Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 7

< November 6	November 8 >

November 7

File:SilverFast DC Pro.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 local file as F8 (Non admin closure): Image at Commons, raise any further concerns there Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In use, but the tag suggests that an OTRS would be needed to confirm the permission, It's been a month. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informing El Grafo to ask them what they meant with the tag; if the file is non-free here it should have been sent to PUF.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*:Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the procedures at en.wp. The "Permission" says: LaserSoft imaging made this image available to me (LaserSoft being the creator/publisher of the software), which is not sufficient for the file to be hosted at Commons, which in turn is why I changed "move to Commons" to "don't move to Commons". Probably should have sent it to WP:PUF as well. The design of the software itself might not be much of a problem since that may well be below the threshold of originality, but at the very least we would need a written permission for the photograph of the flower via OTRS. --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

PS: Note that there seems to be a OTRS-Permission from LaserSoft for File:SilverFast HDR Box.jpg, originally uploaded by the same user. Might be that Ticket 2008101010011453 already contains a permission for this file as well? --El Grafo (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about all of that: The file already is at Commons as Commons:File:SilverFast DC Pro.png with OTRS template. So I guess the local copy can be deleted. --El Grafo (talk) 10:55, 11 November 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:RobertBudLarsenHFiddle.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""given to me" implies user has permission. This needs to be verified in OTRS before moving to Commons. Deadstar (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Commons version at commons:File:RobertBudLarsenHFiddle.jpg that says "Permission was given before OTRS. Picture given, by Robert "Bud" Larsen, to be publishet on my website about the Helland Fiddle maker family." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The file was uploaded to Commons by User:MGA73 who seems to be an OTRS member, but there is no OTRS ticket on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about en.wp, but Commons doesn't require OTRS for some very old uploads. However, this file may fail the requirements for that, so I've filed a DR at Commons. Same goes for File:RobrtBudLarsen.jpg/Commons:File:RobrtBudLarsen.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 11 November 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:800px-Eriogonum parvifolium 1cropped.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, Do not move claim can easily be remedied by changing the name, and I've tagged as such ({{rename media}}). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to move the file locally. You only need to tell your favourite tool for uploading files to Commons to use a different page title than the one on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Commons: File:Eriogonum parvifolium 1 cropped.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 11 November 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:86S-Shield.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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, Claim that it shouldn't be moved due to the title blacklist is easily remedied by a rename. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source link is dead, so there is no evidence that the copyright holder agreed to the indicated licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archived June 2004 version of source link here, but that doesn't help much as the Photographic Contributors are credited with their realnames there. Uploader claims to be the person who contributed the image to that website, so it boils down to: Do we trust him/her? --El Grafo (talk) 10:48, 11 November 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:9K22 Tunguska firing its autocannons.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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments about not moving it to Commons, referring it as FFD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like a case for WP:PUF than this venue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is no evidence that the United States Government created the picture, then we shouldn't keep it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 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:807th Medical Command (Deployment Support) (emblem).gif

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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, but it's claimed there's a title issue preventing it being uploaded there. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what if the title blacklist prevents you from uploading a file with this name? You just need to tell your favourite Commons transfer tool to upload the file under a different file name! --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 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:Tariq Imran Phalia Map 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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, heavily watermarked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:10, 7 November 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:Robert-mcalpin-williamson headstone.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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"License incorrect, unclear what license applies. Deadstar (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the file is freely licensed. The photographer has obviously not been dead for 100 years as currently stated. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 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:Reed-College-Front-Lawn-ODB-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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag on the file which claims the license grant is not compatible. This is from 2006!, Let's resolve this and get this image moved to Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The permission only covers Wikipedia use, which is insufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 7 November 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:Sign King Mesgegra.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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no freedom of panorama for this type of sign in the United Kingdom. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 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:Internet map plain 1024.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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tag is incorrect, as image is nominaly NC according to the text. Convert to fair use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internet map 1024.jpg is marked as free so this image wouldn't meet WP:NFCC#1 if marked as fair use. It would have to be deleted then.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two licences (cc-by-nc-sa 1.0 and cc-by-2.5) are mentioned, but we do not have any evidence that either of them applies, and the NC licence is not a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 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 for Prellenkirchen.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons if "free" , If not this needs relabelling as "fair use". Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de:Datei:WappenPrellenkirchen.jpg uses de:Template:Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk. No idea if that is correct. If moved to Commons, then the German Wikipedia file should be moved instead as that one has higher resolution. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:97px-WappenPrellenkirchen.jpg to File:Coat of arms for Prellenkirchen.jpg by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 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:Geographical distribution of the Erzgbirgisch dialect.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but it was claimed the file name could not be created, rename requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what if the filename is blacklisted on Commons? Just tell your Commons transfer tool to use a different file name instead! --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:300px-Karte erzgebirgisch with Germany.png to File:Geographical distribution of the Erzgbirgisch dialect.png by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 25 November 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:USWarriors-Diversity.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. When we are not sure about the license of the image, we have to err on the side of caution and not keep it. It also needs to be pointed out that we have no evidence that this was created and owned by the USMC based on the source. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Do-not move to Commons tag - "Collage of images, question is whether all components fall under the license. (for instance the Iwo Jima flag raising photo is owned by Associated Press".. bringing to FFD for disscusion, Image is in use though, so fair use is a possibility. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of uploading the poster, it seemed to me as if it is a diversity propaganda means used and owned by the USMC. The image of the Iwo Jima flag raising is not that of the photo, but the USMC statue itself. However, I do have a full trust in User: Sfan00 and will accept what ever decision is taken on the issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... If it can be shown it's the statue ( and that doesn't have issues) then I will withdraw. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing the picture in the poster with that of the photo here: [1] and I may be wrong but it seems to me that Ira Hayes (the Marine at the end) is touching the flag pole in the poster and in the original he does not touch it. It seems as if the ground in which they are planting the flag is much rougher in the original and the stripes in the center fold of the flag differ. I'm not sure but this here: [2] seems to be a photo of the statue in Washington, DC which is practically identical to the one in the poster. Tony the Marine (talk)

Thanks, for the update. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 11 November 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:Vainqueur-Challenge-de-Fran-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 ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per tag on file - "Link to original site is now broken, similar images available there ([3]), but no license mentioned." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had an email from the team at the time if I recall saying all the pictures on their website were under the CC-by. I don't have it here with me though, and I couldn't find one for other photos from the team here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The uploader should have followed the procedure described at WP:CONSENT but didn't do this. If all evidence of the permission has been lost, the permission is useless as no one can prove that it once existed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 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:800px-Leeds City Square mk2.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, but it was claimed the file name was preventing the transfer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rename request has been added. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to do anything with files named like this. If someone wishes to move the file to Commons, just select a different file name when uploading the file to Commons. Until then, the file can remain under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 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:Battery Fire Control.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per tag on file :' "The permission needs to be processed through WP:OTRS to verify the claim Used by permission of Mark Berhow, Coast Defense Study Group, 2010. ' - This image is from 2010, so can anyone actually verify the OTRS confirmation exists? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several years since I wrote the article that uses this image, but I can confirm with I checked with Mark Berhow, the editor of the CDSG publication from which the image was taken. It's a very important image, since it illustrates one of the most basic aspects of the science of fire control in the Coast Artillery. Mr. Berhow can likely be contacted though the Coast Defense Study Group. Sorry that I have no idea with "OTRS" is. Looks like the burocracy here has gothappy to confirm ten much more complex since I wrote this article. Pgrig (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the procedure described at {{di-no permission-notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_________________

I regret that I can't figure out the referenced procedure. I have obtained a working email for Mr. Berhow, who provided CDSG's permission for the use of this file. If a Wikipedia "enforcer" can contact me (pgrig744@gmail.com), I can provide Berhow's email to them. He indicates he will be pleased to confirm his permission. --Pgrig (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is explained at both {{di-no permission-notice}} and WP:CONSENT. You just need to follow that procedure. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 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:450px-Snejanka Cave.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 ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but it was claimed the file-name could not be created. Unused locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-resolution version of File:Snejanka Cave.JPG. Fails WP:NOTHOST. Technically doesn't satisfy WP:F8 because someone added {{do not move to Commons}} for a stupid reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 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:Internet map plain 4096.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 ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NC License which is not a compatible "free" license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two CC licences mentioned (one free and one unfree), but without evidence that either of them applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 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:Blofeldevilcat.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 ⚡ 05:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Low res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a crop of a larger picture: http://www.toocooldude.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/dog-cat-spy.jpg (predates our upload) & http://www.vitamin-ha.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Memes-i-think-theres-a-spy-among-us.jpg (later but even higher resolution). No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 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:Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Org Highlighted.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 as F8 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but it was claimed the title could not be created for some reason. Rename requested to remove the metadata in title. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to do anything with files named like this. If someone wishes to move the file to Commons, just select a different file name when uploading the file to Commons. Until then, the file can remain under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:800px-Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Org Highlighted .jpg to File:Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Org Highlighted.jpg by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 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:Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Reading Highlighted.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 as F8 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but it was claimed the file-name could not be created for some reason. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to do anything with files named like this. If someone wishes to move the file to Commons, just select a different file name when uploading the file to Commons. Until then, the file can remain under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:800px-Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Reading Highlighted svg.jpg to File:Nobles County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Reading Highlighted.jpg by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 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:Bloke kissing that bird's arse.jpg.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 ⚡ 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Also note the file name. Adam9007 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to a long-running Viz joke. Probably thirty years they've been doing it now. It's not in article space, sorry if you find it offensive.. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The file name looks perfectly reasonable (while retaining an air of sophisticated mystique). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ".jpg" part of the name seems like an error that should be removed. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is no use in any article. If kept, rename per Cybercobra. Reh man 12:56, 26 December 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:39-45StarRibbon.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 ⚡ 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to see why this image cannot be moved to Commons, If it's already existent in better forms, THOSE usages should be making this image obsolete. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that tag as it seems to be incorrect. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is seems like we have better replacements on Commons. Reh man 12:59, 26 December 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:8404 11th Avenue 1998-2006 - DHHS.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, but it was claimed that the image could not be transferred owing to a naming issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to do anything with files named like this. If someone wishes to move the file to Commons, just select a different file name when uploading the file to Commons. Until then, the file can remain under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 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:40thAnniversayOfVictoryOverFascismRibbon.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, It's not clear why the original was deleted, as generally Commons doesn't remove unused material. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it was deleted for an invalid reason on Commons. Unused files can be deleted at the request of the uploader if unused and uploaded less than a week ago, but this file was deleted almost two months after being upload. Anyway, the deletion on Commons doesn't prevent anyone from reuploading it to Commons, so I suggest that we remove the notice Commons from our copy of the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, per nom. Reh man 13:01, 26 December 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:411px-WalMenz.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, but there was seemingly an issue with the title that prevented it's transfer. A simple file move can easily resolve the issue of blocking meta-data. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-resolution version of File:WalMenz.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aye, that JPG file is better in quality and size.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 6 December 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:482px-Abraham white.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but there was apparently an issue with the file-name. Rename requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to do anything with files named like this. If someone wishes to move the file to Commons, just select a different file name when uploading the file to Commons. Until then, the file can remain under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 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:Lineage of the Assyayid Assyarif Bawazir family.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but there was apparently an issue with the file-name. Rename requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The filename suggests that it is derived from File:Tampilnasab.jpg, which was deleted per WP:F4. Does the deletion of that file mean that the copyright status of this file is unknown, or does it mean that we suddenly have copyright information about the deleted file? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:493px-Tampilnasab.jpg to File:Lineage of the Assyayid Assyarif Bawazir family.jpg by LukeSurl (talk · contribs) at 16:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this deletion discussion when I ascended to a file move request. I have PROD'd Bawazir, the only article which uses this image. --LukeSurl^{t c} 18:24, 26 November 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:Map of Buckinghamshire with Aylesbury Urban Area highlighted.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, but apparently there was an issue with the file-name, rename requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:504px-Buckinghamshire outline map with UK Aylesbry Urban Area.PNG to File:Map of Buckinghamshire with Aylesbury Urban Area highlighted.png by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, per nom. Reh man 13:03, 26 December 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:Buckinghamshire outline map with UK High Wycombe Urban Area highlighted.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons, but apparently there was an issue with the filename, rename requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The filename suggests that it is a Mediawiki thumbnail, or at least derived from one. The original file would need to be identified so that we can verify the source and licensing information. I tried removing "504px" from the filename, but that didn't point me at a valid file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:504px-Buckinghamshire outline map with UK High Wycombe Urban Area.PNG to File:Buckinghamshire outline map with UK High Wycombe Urban Area highlighted.png by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Reh man 13:12, 26 December 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:Writing systems of the world with adjusted colors to reflect language families.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be commons, etc... (Please see previous entries of this type), Will list subsequent below rather than filing individually. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove that notice. Whoever wants to upload the file to Commons can simply choose a different name. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:800px-Writing systems worldwide1.png to File:Writing systems of the world with adjusted colors to reflect language families.png by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 November 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.

Additional

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

The result of the discussion was: procedural close. None of the files have been tagged with the appropriate deletion template. Please do so when nominating files for deletion. — ξ ^xplicit 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:800px-Tokyo-Big-Six-prefectures.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:50px-Not motorway symbol.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:571px-Vodna kyla.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:594px-Eben-Emael-bridges.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-TCCC-USA-states.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Stolpersteine Nobis.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:780px-Counter-attack.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Skeet-en.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Sarah at protest.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-range of pencil-slate urchin.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-MapYorktownNavalBattleen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Köln-Museum-Schnütgen800-crop.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-King County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Auburn Highlighted.svg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Kenojuak Ashevak star on Walk of Fame crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-KB Thai Kedmanee.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-Kansai-Big-Six-prefectures.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:800px-I-295 (FL) map updated 2010.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

All file names suggest that they are derived from a file on a Mediawiki wiki. In some cases, the source is specified. In other cases, the source is omitted. Some might need to be deleted as unsourced, but this mass request is not useful for discussing the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move all to Commons with the prefix removed. Reh man 13:13, 26 December 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:OCSEF 1973.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: speedy delete per nominator. The copy with the proper rotation has been deleted as copyvio.

Unused rotated version of File:A project from the OCSEF 1973.jpg. Eeekster (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need the rotated version. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 7 November 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:Prince 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: keep as is. — ξ ^xplicit 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is non-free and has non-free use rationales for Prince (musician) and Love Symbol Album. This has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 9#File:Prince logo.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 23#File:Prince logo.svg, and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 53#File:Prince logo.svg and the consensus seems to be that the logo is copyright protected and satisfies WP:NFCC for the albums stand-alone page and the artist's page. However, Djfunkfunk has been adding the logo to Prince albums discography. Attempts have been made to explain why I do not think this particular usage complies with WP:NFCC in various edit sums and at Talk:Prince albums discography#Non-free use of File:Prince logo.svg, but it's probably best to further discuss this here. Basically, my reasoning for removing the logo has been that it has no non-free fair use for the discography article, so usage does not comply with WP:NFCC#10c. The person wishing to add non-free content to an article is supposed to add a valid non-free use rationale per WP:NFCCE (which Djfunkfunk keeps failing to do), but I do not think a valid nfur can be provided per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 and possibly No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The symbol can be seen in the album's stand-alone article, so I'm not sure how its display is needed for the discography article when the text wikilink serves tha same encycolpedic purpose. This does not seem any no different from company logos, book cover art, and album cover art which are not allowed to be used in list articles in a similar manner for similar reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office approved the copyright registration for this logo, so it is undisputed that the logo is copyrighted.

The FUR for Prince (musician) appears to be for a single use, but the logo seems to be used at least four times in the article. The number of uses could maybe be reduced a bit. Same problem in Love Symbol Album: the FUR is for a single use, but the picture is used twice. The picture seems to be a bit different from other non-free pictures normally hosted on Wikipedia in that it is a symbol which apparently can appear in the middle text. The examples at WP:NFC describe how we typically handle things such as logos, covers, photographs and currency, but I see no examples in either WP:NFCI nor in WP:NFC#UUI which directly seems to address pictures like this. Therefore, I am not sure how we should interpret WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8 for an image like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefan2. What about the discography article? Is the usage in the discography OK per NFLISTS? No. 4 of NFLISTS says "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." If the problem is simply that the image does not have a nfur for the discography and such a nfur can be written, then that's a fairly easy problem to solve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be a good idea to bring this up at WT:NFC, given that it is an unusual kind of work? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefan2. I've started a discussion at WT:NFC#File:Prince logo.svg per your suggestion -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 9 November 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:The Songstress.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1991 re-release edition of the original 1983 album by Anita Baker. The image of the 1983 original release is currently used in the article, the Songstress, so the 1991 image is no longer necessary. Sources discussing the image itself have not been found. I have been reluctant to nominate this image for deletion until deletion of the 1990s re-release album cover of Lovers (Babyface album) was "endorsed", even when that cover has been used in later releases. In fact, I wanted to keep both items until people say that one image would be enough to help readers understand (not just recognize) the album. As for the original release, it has more historical value, especially as part of out-of-stock release. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 7 November 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.