- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Rep Scott Stone.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scottstone1775 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader claims to own the copyright, and appears to be the subject of the photo. EXIF data seems to indicate the copyright is held by www.aestheticimages.net so WP:OTRS confirmation of copyright status would be needed. Whpq ( talk) 03:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Unless OTRS validates permission. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Cskumaresan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cskumaresan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Useless selfie. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 04:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Lepa Brena - Australia 2019.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sticky and Sweet ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The poster is used in the background section of Zar je važno da l' se peva ili pjeva... World Tour. The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster in the infobox already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: The uploader, User:Sticky and Sweet, removed the image from the article, [1], and it is currently tagged as being orphaned. Aspects ( talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:LoyolaHindupur.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jzsj ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The source given does not prove that this is the logo of the school. The Banner talk 11:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- In a previous discussion it was agreed that the IHS symbol is a suitable logo for every Jesuit school. It is also given as the logo of the Jesuits who run the school. The fact that the very poor Dalits cannot afford their own website should not exclude them from Wiki coverage comparable to what the relatively rich enjoy.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for admitting that this is NOT the school logo, something you claimed.
The Banner
talk
12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note that the word given is "a" school logo, not "the" school logo.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Still it is not "the" or "a" logo of the school, but the logo of the local branch of the organisation running it.
- And could you please give me a link that the just of the IHS symbol is a suiteable logo? And a link to a policy why we should lower our norm because the intended target of the article is poor? The Banner talk 14:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note that the word given is "a" school logo, not "the" school logo.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for admitting that this is NOT the school logo, something you claimed.
The Banner
talk
12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Silvercitycasino.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshualeverburg1 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
https://freerangestock.com/licensing.php indicates that most Freerangestock images are under an incompatible license. It states that there are some CC0 images hosted there, but I can't see any indication on the image page that this image is CC0. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The image is not public domain as claimed. The licensing statement notes in the nomination makes it clear that there are restrictions on commercial use so the license that the images is actually released under is not compatible with Wikipedia free content licensing requirements. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- DON'T DELETE - The website the image originated from clearly states all images are free stock photos that can be used without attribution. They voluntarily waived all rights to the image. The current licensing noted is sufficient according to Wikipedia policy.--
Joshualeverburg1 (
talk)
23:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Joshualeverburg1, Attribution is not the issue here. The issue with the license is that it states
You cannot sell, redistribute, or relicense the images, and you cannot sell products which derive their primary value from the image.
This restriction does not meet the Wikipedia definition of free content because that definition requires licenses tonot bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.
The license directly contradicts the non-free content guidelines and is therefore incompatible with Wikipedia. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 23:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Joshualeverburg1, Attribution is not the issue here. The issue with the license is that it states
- I'm not an expert in copyright laws, but how is using this free license image on a nonprofit website (Wikipedia) create an issue? Is there any way to still add the image to Wikipedia with a modified copyright definition.--
Joshualeverburg1 (
talk)
02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- We might be able to keep it at a low resolution as non-free, as the building has been demolished. Someone would have to write a rationale under the non-free content guideline though. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Restrictions on commercial use make it incompatible. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Rep Scott Stone.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scottstone1775 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader claims to own the copyright, and appears to be the subject of the photo. EXIF data seems to indicate the copyright is held by www.aestheticimages.net so WP:OTRS confirmation of copyright status would be needed. Whpq ( talk) 03:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Unless OTRS validates permission. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Cskumaresan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cskumaresan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Useless selfie. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 04:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Lepa Brena - Australia 2019.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sticky and Sweet ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The poster is used in the background section of Zar je važno da l' se peva ili pjeva... World Tour. The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster in the infobox already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: The uploader, User:Sticky and Sweet, removed the image from the article, [1], and it is currently tagged as being orphaned. Aspects ( talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:LoyolaHindupur.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jzsj ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The source given does not prove that this is the logo of the school. The Banner talk 11:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- In a previous discussion it was agreed that the IHS symbol is a suitable logo for every Jesuit school. It is also given as the logo of the Jesuits who run the school. The fact that the very poor Dalits cannot afford their own website should not exclude them from Wiki coverage comparable to what the relatively rich enjoy.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for admitting that this is NOT the school logo, something you claimed.
The Banner
talk
12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note that the word given is "a" school logo, not "the" school logo.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Still it is not "the" or "a" logo of the school, but the logo of the local branch of the organisation running it.
- And could you please give me a link that the just of the IHS symbol is a suiteable logo? And a link to a policy why we should lower our norm because the intended target of the article is poor? The Banner talk 14:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note that the word given is "a" school logo, not "the" school logo.
Jzsj (
talk)
12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for admitting that this is NOT the school logo, something you claimed.
The Banner
talk
12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Silvercitycasino.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshualeverburg1 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
https://freerangestock.com/licensing.php indicates that most Freerangestock images are under an incompatible license. It states that there are some CC0 images hosted there, but I can't see any indication on the image page that this image is CC0. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The image is not public domain as claimed. The licensing statement notes in the nomination makes it clear that there are restrictions on commercial use so the license that the images is actually released under is not compatible with Wikipedia free content licensing requirements. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- DON'T DELETE - The website the image originated from clearly states all images are free stock photos that can be used without attribution. They voluntarily waived all rights to the image. The current licensing noted is sufficient according to Wikipedia policy.--
Joshualeverburg1 (
talk)
23:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Joshualeverburg1, Attribution is not the issue here. The issue with the license is that it states
You cannot sell, redistribute, or relicense the images, and you cannot sell products which derive their primary value from the image.
This restriction does not meet the Wikipedia definition of free content because that definition requires licenses tonot bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.
The license directly contradicts the non-free content guidelines and is therefore incompatible with Wikipedia. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 23:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Joshualeverburg1, Attribution is not the issue here. The issue with the license is that it states
- I'm not an expert in copyright laws, but how is using this free license image on a nonprofit website (Wikipedia) create an issue? Is there any way to still add the image to Wikipedia with a modified copyright definition.--
Joshualeverburg1 (
talk)
02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- We might be able to keep it at a low resolution as non-free, as the building has been demolished. Someone would have to write a rationale under the non-free content guideline though. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Restrictions on commercial use make it incompatible. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.