Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9

File:Juvenile performing in Dallas, Texas in 1999.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 F7 by January (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image of a living person; replaceable by free media. MB298 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: You don't have to bring things like this to FFD. You can use WP:F7 (it is in Twinkle's DI tab if you use that). I have marked the image as such and it will be deleted in two days. --Majora (talk) 01:12, 9 September 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:Kennedy in Palestine 1948.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 ⚡ 05:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP #8. Contextual significance. A photo of Kennedy standing in a street in Palestine does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of Kennedy's trip to Palestine. He was there, the article explains that. Photos are not really required here and its omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the fact that he was there. Majora (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also displays the British military checkpoint behind him, and the unwanted British presence became an important part of his articles for the Boston Post. Indy beetle (talk) 01:15, 9 September 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:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm

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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#3b; listed to gain wider community consensus. See also: here FASTILY 02:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was pretty thoroughly discussed at the uploader's talk page. The horse is dead and the video is directly related to the particular section. So fair use seems acceptable to me. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A few days ago we completed a detailed discussion with Seraphimblade at User_talk:Atsme#Fair_use_of_File:Clip_breeding-foaling-A Celebration_of_Horses.webmhd.webm and the result was to keep. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've carefully read the private discussion on Atsme's talk page and see no reason or justification to keep this clip but I think a wider editor audience needs to review this. The clip is copyright and adds no specific educational knowledge to the reader that cannot be made in prose. The question of artificial insemination v live cover is mentioned and clearly it is not impossible, though perhaps very difficult, to make a freely licensed video of this event, so we just can't keep it. How can you justify its use for this particular horse? While Sultan's Great Day in dead and he can't be filmed again, that is not a reason to use a non-free image that clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Now if he were the only horse to ever been able to do this, then a justification would quite easily be made. As it stand there is no critical commentary about the video itself and therefore it is not contextually significant but maybe some sourced critical commentary could be added to the article in order to justify its use. Personally I doubt it. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fastily and Ww2censor. Kelly ^hi! 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment -The argument to delete is not about whether the clip meets the requirements for FU, it's about content in the article which is not at issue here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I was mentioned here, I'd like to clear up a few things about the above. I did tag the article for speedy deletion on two grounds, the first being that it was nonfree media not used in any article, and the second being that the article its rationale was for, horse breeding, would render it replaceable, since media of any horses breeding would be acceptable in that article and free media of horse breeding could be created. The image was subsequently placed into the article Sultan's Great Day about the specific animal, which is now deceased. For that reason, neither of the speedy deletion reasons applied any longer (it is no longer orphaned and is not obviously replaceable in that context). It still has to pass all the other nonfree content criteria, though, and the deletion rationale here is on other grounds, so the fact that the image was not speedied in that instance doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion. Just like with articles, the fact that something isn't eligible for speedy deletion doesn't necessarily mean it should be retained. I think this is a borderline case, so I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. I would question if there was any attempt to get any free media of the horse before resorting to nonfree—since the animal was apparently quite well known, there may be a photographer who would be willing to release an image of the horse under a free license. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Seraphimblade, both the horse and the person who was in charge of the breeding program are dead now. Donna Moore died in 2014. The stallion died in 2004. Donna Moore exclusively managed the breeding of Sultan's Great Day which included deciding what mares he would breed. Had I not known William Shatner, and had he not personally invited me to his facility (based in part on my experiences as a breeder and equine professional) to help with the documentary, I can assure you the footage would not have been available. I also seriously doubt papparazi managed to slip into the breeding barn when that multi-million dollar stallion was live covering a mare. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about breeding specifically. I'm talking about any free image of the horse, in any scenario. Since the article is about the horse, not breeding the horse, any image of the particular horse would suffice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, Sultan's Great Day was a breeding stallion which is a big part of what made him notable, so it isn't just "about the horse". A breeding clip is indeed relevant considering 90% of the horse's life was focused on his being a sire, otherwise he would have been gelded and kept as a show horse. There is clearly a need for such encyclopedic content because there is general lack of knowledge about horses in general, about equine sports, notable horses, breeding operations, notable sires, and so much more. Members of WikiProject Equine have been working diligently to provide more information for our readers, and have made extraordinary progress considering the lack of editors with even a general knowledge about this topic. The article Sultan's Great Day will contain a great deal more information about the breeding program as it is expanded, and the information will help readers acquire encyclopedic knowledge about that particular breeding horse. There should be no question about the clip's encyclopedic value or it's relevancy in the horse's article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The horse is dead, so we can't possibly get any more video of him doing anything. The clip meets fair use for his article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, please note that my concerns are with regards to WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8, and not WP:NFCC#1. -FASTILY 23:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, the two criteria you mentioned are truly not an issue. RexxS provided an excellent explanation below for why NFCC#3b doesn't apply. He also provided food for thought in that it would do us well to stay abreast of changing technology, and start utilizing it to our best advantage. There is no concern at all about copyvio under FU along with the template I included with the clip. NFCC#3b shouldn't be a concern. NFCC#8 states: ...if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. There is no question that it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and no question that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. There is a world-wide lack of knowledge about what goes into the breeding of show horses, especially those of the caliber of Sultan's Great Day. The average reader doesn't know what breeding entails, or the dangers involved to both horses and handlers, and any reader born after 1995 certainly have no way of knowing how stallions were bred prior to that time. The narration by William Shatner significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic. To actually see the animal in action, with all the potential dangers involved in breeding a 1200# stallion, clearly meets the criteria. NFCC#8 should not be a concern, either. I hope my explanation proves helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are discussing non-free use, not fair use, here, and the delete arguments so far have been NFCC#8 and, to a lesser degree, NFCC#3b. With respect to 3b, I'm asking myself whether an excerpt or a still frame would suffice. Switching to a still would not be the end of the world, and perhaps that could be a solution. However, I think that a lot of information about this specific horse who is the page subject (and page notability is not at issue here) would be lost, so I ultimately find 3b not determining. So that leaves us with the ever-popular #8, where so much is in the eye of the beholder. Part of the argument there is that the information could instead be conveyed via text, but that reasoning falls afoul of WP:ANYIMAGE. The proper question to ask is whether the file really adds absolutely nothing to our readers' understanding of the topic, that text could not also provide. The narration (and narrator) as well as the visuals do seem to me to add meaningful information. The question of whether this horse was the only horse to ever have done this (obviously no) could have some relevance to NFCC#1, but it is irrelevant to #8: all that matters is whether this was a significant aspect of this horse's life, and it was. The remaining argument about #8 is that no secondary commentary about the film is cited. Of course, such sourcing would be an improvement to the page, but this argument falls afoul of WP:HISTORIC. A non-notable piece of media can certainly be an appropriate illustration of notable information; this is not a page about the video. Bottom line: it's a subjective call, but I think that the file adds sufficiently to readers' understanding that we should give it a pass on #8. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The deletion rationales are "not adding to understanding" and "minimal usage". For a horse that spent most of his life as a breeding stallion, the insight provided by the clip is definitely relevant, so contextual significance is met. The purpose of "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" is essentially to protect the copyright holder; in this case the clip is 42 seconds from a show which was at least 28 minutes long (as can be seen on YouTube if you search). In my humble opinion that's a reasonable interpretation of "a portion will suffice". A still clip is not equivalent to a video and we're going to have to come to terms with that as video increasingly becomes the visual medium of choice. This wouldn't be a bad precedent to set. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the doubts raised about criteria 3(b) and 8 are convincingly rebutted by Tryptofish, and I see no other reason for deletion. Rebb ing 16:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I take rationale-use recordings from everyday activities of breeding stallion(at least in racing TB:s) don't even have misuse of copyright law to use as erroneous beating stick. (However, some users may have kneejerk/troll reaction with the fact how Nature works (even file hidden with collapse) and if it goes to extremes some sort of protection would be in order.) Fruitmince (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These types of videos are very difficult to find, and most owners of living horses will be reluctant to release images, and even more so to release copyright. The work is not yet used in an article because of the above drama. Once determined if usable, then it will be added where it belongs. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{Montanabw, welcome back. Update: while you were gone, the clip was used in the Sultan's Great Day article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep The horse is indeed dead. Like photos, why not keep this video? The video will help try to form a new section for the upcoming Wikipedia years. Horsegeek^(talk) 19:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek[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:Worms Armageddon Game Boy Color screenshot.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 F5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already have fair use screenshot from this game on the article. Fails WP:NFCCP #3a. Ignore the name by the way. Don't know what that is about. Majora (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I'd argue that one item cannot convey equivalent significant information because the screenshots are from different games on different devices with different levels of graphics. The first screenshot it from Worms World Party, which purportedly has identical graphics to Worms Armageddon, while the latter is from the version of Worms Armageddon for the Game Boy Color. If someone wants to argue that it fails another part of WP:NFCCP, I'm open to reconsidering.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Czar (i.e. WP:NFCC#8) as the article doesn't discuss the difference in the graphics.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It does now, with IGN describing the graphics as "quirky". ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Asdasdsdadasdasdsasdasddasasdasdsda.png to File:Worms Armageddon Game Boy Color screenshot.png by Godsy (talk · contribs) at 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Elite (video game) has multiple screenshots featuring various graphics of various versions. It can be argued that those screnshots are useful in describing those versions. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more of an issue of WP:NFCC#8: contextual significance—a single screenshot for basic depiction purposes is usually permitted, but the second screenshot needs to have some corresponding discussion of how reviewers described the depicted graphics as unique and different from what has already been displayed. And there is none of that in this article. czar 16:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IGN described the graphics of the Game Boy Color version as "quirky". ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess that this means that it is time to remove the extra screenshots from the Elite article. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the section has no reviewers describing the depicted graphics as unique and different from the first screenshot. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, then again, I could see why you would say that: because the two screenshots are similar unlike the screenshots in the Elite article. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Czar - seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#3b -FASTILY 04:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crud. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the extra images in the Elite article should be deleted as well because they must fail NFCC#8 and NFCC#3b. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, forget about what I said about asking to be blocked, which is what I often do when I am frustrated, and about calling my contribution "crud", which was said to make myself feel better. Anyway, why is it that the images on the Elite article deserve to stay? Reviewers in the "Reception" section have not talked about these versions. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Will someone please explain to me why we are allowed to keep the extra screenshots in the Elite article? It does not discuss about reviewers talking about the differences in graphics. Also, you can forget about voting Delete; the image is now orphaned. Lastly, the Worms Armageddon article talks about IGN's describing the graphics as "quirky". ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I want to learn how I can improve articles in the future, so please explain to me why, and possibly cite me some evidence of a guideline saying that it needs to discuss about reviewers talking about the uniqueness of the graphics and how they are different from the originals'. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I need to know how these images in the Elite article do not fail NFCC#8. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering really voting "delete", but I just need an explanation first. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:17, 11 September 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:Cal118.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 05:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused user photo. Reh man 13:49, 9 September 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:House Mill & Clock Mill.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Obsoleted by File:House Mill 2009a.JPG and others in Commons:Category:House Mill. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commons image is better. Reh man 13:51, 9 September 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:Vote-icon.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Vote-icon.svg FASTILY 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replacement is better. Reh man 13:51, 9 September 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:Non-circular gear.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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Non-circular gear.svg FASTILY 08:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SVG is better than the GIF. Reh man 13:52, 9 September 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:NTL logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:NTL Logo Vector.svg FASTILY 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vector version is better. Reh man 14:38, 9 September 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:Parclo-AB3.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Parclo-AB3.svg FASTILY 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SVG is better. Reh man 14:38, 9 September 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:Dawn Mill, Shaw 0012.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: No consensus, apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a free image of this building at File:PMB.Dawn.Demolition.15072006.jpg. I'm not seeing anything the non-free image achieves that the free one can't. Kelly ^hi! 08:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually a lot. Firstly the date of the image, this was taken as a publicity shot in 1950/51 at the height of Lancashire Cotton Companies when it was working- while the later shots of that show a derelict abandonned building. Secondly, later shot merely represent a romantic POV that ´shabby' is artistic. Thirdly, this shot allows for comparison with other non-free shots by the same photographer/editor in 1948-50.

If we are talking about Oldhams heritage we need to show it at its best. I live in hope that Oldham archives will release some high definition 'free' shots taken 1945-55 so we can do a more detailed architectual analysis and replace this image. ClemRutter (talk) 08:42, 9 September 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:Capital Times 77 Square News Rack 1-2009.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free newspapers. Kelly ^hi! 08:48, 9 September 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:Car collection.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free toys. Kelly ^hi! 12:28, 9 September 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:Carina cooper.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, possibly nonfree. Kelly ^hi! 12:54, 9 September 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:Carlin headshot3.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Unused. Kelly ^hi! 14:09, 9 September 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:Carly Rae Patterson.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, probably non-free. Kelly ^hi! 15:58, 9 September 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:Llanllwch Aerial.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader is photographer. Kelly ^hi! 16:08, 9 September 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:Dart 16(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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 16:10, 9 September 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:Rhyshuw3.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 9 September 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:Brechfa Aerial.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 16:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio of Getmapping plc aerial imagery as shown in Google Earth. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:19, 10 September 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:Sailboats along the River Towy (18 July 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 16:13, 9 September 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:County Hall Carmarthen.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Obsoleted by File:Carmarthenshire County Hall from across Towy.png. Kelly ^hi! 16:45, 9 September 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:Carmarthen Castle.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Obsoleted by File:Castell Caerfyrddin.JPG and others in same Commons category. Kelly ^hi! 18:54, 9 September 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:Nott Square 1.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, low resolution. Clearer images in Commons:Category:Nott Statue, Carmarthen. Kelly ^hi! 18:59, 9 September 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:Belton. Arch. Giano.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: (batch closure) no consensus, default to keep all. There is apparent disagreement on the extent to which {{keep local}} should be respected. In the absence of demonstrable harm in keeping these redirects, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 15:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Belton Arch Giano.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The jpg mentioned is a derived image of this file. As jpg is a lossy format, it is of a lower quality than the original gif. In addition, the jpg is twice the file size of this gif image. It is nonsensical to delete a smaller, higher quality file in order to encourage the use of a larger, lower quality one. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:IUP#FORMAT says that GIF should be used for animations and JPG or PNG for photos. The JPG version seems to be the one that is currently used. Kelly ^hi! 07:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good illustration of the perils of following generalised advice blindly without understanding a word of it. The original was a gif and the derivative jpg is lower quality and a larger file size. What kind of idiot would keep a poorer, larger image and throw away the original? --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have clearly stated keep local, and I may well want to use it in the future. Giano (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From a technical point of view, GIF is unquestionably inferior to JPEG; it is limited to 256 colors, and definitely lossy because of how it is compressed. Also, WP:NOTWEBHOST applies - {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's complete nonsense. The original version was uploaded as a gif. The original file therefore had a 256 colour palette. If you follow your own link, you'll learn that "GIF images are compressed using the Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) lossless data compression technique" - GIF compression is completely non-lossy and is always reversible. However, any attempt to create a jpg from that cannot create extra colour information from nothing; and because jpg is lossy, it degrades the quality of the image compared with the gif. We always want to retain the best quality image, so the gif needs to be kept. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belton. West. Giano.gif

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Belton. West. Giano.png. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The uploader, Giano, requested that this file be kept local. It is not acceptable to delete it simply because an identical image is available on Commons. No uploader should be forced to monitor a Commons watchlist in addition to their EN-WP watchlist if they choose not to. This bad-faith nomination (in retaliation for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8 #File:Brymptonboat.gif is simply an attempt to do a run-around the {{Keeplocal}} template. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep unused files without a reason per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 07:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have clearly stated keep local, and I may well want to use it in the future. Giano (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belton Stables. Giano..gif

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Belton Stables. Giano..png. Kelly ^hi! 19:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The uploader, Giano, requested that this file be kept local. It is not acceptable to delete it simply because an identical image is available on Commons. No uploader should be forced to monitor a Commons watchlist in addition to their EN-WP watchlist if they choose not to. This bad-faith nomination (in retaliation for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8 #File:Brymptonboat.gif is simply an attempt to do a run-around the {{Keeplocal}} template. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep unused files without a reason per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 07:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have clearly stated keep local, and I may well want to use it in the future. Giano (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brympton Clock tower.gif

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Brympton Clock tower.png. Kelly ^hi! 19:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The uploader, Giano, requested that this file be kept local. It is not acceptable to delete it simply because an identical image is available on Commons. No uploader should be forced to monitor a Commons watchlist in addition to their EN-WP watchlist if they choose not to. This bad-faith nomination (in retaliation for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8 #File:Brymptonboat.gif is simply an attempt to do a run-around the {{Keeplocal}} template. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep unused files without a reason per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 07:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have clearly stated keep local, and I may well want to use it in the future. Giano (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brympton Priest House.gif

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Brympton Priest House.png. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The uploader, Giano, requested that this file be kept local. It is not acceptable to delete it simply because an identical image is available on Commons. No uploader should be forced to monitor a Commons watchlist in addition to their EN-WP watchlist if they choose not to. This bad-faith nomination (in retaliation for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8 #File:Brymptonboat.gif is simply an attempt to do a run-around the {{Keeplocal}} template. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep unused files without a reason per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 07:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 21:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brympton D'Evercy.gif

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Brympton DEvercy.png. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The uploader, Giano, requested that this file be kept local. It is not acceptable to delete it simply because an identical image is available on Commons. No uploader should be forced to monitor a Commons watchlist in addition to their EN-WP watchlist if they choose not to. This bad-faith nomination (in retaliation for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8 #File:Brymptonboat.gif is simply an attempt to do a run-around the {{Keeplocal}} template. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep unused files without a reason per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly ^hi! 07:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I uploaded this for a purpose. It clearly states keep local. Giano (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Holy dithering Batman! Is this really the best picture of the manor available? clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady R Churchill.jpg

Delete - unused, obsoleted by File:Jennie Churchill.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have clearly stated keep local, and I may well want to use it in the future. Giano (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies; {{Keep local}} does not magically grant immunity to this rule. -FASTILY 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and low quality (in comparison to File:Jennie Churchill.jpg). clpo13_(talk) 21:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have stated in the past, "unused and obsoleted" is a bad reason to delete images. Deleting such images breaks old revisions of articles in which such images were used for no good reason - there are no issues that I'm aware of with server capacity. Until there is, images that used to be used in articles are as useful as old revisions of articles. They should be kept. Nominating them for deletion breaks page histories and is a waste of time and energy. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 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:RSC Staircase.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 17#File:RSC_Staircase.jpg}}

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:Carmen Perez.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. Manifestly improbable that the uploader is the copyright holder. WJBscribe (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be publicity photo - sole contribution by uploader. No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:51, 9 September 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:Carol Barbee.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 ⚡ 05:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be professional portrait, uploader possibly not copyright holder. Appears to have been superseded by File:Carol Barbee.JPG. Kelly ^hi! 20:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is in higher resolution, and some uploaders are professional photographers. Keep as there is not enough here to suspect a copyright violation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The EXIF data only shows that this image was edited in photoshop. The uploader has a history of poor uploads that were deleted due to permission issues. On balance, I think it's unlikely that this is a free image and a better image is available. WJBscribe (talk) 08:23, 3 October 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:Carolbarbee.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 ⚡ 05:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be professional portrait, uploader possibly not copyright holder. Appears to have been superseded by File:Carol Barbee.JPG. Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is in higher resolution, and some uploaders are professional photographers. Keep as there is not enough here to suspect a copyright violation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a more borderline call that the one above as the EXIF data does at least detail the camera that took the picture. That said, the uploader has had previous issues with copyright and their uploads suggest that they are not a professional photographer. On balance, I think it is more likely than not that this is an unfree image. WJBscribe (talk) 08:24, 3 October 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:Carrot Halwa.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed to external website. Kelly ^hi! 21:16, 9 September 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:Castle sign small.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 17#File:Castle_sign_small.jpg}}

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.