Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24

File:Shivaji-Maharaj-Stamp 21-04-1980.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nonfree file, fails WP:NFCC#8 -- don't need to see commemorative stamps to understand Shivaji Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned non-free stamp image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8 even if it was in use. ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2016 (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:Marienburgrum.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possible derivative of non-free content (product packaging) FASTILY 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a commons:COM:PACKAGING case. Seems like it's fairly similar to other cases on commons:Category:Packaging-related deletion requests/kept but the prominence of the label is somewhat worrisome.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 24 April 2016 (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:CVNA Logo in Atlanta.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization logo; dubious self-work claim FASTILY 02:13, 24 April 2016 (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:Perkerson Park Master Plan Atlanta, GA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map; watermarks suggest that this is the work of a corporation, and not own-work. FASTILY 02:14, 24 April 2016 (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:Atlanta Metropolitan Library Branch SW Atlanta, GA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web-resolution artist's rendering of a library, no EXIF, dubious own work claim FASTILY 02:15, 24 April 2016 (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:CV House7 2014 Atlanta, GA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio, see watermark in bottom left corner FASTILY 02:18, 24 April 2016 (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:CV House2 2014 Atlanta, GA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio, see watermark in bottom left corner FASTILY 02:18, 24 April 2016 (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:BobDevaneyStatue.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free content; there is no FOP for 3D works in the US FASTILY 02:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non FoP in US for modern sculpture is lacking permission of the artist. ww2censor (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2016 (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:Aurelia labiata.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blurry, low quality, no encyclopedic value FASTILY 02:20, 24 April 2016 (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:Cherokee teen who is fluent in the language.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a screenshot from a video/film; possible derivative of non-free content FASTILY 02:22, 24 April 2016 (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:BenNighthorseCampbell.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own work claim; file is tagged as PD-dod FASTILY 02:23, 24 April 2016 (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:Board of Pharmacy Specialties 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything that's beyond PD-textlogo... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks like a textlogo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (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:Heatmaster SS 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but this is clearly a third party logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2016 (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:Sumendu Lake at Mirik.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: Keep czar 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file exists at http://www.indiatourism4u.in/tourism/41/WestBengal/Mirik/ with higher size (but not necessarily higher maximal resolution). However, the enWikipedia file has EXIF consistent with the uploader's other images while the website image has little, so I wonder if it's a case of {{Backwardscopy}} but for images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: When moving a file that is under FFD discussion, please remember to rename the FFD discussion as well to reflect the file change, thanks!Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from creating problems like this, it is also generally unnecessary to move files which have been listed here. See also c:COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed?#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, sorry, I'll remember that in the future. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closure note: The site appears to pull their text from WP too, so it looks like the website in question is just unattributed reuse. The image is 800 px in width instead of 640, but it's also blown out. No reason to not trust the uploader in this case (based on that information at least). czar 15:48, 26 July 2016 (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:La Brique Military CWGC Cemetery 1006195574.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is shadowing a higher resolution image of the same object on Commons, but it's tagged as "keep local" so it's not eligible for F8 deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 24 April 2016 (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:Amazon Reef map.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free map. A free equivalent could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose (WP:NFCC#1). The rationale claims, "Because of the populated nature of the map, it is impossible to discern borders of the reef in this map, thus making it impossible to draw up a factually accurate version of this image." But if it's true that it's impossible to discern the borders of the reef in this image, then those borders are apparently not important to its encyclopedic usage, and therefore are not necessary to reproduce. This map contains a lot of detail, but also "The image is of a lower quality than it's [sic] original publication in Science Advances, while a legend (key) for markings on the map are missing from the page, preventing any advanced purpose than its intended use for context only, in this article." So apparently a lot of the detail in this picture (such as the numbered blue indicators and the various dots) are unnecessary because we are not providing a key explaining what they mean. Therefore it is not necessary to have a map with this much detail; a free map showing the coast near the mouth of the Amazon, with a gray shaded region illustrating the general location of the reef, would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —Bkell (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new map for my article in the Esperanto Wikipedia. I was going to use this one but couldn't b/c it's only available in enwiki, and not even here if you folks vote to delete this. I have no idea how close to the correct location my orange brush got, but it does surely give a general idea what part of the coast it faces. --Haruo (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The document seems to be Creative Commons licenced: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), and I propose that this should be mentioned in the file. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkell: Eyy there! I'm the original uploader of the copyrighted image in question. I've gone ahead and made my own map of the Amazon Reef, which you can see at left. I didn't exactly make a concerted effort to make it at accurate as possible, but it's accurate enough that it correlates decently with the copyrighted map. I made it mostly because I was dissatisfied with the map @Haruo: made; I don't think we need to see half of the continent. I'd imagine the main argument for such a map format would be to highlight the size of the reef, but I'm convinced it'd fail this purpose, because to the average reader, it'd still seem small compared to the vastly larger continent. My map is pretty flawed as well, though. I simply could not located a proper .png image that had defined, solid color borders and shapes for me to base the map off, so I had to use this .svg image. Nearly all .png renderings of .svg images are pretty shoddy, so I had to make do. I'll refine the edges, shapes and borders of the image sometime later, but I can't be bothered to at the moment. Haha. Philip Terry Graham 03:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PhilipTerryGraham, I like your map, and agree that in many ways it's better than mine. I may make a version of it for eowiki (with country names added), but it'll be awhile, so maybe in the meantime you'll be able to make the improvements you mentioned and my version can be based on that. --Haruo (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2016 (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:Windows 7 Flag.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is violation of WP:NFCC § 3. It must have not been uploaded because Wikipedia already has File: Windows logo - 2006.svg. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (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:Counter Logic Gaming Dota team at The International 2012.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, as said on 29 December 2015 at Talk:Counter_Logic_Gaming#Pre-review: there is nothing in the text that requires a non-free image to portray their faces. Even if there will be no more photo ops for the team, photos of the players can be assembled separately as they are living people czar 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1: As they are all living people and none are particularly private, a free equivalent could be created. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2016 (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:Dellija Redoubt design on oublic monument.jpeg

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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dellija Redoubt design on oublic monument.jpeg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:06, 24 April 2016 (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:Dellija Redoubt post of information.jpeg

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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dellija Redoubt post of information.jpeg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:06, 24 April 2016 (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:TVM 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-author}} looks highly unlikely given the stated source and author. If PD-author is not correct, this is an unused non-free image. John of Reading (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2016 (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:RetiringSuhJersey.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RetiringSuhJersey.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:56, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne's group.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is one the photo's subjects (on the right), and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior deletion request.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 5 May 2016 (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:Jeanne summer beach disco 2012.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:06, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne summer 2010 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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:06, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne Jonica.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:07, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne jonica 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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:07, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne drunk.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:08, 24 April 2016 (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:Jeanne club 17.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her, she is a very active editor with 80,000+ edits so I'm pretty sure she knows her copyrights. ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2016 (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:Jeanne Boleyn suntan.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her, she is a very active editor with 80,000+ edits so I'm pretty sure she knows her copyrights. ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2016 (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:Jeanne boleyn summer 1989.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional headshot of uploader, no reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright older; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her, she is a very active editor with 80,000+ edits so I'm pretty sure she knows her copyrights. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2016 (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:Jeanne boleyn june 2010.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her, she is a very active editor with 80,000+ edits so I'm pretty sure she knows her copyrights. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the above photos were taken with my camera; some by my daughters others by anonomous strangers. I guess I'll have to stick with Selfies unless I need to obtain permission from myself. Jeanne boleyn

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:Smug trump pepe.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although this file's claimed license is public domain, it's unlikely the uploader is actually the creator of the image in question. The image originates from imageboards, as should be obvious given its subject matter, which makes confirming originator particularly difficult if not entirely impossible. The source is listed as "unknown", and permission is phrased as "it's an internet meme", which makes me very dubious that the uploader intended to follow proper copyright prodecure. 0xF8E8 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2016 (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.