Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12[edit]

File:Finally 12-inch Choice Mix.ogg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 28#File:Finally_12-inch_Choice_Mix.ogg}}

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:Arthur K with Mamaine, Robie & Flannery.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Uploader presumably inherited copyright. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 07:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmacauley: Can you chime in about the copyright for this photo? It looks like a valuable image and I'd rather it not be deleted because of a lack of clarity in the description. It plausibly could have been taken by a relative and the copyright inherited. (Cmacauley would have to be fairly elderly to have taken it himself, but I suppose that it also possible.) Especially given the similarity in name between the author and the uploader I hope this is legit. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take this photograph, but I own the only existing copy of it, inherited from the photographer C. Cameron Macauley. If Wikipedia wants to delete it, I don't see how I can prevent that.Cmacauley (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you inherited, it you may be the copyright holder. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmacauley:- As stated previously, PD-heirs might apply. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do? WP has deleted other photos of mine for the same reason. Cmacauley (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to expand the explanation of the sourcing. You could also send in a confirmation to the OTRS queue, but that's not strictly necessary. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Copyright issue may be cleared up, relisting to confirm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 12 August 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:V.O.Chidambaram Pillai photo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File description page says 1945 publication, but as the subject died in 1936, this clearly an earlier image, so it's an issue of quality and sourcing. It would be nice to find the original this is seemingly cropped from. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marmiraja, how do we know it was published in 1945? Didn't see this in the source website... czar 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original image (or at least a couple steps closer to it) looks to be [1] on [2]. No help with canonical sourcing. —Cryptic 02:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to get some discussion on the publication date - people's images can go unpublished for a long time, e.g a family album.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 12 August 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:Sabuj-patra-cover.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep as public domain. Published before 1923, so this is PD in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the cover is not the uploader, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonoikobangali, do you know who created (own the copyright for) the cover, if not the editor? czar 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this replaceable by File:Sabujpatra logo (1914-1927).jpg? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ricky's comment indicates a file of almost certainly identical provenance which is free, thus relisting for discussion on whether to use that file or to change the license.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 12 August 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.

PNG maps of Espirito Santo[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete ★ Bigr Tex 20:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by vector versions: File:EspiritoSanto Municip DomingosMartins.svg, File:EspiritoSanto Municip Linhares.svg, File:EspiritoSanto Municip MarechalFloriano.svg, File:EspiritoSanto Municip AfonsoClaudio.svg, File:EspiritoSanto Municip VendaNovadoImigrante.svg grendel|khan 07:04, 12 August 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:Metro-land poster.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete ★ Bigr Tex 20:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered by FoP as primarily derivative of a 2D graphic work. Kelly ^hi! 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, 2D poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 12 August 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:Nea courts.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upload by banned or blocked user. Compartively low res, in addition the bright fringing around the buildings give me ground for referall on quality grounds. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information block was added in good faith, but subsqeunt checks indicate a previous FFD/PUF discussion concerning this uploader which led to the deletion of a number of their uploads over copyright concerns.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:59, 12 August 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:Apollo Amathus.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous FFD disscusion, where a number of this users uploads proved not to be own work as claimed. Infromation block on this image was added by myself in 2014 in good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 12 August 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:Billabong belt buckle.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referral on the grounds that the subject this is a 'designed' item, and thus may have a separate copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 12 August 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:Billabong hat.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 26#File:Billabong_hat.JPG}}

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:Xbox 360 and controllers.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product design, In addition the name given is Terra Ambridge, but on other uploads by this user a different name is given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The poor quality makes it unlikey to be used in any project. Sunmist3 (talk) 09:54, 12 August 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:Water fountain.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader name given in addition to user name does not match that given on other images from the same user name. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of this uploader's images attribute the work to themselves and also to several other names that do not match themself. Possibly ALL their images should be deleted before they get moved to the commons, because many, it not all, have been tagged for moving there, ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worth asking for a CCI? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the name looks like it might be a 'class' name for a school/college, which is generally not allowed under current policy, but nnot sure if that applied at the time these were uploaded.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was proved correct : "This is an account created for use in my communications tech class at a High School. I am the teacher, and I will be using this account to post class work (photography)", so essentialy it seems that the account is/was the teacher of a class posting, students work in good faith. On that basis, the copyright status is less clear, even though I would have expected a teacher/class instructor to understand these things :). What's the best way of getting an admin to talk to the teacher/school concerned?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 14 August 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:Hook common horse.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 09:08, 12 August 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:Torrentcomp lite.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per FFD disscusion on original. This is a derived work from an image that had sourcing concerns. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 12 August 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.

Files uploaded by User:Cmwilson6[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-resolution images of Norwich that are likely copyright violations. File:Assembly House.jpg and File:Norwich Castle.jpg were already deleted as copyvio. File:Norwich Cathedral2.jpg appears to be a cropped version of the image used on this book cover. File:Norwich City Hall.jpg seems to be a cropped version of a photo on this page. I think these will all need to be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 09:34, 12 August 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:The armoury.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 12:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks old. PD-1923-abroad? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious copy of an old photo in UK college, possibly not older than 1920s but who knows. It is certainly not the original work of the uploader. On the basis that is is not used and its copyright status is unclear it should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 14 August 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:Nechellssign.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo is the "Nechells and proud" sign in the center, which may make the image non-free. Kelly ^hi! 13:43, 12 August 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:Metalhead Barnstar.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is dual-licensed under GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 but incorporates non-free content from File:Venomblackmetal.jpg. Since the image is only used in Template:The Metalhead Barnstar, which is itself unused, I don't think fair use applies here, even if there was a rationale. clpo13_(talk) 16:07, 12 August 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:Skeleton diag.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, this image is in the public domain due to age, but I can't verify that. The given source is a broken link. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 12 August 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:SanDiegoClippers.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is reasonable concern that it is possible that the first image can not be converted to a free license (whether being not meeting the threshold of originality or for being published without a copyright status prior to 1989). The second has been moved to Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 04:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic National Basketball Association Logo being used in Los Angeles Clippers#History without critical commentary, in violation of WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 17:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first logo was in use from 1978-1984 and thus probably falls under the scope of {{PD-US-1989}}. Dunno about the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd consider it fairly likely that some graphic from the San Diego Clippers that had a copyright notice slapped on it also contained this logo. It's unlikely the organization never placed copyright notices next to any graphics that contained this logo. If so, that copyright notice probably "counts" as a notice on the logo as well. Thoughts on that? I searched through the records of the US Copyright Office and found no record of copyright registration on this logo. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only to a point - while copyright notices on collective works apply to logos contained therein, this collective work would have to be the first publication of the logo or among the first publications (for a certain definition of "first"), per https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf. I don't think we have ever tested/discussed such a consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The second file on this one, File:LAClippers5.png, can be relicensed as PD-textlogo and I will go ahead and do that. The first file I'm not comfortable with relicensing as PD. It would be deleted without question on Commons as all logos are assumed to be copyrighted unless there is good evidence that they are not. As a point of precaution I would say that it must remain under fair use and therefore fails NFC policy as a superfluous non-free logo (and therefore must be deleted). --Majora (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not as straightforward as you are putting it, Majora. Logos which are deleted at Commons usually are not tagged as PD-anything, they are either tagged as "own work" which is almost always incorrect or as "fair use" which Commons does not permit. I've seen files being deleted which were tagged PD-US-1989 because there was no evidence of publication, it wasn't actually published, it's not clear when it was published, it was first published outside of the US, it was registered for copyright and so on. I see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTC Observation Deck ticket.jpg which seems to be the closest to our scenario. I guess it'd be deleted on Commons iff we don't do proper research and/or a copyright notice'd publication like BU Rob13 describes turns up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as PD-logo. The first is similar to File:Best Western logo.svg, which was refused copyright registration, in the number of shapes. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Clippers Logo 1984-2010.svg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic National Basketball Association Logo being used in Los Angeles Clippers#History without critical commentary outside the caption (and the commentary inside the caption is unreferenced), in violation of WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 17:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first logo probably falls under {{PD-US-1989}} - right age, no copyright notice, only need to check for copyright registration. The second one should be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 20 August 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:MBTA ridership by mode.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality jpg chart, now fully replaced in Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority by an easier-to-update implementation of {{pie chart}} Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 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:NVC Logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Community College logo, being used in Northwest Vista College without critical commentary about it, in violation of WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 18:52, 12 August 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:Landslide-Susceptibility-San-Francisco.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work , but this is clearly a screenshot/mockup of an app by a third party. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 12 August 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.