Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

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⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Evans 1969.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fauban ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claimed the image was their own work. However, it is clearly a screenshot from a film of the Bill Evans Trio performing in Finland (compare YuoTube video around the 1:00 mark), which remains under copyright by David Meeker according to the Library of Congress. Even assuming the uploader was the cameraperson—unlikely, considering the true source was concealed—he almost certainly lacks the authority to license a screenshot from the video. —BLZ · talk 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2021 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood irradiation misleading screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beorhtwulf ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

likely derivative of non-free content; incorporates text (obvious pseudoscience) which does not appear to be available under a free license FASTILY 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Image is CC, and not attributed, and text appears to be verbatim from elsewhere. AtomCrusher (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_135#Blood_irradiation_therapy and figure out the context here before jumping to conclusions. The central image is File:Intravenous Blood Irradiation.JPG. If you're saying this is non-free content you need to deal with that image. I uploaded this particular file because it was circulating on social media with misleading consequences and editors' attention needed to be drawn to that, and to the article the original image was lifted from. All this is clear from the description page and the linked discussion, which this file was necessary to illustrate. You can delete it if you really want now the moment has passed, but that will just create a missing image in the archived discussion for anyone who might wish to refer to it in future. If you think the central, original image is a copyvio despite the OTRS tag on it, deal with that at Commons where it is hosted. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no problem with this image. We appear to lack licensing information for the text which is incorporated in the derivative. It's easy to forget that copyright was originally invented to protect text and written works :) -FASTILY 00:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Fastily stated initially, the image incorporates text that is obvious pseudoscience. Upon review of the metadata, the source of the combined text and image is a post on Facebook. (See "Source" in image file page.) This is not a matter of whether it is non-free content. (I understand that the image alone has an OTRS tag on it. The image by itself is NOT a copy vio.) The following is included in the image metadata:

"Image circulated on social media following Donald Trump's 23 April 2020 comments on UV and disinfectant to treat COVID-19 that could look like a shot of a Wikipedia article to some users. Uploaded to illustrate a discussion at WikiProject Medicine."

That is rather opaque, to put it mildly. Also, Beorhtwulf observed that "the moment has passed" for relevancy of the image plus the Facebook-sourced, pseudoscience text. (A WP:CURRENT or similar such guideline might pertain here.) I feel that the harm that can result from potentially propagating pseudoscience due to this image plus text is greater than any political partisanship-motivated bickering over novel the SARS-CoV2 virus--FeralOink (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2021 (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: convert to fair use and remove from all pages except The Little Mermaid (statue). ƏXPLICIT 00:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Avda-berlin ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See previous discussion about this file at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/January#File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg, but there is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for 3D works of art per c:COM:FOP Denmark which means that this file can't really be kept as licensed since it's not 100% free. The Commons page on Denmark's FOP actually makes specific reference to this statue. It might be possible to add a non-free content license and non-free use rationale for the file, but that would almost certainly mean that it would need to be removed from every page its being used in except The Little Mermaid (statue). So, the alternatives are either to delete the file outright or add a non-free license and non-free use rationale for the article about the statue itself. I would prefer the latter be done, but others might feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think that inevitably needs to be retagged as fair use and removed from most uses, like you say. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on the legal issues, but I think that the image should be retained with a fair-use license on The Little Mermaid (statue) if possible. Having an article on this very well known work of art without an image would be most unfortunate. Wham2001 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This file is currently being used on eleven pages, which means that if the consensus is to convert it to non-free then each of these uses would need to be reassessed. The file will certainly need to be removed from User:Aggiegal19/sandbox2 , User:Scriberius/About and User:Stephenshaw83/Books/The Little Mermaid per WP:NFCC#9. In addition, I believe the file would also need to be removed from Copenhagen, Mermaid, Statue, Culture of Denmark, Danish sculpture, List of public art in Copenhagen and The Little Mermaid for various reasons related to WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG, WP:NFLISTS, item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, etc. That leaves The Little Mermaid (statue) as the only article where, in my opinion, non-free use can be really justified. So, if the consensus is to keep, I suggest adding a {{Non-free 3D art}} license and corresponding WP:FUR for that particular use and removing from all of the other pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (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: convert to fair use. ƏXPLICIT 00:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:DisneyETicket wbelf.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elf ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader does not have the right to grant GFDL permission on this copyrighted design. Most of the ticket could qualify at PD for insufficient originality, but this wouldn't extend to the castle logo or the security background. Perhaps it could be retagged as fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicence as fair use, per nom. AtomCrusher (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relicense as fair use: Definitely too important to the article to delete. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relicense to fair use makes sense to me. Took this photo of the ticket and posted it a lonnng way back-- Clear now that fair use is best. I'm OK with someone fixing the licensing as appropriate. Elf | Talk 23:04, 4 February 2021 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP#8 (at least in my eyes). The article where it is used has at least a dozen other images of the aircraft family already. Per its caption in article, this particular image is only used to illustrate that the XLR version of the airplane looks the same as the LR version. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable. AtomCrusher (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (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.