Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 2

July 2[edit]

File:Orizzle2.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. This is the uploader's last surviving contribution. ✗plicit 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-educational upload by unproductive user Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2023 (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.

File:Slcrew.jpg[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: Status quo. This has been open for awhile and no one has raised any actionable concerns. For future reference, such questions are better posed at MCQ which typically gets more traffic than FfD -FASTILY 04:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear that this image, taken on board a Canadian ship on tour to Stockholm, has indeed first been published in Sweden. No contemporary source has been identified. If it were a photo taken by a Canadian Crown official, then its copyright term would have lapsed in 2006, and there is consensus that URAA restoration is irrelevant for Canadian Crown works, Felix QW (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was first published in Sweden, then the copyright expired in Sweden 25 years after the photo was taken, which was before the URAA date. If it was published in Sweden, then it probably appeared in newspapers shortly after it was taken, so someone could check microfilmed newspapers (Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Stockholms-Tidningen, Svenska Dagbladet) in case one of those published the picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 2 July 2023 (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.