November 26
File:Babette Alison Smith OAM died 2021.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 F5 by Victuallers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- File:Babette Alison Smith OAM died 2021.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#1. She's recently died, and so a photo of her could easily be licenced by e.g. contacting anyone who took a photo of her in her lifetime. Incorrect to claim that there will definitely never be a freely licenced photo of her, which is what we are doing by using a fair use image. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree a Fair use image is used where we have made a reasonable effort to find a fair use image. The claim above is not I believe supported by guidelines. A google search in itself goes through millions of images and in this case additional searches were made including on Flickr and YouTube. These are some of the searches made. A claim that we can "easily" a) contact the people who knew her and b) who have a photo of her and c) are willing to donate the rights and d) are willing to jump the commons procedures to confirm ownership, who they are and that they took the photo and and e) are not too busy going to her funeral is a bit of a stretch of the word "easily" IMO. If this were true then it would effect hundreds of photos so can I suggest that if this is believed to be true then it should be discussed in an important forum to establish a policy for next time. I re-read the policy and I think "where no free equivalent is available" does not mean "where no free equivalent [will ever under any circumstances be] available" as is claimed. Victuallers ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never claimed it was impossible. I was just doubting your use of the word "easily". In my experience I can find a person who has a photo of a person of interest and they are more than willing to let us use it and even then it is not "easily" done. However I find that we have a policy that says "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." This was news to me. Now I think that the chances of us finding one is not "reasonably likely" as enthusiasts like myself do not find contacting people who have photos in any way "easy", I've tried, a lot!. We can contact all of her twitter contacts and ask, but I have tried emailing universities, employers and publishers are they don't care to answer, or they fail to understand why we don't just use the photo they publish like everyone else. I am now intrigued to see how this is settled. I think that contacting google, twitter, flickr and youtube is a reasonable guide "that there will never be a free to use image of a dead person". If more effort is required by this policy then I am certain "that there will never be a "fair use" image of most dead people ... because few will be able to prove reasonable effort and its easy to doubt that effort was made. Victuallers ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It is standard practice that we do not immediately add a non-free image of a recently deceased person days after the death - we expect users to try to see if they can contact the person's friends and family (though obviously not in the weeks immediately after death, let them mourn first) particularly for a public but otherwise low-profile individual. So we expect this to take several months - generally about 6 months - before we delegate ourselves to a non-free. Just because a free one doesn't exist now doesn't mean a non-free can be used now. -- Masem ( t) 15:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it's not as if this individual was reclusive, and clearly no real effort has been expended on trying to obtain a free version. It's disappointing to see an admin misinterpreting the clear guidance at FUR, but there's simply no excuse for such a rapid non-free upload. Incidentally, if a Flickr user simply re-licenses their images, we need no more hoops and can import them straight to Commons, so all this flim-flam around the technical challenges are red herrings. A simple email (in my case) has often led to desirable free use images becoming available to Wikipedia. Has this happened in this case? It appears not, especially within only four days of the subject's death.... The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment this file appears to have been deleted, after a free image of her was uploaded instead. Which kind of proves the point that a free image could be found with enough work, and so WP:NFCC#1 was clearly not satisfied in this case. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:14, 28 November 2021 (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.
File:Harvard Rugby, 1995.png.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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:Harvard Rugby, 1995.png.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Famous9509 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Claimed to be "own work". Metadata:
Image title: EMK128T 1955 Harvard varsity rugby team photograph, 1955. Edward Kennedy is in the third row, left. Edward Kennedy Papers, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston.
Author: unknown
Copyright holder: To the best of our knowledge no copyright claim has been made upon this image. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it's unlikely to be their own work, and they would probably need to OTRS verify if it is actually their own work. The image also says the author is user
Benthebrook but what uploaded by user
Famous9509- so if the author is true, then the uploader doesn't own the copyright to this image. The uploader has also uploaded some other Harvard Rugby images that have been deleted for having no evidence of permissions, so thing this is just more of the same.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The user was renamed. — Cryptic 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and Joseph2302's comments Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:07, 27 November 2021 (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.
File:Gamebred logo2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:Gamebred logo2.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peterdaveloose ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused logo likely above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unused as article for it was deleted a few months ago, and looks like probably copyrightable. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 23:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tineye identifies it as a crop of this image. There's no way that the human image in the middle of the text, or the portions of the photographs still visible outside it, are below TOO. — Cryptic 23:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete just because the human image is on top of a letter doesn't make it PD-textlogo. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:25, 27 November 2021 (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.
New Zealand Football Championship former logos
- 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 - FASTILY 02:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:ASB-Premiership.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:NewZealandFootballChampionship.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- Yes, the DRV absolutely doesn't preclude individual renomination, and (despite being the restoring admin on a bunch, and minimally cleaning up almost all of the rest) I still have browser tabs open for most of them to get around to getting them deleted. (World champion procrastinator here; someday, I'll get around to monetizing that.) There's notes on some of them in my sandbox; these two happen to head that list, and no, they're not even borderline. Delete. — Cryptic 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @ Cryptic: I have an unfinished project that dates back more than 20 years and many more that are just a few years old. The competition in the procrastination industry is absolutely ruthless, so you've been warned. Also, delete as I'm not comfortable to call either of these {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} (the US Copyright Office may or may not accept registering these, when in doubt, delete) and they fail WP:NFCC#8. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:46, 27 November 2021 (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.
November 26
File:Babette Alison Smith OAM died 2021.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 F5 by Victuallers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- File:Babette Alison Smith OAM died 2021.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#1. She's recently died, and so a photo of her could easily be licenced by e.g. contacting anyone who took a photo of her in her lifetime. Incorrect to claim that there will definitely never be a freely licenced photo of her, which is what we are doing by using a fair use image. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree a Fair use image is used where we have made a reasonable effort to find a fair use image. The claim above is not I believe supported by guidelines. A google search in itself goes through millions of images and in this case additional searches were made including on Flickr and YouTube. These are some of the searches made. A claim that we can "easily" a) contact the people who knew her and b) who have a photo of her and c) are willing to donate the rights and d) are willing to jump the commons procedures to confirm ownership, who they are and that they took the photo and and e) are not too busy going to her funeral is a bit of a stretch of the word "easily" IMO. If this were true then it would effect hundreds of photos so can I suggest that if this is believed to be true then it should be discussed in an important forum to establish a policy for next time. I re-read the policy and I think "where no free equivalent is available" does not mean "where no free equivalent [will ever under any circumstances be] available" as is claimed. Victuallers ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never claimed it was impossible. I was just doubting your use of the word "easily". In my experience I can find a person who has a photo of a person of interest and they are more than willing to let us use it and even then it is not "easily" done. However I find that we have a policy that says "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." This was news to me. Now I think that the chances of us finding one is not "reasonably likely" as enthusiasts like myself do not find contacting people who have photos in any way "easy", I've tried, a lot!. We can contact all of her twitter contacts and ask, but I have tried emailing universities, employers and publishers are they don't care to answer, or they fail to understand why we don't just use the photo they publish like everyone else. I am now intrigued to see how this is settled. I think that contacting google, twitter, flickr and youtube is a reasonable guide "that there will never be a free to use image of a dead person". If more effort is required by this policy then I am certain "that there will never be a "fair use" image of most dead people ... because few will be able to prove reasonable effort and its easy to doubt that effort was made. Victuallers ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It is standard practice that we do not immediately add a non-free image of a recently deceased person days after the death - we expect users to try to see if they can contact the person's friends and family (though obviously not in the weeks immediately after death, let them mourn first) particularly for a public but otherwise low-profile individual. So we expect this to take several months - generally about 6 months - before we delegate ourselves to a non-free. Just because a free one doesn't exist now doesn't mean a non-free can be used now. -- Masem ( t) 15:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it's not as if this individual was reclusive, and clearly no real effort has been expended on trying to obtain a free version. It's disappointing to see an admin misinterpreting the clear guidance at FUR, but there's simply no excuse for such a rapid non-free upload. Incidentally, if a Flickr user simply re-licenses their images, we need no more hoops and can import them straight to Commons, so all this flim-flam around the technical challenges are red herrings. A simple email (in my case) has often led to desirable free use images becoming available to Wikipedia. Has this happened in this case? It appears not, especially within only four days of the subject's death.... The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment this file appears to have been deleted, after a free image of her was uploaded instead. Which kind of proves the point that a free image could be found with enough work, and so WP:NFCC#1 was clearly not satisfied in this case. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:14, 28 November 2021 (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.
File:Harvard Rugby, 1995.png.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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:Harvard Rugby, 1995.png.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Famous9509 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Claimed to be "own work". Metadata:
Image title: EMK128T 1955 Harvard varsity rugby team photograph, 1955. Edward Kennedy is in the third row, left. Edward Kennedy Papers, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston.
Author: unknown
Copyright holder: To the best of our knowledge no copyright claim has been made upon this image. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it's unlikely to be their own work, and they would probably need to OTRS verify if it is actually their own work. The image also says the author is user
Benthebrook but what uploaded by user
Famous9509- so if the author is true, then the uploader doesn't own the copyright to this image. The uploader has also uploaded some other Harvard Rugby images that have been deleted for having no evidence of permissions, so thing this is just more of the same.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The user was renamed. — Cryptic 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and Joseph2302's comments Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:07, 27 November 2021 (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.
File:Gamebred logo2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:Gamebred logo2.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peterdaveloose ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused logo likely above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unused as article for it was deleted a few months ago, and looks like probably copyrightable. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 23:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Tineye identifies it as a crop of this image. There's no way that the human image in the middle of the text, or the portions of the photographs still visible outside it, are below TOO. — Cryptic 23:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete just because the human image is on top of a letter doesn't make it PD-textlogo. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:25, 27 November 2021 (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.
New Zealand Football Championship former logos
- 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 - FASTILY 02:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:ASB-Premiership.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:NewZealandFootballChampionship.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- Yes, the DRV absolutely doesn't preclude individual renomination, and (despite being the restoring admin on a bunch, and minimally cleaning up almost all of the rest) I still have browser tabs open for most of them to get around to getting them deleted. (World champion procrastinator here; someday, I'll get around to monetizing that.) There's notes on some of them in my sandbox; these two happen to head that list, and no, they're not even borderline. Delete. — Cryptic 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @ Cryptic: I have an unfinished project that dates back more than 20 years and many more that are just a few years old. The competition in the procrastination industry is absolutely ruthless, so you've been warned. Also, delete as I'm not comfortable to call either of these {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} (the US Copyright Office may or may not accept registering these, when in doubt, delete) and they fail WP:NFCC#8. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:46, 27 November 2021 (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.