Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a29b1d9a7fbc34fc

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 17

[edit]
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 as non-free and only in the biography article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)reply

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

Patently invalid claim of free license. Image of unknown (to us) origin, found on a Facebook page. Original photographer unidentified. Claimed as public domain under Hong Kong law, but since the photo was taken in the 1950s, it isn't PD in the US because it couldn't have become PD under the fifty-year rules cited before the cutoff date of 1996. More important, though, the fifty-year rule can't be applied here, because the uploader hasn't identified the original photographer, nor have they identified the date and manner of original publication. Quite simply, a photograph doesn't fall into the public domain under laws concerning works of unknown origin simply because a Wikipedia editor says "Well, I don't know who created it".
Perhaps the image qualifies under NFCC as the identifying image in the subject's biography. But it certainly doesn't qualify under NFCC in the dozens of election-related pages where the uploader has reinserted it (with a modified license) after it was accurately removed as an obvious NFCC violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2016 (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 only on Caron Keating Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)reply

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

Non-free iimage being used in Caron Keating and List of Blue Peter presenters. Files has a non-free use rationale for each use, but only the one for the stand-alone article about Keating herself complies with WP:NFCC. It is generally acceptable to use a non-free image of a deceased person in an article about the person's biography as the primary means of identify the individual per No. 10 of WP:NFCI, but using it in other articles is much harder to justify. The file's use in "List of Blue Peter presenters" is decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8. This type of usage for single entries in list articles is not recommended per WP:NFLISTS for this very reason. Suggest keep for "Caron Keating" and remove from the list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)reply

File:Burleighlogo2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)reply

File:World Rabies Day 2007 (logo).gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrhnm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo, low res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 19:58, 17 November 2016 (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.