Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23

File:Abaja.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a crop from this image [1] from a 2011 forum post, so it's difficult to believe the ownership claimed by the uploader. Since these are markings of an existing tribe, a free image can be obtained so a non-free image is not required. MASEM (t) 05:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne and cat 1979.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the camera operator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a photo of the uploader, who is clearly not the cameraman; missing clear evidence of permission FASTILY 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no evidence that there is a "cameraman" other than the uploader. The uploader could have used a camera with a timer or other device to take the picture herself. ★ Bigr Tex 02:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 02:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne 1975.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the creator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional caricature; no reason given to suggest that uploader is the copyright holder. FASTILY 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uploader states that they created the image. There is no evidence that they did not. It is well within reason that it is a self portrait. ★ Bigr Tex 02:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 02:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne and Tatiana 1998.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the camera operator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional photo of uploader; unlikely that uploader is the copyright holder, and/or missing clear evidence of permission. FASTILY 06:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Insufficient evidence of 'professional' photographer involvement. Uploader states that it is a self-portrait and it is reasonable to believe that it could be. ★ Bigr Tex 02:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 02:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mcgalliard falls.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable copyright status; uploader claims that the photo was self-created, but the file is tagged PD US Gov FASTILY 06:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Boniface Tache.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable historical photo of some sort; dubious own work claim. FASTILY 06:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:McArthur Building Winnipeg.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable historical photo of some sort; dubious own work claim. FASTILY 06:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brandon in 1890.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable historical photo of some sort; dubious own work claim. FASTILY 06:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vishwas (1969 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Badi Didi (1969 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Gold Medal (film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anmol Moti (1969 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeene Ki Raah (1969 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Do Bhai (1969 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mere Huzoor (1968 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aulad (1968 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suhaag Raat (1968 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pavivaar (1967 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zamaanat (1977 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ek Hi Raasta (1977 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sankoch (1976 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under new Fair Use claim and Rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 23:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sri Tirupati Venkateswara Kalyanam (1979 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Back cover fails WP:NFCC#3. Stefan2 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sandade Sandadi.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kahani Ek Chor Ki.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chowki No.11 (1978 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khoon Ka Rishta (1981 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khoon Aur Paani (1981 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kasum Khoon Ki (film) September 1977.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haisiyat 1984 film.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balidaan (1985 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hoshiyar (1985 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prem Tapasya (1983 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Singhasan (1986 film).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maa Alludu Very Good December 2003.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bhagyalakshmi Bumper Draw November 2006.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kathanayakudu (1984 film) April 2016.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ramu (1987 film) April 2016.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as a fair use image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ERA.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Edilberto Raul Alvarez was deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Family photo 1978.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the camera operator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader's family photo. Uploader claims own work, but is clearly not the cameraman; missing clear evidence of permission. FASTILY 10:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she could be the photographer, for instance a timer on the camera. ★ Bigr Tex 00:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne beach disco.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the camera operator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of uploader, claimed as own work, but the uploader is clearly not the photographer. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 10:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she could be the photographer, for instance a timer on the camera. ★ Bigr Tex 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne beach disco giardini naxos.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th and there's no indication as to who the camera operator is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of uploader, claimed as own work, but the uploader is clearly not the photographer. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 10:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she could be the photographer, for instance a remote shutter trigger. ★ Bigr Tex 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne boleyn at aisha.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep The uploader was notified on July 6th but there's no indication as to who the photographer is, other than speculation. As such, keep for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of uploader, claimed as own work, but the uploader is clearly not the photographer. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 10:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Divisor-summatory-big.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowing Commons, Local version appears to be invalid. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Question book-new.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; no consensus for deletion, and no harm in having two. Miniapolis 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated by commons:File:Question book-4.svg but can't be tagged as F8 as protected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file names of these heavily used protected images sometimes appear on Javascript and CSS pages, files like LocalSettings.php and on pages in the MediaWiki namespace, and deleting such files may break things if those files and pages are not updated. Have you checked that this isn't the case with this file? Such pages and files, if any, normally won't show up in the list of pages using the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some usages of this file as part of user JavaScript using the site search, I have never seen it used in LocalSettings.php. As part of tagging tools that is, since this icon is used in maintenance tags which is why it's so widely used. I see that the Commons version is fully permanently protected because it's very widely used, which makes me think that deleting the local copy would not do any damage.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie, any feedback? You protected this in 2011 czar 16:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images for background. Anomie ⚔ 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fire Industry Association (FIA) Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as non-free ★ Bigr Tex 01:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything that's a major creative element, Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free. Given the internal design behind the text, I'd say no. I've vote to be conservative about saying that people's logos are public domain. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charles W. Sandman plaque.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: Relist czar 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 26#File:Charles_W._Sandman_plaque.jpg

Simple text? Not seeing any major non-tirival gemoetric elements either. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are no significant graphic elements. I was unsure what copyright tag to use on it: I snapped the photo myself, but had nothing to do with the plaque, I just spotted it in passing. If there's a better tag, please feel free to change it. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of permission from the person who wrote the text on the sign. Fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Blue_plaque? It seems rather obvious this is not only a fair use, but an intended use of a historic plaque. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant if it is valid fair use under copyright law or not. The article does not need an image of a non-free plaque and can easily be understood without one, see WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the file fails WP:NFCC#1 (per WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#10a and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, have you looked at Blue plaque? Or the corresponding image category? There is wide use of this sort of image in articles about the people, places, or events discussed on such plaques. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog: Can you add a copyright tag to the file, please? Merely mentioning it in the information template is not enough. I think it is supposed to be something like {{self|GFDL}}. @Stefan2: Seems like the plaque may fall under {{PD-US-1989}} - the date indicated is 1986 and public works of art often display the dedication/publication date, which is very plausible here. I don't see a copyright tag, either, but I don't know anything on how to find out about copyright registration. So requesting that this file not be deleted until the registration question is cleared up.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, I hope correctly. Thanks to BigrTex for helping sort this out and to Redrose64 for solving the template behavior mystery. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMKA Simpang Lima Sabak Bernam Logo comparison.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are third party logos. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMKA Sabak Bernam Flag.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but clearly third party logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Al-hidayah Yearbook Magazine.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but clearly shows work of third parties. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amerika No.1 Painting by Stella Michaels.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work by living artist, OTRS required unless uploader is artist. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Postop Jatene neonate.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As stated here, there is no current policy requiring any additional confirmation beyond the copyright concerns. Any further suggestions about a change in a policy regarding Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical image of a child, OTRS Confirmation desirable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly and Sfan00 IMG: Is it standard to have OTRS confirmation here (for parental consent?)? I am looking at Commons and I don't see any confirmation of anything other than copyright. And if parental consent is needed, can we assume that it is by default present?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly and Doc James: There is no explicitly stated Wikipedia/Commons policy on this. That's why I stated "desirable" in my initial listing. In my personal view it's a sensible precautionary view not to assume 'parental consent' by default, especially when it's a sensitive image like that documenting some kind of medical procedure. You may wish to bring User:Doc James into the conversation as they would have a better understanding of the issue concerned.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It is not desirable to have consent forms sent to OTRS. This would than associated pictures with names. The OTRS volunteers do not have the authorization to collect that data. Other publishers do not request it.

Issues of parental consent are between the photographer, the parents, and the medical licensing authority. We have dozens of multi million dollar professional organizations that deal with this stuff. The photographer should be collecting signed consent forms for those who are identifiable. They should ideally place one copy in the patient's chart and keep one copy for their own records. I have a file of these forms in my office. We should simply suggest that people get consent for their own protection and as it is the right thing to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polo clear ice mint.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license, this is clearly packaging artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polo smoothies sunshine fruits.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed as GFDL, but is clearly packaging artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polo candy samples.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image includes Packaging artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baby Kaely- Now There Up I Heaven.wav

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Music track ? If so it's not fair-use in it's current length. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abadgaara.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. Also, Pahlevun, you may want to consider asking the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab about editing out the background.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simple text owing to the graphic background. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sfan00 IMG. The background is not part of the logo, it is in the file becuase I took it from a screenshot and I can't remove the green background. Can anyone help on this?

Delete - The background is not simple as Sfan00 IMG says. Also since there's good way to remove the background from such a low-quality image, the result would likely be sub-par. I'd suggest finding a suitable replacement if the image is indispensable to the article. -FASTILY 21:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RupertGould.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: withdrawn by nominator. Miniapolis 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear licensing and possible copyvio (Gould died 1948, and no information about the photographer). Source not accessible, and no evidence of PD release by copyright holder. Miniapolis 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Madam

The picture Of Gould has been available on Wikipedia for six years and I have little recollection of uploading it. The source is verifiable though as it came from a now defunct magazine called 'Book Collector'. It's from 1996. Gould died sixty eight years ago . In truth it's not a very good photograph and the background colour clearly bothers some people. There are quite a few other photographs of Gould on links so if you feel happier I have no opinion about deletion. Dorkinglad (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)dorkinglad (talk)Dorkinglad (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If first published in 1996, then the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer or 70 years after 1978, whichever is later. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator After hearing from Dorkinglad, I believe this qualifies as fair use and have amended the file accordingly; we don't know the copyright status of those other photos. The date of first publication is unknown, but was probably before 1978. Miniapolis 16:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cumberland School of Law Logo.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; replaced up the current version: File:Cumberland School of Law logo.png ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 21:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Office party Christmas 1979.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is one the photo's subjects (far right), and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jranne and friend.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is one the photo's subjects (on the right), and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she possibly could be the photographer, for instance a timer on the camera. ★ Bigr Tex 23:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jenny G 1974.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 21:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she possibly could be the photographer, for instance a timer on the camera. ★ Bigr Tex 23:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jenny early 1986.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's (a professional headshot) subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 21:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she possibly could be the photographer, for instance a remote shutter trigger. ★ Bigr Tex 23:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanneboleyn.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is the photo's subject, and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she possibly could be the photographer, for instance a remote shutter trigger. ★ Bigr Tex 23:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeanne's venue.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 BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is one of the photo's subjects (far left), and could not possibly be the photographer. Dubious self-work claim; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 22:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin it does not appear to me as if the uploader, who is still active, was notified about these nominations. ★ Bigr Tex 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject states that she made the image, perhaps we should communicate with her instead of accusing her of lying. There are ways that she possibly could be the photographer, for instance a timer on the camera. ★ Bigr Tex 23:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Conducting-010.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 April 22, deletion comment by User:Calliopejen1 was: Dubious own work; uploader has lied about own work previously (see File:LuisPares.jpg) and also uploaded things credited to other people. metadata is all over the place for her uploads; no consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isabel Pantoja (Caracas 2007).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the continued Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 April 22. Rationale by User:Calliopejen1 as follows: Dubious own work; uploader has lied about own work previously (see File:LuisPares.jpg) and also uploaded things credited to other people. metadata is all over the place for her uploads; no consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WarrenGreen.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the continued Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 April 22. Rationale by User:Calliopejen1 as follows: Dubious own work; uploader has lied about own work previously (see File:LuisPares.jpg) and also uploaded things credited to other people. metadata is all over the place for her uploads; no consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SuzydigbyLadyEatwell.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the continued Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 April 22. Rationale by User:Calliopejen1 as follows: Dubious own work; uploader has lied about own work previously (see File:LuisPares.jpg) and also uploaded things credited to other people. metadata is all over the place for her uploads; no consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KatieDerham.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the continued Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 April 22. Rationale by User:Calliopejen1 as follows: Dubious own work; uploader has lied about own work previously (see File:LuisPares.jpg) and also uploaded things credited to other people. metadata is all over the place for her uploads; no consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eligible Class Records images

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: Deleted by Explicit.

File:JWTM Been Working All Day (Remastered).jpg

File:Monstaa Piranhas Y'all Can't Stand The Heat (Glow Effect).jpg

File:Joey Koffi in 2015.jpg

File:JWTM The Singing Mood (Remastered).jpg

File:JWTM Hard Drive EP (Explicit).jpg

File:King Lyriq Workin' (feat. JWTM) (Renewed).png

Uploads that are now orphaned following the mass deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eligible Class Records. All part of a series of webhosting misuse of Wikipedia and none are appropriate uses. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, images add nothing to Wikipedia and would add nothing to Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it to late to add another image to the mix, File:JWTM Upload To YouTube Tour.jpg. Same uploader and also now orphaned. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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