Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 4

< July 3	July 5 >

July 4

File:Former BSA.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the legalese on this page, this version of the emblem was created in the 1980s (see here), and it is most certainly under copyright. It fails WP:NFCCP#7, as it's used exclusively in the userspace. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this logo is derived from a 1987 logo, {{PD-US-1978-89}} might apply if no copyright was registered and if the superposed red sign doesn't add an additional copyright. The copyright registration list search function is giving me problems; Stefan2, do you know how to search for copyright registrations and renewals? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scouting WikiProject has a deliberately-genericized version at File:WikiProject Scouting BSA ex-member.svg which should be used instead given any logo qualms. Any file marked "File:WikiProject Scouting" at Commons is the free-use version. Replaced.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps-the licensing is wrong-the colors date from 1987, but the design was in used by 1976 as a red/white only with "Scouting/BSA" beneath. The image that holds the 1920s copyright is actually File:Boy Scouts of America 1911.svg Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:18, 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.

Gibraltar coats of arms

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 all as non-free; {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} has been removed from affected files. Miniapolis 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is licensed as a Template:Non-free logo and it has non-free use rationales for two uses. File, however, is also tagged with Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons, which seems inappropriate because Commons will not accept non-free content. The "Move to Commons" template was added by @Fry1989: with this edit. the template was removed by a bot, but was re-added here by Fry1989. I removed the template again with this edit, but I was reverted by Fry1989. I asked for clarification at User talk:Fry1989#Gibraltar COAs, but received no response.

If it is true, that Gibraltar coats of arms are PD as Fry1989 states, then there are other non-free files uploaded to Wikipedia such as File:RAF Gibraltar crest.png, File:Royal Gibraltar Police crest.png, File:Royal Gibraltar Post Office.png, File:Gibraltar Heritage Trust logo.gif which also might be eligible for a move to Commons. If, however, these files are to be treated as non-free, then their usage would be subject to WP:NFCC, which means that the football association logo may only be acceptable for use in Gibraltar Football Association based upon a consensus achieved through previous NFCR/FFD discussion related to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI.

So, if these files can be re-licensed as PD, then the non-free rationales and non-free licensing should be removed and replaced by Template:Information and an appropriate public domain license; otherwise, they will never be moved to Commons as long as they are listed as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that File:Gibraltar Football Association.svg and File:Gibraltar Heritage Trust logo.gif are non-free but fair use in the corresponding articles, since they are owned by private, non-government organisations. Don't know about the RAF, police and post office, which are government organisations. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether it matters if the organization using the logo is public or private if it can be shown that the original design (i.e., the castle part) is based upon something within the public domain. The private organization logos may be trademarked, but I don't think that means that they cannot also be public domain as explained in c:COM:NCR#Trademark law. Moreover, I don't think the the ribbons or text are complex enough for the entire logo to be copyrighted if the primary element is not, but I'm not completely sure about that. Just for reference, there are lots of similar looking logos in c:Category:Coats of arms of Gibraltar which are freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A design can incorporate elements that are in the public domain but still be covered by copyright if there is sufficient creativity in the arrangement of those elements. With File:Gibraltar Heritage Trust logo.gif the shield is public domain and the text GIBRALTAR HERITAGE TRUST is too simple to be covered by copyright, but a judge might consider the arrangement of these elements original enough to be covered. Judges are not predictable. With no proof that the design has been ruled free of copyright or is too old, we should assume it is non-free.

I have no idea what the situation is for UK government-created images. They could be automatically public domain. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that when things aren't completely clear, the safer route is non-free. I was just asking for clarification as to whether all Gibraltar COA type files are automatically in the public domain based upon what was posted regarding the football association logo. If the consensus is that can be converted to a free license, they should be converted and moved to Commons. If the consensus is that certain images should remain non-free, then that's fine with me too. Just for reference, the heritage trust logo seems fine as non-free for Gibraltar Heritage Trust, but not for List of coats of arms of Gibraltar#Versions where it was also being used before I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c. That's a type of decorative usage which is not really allowed for non-free images, but which is considered acceptable for freely licensed images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FastilyBot has removed the "Copy to Wikimedia Commons" template once again with this edit. This will likely keep happening if template continues to be re-added to a file licensed as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar government material is subject to Crown Copyright which is essentially a noncommercial and hence unfree rule. Now, the situation with logos and emblems is more complex because they appear to be coats of arms (see commons:COM:COA) based on centuries-old designs as indicated here https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/national-symbols. Also, if any of these logos/emblems were created by the UK government a long time ago {{PD-UKGov}} would apply.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jcl arrow teens.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: convert to {{PD-US-no notice}}. — ξ ^xplicit 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious PD claim. Source is here (archive). The source only states that the ad ran in the "teens or 20s". It doesn't specify pre-1920s like the licensing on this page claims. If this ad ran in 1923 or later, it wouldn't be PD. Given the presence of pre-1923 The Arrow Collar Man images, this fails WP:NFCCP#1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, {{PD-US-no notice}} could also apply if it ran after 1923, seeing as there is no copyright tag on that ad. I assume these ads run as standalone images.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Current BSA.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the legalese on this page, this version of the emblem was created in the 1980s (see here), and it is most certainly under copyright. It fails WP:NFCCP#7, as it's used exclusively in the userspace. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the other BSA image farther up on this page; this image may be PD after all.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scouting WikiProject has a deliberately-genericized version at File:WikiProject Scouting BSA current member.svg which should be used instead given any logo qualms. Any file marked "File:WikiProject Scouting" at Commons is the free-use version. Replaced.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps-the licensing is wrong-the colors date from 1987, but the design was in used by 1976 as a red/white only with "Scouting/BSA" beneath. The image that holds the 1920s copyright is actually File:Boy Scouts of America 1911.svg Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:19, 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.

List of political parties of Slovakia

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: convert File:NETWORK Logo.png to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, delete File:Sme rodina Logo.png and File:SMK-MKP Logo.png, and remove remaining images from List of political parties in Slovakia. — ξ ^xplicit 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos of various political parties being used in List of political parties in Slovakia. Each of these files, except for File:Logo of Most–Híd 2015.svg has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I don't see how this usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. None of the logos are the subject of any sourced commentary within the article or are being used to identify the subject of the article so the context required by NFCC#8 seems to be lacking. Non-free content used to identify individual entries of items in a list or in tables is not really allowed per WP:NFLISTS or WP:NFTABLES because such usage tends to be more decorative than contextual, and I don't see how the particular use is an exception to those two guidelines. The fact than some of the logos used are freely licensed does not automatically mean that non-free use should also be allowed since all of the logos (freely licensed or not) could be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding at all. File:SMER-SD Logo 2016.svg and "File:Logo of Most–Híd 2015.svg" are being used in Direction – Social Democracy and Most–Híd respectively, so technically it might be possible to link to those particular files. "File:Sme rodina Logo.png", "File:NETWORK Logo.png" and "File:SMK-MKP Logo.png" are not, however, being used in any other articles so linking to them will make them orphans per WP:F5. The article #Network is using the freely licensed File:Strana Sieť logo.jpg, so that might be acceptable as a replacement for "File:NETWORK Logo.png", but I have been unable to find free equivalents of the two other logos. So, unless these files can be converted to a free license such as Template:PD-logo, Template:PD-USonly or perhaps c:Template:PD-SlovakGov, I do not think their non-free use in this particular list article satisfies WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NETWORK Logo.png probably qualifies as PD-USonly. I think there is usually a difference between a government and a political party, so I would not by default assume that PD-SlovakGov applies to logos of political parties.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nakshatra Bagwe 11.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photo, or crop from a film/movie; dubious self-work claim FASTILY 08:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Continuum intertitle.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 08:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DrewMarshall1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 09:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dave ANX International.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a cropped screenshot from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/anxthe-14th-annual-asia-pac-trading-summit-jack-cheng?articleId=6136457413202677760, probably actually non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MeetupHyderabad.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Informal team photo for the developers of a non-notable software. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hitwicket Team.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Informal team photo for the developers of a non-notable software. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mississippi Mud 20783 Victor 1927.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: Relicense Majora (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This probably qualifies as {{PD-US-no notice}}, given the date at which this music was produced and published and the lack of a visible copyright tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Closing as relicense and changing tags. --Majora (talk) 01:21, 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:Deewani Mastani.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter page indicated doesn't show any PD release that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image was actually uploaded by ErosNow, which was later uploaded by Saavn on its twitter handle, as it is available at various sites for free use.
Ayush Gupta 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia: Is there evidence that the image is free according to commons:COM:Licensing? "Free use" is too unspecific.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this image and the aeticle. It has zero notability and this user should know Wikipedia is not a fan club or forum.Krish | Talk 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marigold of pku.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image exists elsewhere on the web in higher resolution, often linking back to http://www.peacegallerychallenge.org/ which doesn't show any copyright license even with Google Translate. And there seems to be a copyright license in the lower left corner, which is too small to be readable though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Uploader has been claiming "own work" for all of his image uploads, some of which are blatant copyright violations. Not really a credible claim for this one. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Princess Calixta of Lippe.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence at the source page that this is the image is licensed as creative commons. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Princess Marie Adelheid of Lippe.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence at the source page that the image is licensed as creative commons. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harry Stewart 02.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a copy of File:Yogi Yorgesson.jpg but without proof of authorship & dating. We hope (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also higher resolution, though, with the text painted out. Same image and thus same copyright status most likely. If the Yogi image is free this one most likely is as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DuPage County Illinois incorporated and unincorporated areas North Glen Ellyn higlighted.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file. Uploader has been blocked for "creation of subtle hoaxes"[1] and North Glen Ellyn, Illinois article was deleted as a hoax per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Glen Ellyn, Illinois. -- Dual Freq (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax image in support of a now-deleted hoax article. Image depicts an incorporated place that doesn't exist per consensus at the North Glen Ellyn AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LocationOfNaperville.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. Low quality derivative image, you can still see Itasca, IL highlighted from where it was copied from the original svg. Depicted boundaries do not seem to match boundaries depicted by Google for Naperville, specifically the northern red area near the Fermilab circle which DuPage County's website marks as unincorp. Uploaded by a blocked hoaxer. -- Dual Freq (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WestonIllinois.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Low quality derivative, original author is not credited. Uploaded by blocked hoaxer so the accuracy of the boundary is questionable. -- Dual Freq (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Without evidence that Weston, DuPage County, Illinois had defined boundaries, I consider this as yet another hoax by the uploader. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DanadaCDPmap.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Low quality derivative image, original author is not credited. Uploaded by blocked hoaxer, accuracy of boundary is questionable. -- Dual Freq (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax image in support of a now-deleted hoax article. Editors determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danada, Illinois that no such incorporated place exists. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cook County Illinois incorporated and unincorporated areas Clearing highlighted.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Low quality derivative image, original author is not credited. Uploaded by blocked hoaxer, accuracy of boundary is questionable. -- Dual Freq (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Image supported a series of hoax edits to Clearing, Chicago by the uploader. No evidence the image is real. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurdistan Gas Project.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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image was already published in http://www.danagas.com/en-us/media-center/image-gallery (you need to scroll far right), which doesn't show evidence of a free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scandal poster.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 G5 by Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a film poster, does the uploader have the authority to license the poster? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Splitenz etchedvinyl.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 Majora (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CV – image shows etched artwork without permission, copyright presumed to belong to the record company Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering my image barely shows 10% of the total artwork, in a low resolution, and that it's just a few horizontal lines that only illustrate the laser etched effect, I find this deletion listing for copyright infringement rather far fetched. But anyway, I've long given up on WP's Image Police. Enjoy yourselves. Yintan 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At worst this is de minimis. At best it is {{PD-simple}} anyways. See c:COM:DM for details on de minimis. Closing this as keep. --Majora (talk) 01:18, 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:The Echo Nest Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned JPEG logo for a company, replaced by a SVG logo. +mt 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SuperLigaSrbije 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: needs fair use rationale: tag for dated speedy F6 czar 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo for a football league. The uploader is claiming it is public domain but it is obviously not. A non-free rationale could be added, but I am not sure that its usage is appropriate in the 2016–17 Serbian SuperLiga article. Whpq (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Multi gym pku.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is claimed as own work, but the same image also appears on the official web site of the municipality of Panskura. It is one of the images in rotation. See http://www.panskuramunicipality.org/images/image8.jpg for the specific image. If it is the uploader's own work, we would need OTRS confirmation. Whpq (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wki.usertalk.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 ⚡ 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned User Graphic ★ Bigr Tex 23:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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