Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12

File:Mako & Bolin's family Portrait.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Mako (The Legend of Korra)#Book Three: Change. There is already a non-free screenshot of the character being used in the main infobox for primary indentification purposes, so another one is not needed for that per WP:NFCC#3a. While a non-free image might be allowed if necessary to illustrate a particular technique or other aspect about the animation style used for the character, etc., it's not really allowed just to illustrate a "plot point" about the character per MOS:TV#Images or WP:FILMNFI. There's no critical commentary on the image itself, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking; a non-free image is not needed to show a character in a "family portrait" per WP:NFCC#1 since that plot element can more than easily be understand using only simple text. The file was prodded for deletion, but deprodded with this comment; however, that just basically repeats what's written in the non-free rationale and not a sufficient justification for non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2018 (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:Lin & Suyin in Toph's office.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Lin Beifong#Book Four: Balance. There is already a non-free screenshot of the character being used in the main infobox for primary indentification purposes, so another one is not needed for that per WP:NFCC#3a. While a non-free screenshot might be allowed if necessary to illustrate a particular technique or other aspect about the animation style used for the character, etc., it's not really allowed just to illustrate a "plot point" about the character per MOS:TV#Images or WP:FILMNFI. There's no critical commentary on the screenshot itself, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking; a non-free screenshot is not needed to show a character in its "younger years" unless there is sourced critical commentary describing the change in the character's appearance over the years. Finally, using a non-free image just to "show" the character has a relationship with another character or is not really going to meet WP:NFCC#1 since that plot element can more than easily be understand using only simple text. The file was prodded for delation, but deprodded with this comment; however, that just basically repeats what's written in the non-free rationale and not a sufficient justification for non-free use. Non-free images are not added for characters/persons sinmply mentioned in other articles unless there's specific commentary about the image itself. If someone wants to write a stand-alone article about the Suyin and use this non-free image in such an article for primary identification purposes, then maybe this could be kept; otherwise, the file's current use doesn't satisfy relevant non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2018 (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:David Blaine Clinton and Bush.jpg

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 ⚡ 08:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

scanned (promo) images of notable individuals. Dubious self-claim work FASTILY 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems unlikely for sure, and there's no EXIF data or anything else to verify copyright ownership or authorship. Uploader is no longer active and for the most part was a WP:SPA making edits to David Blaine. It could possibly someone who was at the event working with or for Blaine, but it seems unlikely to be an employee of the US government. On Commons this would probably be deleted per c:COM:PCP with a statement that it could be restored if OTRS verfied, and I think that's probably the best thing to do here as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2018 (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:Harry Chapin 1976.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient evidence provided to confirm this image is in the public domain. The year of publication is speculation. The evidence that there is no copyright notice is not sufficient. The image is from a web site and could be cropped, and there needs to be evidence that the back of the photo also failed to have a copyright notice. Whpq (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reverse side is blank and evidence is now cited. No need for discussion. Photo is from 1976, period. If you disagree, then so be it. The only physical possible dates that are possible for this photo are 1942 - 1981, since that were the years Harry Chapin was alive. Those are the facts. Both of those date ranges are in the public domain due to no copyright notices on the picture. Picture is also not cropped. Show me some evidence it's been cropped. Citybuild122 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is at least one partial uncropped image: Harry Chapin Bio at Elektra Records. A fuller image can be found at [1] which shows that the image file in question is cropped.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone feels the need to replace my image with those, then so be it. I believe mine is better because it is strictly the headshot, and follows more to the guideline of the evidence that I cited. Regardless, there is still no copyright notice on the picture, and the reverse side is blank. So it still passes. Citybuild122 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can claim that there are no copyright notices on the front and back when all we have is an undated image posted on a web site. -- Whpq (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? “All we have is an undated image”. The date is from 1976. If you don’t believe that then so be it. The only thing we need is the image. Evidence has been cited. Do you see a copyright notice? No. It passes. There is no way that a picture was taken of Harry Chapin before 1942 or after 1981. It’s in the public domain, get over it. Citybuild122 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let us go through the claims in detail. The image source you provided in the file description is this web site. There is nothing on that page that provides information about the image. You have made the claim that this is a publicity photo. How do we know this? The source page makes no such claim. You've claimed it was taken in 1976. That might be the case but it is speculative, but more importantly, it is the date which the photo is published that relates to the copyright rules. The date it was taken is not relevant. Again, the source site provides no information about the date of first publication. You claim there are no copyright notices on the front or back. How can you be sure that this was not scanned from a copyrighted image with the copyright notice cropped out? We don't have any sort of image of the back, so how can we tell there is no copyright notice on the back of the publicity photo (assuming it is even a publicity photo in the first place)? The image may very well be public domain, but there is no way to ascertain that based on the source site provided. -- Whpq (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean any harm by publishing the photo. I believe there is sufficient evidence provided. On the counter side of things, I haven't seen any evidence to counter that the reverse side isn't blank. Actually, another person provided more evidence that it is in public domain. He sent a link to Elektra Records, who is most likely the original owner of the picture. No notice. He also addressed the claims of cropping, with a less cropped image which still had no notice. I believe evidence is sufficient, and tomorrow this discussion will be closed with an outcome. So far that outcome is keep. Citybuild122 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The full image is showing up here as a Getty Image taken on July 20, 1976 by a photographer named David Gahr (maybe this David Gahr?) and ownership still seems to be being claimed by Gahr's estate. If that's correct, then I don't think this can be considered to be public domain for pretty much the same reasons as given by B in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 28#File:Harry Chapin Midnight Special 1973.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As an FYI, Getty a lot of times claims copyright of obviously public domain photos. For example, at [2] they claim copyright of Woodrow Wilson's presidential portrait. That said, this claim of copyright seems to be legitimate and no evidence has been offered that the photo was published without a copyright notice, so, delete. --B (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand there are sometimes issues with simply going by what Getty claims, and was actually going to just coment instead of !voting; however, in this case the licensing seemed legit in my opinion, so I thought the "If that's correct..." qualification to my !vote was enough. The supposed photographer is well known for taking these types of photos, so it wouldn't be unusual (at least in my opinion) for copyright ownership of his work to have transfered to his estate; however, if someone can show that the Getty claim is erroneous, then I'm more than willing to reconsider my !vote. Out of curiosity, I'm wondering why this particular image needs to be used at all. I was going to ask the uploader that, but they've been blocked for WP:SOCK. There seem to be quite a number of images of Chapin online, and maybe one of them can be more easily verified to be OK for Wikpedia's purposes. According to Harry Chapin #Family, his wife and son are/were actively involved with the Harry Chapin Foundation, so I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to try and contact the Foundation and see if someone there can provide a photo which can be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are free images on Commons that can be used. -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for pointing that out. Those two images in c:Harry Chapin might not be as nice as this one, but they seem more than sufficient for primary identification purposes, at least they do in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Don’t know if I have to restate my vote or not, so I’m going to. Like someone said, Getty images creates false claims. They should not be allowed to take over a picture and charge outrageous amounts for it. My evidence is sufficient. Elektra Records, the actual OWNER AND PUBLISHER relisted it on their website with no copyright. Citybuild122 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources show this picture without any copyright notice, including the artist's label, Elektra Records. Getty Images is notoriously unreliable and is just out to make money. Bentdmjamin (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bentdmjamin: multiple sources show that the image is on the internet TODAY without a copyright notice, but the question is whether it was published in 1976 without a copyright notice. I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that. --B (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As B noted, what the Internet has today is not relevant, but as a point of clarification, the Elektra website's Chapin Bio absolutely does carry a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Bentdmajamin is a Confirmed sock of Citybuild122.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the only person !voting keep is no longer with us, any objections to closing this and deleting it? --B (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Err on the side of caution and take this as a copyrighted image. There are plenty of usable images of the subject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (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:MathieuCosine example.gif

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed self, but the uploader is no longer active to confirm. Image is unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2018 (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:MatheiuCosine.gif

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed self, but uploader is inactive. Image is unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (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:Karmarkar.png

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, Presumed own/self work, but the uploader didn't respond to a request to claim this as their upload back in July. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (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:Gallery SineWave Generation.jpg

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than user-space this image is unused, and the information block doesn't list a source, However and edit summary gives "Any portion of this code may be used without permission from BrainyPage. www.BrainyPage.com " suggesting this may have been generated by the uploader, using a third party tool. A clarification would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (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:Assyrianadministartedareasuggestion2005.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed self, but no source indication in {{information}} block. Image is in use so a clarification as to source appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map borders are not generally considered copyrightable. I looked around in Commons:Category:Maps of Iraq and couldn't find this blank. But even though it's not copyrightable, this is an awful-looking map, though. It has no explanation of what the numbers are. It might be better to redo it from File:Ninewa.JPG. --B (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (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:VanStockum dust inspiral.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed self, but no source in {{information}} block. Image is unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2018 (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:VanStockum dust tiltcones.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preusmed self, but uploader is inactive so not easy to confirm this. Image is in use so source clarification desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2018 (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:Woodworking-joint-butt-screw.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use, Presumed self (based on author field), but uploader didn't respond to a request to claim it, so may be inactive. Calrification on how to handle images like this desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2018 (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:FUTURA LOGO 1984.jpg

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text logo, No given source but image like this are generally ineligble. Clarification on how to handle images like this desirable. No information block on file description page ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. Abmc24 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2018 (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:Yuki no Kuni Symbol.gif

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. If people want to replace this with a SVG file, they can do so at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no listed source, but media is claimed to be sufficently simple that it's ineligible. There is a mostly blank {{information}} block on the file description page. FFD referral because this image appears to be widely used in userspace, so a PROD or DI seemed inappropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ineligible for copyright regardless of what the source is ... but http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/File:Yukigakure_Symbol.svg has an SVG version that it could be replaced with. They purport to have a CC license for it, but really it's ineligible for copyright. --B (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2018 (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:Aceros waldeni nest noahjackson02.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source is assumed to be the photographer listed, but it's not directly indicted as such in the {{information}} block. Image is unused, and would otherwise be suitable for transfer to Commons, so it would be nice to have the relevant clarification. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (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:SecMktLine.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un-sourced, but image is old (and in use), so a discussion in needed. Most likely own work, but there are two up-loaders given. Diagram is relatively simple in any event. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2018 (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:268 planar waveguide.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed own work, but I was previously advised against just updating on that basis. Image is unused, and compared to some current uploads somewhat low resolution. Other than the sourcing issue, transfer to commons would be suggested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2018 (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:Merry Christmas Lil Mama Rewrapped.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to the standard cover, not discussed critically. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of sourced discussion, it seems gratuitous.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 14 September 2018 (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:400px-Sketch-4race-99.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly own work, but I'd previously been advised against just updating on that basis. File is in use so a PROD or DI is inapplicable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2018 (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:1910AshtonWest.jpg

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 September 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1910AshtonWest.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.

File:1920s nc18.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a scan, but no indication it's actually pre 1923, hence the referral. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2018 (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:1922 Alabama Crimson Tide football team.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced. However as pre-1923 and in use, a RPOD or DI is not applicable, and hence the FFD refferal. The nature of the photo suggests it's from a yearbook, but this isn't indicated in the {{information}} block. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any source, publishing, and author information to verify copyright tag. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:06, 15 September 2018 (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:1923 nc62.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourced "generically" to a 1923 map. Whilst "federal" documents aren't copyright, this isn't necessarily applicable to State governments, so a clarification is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2018 (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:1927 Rockland Trust board after winning vote on kanagroo banking 10.5 X 8.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, but the image is in use. A 1927 image is not automatically PD, so a clarification (such as source as to why it's GFDL licensable) is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2018 (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:Gypright.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generic source, otherwise unused, barring the sourcing concerns , would have suggested Commons transfer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2018 (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:Mediterranean hurricane Medicanes tropical cyclone 2.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehcnically unsourced, but this is clearly a NASA or NOAA image, so a DI or PROD would be inapplicable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I must say delete as the author is no longer active and the image is unsourced. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:00, 13 September 2018 (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:DillardsFlagship.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's shown is effectively 2D art, and the US has no freedom of panorama. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2018 (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:Iosnpublications.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal covers, aren't necessarily under free licenses, however this was an free/open source software conference. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2018 (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:TrueAggieNight.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, The source site listed is a dead link, so the claimed license cannot be verified. File is unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2018 (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:Norton-Thomas 1999 Oct03.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is blocked or inactive. Image is unsued, so it's notability in relation to Wikipedia or Commons is not easily determined. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2018 (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:Erkki Tuomioja 1.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal based on a clause in the licensing. ""The photographs may be used for publication free of charge. The right of publication may not be sold or transferred to a third party." CC 2.5 permits re-use and derived works which appears to conflict the above? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2018 (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:Stiglitz.jpg

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assume own work? This is otherwise unsourced, and unused. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

own work. __earth ^(Talk) 15:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Uploader confirmed own work. Please update the information block, so it can be moved to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2018 (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:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

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 as G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by [[File:Schlüsselgerät 39.jpg]] which has a Fair Use rationale. Please delete this image. scope_creep (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2018 (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:Min-phase-discrete-time.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, but in use in User space, Assume own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2018 (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:Molding-ogee.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, but pre 2006, so a DI or PROD isn't applicable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2018 (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:Pith helmet.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced.. Most likely own work, but the {{information}} block doesn't say that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2018 (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:Pw nevac monochrom expansion.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, most likely own work, but I was advised against assuming own work previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2018 (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:Pw nevac monochrom metric.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Techncially unsourced, but uploaded pre 2006. Most likely own work, but I was advised previously about assuming that. Image is in use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2018 (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:Kusa no Kuni Symbol.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, but widely used in userspace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2018 (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:Schlüsselgerät 39.jpg

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 September 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlüsselgerät 39.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.

File:PikePlace0 arf.JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, Source given is a dead link so the license could not be verified. Possibly own work, but this would need clarifrifcation from the up-loader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2018 (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:ShorviewMN(2).JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, dead source. Possibly own work, but would need clarification from the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2018 (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:TettegoucheMN arf (1).JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, dead source link, May be own work, but this would need a clarification from the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2018 (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:TettegoucheMN arf (2).JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, dead source link,. Is this own work by uploader? Clarification is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2018 (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:GooseberryStateParkMN arf (5).JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, dead source link, Is this own work by the uploader? If so a clarification is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2018 (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:Snowbank Trail (36).JPG

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image in use, Source is a dead link though. Possibly own work, but needs a clarification from the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2018 (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:Suzhou River waters.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, source given is a dead link, making it harder to verify the license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2018 (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:Suzhou River longtang.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, Source link given proved to be a dead link, making it harder to verify the license given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (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:Beardpapabox.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal, as primary subject is packaging artwork, which would be subject to it's own copyright. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (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:AppleJSF.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced. Possibly own work but that would need a clarification from the uploader? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (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:Hippy Gourmet (logo).jpg

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: Relicense to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo, I fail to see how this can be under CC without additional information being provided. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2018 (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.