Getty Images).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete late 20th century sculpture is likely to be copyrighted

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:Statue of Octavian Augustus.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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn'; The statue is more than old enough to be PD -FASTILY 08:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content; there is no FOP in Greece FASTILY 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That statue is almost certainly not recent. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thermopylae.JPG suggests that in that case the photo would be OK.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statue c. AD 14-37 according to this source, in public domain. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 21 April 2016 (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:Major HPS Ahluwalia with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at the graduation ceremony at HMI, Darjeeling.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable historical photo of some sort; unlikely that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm guessing that the uploader is a family member. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016 (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:Major HPS Ahluwalia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, downsized, watermarked version of File:Maj. Haripal Singh Ahluwalia.jpg FASTILY 03:39, 21 April 2016 (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:Maurice Michael Griffin.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, reduced size duplicate of File:Old photo 1880.jpg FASTILY 05:25, 21 April 2016 (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:Grommet and Matty with new van.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; deleted by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing does not match uploader's description of image's provenance. Uploader stated "Sent by Mr Grommet for use", also claimed fair use and cited a URL, and claimed "own work" and labeled it CC-SA and GFDL. This makes no sense and indicates likely copyright violation.

talk) 08:34, 21 April 2016 (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:VNPTLogo.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: convert' to fair use. — ξ ^xplicit 12:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but this is clearly a logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2016 (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:The Jesus Film Project 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: Delete; deleted as

F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Claimed as fair use but this is Simple text with a gradient. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2016 (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:Gnaraloo Wilderness Foundation 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: convert' to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The threshold of originality in Australia is incredibly low. — ξ ^xplicit 12:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as fair use, but this is only text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (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:SSrustworthy.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 as

F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a photo of a work designed by a third-party, Concern is the applicability of FoP in a US work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ships are functional objects, not subjects capable of being copyrighted. The
Vessel Hull Design Protection Act creates a separate kind of intellectual property, which places restrictions on the construction of ships from the same design; deleting a photo of a ship on VHDPA grounds would be like deleting File:Red Apple.jpg because it infringes a trademark held by Apple, Inc. All this is irrelevant if the photo is taken from elsewhere, of course, but I don't see any reason to distrust the uploader's claim that it's an own work. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Ships are utilitary articles in US copyright law, not works containing originality c:COM:UA. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 22 April 2016 (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:Driver Verifier in Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. The uploader has lied about the author and the source. This image is a screenshot of a copyright-protected Microsoft product. Attempting to fix this problem is redundant; we already have a copyright-compliant file: File:Driver Verifier.png Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:IExpress on Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:Windows Vista IExpress.png Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:MSConfig on Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:MSConfig screenshot.png Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:System Restore on Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:Vista System Restore.png Fleet Command (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Windows Error Reporting on Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:Windows Error Reporting problem details.png Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Event Viewer Windows 10.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:Windows XP Event Viewer.png Fleet Command (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Device Manager Windows 10.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 as

F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

An alternative image is already uploaded to Wikipedia: File:Microsoft Management Console - Device Manager.png. Fleet Command (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Resource Monitor Windows 10.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

Wikipedia already has a proper image: File:Windows 7 Resource Monitor.png. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Windows 10 Management Console.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Not a free image. Wrong license, no source, no fair-use rationale.

An alternative image is already uploaded to Wikipedia: File:Microsoft Management Console - Device Manager.png. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:CSD § F9. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (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:Natalia Toreeva Song of Songs 1999.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 for now; image is now tagged as OTRS pending. — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the uploader is actually the publisher. Needs a full verification via

OTRS, or these files must be deleted as possible copyrights. Joseph2302 (talk

) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Hello Joseph2302, This file and another file Song of Songs 1997 I submitted for the Draft:Natalia Toreeva, which you deleted, but I'm going to use both files for my Draft again. So please save those files for my editing a new Draft. I'm still waiting for this Draft, so I can use the references from there. These 2 files are copyrighted and you can see on the drawings for each file, that they were accepted, since the pass the process. And I put the info inside of the files when the files were copyrighted, etc. Hope it helps.75.150.223.177 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Hello, I uploaded both files (Song of Songs) of 1997 and 1999, to the new Draft file with no problem. Both files have the copyright info, licence, author, and date of creation. You can look inside of those files. Let me know what is missing, and why you are looking into the file?Toreeva (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2016 (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:Natalia Toreeva The New Beginning 1992.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 for now; image is now tagged as OTRS pending. — Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the uploader is actually the publisher. Needs a full verification via

OTRS, or these files must be deleted as possible copyrights. Joseph2302 (talk

) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Hello Joseph2302, This file was download for the Draft:Natalia Toreeva and included there, so please safe it for my new Draft. I still waiting the Draft:Natalia Toreeva, so I can use the references from there. This file is copyrighted and I put all needed info inside of that file. Hope it helps.75.150.223.177 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Hello, I just upload the "New Beginning" file to the new Draft file. It is the same file as "The New Beginning", just "The" was deleted from the name of file, so don't be confused. The file has all the info about the copyrights date, licence, author, data creation, etc. I don't understand why you are looking into the file if it has all the needed info. Please let me know if something is missing. Thanks,Toreeva (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2016 (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:Constantinople(1878)-Turkish Government information brocure (1950s) - Black Sea from istanbul.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, can't verify source. I don't think this and the following image come from the 1878 book Constantinople -- they (1) are a different style than all the rest of the images (I've gone through the uploaders images and added page numbers to dozens of images from that book) (2) don't have the captions that are characteristic of the book and which the uploader left on for all other images from that book (3) and are the uploader's only images that both reference the 1878 book and a 1950s government brochure. I'm fairly sure they're actually from the latter, which likely wouldn't be public domain and can't be verified in any case. I also couldn't locate them in the book, and nothing in the image index for the book contains "caffe" "caffetteria" or "mar nero" which you would expect to see (the book is in Italian). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2016 (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:Constantinople(1878)-Turkish Goverment information brocure (1950s) - Istanbul coffee house.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, can't verify source. I don't think this and the preceding image come from the 1878 book Constantinople -- they (1) are a different style than all the rest of the images (I've gone through the uploaders images and added page numbers to dozens of images from that book) (2) don't have the captions that are characteristic of the book and which the uploader left on for all other images from that book (3) and are the uploader's only images that both reference the 1878 book and a 1950s government brochure. I'm fairly sure they're actually from the latter, which likely wouldn't be public domain and can't be verified in any case. I also couldn't locate them in the book, and nothing in the image index for the book contains "caffe" "caffetteria" or "mar nero" which you would expect to see (the book is in Italian). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2016 (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:Batu Pahat Well.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is freely licensed, but what about the copyright of the text? There is no freedom of panorama for non-building items in the US that would exempt the photo from derivative work rules and commons:COM:FOP suggests that US rules might be applied to such a photo, even if apparently Malaysia has such FoP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever applied US freedom of panorama rules to photos taken outside the US. ~~Malaysia does have FOP, so this photo should be fine.~~ Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No FOP in Malaysia for texts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 22 April 2016 (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:The Turkish theater 1933 - pishekar, kavuklu, three zenne, orchestra, on median (open space).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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 12:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1933 image, no reason given that it would be public domain. apparently from this book https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Turkish_Theatre_With_Plates.html?id=R8IaMwEACAAJ Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you discover that it's actually from a different source. The Stanford copyright renewal database includes just thirteen records with "Turkish" in the title, and none of them is even close to this; consequently, anything taken from this book is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this typically how we treat images that are included in books? Given that we haven't examined the book, we can't tell if the image has a different copyright holder from the book. For example, a photo could be included in a book by permission of a different copyright holder, and the failure of the book's copyright holder to renew doesn't seem like it would cause the copyright of the photo to fall into the public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what we do unless proof of a different author is provided. Anyway, I don't know how it worked in other countries at the time, but in the USA, authorised publication of someone else's work (as opposed to you publishing someone else's stuff without his permission) made the other guy's work subject to what you did with it; if you failed to include a copyright notice, the other guy's work still entered the public domain immediately. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Turkish works normally do not need a copyright renewal, so if this was first published in Turkey, then searching the renewal database isn't useful. Also, if a photograph appeared in a book or newspaper, then you also need to search for the book or newspaper as the picture is covered by the renewal of the book or newspaper (if any). The link provided by
  Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - The Worldcat entry appears to indicate that the publisher was located in New York. (A Turkish book is also unlikely to have had an English-language title.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, unless it can be proven that the picture was published somewhere separate from the book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 22 April 2016 (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:Turkish Government information brocure (1950s) - Meddah-storyteller.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, unverifiable source Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (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:Ipwignited.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2016 (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:The sultan (1973) original mansell collection - San Stefano.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

worse-quality version of File:Treaty of San Stefano.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2016 (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.