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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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. Killiondude ( talk) 07:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Dev v burnie 95.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Forfuxake ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious own work. Looks like a professional photo or screenshot of game footage. File lacks metadata to suggest uploader took the photo, in addition, the low resolution of the photo suggests this was taken from elsewhere on the internet, i.e. such low resolution is very unlikely if this is the original/raw file. Flickerd ( talk) 07:42, 28 December 2017 (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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Portsmouth FC crest.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Pattonb.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Basantar2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2018 January 20. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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. Killiondude ( talk) 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Mooney1.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JimmyJoe87 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

missing verifiable source; was also deleted at Commons for the same reason FASTILY 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete – this photo is not found on the Congressman's current House website, nor is it found on his official Facebook page or official Twitter account. Plus, this photo looks a little different than the one uploaded here. I've asked for an exact link to the image (same h×w size) and none has been given. This can be seen at the Commons deletion request listed above. Corky  ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Looks like the file has been used here at least as far back as February 15, 2016. That website, however, is protected by copyright which means if that's where the image originated, then probably it can't be uploaded as {{ PD-USgov}}. Same file seems to also be being used here as far back as November 2015, but in a much smaller size and with the same copyright issues. My guess is that this might be an older official photo that the Congressman's staff was using for PR purposes; it may even be an official photo taken by a US government employee, but not sure if Wikipedia can automatically assume that without a proper source. Maybe the thing to do here would be to tag the file with {{ npd}} to give the uploader a chance to send something to OTRS for verification purposes? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This portrait should not be deleted because this is Congressman Mooney's Official Congressional portrait. The portrait that was used until today: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Mooney.jpg is just a zoomed in version of this very photo. Furthermore here is the same portrait from the Congress website: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001195 JimmyJoe87 ( talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The Commons photo and what we're discussing here don't look like the same photo to me. The Wikipedia photo has a flag in the background that background, while the Commons one doesn't. Also, the link you've provided says "Image courtesy of the Member" which means the website is hosting the photo, but is not necessarily the original source of the photo. The photo was deleted fron Commons because there was a problem with its licensing. There's no reason to host this type of photo locally on Wikipedia if it's truly PD-USgov. You should've started a c:COM:DRV for the image on Commons and made your case there instead of re-uploading it to Wikipedia. If you can't convince Commons that the licensing it appropriate, Wikipedia shouldn't accept it either. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Its exactly the same photo, but zoomed in, just using his face and they have coloured in the background. I can show you more than a dozen photos like it for Members of Congress from Commons if needs be. Actually whether the website is hosting or not, the fact that it has been published on a Congressional Website means that legally it is allowed to be used. JimmyJoe87 ( talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Ummmm... not necessarily. Just because a photo is on a US Government website doesn't mean it's been taken by a government official and released into the Public Domain. A prime example was Trump and Pence's transition portraits which were displayed on the White House website for 10 months. The photographer was not a government employee and did not release their works in PD. All you need is to provide an exact URL to the picture on his website or have his office send permission to the OTRS team. Corky  ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

If you're sure they've colored the background, then I believe that would make it a derivative of that one you uploaded, which then means that the copyright status of the original photo also needs to be taken into account. If the original copyright photo is not PD, then the derivative on Commons might not be PD as well. Finally, as Corkeythehornetfan points out, I don't believe a US government website hosting a file automatically means a transfer of copyright ownership as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works. Still having said all this, this type of PD-USgov file, in my opinion, does not really need to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; it's better of on Commons, which is why you should start an undeletion request for it there and explain why the file should be restored. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#File:Alex Mooney.jpg. I think this would be better to sort this out first at Commons DRV because if this is really PD-USgov then it should be on Commons. Keeping the file will likely mean that someone will eventually tag the file for a move to Commons, which will in turn probably mean re-deletion unless things are sorted out over there first. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per comments by Marchjuly and Corkythehornetfan above. The photo shown here is captioned "Image courtesy of the Member". This could mean a photographer he employed to take photos of him. It certainly does NOT mean the photographer is/was a USG employee. The idea that all images shown on USG websites are in the public domain isn't true either.

An example would be online images at Library of Congress. That's a USG website but all the images hosted on it are NOT free. If you spend any time there, you'll see a tab to click for "Rights" assessment of a given image. There are many which say the image may NOT be in the public domain and that one must make one's own determinations about that. LOC has a collection of sheet music, some of which have covers on their site. Having the music does NOT mean LOC owns the rights to the sheet music-it means LOC has a copy they chose to take a photo of and display on the website.

Many of their online photos were gifts to the library from their respective photographers, such as the Gottlieb Collection. In this case, Gottlieb or his estate waived all rights to the photos and they are in the PD. The Mooney photo has no clear-cut proof that it is in the PD via being a government work; the tag "Image courtesy of the Member" implies that it was not taken by a government employee. We hope ( talk) 11:45, 30 December 2017 (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: relisted on 2018 January 5. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin ( notify | contribs | uploads | [Special:Log/upload/SlimVirgin|upload log]). 

Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Given that the subject died 20 years ago and only spent three years of her adult life not in prison, it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free-use equivalent, and it has no commercial value. The only potential issue is whether NFCC8 is satisfied, but I'd argue that "what did this person look like?" is almost always going to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, particularly in an article like this where this particular image illustrates the physical condition she was in on her release. ‑  Iridescent 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Non-replaceability is not at issue. If this is being used only as the primary means of identification for a deceased person, then per WP:NFCC#3b, the image should be cropped to show the specific individual. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is an historically important image of three women—the defendant and the two women from Justice for Women who arranged her defence—leaving the Old Bailey after taking an important step (as I understand it) toward changing English law on provocation. It is one of a series of Old Bailey images of its kind at that time, after several miscarriages of justice, something British editors old enough to remember will be well aware of.
  I'm not aware of any free versions. The defendant has died so other images of her are not available. I'll be expanding the article to explain why the verdict was important and what role Justice for Women played. NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That seems to fit this very well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing in the article at the tme of nomination to support this as an historic image. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
    • As I said above, I'll be expanding it. There are links on the file page if you'd like to know more, or you can watch this. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Whpq, could you say, please, whether you're satisfied with the additional information? There are links and an explanation on the file page. The image caption in the article, Emma Humphreys, explains more about the image, links to a video showing coverage and commentary on the release—including commentary from the BBC about the scene on the steps of the Old Bailey—and contains a quote from The Independent: "Pale, nervous and very thin, she was engulfed by dozens of cheering women and children outside the courts." The section R v Humphreys explains the legal significance of the verdict and describes the involvement of Justice for Women (i.e. the women in the non-free image). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per the above. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as both unrationaled to any recognizable purpose, and unexplanatory as to its meeting of WP:NFCC or WP:NFC. According to the non-free use rationale for this image, its purpose is "Lead image"; I'm unaware of any policy, guideline, or manual that allows the inclusion of copyrighted material just because it's purpose is to be an image in the lead. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Jo-Jo Eumerus, would you mind closing this? It's been open for a month, the nominator has disaappeared, there's no consensus to delete, and repeatedly relisting it as you and Killiondude have done [1] starts to look as though someone is hoping for a different answer. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ SlimVirgin: I hate the pedantery of the NFCC rules, but "Lead image" is not a sufficient NFCC#10c rationale. If I were to close this as "keep" or "no consensus" the image would be back to FFD (or deletion review) shortly again for the exact same reasons. I'd rather say something like Lead image, shows a photo of the article subject surrounded by members of Justice For Women. The article subject was principally notable for her role in the recognition of "Battered woman syndrome" and provocation as a defence for a crime, as well as for the role the Justice For Women group played in her defense. Her case was a cause celebre for the group and her release was greeted with enthusiasm, something that can be best illustrated by this image. for the "purpose of use" section; since you wrote most of the article you can probably write something even better for the rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  The article at Emma Humphreys says of the event depicted in the image: "she was released immediately" and "News reports show Humphreys leaving the Old Bailey that day with Bindel and Wistrich". The former is in the lede, not cited in the body of the article, and plainly un-needing of copyrighted material to understand it, if it were reliably-sourced. The latter is cited, but is not made any less-understandable for readers without the copyrighted photo displayed 1607 words previously. Even if your proposed purpose-of-use were used (her release was greeted with enthusiasm, something that can be best illustrated by this image.), understanding that a crowd was enthusiastic doesn't require illustration to understand it. All of these failures of the file's necessity run afoul of the eighth non-free content criterion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you and done. See File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  I have two questions about the new purpose-of-use claim at the file in question.

  (a) "images of the group on the steps of the Old Bailey that day became iconic" Nothing at Emma Humphreys mentions the iconicity of the image used. Do you have a reliable source to which we can point such prose?

  (b) "The images themselves became the subject of commentary: 'It may have calmed down now, but just hours ago the scenes here were ecstatic, as Emma Humphreys, who has spent her entire adult life in prison, walked free.'" This is a non-sequitur. The first clause says that this image is the subject of critical commentary, but the second clause is a quote about the event (not the photo). Did you mean for one of these halves of the sentence to be different? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I created a PNG screenshot of only Humphreys at the press conference broadcast. However, I've not yet uploaded it while I'm awaiting the results of this discussion unless no one minds me uploading it right away. George Ho ( talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  Further comment - I found out that the discussion was supposed to be relisted. I discussed what I initially thought the mishap with the admin who relisted it and then closed it as "no consensus". Meanwhile, this discussion was closed as "relisted" but then reopened. The admin said that whoever was responsible for the reopening should fix this up. George Ho ( talk) 22:16, 22 January 2018 (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: relisted on 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Dragonchess 'The Ground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Dragonchess 'The Sky Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Dragonchess 'The Underground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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. Killiondude ( talk) 07:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Haraldskaer mermaid nationalmuseet.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reubentg ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Putting up on request at OTRS 2017112610006509 Poster claims it is a fake image and it is not in the national Museum in Copenhagen. Any Danish editors around? Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply

File:Manse.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page. Sirensofyesterday ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (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. Killiondude ( talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Indian Millets.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hridith Sudev Nambiar ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sources and licenses here are very unclear. Only one image is explicitly linked in the summary. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 16:52, 28 December 2017 (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. Killiondude ( talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Fake Map of Bengal.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ganesha811 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We should not host an "alternative history" map. No encyclopedic purpose. WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, used only in the uploader’s sandbox, which is about the fictional country portrayed in the map. We have fake maps like this one, but they are all in relation to notable works of fiction. For the sandbox, I’m going to MfD it. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat ( talk) 01:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Blatant hoax and its name confirm that. It is even eligible for {{ db-hoax}} speedy deletion. – Ammarpad ( talk) 11:49, 1 January 2018 (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.