Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23[edit]

File:Patrick Sherrill.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 ⚡ 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous discussions about images of perpetrators, like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, the image of Patrick Sherrill, the man responsible for the Edmond post office shooting, shall be deleted. Removing the image does not affect the readers' grasp toward the shooting itself. Also, the article's topic is the shooting, not the shooter himself. George Ho (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent established by previous FFDs. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:41, 1 December 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:Epicrecords.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: convert to PD-logo czar 02:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This old Epic Records logo should be moved to Commons. I tried finding the renewal copyright registration for the old 1950s/1960s logo but found none at copyright.gov. Therefore, it should be considered "public domain" and "not renewed". George Ho (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This probably qualifies for {{PD-logo}}. Just a bunch of lines and a word. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:38, 13 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:William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp.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: speedy delete under F8. — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily this would be a straightforward F5, but the subject of the image died in 1938 meaning that the photo, which is otherwise uncredited would have to have been taken before then. Status review requested, although no objection to retaining non-free status if neither a date or author is found. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has many files from the studio Bassano Ltd and even a Commons:Category:Bassano Ltd. The photographers of the studio are not identified, so files are tagged with PD-UK-unknown. (A PD-Art tag or a SourceNPGLondon tag may be added if deemed necessary to take care of the NPG claim.) This file looks like it would fit there. The year (of creation, likely) of this photograph is given as 1924. Pre-1926 photographs like this are considered ok on Commons. For example, see this DR, completed by this UR. (Photographs from after 1925 may or may not be considered ok on Commons depending who you ask.) A template PD-UK-unknown exists on Wikipedia also for files hosted on Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:36, 24 November 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:Vegas Is Hockey 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. No convincing explanation of how this meets WP:NFCC#8. "This would be a resource" or "This would help illustrate" does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The burden at an FfD challenging non-free use is on the editors supporting retention to convincingly argue for non-free use, and that bar has not been met. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image not really illustrating anything historically noteworthy. BilCat (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Note that this image, uploaded on November 22, was just a placeholder until the Vegas Golden Knights name and logo were revealed, also on November 22. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that the Vegas Golden Knights have a name and a logo, this is completely useless. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image helps illustrate the expansion process and is a part of the team's early history. Mo2010 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see an argument that passes the bar of WP:NFCC#8 (To quote: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The logo is not beyond threshold of originality and can be published in PD. It's also a part of the subject's history as Mo2010 said. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL logo is itself considered as meeting the threshold of originality so an image that contains it certainly meets that threshold too. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL logo definitely meets the threshold, but the words "Vegas Hockey" do not. Why don't we just redact the NHL logo from the image? Rejectwater (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would violate the copyright as a derivative work. (I think) It would also completely defeat the purpose: we'd be left with a logo that is incorrect! Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text isn't protected by copyright. The only thing in the image that is protected by copyright is the NHL logo. I agree that modifying the original isn't optimum, however I can't help but feel you're arguing from two different positions here. On one hand you say that the image is "useless" yet here you're saying that modifying the image to remove the NHL logo (which isn't necessary anyway, fair use applies to the NHL logo when used to discuss topics regarding the NHL) "defeats the purpose". So you agree, then that there is, in fact, a purpose? Rejectwater (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the image is useless and is an insignificant part of the history of the team. I think the image should be removed primarily because it's insignificant. But if you're going to argue that it's critical to understanding the history of the team then surely you can't go with an approximation of what that logo was. What will your caption be? "Logo used with the NHL symbol deleted in the bottom left corner of the image"? Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the idea of redacting the NHL logo is dead. No one else has spoken up in favor of it and I no longer see it as a good idea either, basically for exactly the reasons you've stated. It should be displayed in it's original form. Given that it's being used to discuss and illustrate a topic (or topics) related to both the team and league I can't see how a Fair Use rationale could be considered invalid, which makes removing the NHL logo from the image unneccessary. Also I feel declaring the Vegas Hockey image to be "insignificant" seems just as arbitrary as your other objections. The best way forward is to Keep the image. It's part of the history of the team and of the league, and can be used to discuss team and league brand marketing in regards to the expansion process. Rejectwater (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just did a quick scan of Boston Bruins, Detroit Red Wings (along with History of the Detroit Red Wings), and Tampa Bay Lightning; all include representations of former logos, with Fair Use rationale applied to each. In other words it's standard practice here to maintain a record, so to speak, of past logos. I think that this image qualifies as it was used, however briefly, to represent and promote the team. Rejectwater (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that these logos were used for a longtime and were actually displayed on team jerseys. Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wordmark image that was used to promote the team in advance of the reveal of the official team name, and as such is part of the history of the team. Both "longtime" and "actually displayed on team jerseys" are arbitrary standards. Rejectwater (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8, this promotion of the team before they even decided on a name and real logo is insignificant and doesn't help someone better understand the team origins. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that the Vegas Golden Knights have a name and a logo, this is completely useless. (Adam B 12/5/16 10:18am) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.85.58 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First expansion team after a significant period means that there will be considerable interest in the process and images like this are a resource. HalifaxRage (talk) 00:53, 6 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:Jerilderie Football Club jumper.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper design which is above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 23 November 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:Yarroweyah Football Jumper.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper design is above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 23 November 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:Rennie Football Club jumper.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper design above TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 23 November 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:Shepparton East jumper.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper design above TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:58, 23 November 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 using {{PD-Polish}}[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: procedural close. None of the files were properly tagged for deletion, and their deletion would be considered out of process. — ξ ^xplicit 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bülow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Andrzej czajkowski.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Anton Lechner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:August Bogusch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Baranowskichemist.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Bellon01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:BlautGmochKuleszaGarlicki.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Blessed Sancja Janina Szymkowiak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Bogusława Bobrańskiego.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Calel Perechodnik Small.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cazalet - Grabski.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Detlef Nebbe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Frampol bombing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Franz Romeikat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:GalSSestact.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Hans Koch SS man.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Husiatyn Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Josef Kollmer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Karl Möckel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Kazm.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Lemberg280443-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ludwig Plagge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Menorah Zamosc synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MichalAbramowicz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Osman Achmatowicz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PZL P43.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Palac5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Paul Götze.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Pawiak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Reiff.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Richard Schröder.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ringelblum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sikorski.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Soviets liberating lodz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Stanisław Kurnatowski.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Szklane domy.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tamsel bw.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Warsaw Uprising Kubus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Warszawaradom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Weigl-Lwow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Wyszyński.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Zamosc Synagoga dawniej.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Zamość synagogue, 1930s.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Template {{PD-Polish}} and equivalent c:template:PD-Polish require files using it to be a photographs published in Poland before 1994. All files meeting those requirements were moved to Commons many years ago, so all that is left are files that are using the template incorrectly. They are either not photographs, have no proof of publication, or have little to do with Poland. In other words I could not move them to Commons. I do not think they should remain on Wikipedia either, of at least not under {{PD-Polish}} license. If the files fall under some other license or can be used as "fair use" I am all for keeping them. {{PD-Polish}} license should also be deleted or retired. Files that would use it should be uploaded to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 15:49, 23 November 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:Mike Colter as Luke Cage.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 czar 02:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Article already has a non-free image in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The infobox image is of the comic book character, this image of the live-action character to which there are significant changes. It should also be noted as stated in the article, that this character is the first African-American superhero to star his own live-action production which adds significant cultural context and interest to the reader.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you for informing that the fictional portrayal of a fictional cartoon by a human being was significantly different from the fictitious cartoon drawn. That's no good reason though. Also, we have free images of Mike Colter which can be used to show how an African-American human being looks like. His own production did you say? So please note that we are not here to promote or advertise such things. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a good reason, as it is critical to the understanding of the differences in the drawn/live-action depictions. Also we don't have free images of Coulter in costume. BTW, it's not a promotion but it is culturally relevant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to me. We don't need to show Colter in every costume he has ever won. Imagination! Same for cartoon to film adaptation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every costume, just the encyclopedic significant ones. Also this isn't about Coulter, but rather Cage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added some contextual significance of the image to the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are underrating the word "significance". I do not want to repeat again that it's omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the article. We will let others and admins judge now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, again its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic and with the recently added information it's omission would be detrimental. Also, there is still more I can elaborate on from reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more contextual significance of the image. There are still more sources on the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2016 (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) 16:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The prose description in the article, "Rag & Bone T-shirts, in Levis jeans", is sufficient explanation for the live action adaptation. There's nothing special or unique about this "costume". Argento Surfer (talk) 16:49, 23 November 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:Luke Cage 1.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 czar 02:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Article already has a non-free image in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree that it fails WP:NFCC#8. The image, as described in the caption, shows the character in a return to his original costume colors. The image is the only one in the article depicting this modern take on the character's older costume, and a return to this color scheme is discussed in the body of the article. DrRC (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if its a return to original colours, we don't need another image for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same as the original costume, but rather a homage to the Bronze Age outfit, consisting of a return to his original colors and metallic bracelets. This image is necessary in showing a modern take of the costume. Costumes play a big role in character identification within the American comic book genre. DrRC (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2016 (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) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a significant enough change to warrant another image, or unique enough to need an image. A prose description of "tight yellow shirt, jeans, and silver bracelets" is a satisfactory explanation. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's one sentence in the article stating this costume exists. That doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. The absence of this image wouldn't significantly harm understanding of the topic of "Luke Cage". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:31, 13 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:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.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/2017 January 13#File:Downtown_by_Petula_Clark_UK_vinyl_A-side.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:Studio secs.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 ⚡ 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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:Trick or treat.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 ⚡ 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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:Class4all.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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:Stone the Dane.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 ⚡ 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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.