Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21[edit]

File:Stonegate Pub Company logo.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2019 (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:George Best Belfast City Airport.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: image has been reinstated, apparently removed in error back in April 2018 when infobox was messed up. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2019 (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:Tunnel imam salamia.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality; the light is distracting and obscuring what I'm assuming is the tunnel. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing the issue. Your observation is very correct but the tunnel opening is just near Grave of Imam Abdullah and covered by a glass on surface level. This photo is rare and at least convey the message that there was a real tunnel exist in the old period which was used to move underground in that period, which prove that Imam was living in disguise. I will definitely welcome better tunnel opening/tunnel photo if anyone have.Md iet (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the reflection / glare is so great as to render this image unusable. It is impossible to discern what is being shown with this image, even with a description of what we are supposed to be seeing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is lamp provided at the bottom of opening making glare. Tunnel is not visible but square opening connecting tunnel is of square shape and it is very clear from the photo. Till the alternate photo is available this proof is helpful to users, delete seems not justified. Description can be modified as opening of tunnel.Md iet (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and Whpq. I am sorry but the given reasons for keeping does not justify inclusion of an image of poor quality. I didn't see a source explaining the rarity of the image and waiting for a better photo is also not a good reason for continuing to use a poor quality photo. While a photo might be good proof that also might be helpful to "readers" that is also where a good source would be beneficial. Otr500 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2019 (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:CatwomanNew52.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much non-free media in this article and this is adding nothing new. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 21 October 2019 (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:Catwoman Batman Vol 3 28.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much non-free media in this article and this is adding nothing new. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag london.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims that they are the copyright holder of this flag. It is quite clear that this is the flag of London and there is no evidence of permission to upload this and this image is orphaned. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (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:Four hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships ray-finned fishes.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Four hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships ray-finned fishes2.png except for the spelling mistake with "telsost" in this image which has been corrected to "teleost" in the other version of this image. Therefore, this image can be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (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:Freaky (Album).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims that they are the copyright holder of this image but it doesn't look like original work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (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 Lewis columnist.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe the uploader is the Michael Lee Photography in EXIF. Roy17 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (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:Joan-Greenwood.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a free image of Greenwood on Commons (now in the IB), which means this fails NFCC SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2019 (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:Greater Anglia class 321 diagram.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image is orphaned and redundant to File:Greater Anglia Class 321.jpg which is already on Commons and being used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (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:WW2 Monument.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WW2 Monument.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:01, 21 October 2019 (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.