The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation of Joel Gilbert's Twitter profile picture, which is used on his Twitter page. Image is a modified version of the original picture. Previously speedily deleted under WP:F9 ( File:Joel Gilbert, Film Director.jpg), but I am listing this here to get more opinions on whether the uploader's copyright holder claim is legitimate. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg & File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg, delete rest. - FASTILY 00:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Bogus license claims. (See here; this information [specifically the license mentioned on the aforementioned link] applies to all images in this collection.) The license for these images is actually "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"; the "NC" part is "noncommercial", and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Whilst the photograph licenses are NC, this is a moot point if they fall under PD-Art (i.e. if the photographs are not considered creative enough to create a separate United States copyright). In any case, BY-NC-SA works should not be labelled as BY-SA since they are not available under the BY-SA (this is sometimes noted as one of the flaws in the Creative Commons branding, that a number of very different licences are bundled under one umbrella, with all the confusion this causes…).
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be libre content, with fair use provisions only for media which cannot conceivably be replaced with libre content (I go into more detail about what this means here), BY-NC-SA alone doesn't make the image acceptable. However, {{ PD-Art}} content is acceptable both on English Wikipedia and on Commons. So the question is whether they fall under PD-Art (which is quite plausible). -- HarJIT ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review has concluded that this file needs a fuller discussion to assess whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Omitting humanity's only images ...sounds to me like trying to argue WP:IRREPLACEABLE. I think it would be better if more content (ideally sourced content) about this particular photo and how it perhaps how it changed the common perceptions about Venus surface was added to the article; in addition, perhaps the photo should be moved to Venus#Geography to bring it closer to the already existing article connect which at least attempts to do this. Finally, just in case you didn't notice, I didn't cast a WP:!VOTE; I only commented on what I think is a rather weak justification for keeping this file. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation of Joel Gilbert's Twitter profile picture, which is used on his Twitter page. Image is a modified version of the original picture. Previously speedily deleted under WP:F9 ( File:Joel Gilbert, Film Director.jpg), but I am listing this here to get more opinions on whether the uploader's copyright holder claim is legitimate. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg & File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg, delete rest. - FASTILY 00:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Bogus license claims. (See here; this information [specifically the license mentioned on the aforementioned link] applies to all images in this collection.) The license for these images is actually "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"; the "NC" part is "noncommercial", and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Whilst the photograph licenses are NC, this is a moot point if they fall under PD-Art (i.e. if the photographs are not considered creative enough to create a separate United States copyright). In any case, BY-NC-SA works should not be labelled as BY-SA since they are not available under the BY-SA (this is sometimes noted as one of the flaws in the Creative Commons branding, that a number of very different licences are bundled under one umbrella, with all the confusion this causes…).
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be libre content, with fair use provisions only for media which cannot conceivably be replaced with libre content (I go into more detail about what this means here), BY-NC-SA alone doesn't make the image acceptable. However, {{ PD-Art}} content is acceptable both on English Wikipedia and on Commons. So the question is whether they fall under PD-Art (which is quite plausible). -- HarJIT ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review has concluded that this file needs a fuller discussion to assess whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Omitting humanity's only images ...sounds to me like trying to argue WP:IRREPLACEABLE. I think it would be better if more content (ideally sourced content) about this particular photo and how it perhaps how it changed the common perceptions about Venus surface was added to the article; in addition, perhaps the photo should be moved to Venus#Geography to bring it closer to the already existing article connect which at least attempts to do this. Finally, just in case you didn't notice, I didn't cast a WP:!VOTE; I only commented on what I think is a rather weak justification for keeping this file. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)