Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

File:Braille ApostropheSign.svg.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons already has a complete set of high-quality style-matched commons:Category:Braille letters (6 dots). This is just an unused small raster snapshot/thumbnail from one (would fail commons:COM:EDUSE) DMacks (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (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:Academic-Fernald-Front.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 Miniapolis 14:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the description, it states that this is fair use, but there's no non-free use templates. It's unclear where the licenses come from. Now available on Commons, which might need to be deleted if this is genuinely intended to be non-free use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:34, 6 January 2017 (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:Pakistani films at domestic level till Jan. 2016.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that can't be represented in text, unused media, and author is indef'd blocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:16, 6 January 2017 (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:Goy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. E-Kartoffel (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier and more efficient to tag orphaned non-free images with the template "subst:orfud", deleting the files after one week. Salavat (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2017 (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:WernerHerrmann.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/2017 January 16#File:WernerHerrmann.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:You Raise Me Up by Josh Groban US CD promo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image eligible for copyright? If so, I don't mind it being deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 29#File:Madonna - I Want You.JPG. If not, shall it be transferred to Commons? It contains just text and logos ineligible for copyright. George Ho (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some consideration, "selection and arrangement" copyright may apply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I want to withdraw this nomination. The discussion is lacking participants, implying uncertainties of the copyright. George Ho (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)~~; rescinding withdrawal. Hopefully, if considered PD-text with PD-textlogo, should be moved to Commons. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For reconsideration under PD-text or PD-textlogo
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a promo cover, there should be identical versions for other albums. Promo covers and white labels are usually designed to be nondescript, unless there's some element of uniqueness specific to the label. Based on the lack of originality in the composition, I think PD-text would be sufficient. czar 19:59, 16 January 2017 (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:Mobile-City-Museum.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 - can be retored if copyright status of the mural is established Nthep (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status of the mural? And what is the source? Where are the photographer's rights confirmed? czar 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: May qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}, relisting to investigate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the murals were WPA-commissioned czar 01:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at that link. These murals certainly seem to be either PD-no notice, or PD-not renewed. Change the image tag. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that we need some sort of confirmation rather than faith here—either contacting the mural's custodians to verify that it was never copyrighted or confirming that the copyright wasn't renewed.

czar 22:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: comments of 3 Jan 2017 need following up
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nthep (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No info on copyright status of mural. czar 19:54, 16 January 2017 (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.

Fair-use photos on Kendra Haste

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: Speedily deleted per WP:F5 since free alternatives were found. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these fair-use declared images are used on Kendra Haste, a biographical article. Use of this many non-free images on the article to identify the same purpose probably fails WP:NFCC#3, and all of them probably also fail WP:NFCC#8 since none of them are of the subject of the article herself. (However, I'm not completely sure if the use of File:Photo of Kendra Haste at work.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 since the subject of the article, I'm assuming, is partially in the image, but since she's on the side of the picture and is facing away from the camera, I'm not sure. However, if the purpose of that image is reclassified to identify the subject of the article, it would then fail WP:NFCC#1 since the subject is still alive.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The files File:Elephant in Waterloo station London.png, File:Elephant in the Tower of London.png and File:Elephant head at the Tower of London.jpg are currently orphaned (not being used in Kendra Haste), but I included them in this discussion since their fair-use rationale states that they are to be used in Kendra Haste, so thus I included them in case they somehow get put back into Kendra Haste. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: File:Photo of Kendra Haste at work.jpg and File:Baboon sculptures in the Tower of London.png are now orphaned as well. Also, the uploader of these files has reached out to me regarding this nomination on my talk page. Per the discussion, the uploader meant to place licensing tags to reflect that they have received permission from the images' copyright holder for the files' use on Wikipedia, but I am currently unable to acertain if they have yet contacted OTRS to verify the permission. At the present time, the files are all tagged "fair-use", and my original nomination reflects issues with them specifically being used on Wikipedia via fair-use. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest allowing the uploader to pick one image that is most representative of the artist's work (and which doesn't depict her) to keep on the article, and deleting the rest per the WP:NFCC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break Thank you Patar Knight for your opinion. Your opinion appalls me. I expect you are the sort of person who might be fairly "unforgiving" in your assessment of any and all sculptors featured on wikipedia; no representation beyond one image. I have invested two weeks in an eminent British sculptor named Kendra Haste and you condescend to suggest she is only worth one image? I am not allowed to use expletives on here but, be assured Patar, you will not sink two whole intelligent weeks of my work in the mire of your ignorance. Mark^Dask 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. There's not problem with having multiple images, even entire galleries of artwork, if the images are under free licenses. This is not a matter of sculptors not being important, it's a legal issue about copyrighted images and Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (NFCC). It's clear from the conversation on Steel's talk page that the artist/her representatives owns the copyright to these photos, and have not released it under a sufficiently free license, only allowing them to be used on Wikipedia (see the 1st paragraph here to see why that isn't considered "free"). Wikipedia policy is that such non-free, fair use photos should be used as infrequently as possible and only when they meet all the criteria set out at the NFCC page. These images contravene those criteria in several ways:

NFCC 1 (No possible free alternative): The UK has freedom of panorama photography laws, which means that hypothetically, anyone can go to where these statues are - especially since at least some of them are in quite public locations according to the article - and take photos of them and upload them under free licenses to Wikipedia. Unless access to these sculptures is difficult for the public, these images would fail this criterion.
NFCC 3 (Minimal usage/quality): The Kendra Haste article has six fair use images on it. One would be sufficient to show her unique art style. Six is overkill. Several of the photos are high quality, while non-free images should be low quality, but not to the point of useless (e.g. this movie poster is LQ enough to meet the NFCC, but HQ enough to be useful in IDing the movie).

If I was strictly applying the NFCC, I probably should be !voting to delete all of them or speedily deleting them under WP:F6, since several of them are missing reasons for why it meets from of the NFCC. I don't think WP:OTRS would help in this case, because the artist/agent will likely be loathe to relinquish their extensive copyrights over the artwork, but the steps to do that are here, which you can send to them to test the waters. Otherwise, if you have a problem with Wikimedia Foundation policy, you'll have to take it up with the Foundation. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered the above, (for which, thanks all), I believe the right thing to do is have all current photos on the page uploaded by the author/owner himself to Commons under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This covers the Terms stipulated to me via email, i.e. educational and non-commercial, only. The author/owner is patrick Davies, Mz Haste's agent, whom I initially approached for permission. I have not communicated with Mz Haste directly at any time. As to the number of photos currently on the page, I intend to develope the text considerablly, (aiming for "Featured Article" status eventually), in collaboration with Mr. Davies, by which time the photos will appear in greater context. I hope that will serve in all cases. Feedback appreciated - thanks. Mark^Dask 20:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't do that. Neither Wikipedia or Commons will accept NC/ND licencing; we're The Free Encyclopedia, not The Free Provided You Only Use It For Purposes The Uploader Approves Of Encyclopedia (see that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone that appears every time you edit), and it's a basic WMF principle that everything on Commons, and everything other than a few very limited low-resolution fair-use exceptions on Wikipedia, be reusable by anyone for any purpose. I appreciate that this seems like bureaucracy, but this is such a fundamental part of Wikipedia's identity that it's totally non-negotiable. (If anything, the tendency is heading towards banning fair-use images at all, as German Wikipedia already does.) ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up a minute Iridescent - much as I will gladly defer to your better understanding of the rules, I would ask you to visit Elephant at Waterloo station London, the which page is properly attributed, and the licensing details are these;

Aside from the claim that this file qualifies for use without permission under fair use, this file is also available under a license that permits educational, personal, or otherwise non-commercial use. Images available under such terms do not meet the definition of Free Cultural Works as adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and are therefore considered non-free on Wikipedia and may only be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

If my claim of "Fair Use" in this instance is deemed satisfactory, then why not six, or a thousand of the same from the same author, on the same page? And why stop there? If these "Fair Use" terms apply to one photo from one author, then why not from six, or a thousand authors on the same page? If the rule is right then the rule is right in all cases. I read somewhere that I may use perhaps one image under "Fair Use", but if I have the stated permission of the auther in all cases then I think each case should be considered on its own merit, ergo once the first is allowed on merit then all must be allowed upon the same terms. We are considering a case of Author's permission here - why is the Author's permission denigrated after first permission. Where did the "one use only" rule come from when the author allows "one use only" for each image? Why the limitation on an author's permission - whence the dictum that an author may only give permission for one image and, thereafter, the Author's authority as permissor is denigrated? As with all on Wikipedia, all is fluid - even those terms etched in the rule book - no law is cut and dried. I want to claim the same permission for every image - every image is individual, ergo every image should be allowed to stand. Mark^Dask 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markdask: I've already posted some of this in my reply to you at User talk:Marchjuly#Kendra Haste, so I'll try not to repeat too much here. The problems with images such as File:Haste Waterloo elephant London.jpeg being used as non-free content in my opinion have to do with (primarily) WP:NFCC#1 and (possibly) WP:NFCC#8. There are also some minor concerns per WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a, but these can usually be straightened out fairly easily.

NFCC#1 basically says that we should use freely licensed equivalent images in place of non-free content whenever possible. Even the copyright holder of this particular image does not want to release it as such, it seems possible for someone else to take a similar photo to serve the same encyclopedic purpose and release it under a free license because the UK is more liberal when it comes to freedom of panorama of 3D works of art (see c:COM:FOP#United Kingdom). It may not be the exact same picture, but it doesn't really have to be per NFCC#1.

NFCC#8 basically says that a non-free image should improve the reader's understanding to such signficant degree that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. To me this means that the connection between article content has to be so strong that the reader needs to see the image to understand what is written about it. This particular image seems to be being used to show the sculpture in support of the single sentence "Elephant (2000–2016) Waterloo Station, London, UK" in Kendra Haste#Other notable works. This kind of image use for individual entries in an embedded list tends to be considered decorative per WP:NFLISTS because the context required to meet NFCC#8 is lacking. It would be much easier, in my opinion, to justify this images non-free use from NFCC#8 standpoint if there was more sourced discussion specific to the image itself included in the article than simply a single sentence, even a sourced sentence. For what it's worth, interpreting NFCC#8 can be subjective and often require a consensus be established at FFD either way which is why I say it is possibly a problem in this case.

Regarless of the non-free image, all 10 of the non-free content criteria need to be met; otherwise, non-free use is going to be considered inappropriate. If you feel there's something wrong the way these criteria are being applied to a particular file, then this is a good place to discuss that. If, however, you feel that the non-free content policy in general needs to be reconsidered, then the best place to discuss that would be at WT:NFCC or WP:VP/P per WP:CONLEVEL since any changes to the policy per se need to be discussed separately. Just for reference, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy did not originate just because some editors woke up one day and said let's do this. It came out of Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007, which means (at least to me) that its intent is to actually be more cut and dried and leave less room for interpretation than perhaps some other policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the very extensive input. Clearly the thing to do is inform Mr. Davies, agent to Mz Haste, that he must upload the images himself ot Commons as author, under standard attributions license, and with due deference to the fact that all the images' copyright is claimed by Mz Haste on her website. I note also what Steel1943 said about special consideration required for image 1, "Work in progress", which features Mz Haste in a private context, BLP rules applying. Apols for toes trodden upon while I stumbled in the direction of the obvious. Mark^Dask 15:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Markdask: Just wanted to say that I haven't participated too much in addressing additional concerns since other editors, including Patar knight (Who I actually didn't know had experience with WP:NFCC until now ... good to know!) and Marchjuly, have seemingly answered your questions and/or concerns in a manner or a better manner than I could. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Yup Steel, Patar knight and Marchjuly's contributions have underlined how little I know about the rules re images and copyright; I was just giving you the heads up for being right in first bringing my images to discussion; I've learned a lot, with much more reading to do. Mark^Dask 17:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I had to look up NFCC when I was doing file deletions in CSD way back when I became an admin. Don't really have the will or time to get involved in FFD right now though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: I get that. After helping out at FFD a few months after I made the successful proposal to get WP:NFCR merged here and after WP:PUF was merged here, I've seen a lot and I get how one's will can go back and forth about participating on FFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have found free alternatives from Wikimedia Commons/Flikr, and have replaced the images on the article with those, so the entire issue of fair use images is moot, so I'm going to delete the unused fair use images, and close this FFD.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:48, 10 January 2017 (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:BEST 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: Keep non-free. Unused so tagging as F5 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this file qualify for {{PD-logo}}? I think it may, but the 3 curved triangle-like shapes make me a bit unsure. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation is located in Belgium, where according to this website, the threshold of originality is very low. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thanks for that information regarding Belgium's copyright laws (considering that I didn't know about their copyright laws at all), considering that means the file most likely cannot be copied to Commons. However, I'm actually trying to figure out if the image is eligible for copyright in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bigger version on the Commons at c:File:BEST-logo.png but it's already been deleted. If consensus is that it's ok for USA, we can probably get it back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Keep non-free. It's borderline, but this is fairly similar to File:CarCreditCity.png. While Commons claims it's free because it wasn't given a copyright registration, the copyright office's final decision on that logo was to not give it a registration because there was another registration that included the full logo, and they don't register substantively similar registrations. They declined to defend their initial judgement that the logo failed the threshold of originality. Because they chose not to defend that view, I think we should consider this similar image at best questionable and keep it under the "sure thing" licensing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:41, 14 January 2017 (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:John F Kennedy Assassination.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No proof at the source that this file was released under any license at all. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (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:Taj Mahal (2008 film) posterr.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (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:Mlc4 source.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Mlc4.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Trigent Software Bangalore India ODC.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Logo of Trigent Software Ltd US Bangalore India.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Dimich - Mikho Mosu.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Mikho Mosulishvili.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Multiinstall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Multiinstall2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:FocusMetaphorSmall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:FocusMetaphor.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Docsum-fig3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Docsum-fig2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Anaga4.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Castillo de banos.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Concepcion Tower lit at night.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Vendacoder machine.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Reference.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Shahi2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Shahi1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Pesitug.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Pesithol.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Dia3.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/2017 January 14#File:Dia3.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:Dia1.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/2017 January 14#File:Dia1.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:Miltonidium mateus pomini uel.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Miltonidium pomini.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Venus at 4 a.m..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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Venus at 5 a.m..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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:AngryCellPhoneGuy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Valcarcel.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:EgglestonCage1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:EgglestonCage.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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:Primal Instinct cover.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim of unused file. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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.