Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

October 11[edit]

File:Nayan.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by NayanAmbali (talk · contribs): Unused userphoto. No foreseeable use.
File uploaded by Nayan vora (talk · contribs): No source and no licence. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2015 (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:Legis.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map without description. Looks like election results although it is unspecified which election it refers to. I think that there already are plenty of maps for all recent elections in the United States, so we shouldn't need this map. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2015 (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:German battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz in port, prior to World War I (retouched).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is at Commons, but there's a licensing clash Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The photographer is named on the file information page and the picture is claimed to be from WWI. The template used, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, requires evidence that the photograph was published before 1923. The file information page refers to a publication from 1935, which was not before 1923, and there is no evidence that the picture was published anywhere else before 1935. If the photograph was first published in 1935, then the copyright expires in the United States 95 years from publication (unless the photographer died before 1926 of which we have no evidence). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first, the 1935 date is just the year that ONI acquired the photo, not anything publication related. Second, it's a prewar postcard (or at the latest, a wartime postcard, but that's unlikely), so by definition, it was published before 1923. The reason I uploaded it locally, rather than simply use the Commons version, is that there's no evidence that the photo is PD in Germany. It's rather likely that the photographer died less than 70 years ago. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is no documentation on when that prewar or postwar postcard was published. The earliest date we have is 1935, so the first publication could have been after 1922. I agree that it is likely that the photograph is unfree in the source country, but without information about the publication date, we can't assume that it is in the public domain in the United States either. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1935 does not matter. That's only the date of accession. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Ed said, 1935 has nothing to do with publication, it's just when the photo made its way into ONI possession (which has nothing to do with copyright). It's highly unlikely this photo was published as a postcard after 1919 (since the ship was gone by then), let alone after 1923. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A couple things. Postcards are generally to nearly always published immediately or within a couple years, so it's extremely likely to almost certain that this was published before 1923. See also File:HNLMS Java 1925.jpg (and related FAC), which is in a similar situation. Second, this is from the Naval History and Heritage Command, where they've declared that everything posted is in the public domain in the United States—not necessarily other countries, however. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pre-1923 postcard image, public domain. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ship was sunk in 1919, chance that the image was published post-1923 is minuscule. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others. Yann (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (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:O'tuathail.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Shadow is an uncaptioned, mirror image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this file is unfree, then the file on Commons is also unfree as it is the same drawing of the coat of arms. Also, seeing as this is a coat of arms, it violates WP:NFCC#1 if unfree as a free replacement could be created from the same blazon. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2015 (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:Sam A. Webster.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, personal file Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2015 (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:Kalevala Monument in Sibelius Park.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2015 (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:Sam A. Webster.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 ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphoto. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2015 (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:Jay.cutz logo.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, uploader is "brand holder" though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2015 (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:Coat of arms of CCR.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 ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Only use could find was a userspace (potential alt hist) , No other description given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (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:Flag of RCCG.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 ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Personal? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2015 (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:Ticket-t.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File at commons is a "practical" duplicate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (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:Lightup-solution.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow at Commons is a "Practical" duplicate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (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:Kit body dpr10a.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused football kit image. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2015 (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:Kuchipudi.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality. We have better pictures of the same kind of dance, for example on Commons under the same name. Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2015 (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:Value chain.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2015 (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:ArshBalJodhe.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, No description, Personal? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2015 (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:Actress Reshma Rathore.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file.Itsmeesathya (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2015 (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:Adith Arun.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2015 (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:DOP Ram Prasad Cinematographer.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (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:Sumanth Ashwin.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (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:Sukrithi Ambati Kerintha.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (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:Bellamkonda Suresh.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (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:Venugopal Lucky Media.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity & companies digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (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:Anaika Soti.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2015 (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:Bellamkonda Sreenivas.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A free licence has been used but there is also a fair use rationale. There is no evidence that the file is freely licensed. If unfree, the file violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Stefan2 I work for an organization where i work to safe guard our celebrity digital image that's why i have uploaded it under free licencing. I understand Wikipedia policy and i wouldn't go against any compliances. Let me know what evidence you want so that we can make the file freely licensed. Request you to undo the deletion of the file. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file is freely licensed, then this should be documented, see WP:CONSENT. If not freely licensed, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stefan2 the file was sent to [email protected] for licencing and yet to receive any acknowledgement from them and you have deleted the picture. what is the other alternative? Itsmeesathya (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2015 (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:Sonu jha.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2015 (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.