Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25[edit]

File:Double-loves1.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. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOYS, toys are copyrighted in the United States. Photos of toys can not be released under free licenses. These images are also orphaned, so there is no point in converting to fair use. ℯ xplicit 00:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. As Explicit points out, photos of toys are considered a WP:Derivative work at least in the United States; so, while the photo itself can be released under a free license, the toy imagery may be in many cases protected by copyright. Moreover, since there appears no WP:NFCCP-compliant way to use these, they would eventually only be deleted per WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#7 if a non-free license was added for the toy imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free logos in Chico Heat[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 File:Chico Heat Main Logo 2016.png and File:Chico Heat Cap Logo 2016.png, no consensus on File:Chico Heat Original Logo.png, remove other files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free logos being used in a decorative manner in Chico Heat#Logo gallery which is not allowed per WP:NFG. Three of the logos are already being used in other parts of the article, so there second use of them in the logo gallery fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. The other four files are only being used once in the article, but they are either former logos which fail WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFCC#8, or they are essentially the same (only minor differences) as the three being used elsewhere within the article, so there's no need for them per WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8. None of the logos themselves are the subject of any sourced critical commentary, so the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is not provided. While the two logos used in the main infobox are OK for primary identification purposes of the team; the remaining logos are not need for identification purposes.

Suggest keep for "File:Chico Heat Main Logo 2016.png" and "File:Chico Heat Cap Logo 2016.png" being used in the main infobox since these seem fine for primary identification purposes, but remove from the logo gallery. Suggest possible keep for "File:Chico Heat Original Logo.png" since there is a brief mention of the logo in Chico Heat#The Original Chico Heat (1997–2002) (which possibly can be expanded upon with more sourced commentary about the logo), but remove from the logo gallery. Suggest delete for the remaining four files being used in the logo gallery since they themselves are not the subject of any sourced critical commentary and they are basically slightly different versions of the other three logos used in the article.

Finally, "File:Chico Heat Script Logo.png" is also being used in the main infobox of Blythe Heat, but it's lacking the non-free use rationale required for that use by WP:NFCC#10c. Not sure if it's the logo actually used by the team, but if it is then the rationale can be updated accordingly and the file keep for only use in the "Blythe Heat" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but "File:Chico Heat Main Logo 2016.png" and "File:Chico Heat Cap Logo 2016.png" which are being used in the infobox and "File:Chico Heat Original Logo.png" which pictures the team's mascot that is ever so briefly mentioned in the prose (if it is expanded and sourced). Per nominator, the use of the others is purely decorative and are not the subject of critical commentary. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting to keep the three logos you mentioned. Just way too many guidelines to keep up with. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all logos. ALL logos were used by the team and are a part of their history that needs to be preserved. You can see proof of these at their website, Facebook and Twitter pages. Deleting them makes them feel like they never existed. Also, the logo used in the Blythe Heat page IS the ORIGINAL wordmark from the former Western Baseball League team and the current wordmark "File:Chico Heat Main Logo 2016.png" is an updated version. Please go here to see proof: http://www.logoserver.com/Western.html. And take a look at the Wayback Machine website's archived pages. You will see clearly that they were used between 1997 and 2002, their original existence. Therefore, they are NOT to be deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/19990101000000*/http://www.chicoheat.com NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is claiming that the logos never were used by the team; only that the ways they are being used in the Chico Heat Wikipedia article doesn't comply with WP:NFCCP. Moreover, logos are not going to be kept because you say they are not to be deleted or because deleting them makes it seem as if they never existed. Instead, you're going to have to clarify how their current uses comply with all ten of the NFCCP. Why is it necessary to use the main infobox logos twice in the article when this type of non-free use is not allowed per WP:NFCC#3a and when there is no seperate specific non-free use rationale provided for the use in the logo gallery as required by WP:NFCC#10c? Providing a non-free use rationale is only one (more specifically one part of one) of the non-free content use criteria which need to met, and adding a rationale doesn't automatically make the remaining nine criteria satsified.
  Finally, if the original wordmark "File:Chico Heat Script Logo.png"is the same one being used by the Bylthe Heat, then please provide seperate specific non-free use rationale required by NFCC#10c for its use in the article. However, just because the non-free use of the file in the "Blythe Heat" article may be justified, that doesn't mean the non-free use of the file in the "Chico Heat" article is also justified per WP:OTHERIMAGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the gallery. But the guidelines are way too confusing and just plain bogus! Everything has to meet a certain guideline. It's just too much! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Molecularium1.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 2018 November 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molecularium1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:Larisa Dolina - We are from Jazz.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Non-free image being used in Blackface article with no significant sourced commentary about the image. That an actress used blackface in a Russian film is adequately conveyed with the existing text. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience let me copy from the description: The significance of this - or similar - image stems from the reasons and fashion blackface was used in Soviet Union's film and theater productions. Unlike traditional for the U.S. minstrel-like makeup the primary reason for using blackface in the Soviet Union was the lack of black actors and lack of either funding, possibility or desire to cast foreign native black actors. The Soviet Union as well as Russia now is a multi-ethnic multi-cultural country, but most of its inhabitants stem from Caucasian or Asian roots. The image shows how blackface makeup was applied in Soviet productions, which cannot be conveyed by words only. Mikus (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Mikus: in order to pass, the relevant discussion (similar to what's in the description) should be found in the article. In order to be in the article, it should be cited to reliable sources. And for what it's worth, everything currently in the description can be understood by text alone. I don't need to see an image to understand the statement "the primary reason for using blackface in the Soviet Union was the lack of black actors" or similar. Neither the description nor the article describe how blackface makeup was applied, just why. The "how" of it could perhaps need an image, if the answer is something other than the obvious: you put black paint on the face. An image could perhaps be justified if the text claimed, cited to a reliable source, that the results of turning white actors into black characters were unconvincing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Finnusertop:It is not about putting a black paint of the face, it is about the goal. Blackface in the U.S. with its exaggerated facial features, with thick white or pink lips was meant to paint (pardon the pun) black people as unqualified, with low IQ, good only for singing, dancing and menial work. The Soviet goal was more noble, but the portrayal often was just as paternalistic as in the U.S. The image that I attached is from a late-Soviet production that tried to depict a black person in neutral fashion, just because a particular production could not hire an actual black person. For this reason, the image is important. I expanded the entry with the relevant discussion, thanks for the tip. Please, take another look. Mikus (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for explaining further, Mikus. I can see the case for having an image to accompany sourced text that says something to the effect of "in other cultures it can be used simply to depict a black person, ideally in neutral fashion, just because a particular production could not hire an actual black person for some reason" because, as you say, a neutral representation of a black person is not what blackface ordinarily means. It's something other than what comes to mind when one thinks of "blackface" and is hard to imagine without an image. But right now, the article only contains vague statements about "politics of representation" that don't tie in with this image.

There is, however one problem that I forgot to mention. In the event that we can agree that it needs an image, you need to make the case why this image, which is non-free is specifically needed. Even in the much narrower case of the Soviet Union, some films might have lapsed into the public domain. It's your responsibility to argue why a free image cannot be found or created. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I can understand the arguments being made in favor of keeping the file, it's not clear why this particular screenshot needs to be used per WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. Was this particular screenshot the subject of some controversy or critical commentary about "blackface" in reliable sources which was used to explain all of the things Mikus has posted above? If not, then I think Finnerusertop's point about using a free equivalent is a very good one that would (all other things considered equal) preclude any use of a non-free image of this type. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Marchjuly This particular screenshot is one of the few examples of using blackface in Soviet cinema. How do you suggest making a "free equivalent" of a movie screenshot? Movies, as well as books, cartoons and theater, are the topic discussed in the entry. Mikus (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it the only example or the one which is most commonly referenced by reliable sources when discussing this kind of thing or is it the example you feel best represents this kind of thing? If the former is the case, then simply provide content and sources to the article to more clearly show the non-free use of this particular screenshot satisfies relevant policy. If the latter is the case, then that sounds a bit like your personal WP:OR or WP:SYN which doesn't really make a strong case for non-free use. As Finnusertop posted above, you need to better clarify why this particular screenshot needs to be used instead of another screenshot or even some other type of free equivalent which is not a screenshot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maila Nurmi grave.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. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headstone artwork (left) is a seperate artwork, and is not necessarily own work ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tokyo 2020.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: Relicense to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo design is not trivial, and source given to claim PD was deleted at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Commons files of the same logo were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020 Summer Olympics Logo.png. There wasn't a lot of discussion in either Commons deletion review, but c:File:Tokyo 2020.png is essentially a reupload of the same file; so, there's a good chance it will be deleted as well. While I understand Commons and Wikipedia do things slightly differently, I can't see how this can be kept as WP:PD if Commons won't keep it as PD, unless someone wants to argue that it should be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Otherwise, it's licensing should be converted to {{non-free logo}} and it's use should be subject to WP:NFCC. In my opinion, {{PD-because}} had no business be added as a license for this type logo since there are much more appropriate ones which could be used instead if the file is truly PD. There was also no reason for a local version to be uploaded for a file already existing on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to NFCC per nom and as over the threshold of originality in the source country, Japan. @ShakespeareFan00 and Marchjuly: I nominated c:File:Tokyo 2020.png for speedy deletion because it was "c:COM:CSD#G4 Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020 Summer Olympics Logo.png." (interwikis added). See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo 2020.png and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo tour (27344854598).jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 11:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but properly license as fair use for the Infobox logo use (i.e. identification purposes). This would be in line with the previous Summer Olympics image: File:2016_Summer_Olympics_logo.svg. — trlkly 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free. I trust the Commons discussion has arrived at the correct conclusion about TOO in the source country. That being said, I'm also open to discussing the possibility of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A similar file to this (c:File:New 2020 Summer Paralympics Emblem.svg seen here) was also deleted for Commons. A c:COM:DRV request was then made at c:COM:DRV#File:New 2020 Summer Paralympics Emblem.svg, but the consensus was that the file is shouldn't be restored. Maybe the safest thing to do in this case is to treat this as non-free; it's possible that it might be below c:COM:TOO#United States for "PD-ineligible-USonly", but it seems a bit close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old west bromwich albion crest.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is necessarily PD in the UK (country of origin), The source given for that explanation is a dead link. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CastleLeod3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Older upload, Permission claim apparently granted in file description, but no OTRS ticket noted. File is in use and so I felt an FFD discussion was appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kundali Bhagya.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 ⚡ 12:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no critical commentary in the article it is used in, fails WP:NFCC#8 FASTILY 07:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not needed for primary identification purposes in the main infobox and lacking the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kundali Bhagya-title-card.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 ⚡ 12:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no critical commentary in the article it is used in, fails WP:NFCC#8 FASTILY 07:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not needed for primary identification purposes in the main infobox and lacking the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cant have more than 1 non free image for this article. No additional encyclopaedic purpose served by this image. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paragon-logo-full-gradient.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality version as same name on Commons. — trlkly 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunapart-ft.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Szabó Ervin Könyvtár permits non commercial use" so is this under the license actually given? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Figure 6.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source so PD claim not verifiable ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fishtrap.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image is at too low a resolution to necessarily be useful ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brigade Group Official Logo.jpeg[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: Relicensed to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple logo as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have relicensed to non-free logo, added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BLM sign lower lake fork valley.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is uploaders, Sign is a sperate artwork though ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fistral turn1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, educational context not clear. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FreeschaImage.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, permission claim but no OTRS ticket number. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fresko 2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A forum posting image is not neceaasrily PD, more information needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Funit-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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked uploader, Orphaned image.. Assumed own work, but confirmation would be nice ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geothermgradients.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed as self, but it looks like a textbook image. A clarification is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Growth.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned graph, context unclear. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HOcannabis.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifcation needed as to license used. I find it odd that a UK gov site would be using a "copyright free" license vs an OGL style one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.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 2018 November 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:Aditya Academy Secondary Building.jpeg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specified license (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0) but named third party (https://kg2pro.com/place/School/9607b58032300a062a6fa284450728a3/Aditya-Academy-Secondary-School) as the source/copyright holder without evidence that this third party has in fact agreed. Uploader claims to be the author, yet gives a website where the image was previously published as the source, without evidence that uploader is the owner of this image or that the specified license applies.

Uploader was notified and asked to address this on 17 October. As there has been no response I'm raising it for discussion here. Begoon 23:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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