Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27

File:Tom London, hacker and magician, 2018.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Available on Commons with a larger crop: File:Tom-london-profile.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:05, 28 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:Dcsoundtrack.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in The Draughtsman's Contract#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

This was originally prodded for deletion, but de-prodded for the reason shown here. ~~Even if this is not technically a movie soundtrack album so to speak, it is still non-free cover art and still fails NFCC#8 with respect to the way it's currently being used in the article.~~ -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough the misreading of the de-prod reason. -- 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Because the music has been recorded numerous times, showing the soundtrack cover is necessary for identification purposes and not merely "decorative." I did NOT say that it was not a soundtrack album. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake for misinterpretting the reason you gave for deprodding the file. Even so, the fact that there might be other "albums of music from The Draughtman's Contract that are not film's soundtrack per se" still is not a justification for the non-free use of this cover per WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-3. There's already a link to The Composer's Cut Series Vol. I: The Draughtsman's Contract in the film's article where the reader can find out about that album; so, it's not clear how the reader's understanding of that fact the album was re-recorded is significantly improved by seeing this particular album cover. If you feel the soundtrack album is sufficiently Wikipedia notable per WP:NALBUM for a stand-alone article to be written about it, then the cover art could be used for primary indentification purposes in that article perhaps; otherwise, there's really no need for this particular cover art to be used in film article where there's no critical commentary of it of any kind. Different albums tend to have different covers, and unless there's some sourced commentary particularly related to the choice of cover art Nyman made for the original soundtrack album and the re-recording of it, there's no real reason to see one to understand that the other exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 11 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) 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. A textbook example of WP:FILMMUSIC: "The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 19 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) 08:58, 27 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:RussBerrieGregory.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaders photo, but what's shown is a product. FFD referral for an assessment per Commons:COM:TOYS. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I'm not so sure about this one ... is it sufficiently different from public domain teddy bears as to have a valid copyright? Teddy Bears have been around for at least 100 years and I don't see anything especially creative about this one. --B (talk) 13:15, 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a view myself as Wikipedia edits under my account were done by my father in his spare time and he has long passed away. The picture was taken by him and I am happy to release the picture itself to public domain, if that helps. --JuntungWu (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DW. To B: there is obviously creativity involved in creating teddy bears. There is a lot of artistic choice that shows in the product. If you tell a dozen people to make a teddy bear, chances are that all will be different. "Teddy bear" is a category of toys, not a work from 100 years ago. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Finnusertop: yes, of course teddy bears are a category, not a single creative work. That's not the point. The point is, there are no doubt tons of different teddy bear products that are clearly in the public domain because they are pre-1923 or were made prior to 1976 without a copyright notice. I'm going to pull a number out of my rear end and say that there were 10000 different Teddy Bears produced prior to 1976 that are in the public domain. The question is, is this particular teddy bear sufficiently different from those 10000 teddy bears so as to demonstrate a spark of creativity? It honestly looks pretty boilerplate. Do a Google image search for 1920 teddy bear plush and you'll find plenty of them that look very similar. Does this bear demonstrate a spark of creativity so as to distinguish itself? --B (talk) 00:55, 12 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) 06:01, 19 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) 08:58, 27 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:Egyptian MIG 21s during Yom Kippur War.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to change the current license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the US status? My view is that URAA doesn't apply as 1996(-15 years for simple photos) is 1981 after this image was taken. The FFD refferal is for a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 3 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it the way it is: PD in Egypt and possibly non-free in US. I am not confident in guessing what the "creative work" caveat means. If you are, I'm happy to hear about your findings, ShakespeareFan00. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 12 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) 06:02, 19 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) 08:59, 27 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:Brympton DEvercy.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution with obvious half-toning, claimed as PD-user, but was it actually from a another source? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly not worth the effort of trying to work out the copyright status. Giano had the habit of converting jpgs to gifs and pngs which might account for any number of image artefacts. There is a newer, clearer, higher-resolution file File:Brympton DEvercy House (geograph 3084630).jpg available, which could clearly replace this one in the three articles where it is used. I'd recommend replace and delete. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much nicer new image. Get rid of the old one. Giano (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since a better version now exists on common.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:54, 29 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:CarBose.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referral to FFD because this is claimed as PD-user, but no user details have been given. Image is lo-resolution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:05, 28 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:Christian Calson.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PD-user license used, permission claim, but no OTRS ticket noted... Was there an OTRS ticket for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 27 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:Ethgroup shot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user attributed in the license is blocked,. The file description page states that this was a publicity shot ny a third party. (The band concerned.) and claims fair use. How is this a PD-user style license and not a Non-free use situation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The description of permission states "They give free usage on all of there content as long it is not for profit or personal gain by others that are not in the band" which is clearly a non-commercial restriction. It's not public domain as claimed and the restriciton makes the file insufficiently free for use on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Free use rationale now void, since a free file from commons c:File:Enter The Haggis Promo 2014.jpg is now used on Enter the Haggis --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:51, 28 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:Footybanner.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The football banner shown here might have a copyright as an artwork. Is there a policy about 'supporter' art which isn't necessarily going to be formally copyrighted? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:06, 28 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:GrowePhoto-old.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is apparently tagged with a deletion request, FFD referral so this can be discussed. There's little additional context on the File description page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 28 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:Halgould2004.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 4#File:Halgould2004.jpg. ℯ xplicit 00:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to doubt good faith, but a clarification of this as own work would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 27 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:Halves.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A promotional photo is not necessarily PD. A clarification of the status would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:31, 27 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:Jawed cropped.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Image listed as source for crop no longer available to check the sourcing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and source of the image unclear. copyright questionable. another better file already exist on commons as c:File:Jawed Karim 2008.jpg --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:03, 29 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:Washingdigitalrefractometer.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as PD-User, but the user was blocked for spam, so it's not possible to clarify the status with them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 27 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:PopDensity Eg.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as PD-User, but "http://web.macam.ac.il/~arnon/Int-ME/extra/Egypt/Egypt_pop.jpg " given as source. This is a third party and a clarification as to the actual status desirable. Media is not currently used ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused with questionable licensing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:05, 29 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:Landsborough Station.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information block added in the good faith, but no Wikipedia user with name given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 28 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:Tauros.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on a user page, Unclear context, and sourcing isn't as clear. Is Hudson the name of a user on an external site? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and questionable licensing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:59, 29 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:Knjaževsko-srpski-teatar.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, blocked user, No description on file description page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned and no chance of being used since commons has a better image c:File:Teatar Кragujevac.jpg for the Knjaževsko-srpski teatar--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:41, 28 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:LinkGA-10px.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Two users listed in licenses. Dual creation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and will not be used since the SVG already exists on commons. appears to be created by a new user. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:42, 28 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:Lockheed Altair.2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FFD Refferal as Lockheed here refers to a company and not a specifc user. Likely no notice if taken by an unknown employee, but a clarification would be useful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 27 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:Mother Love Bone Logo1.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blocked user. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this image has an encyclopaedic value. Mother Love Bone already has an image. So this is clearly redundant. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:44, 28 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:NewSarkoKaercher.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in mainspace,. License sources it to a user other than the uploader, Was this an import from a different Wikipedia? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:10, 28 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:Nz gov gen flag crop.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent crop from a file that was deleted on Wikipedia. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. File:Nz gov gen flag.jpg was deleted as orphaned. There were no issues with its copyright status. ℯ xplicit 00:32, 4 November 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:SF6.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Low resoloution. Should really by vector with a clear source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:10, 28 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:Smilemac yellow.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the happy Mac icon owned by Apple? Alternatively is this actually simple? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:11, 28 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:Colegio Cesar Chavez Aztec mural.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 different authors credited. Who actually took the photo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 27 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:Be My Baby The Ronettes.ogg

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 in Be My Baby only. ℯ xplicit 00:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The audio sample of "Be My Baby" is used in four articles, including the article about the song itself. I'm not confident that the audio sample would improve understanding about other topics, and I'm uncertain whether such usages meet WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. I tried raising the issue at the file's talk page, but no reply has been made for almost a year. George Ho (talk) 20:42, 27 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:Rakuten.com logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by new vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:05, 28 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:Burton logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by new version in article. Cloudbound (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:05, 28 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:Booker Software.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by new logo in article. Cloudbound (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 28 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:Swansea-BS-logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 28 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:Sabadell.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new SVG logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:52, 28 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:Trinitymirror.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused image. SVG already exists. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:46, 28 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:Green Investment Bank.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo with no foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:55, 28 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:Moss bros logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, superceded in use by new version. Cloudbound (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:51, 28 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:IAG Cargo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by new version in article. Cloudbound (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:48, 28 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:BMI Regional logo.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by new version. Cloudbound (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:49, 28 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:Bmi Regional.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by vector logo listed above. Cloudbound (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free image which is obsolete due to the new logo. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:49, 28 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.