Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roche Harbor - San Juan County WA.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The Flickr license contains a non-commercial restriction. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure - like the bot was - that the nc was not there when I uploaded it from flickr (never uploaded files with so many icons in the license-tag); maybe it has changed since then, which would be of no effect. But I don't know how to see some sort of "history" on flickr. However, it is not used anywhere, so deletion might be the easiest way to solve this. Greetings, --Jonesey (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep We have a template for this case. There is no history on Flickr but the bot never fails. To delete because it is "Not used anywhere" is never a good solution, we would have to mourn the loss of many fine free media that way. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. It's just that I was a little bit surprised about this affair. --Jonesey (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should explain. I don't normally tag anything for deletion. The issue of the NC clause comes up often in discussions at peer review and during consideration for promotion to Good Article or Featured Article on the English Wikipedia. As far as I know, the NC in an image license used in an article that's up for promotion prevents promotion until the image is removed from the article. My thought was that if an image can't be used in an article that's considered good, it's not going to be good for much of anything. I was surprised that anyone would want to keep it, but I don't know how the bot works, and I've never considered the question of what happens if a Flickr user changes a license that was OK at one time to later make it more restrictive. Finetooth (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No image may be kept on Commons if it is NC. Since image licenses can and sometimes are changed on Flickr, we have both humans and bots which review Flickr images. If, as in this case, either a bot or a human finds that the image was free when reviewed, then that is all we need for any use on any WMF project -- a subsequent change is irrelevant.
I should add that I'm surprised that this would be an issue at the GA or FA discussion on WP:EN -- WP:EN also does not allow NC licensed images except as Fair Use, so there should be no NC images on WP:EN either.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
