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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Kazim bw.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mdkazimsabri ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan personal photo of no encyclopedic value -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:17, 5 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ktgg.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elected1984 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan personal photo, low resolution, no encyclopedic value -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:19, 5 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Kbylake1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elected1984 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan personal photo, low resolution, no encyclopedic value -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:19, 5 May 2013 (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.

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. It is not obvious how the file can be converted to fairuse as detailed in the discussion below, however, if someone wants to do it, reupload or ask me (or someone else) to undelete.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Sir William Russell Flint.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ahmad Ammar ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). Uploader has not edited in 3 years, hence not notified.

The artist died in 1969. While he had some major works before 1923 (particularly his series of Gilbert and Sullivan illustrations, which would make a good substitute), the earliest date I can find for this one is 1946, [1], when it was exhibited at the Royal Academy of London.

I don't think we can keep this image unless someone can prove it existed before 1923. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 09:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• We can keep it as fair use, as it serves an encyclopedic purpose. The topic in the painting is described in the article's text. Diego ( talk) 20:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Convert to fairuse This is used to show the work of an artist. Clearly, it is encyclopedic to show the work of an artist to show the work of the artist, since artists are about their work. How else are you to show what the artist is about without a sample of their work? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Invalid As I said, there are artistic works by this artist in the Public Domain in the US, so we have a number of options that don't require unnecessary fair use claims. Further, this image is so poorly documented - I can't even find what it was meant to illustrate - that it has minimal value for the artist. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 08:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
    • How would they be PD, since he died in 1969. His works would be protected in his lifetime, plus 50 years. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 00:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
      • In USA, the rule is that those works which were published before 1923 are in the public domain, whereas works first published after 1922 (but before 1978) enter the public domain 95 years after they were published. In the United Kingdom, the rule is that all paintings enter the public domain 70 years after the painter's death. Wikipedia only cares about US law. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

But doesn't the US law (after 1923) depend on the country of first publication? I think you'll find that the reason Commons involves both sets of law is because that is the actual position in US law. Johnbod ( talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

US law ignores the law of the country of first publication, with two exceptions:

• If, on the date of first publication, the US didn't have copyright relations with the country of first publication or the country of which the author was a resident or a citizen, then the work immediately entered the public domain upon publication.
• If, on the date of restoration (usually 1996-01-01, see URAA) the work was still protected by copyright in the source country, then the work was brought back from the public domain if it had previously entered the public domain for the above reason, or if it had entered the public domain due to publication without copyright notice or without copyright renewal.

The copyright term is the same as for a US work published with copyright notice and renewal (that is, 95 years since publication if published before 1978). Commons policy is that the work additionally has to be in the public domain in the source country because the rule of the shorter term makes such works free in most parts of the world, but this has nothing to do with the copyright status of the work in the United States. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• • • • Not to be confused with Wikimedia Commons, which insists on both US law and the local laws applying. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 00:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• I think that all uploaders should be notified, even if the uploader has been inactive for many years. Some uploaders might have e-mail notifications switched on for talk page edits. If it can be shown that there are {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} paintings, then this one has to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm trying to acquire his first book of Gilbert and Sullivan paintings, from 1909. It's a bit expensive, or I'd already be uploading it. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 19:38, 6 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:JOE WRIGHT 07.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DavidDjJohnson ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyright advertisement in the background is way too big to make this free.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment you can crop it, so it doesn't show the entire advertisement, just the balcony. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Which would serve... what, exactly? Not a lot of use for a 200px wide image of a person whom we have several images of. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:17, 6 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:No Meals on Wheels - Family Guy promo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GageSkidmore ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Wikipedia:NFCC#8. This file does not represent a large plot point or themes, and it is not needed to understand the article. Beerest355 ( talk) 16:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'll admit I'm not a fan of the show, but it's just a closeup of a character, with, if you look at it long enough, a barely-visible coin. It could be from any episode, and the supposed plot point illustrated is not even the focus. This adds very little value. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 19:29, 5 May 2013 (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.

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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Whale shark caught off Anping in 1994.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgiganteus1 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a press shot which is not specifically discussed in the article and so probably fails NFCC#2. The original source/copyright holder are not attributed, and so fails NFCC#10a. As we can also understand the significance of the event without seeing a picture, and as the appearance (as opposed to the size) of the creature is not of importance to the article, it probably fails NFCC#8. The full extent of the "discussion" of this particular incident in the article is "A shark caught in 1994 off Tainan County, southern Taiwan reportedly weighed 35.8 tonnes (79,000 lb)." J Milburn ( talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

You opportunely left out of your comment the part of the discussion that gives it its NFCC#8 significance: "and is possibly the largest ever recorded" [with ref]. The fair use rationale explains why the image is being used for an encyclopedic purpose: "to illustrate the maximum size of the species", which couldn't be done with a free image as none exists of this particular specimen. And what commercial use could be hurt by this low-res clip? This nomination doesn't make sense, and we should keep the image. (I've fixed the link to the source, so NFCC#10a is not a concern). Diego ( talk) 20:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I quoted everything in the article itself. Sure, it's the largest ever. Do we need a picture to understand that? No, it can be said, or illustrated with a diagram. What doesn't make sense? J Milburn ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the reasons stated above. The image is used to show the size of the specimen (and in turn the maximum size of the species) in relation to a human. Encyclopedic value is high since size is what this species is best known for and the main reason many readers will be looking at the article in the first place. And while taken from a newspaper, it is of very low quality and is therefore unlikely to "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (NFCC#2). mgiganteus1 ( talk) 22:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If you want to show the size of the species in relation to a human, use a diagram, as is used in, for instance, blue whale, another species famous for its size. That's more useful, more professional and removes the need for a non-free image. J Milburn ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete If this is a press image, then it violates WP:NFCC#2. No evidence that it isn't a press image. Given the wording "newspaper clipping dated May 14, 1994", any evidence that it isn't a press image would need very good evidence. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

How being a newspaper clipping replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Diego ( talk) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The purpose of press images is to sell the images to websites and printed publications. Wikipedia is a website. See WP:NFC#UUI §7. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete not so much over the press image issue, but because this is a really lousy reproduction of a pretty lousy image to begin with. It takes a certain effort of analysis just to figure out that there is a whale shark carcass pictured, much less figuring how much of the picture is the shark and what the part that aren't depict. The only evidence of scale is a overly contrasty foreground silhouette of a person which is insufficient to that purpose. I really don't see how looking at this image tells me anything, so I cannot see why, if the image were certainly free, anyone would ever really want to use it; it isn't so remarkable event that we should put up with the poor quality because nothing better is available. We have dozens of whale shark images in commons. Mangoe ( talk) 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Other whale sharks are not the largest ever found, this one is. Its low quality is evidence that it will not harm any commercial interest - no one would pay for it, but it documents a historic event - see WP:NFCI#8 (this photo is subject of commentary in the article). Diego ( talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Catching a big fish isn't a historic event. This is not "Real Paper Book on the whale shark"-quality material; this is "supermarket tabloid" or Forteana quality material. I repeat: we have lots of good pictures, and we should use them, and not this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I would add that the press image issue also figures in this. It doesn't become free just ceause we made a bad copy of it. Mangoe ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (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.

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. Diannaa ( talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Pyoverdine.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RCHIDER ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Structure available as File:Pyoverdine.svg - no reason for two versions  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 20:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Move to commons this is vertically more compact, which may be desirable in some cases. I don't see why you wouldn't have multiple orientations for chemicals, we do for other things. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Having two different depictions of one chemical structure is no reason to delete one of them. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:05, 10 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Yersiniabactin.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RCHIDER ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Structure exists as File:Yersiniabactin.svg - no reason for two versions  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 20:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Move to commons this is a different orientation. I don't see why we shouldn't have different orientations, we do of other things, so why not chemicals? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I would normally agree with 65.94.76.126 that having two different depictions of one chemical structure is no reason to delete one of them. However, the chemical structure in this file is incorrect. The hydroxy group should be a methyl group. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (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.

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. Diannaa ( talk) 04:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ferrichrome.PNG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RCHIDER ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Structure exits as File:Ferrichrome - Ferricromo.png - no reason for two versions  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Move to commons this is a different orientation, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have different orientations. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Having two different depictions of one chemical structure is no reason to delete one of them. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep the image is in use, and is different enough so that either could be useful. Move to commons is a good idea. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:14, 22 May 2013 (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.

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 INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ceca raznatovic 36.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zvonko ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This poster of Ceca is being used on the Turbo-folk article, but is replaceable by a free image such as File:Ceca2006.png ( WP:NFCC#1). Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 21:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ceca2006.png depicts a different time and therefore isn't an adequate replacement. File:Ceca raznatovic 36.jpg is used specifically to convey the look at the period being discussed. Zvonko ( talk) 16:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete It is just a photo of a woman standing in front of a car. How is that supposed to help me understanding a musical sub-genre? Looks like a blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, it says that the image comes from a newspaper, meaning that it presumably also violates WP:NFCC#2. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2013 (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.

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: not deleted. Whatever NFCC #4 means, it is not this. Originally, when the policy was created, what is now NFCC #4 was simply the idea that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - fair use images had to be previously published because otherwise they would be original research. That policy could also be thought of as a codification of the rule that Wikipedians are not permitted to publish their own works under a claim of fair use - if you are uploading your own photo, you must use a free license. But the purpose of the rule is not to forbid commentary on beta software and besides, the moment the beta was given to someone outside of Microsoft, it was "published". -- B ( talk) 11:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Aneptunelogon.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pcap ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Screenshot of beta software not officially released. Violation of WP:NFCC 4. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't think NFCC 4 is intended to stop us talking about notable unreleased betas with images, and I'd have said that the website is sufficient to count as publication for it - it's if it had no provenance that there'd be a problem. Further, the image only barely has copyright, if it does: it's primarily shapes and text, with a few, small incidental images not the main focus. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment The NFCC#4 claim is in my opinion invalid since this was obtained from another website. I think some claim can be made for the image's value since it shows the progression towards the XP login as described in the article, so I'm not inclined to oppose fair-use. I would like to see further discussion, however. Mangoe ( talk) 13:38, 7 May 2013 (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.