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: no consensus. Seems like we don't have enough discussion here and arguments could go either way Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sperxios ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There seem to be plenty of public domain images of this event, see c:Category:Dekemvriana. There doesn't seem to be any particular need for non-free photos. See WP:NFCC#1. Also, this file fails WP:NFCC#10c in Dekemvriana. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

It is unfortunate that there are no other photos or films, free or non-free, depicting the exact moments when the shootings started. They are either hours (not any in the category you linked though) or days later, during the 2 months after the shootings. This photo is also important for the uniforms of the soldiers laying down the pavement, in combination with other photos depicting the central square in Athens hours before the events( WP:NFCC#8). In a nutshell, if there is a defining moment for the modern Greek state, that was it, given the fact that the events unfolded drove directly to the civil-war, 2 years later, and indirectly to the the Junta, 20 years later. Also WP:NFCC#4 has happened numerous times in Greece. Finally, I don't understand why you say it fails WP:NFCC#10c? Sperxios ( talk) 07:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Have updated License tags of the media file based on the discussion here. Sperxios ( talk) 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a note at User_talk:DatGuy#Reduce_size_of_File:Dekemvriana_1944_SYNTAGMA.jpg asking for a revert of the size reduction (which DatGuy cannot do, as he is not an admin). I've looked at both the oversize file and the standard file and if one zooms in on the standard file, then the amount of detail is quite similar (although of course slightly less sharp). I see no reason to revert to an oversized image, although you may all want to discuss this here as well. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 21:31, 10 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: soft delete. WP:REFUND applies for anyone prepared to write a NFUR for it Nthep ( talk) 21:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:SDP-Election-Poster-1932.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carrite ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have three concerns with this file:

1. There's no original author information.

2. I'm not sure if "campaign ephemera" qualifies it as free.

3. There's no evidence that the original creator licensed it under the license given. Holdek ( talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - The original author is the German Social Democratic Party. The fact that it was campaign ephemera does indeed indicate it was released without copyright and is free. A slavish reproduction of a non-copyrightable image is not copyrightable. Carrite ( talk) 02:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying the file should necessarily be deleted. But, what is the source that the original author is the SDP? For example, this article suggests Sergei Chakhotin may have created it (it's also a bit unclear). How do we know that it was released without copyright? The Barack Obama "Hope" poster is copyrighted. I don't understand what you mean in your third sentence. Would it be more appropriate for it to be public domain, rather than a specific Creative Commons license? Holdek ( talk) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - it is the burden of the nominator to demonstrate that the file in question *is* under copyright. There is no substantive evidence the file was created in a manner other than given by uploader. The editor adding this file to Sergei Chakhotin gave no evidence it was his work, although it appears the poster incorporates symbolism developed by Chakhotin. Even if it can be demonstrated that Chakhotin designed this poster, it should be shown that he held (reserved) copyright, and that he retained copyright separate from the campaign, and did not intend the poster to be freely distributed, which would be the intent of most campaign posters. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

It seems backwards that the burden of proof is to demonstrate that a file is not free. With articles the burden of proof is on the editor to demonstrate that content is supported by reliable sources. Holdek ( talk) 18:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I am fairly sure that an organization cannot create a poster, only a person can. And that person could hold copyrights. However, commons:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure) says that a work published in 1932 without a known author had its copyright expire in 2002. Now since it was still in copyright in 1996 it is now copyrighted under the URAA until 95 years after publication that is until 2018.

commons:Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG might also apply but the Wikipedia article is not clear whether "juristic person" here includes "political party". This does not change the URAA situation.

So perhaps the best copyright outcome would be to fair use or delete this until 1st January 2019. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd hate for it to be deleted, since I think it is of historic value, and I don't think its monetary value is diminished by reproducing a small image of it online. But I do think the authorship (even if unknown) and licensing information (be it public domain or fair use) should be accurately attributed. Holdek ( talk) 04:48, 12 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Available on Commons under a superior format: File:Rocky Logo.svg Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 06:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat ( talk) 00:12, 13 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 3. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Drumm at Bodenstown.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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

File:2012 Pennsylvania House Legislative District 44.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sen Penrose ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file uses copyrighted map material from Google Maps. It would be better if someone took the shape of the district and overlaid it onto a freely licensed map, so that no copyrighted material would be used. At the moment, this file does not meet the criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria because a free alternative could be created that gives the same information. Mz7 ( talk) 22:15, 12 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.