Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2[edit]

File:Artocarpus.odoratissimus1we.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already on Commons as File:Starr 030807-0064 Artocarpus odoratissimus.jpg. This file is marked do not move to Commons, but the rationale makes no sense. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under WP:CSD#F8. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fall under WP:F8 as F8 doesn't cover files whcih use {{do not move to Commons}}. However, the reason in this template makes no sense, so it looks like a good idea to delete it at FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have invited User:Dan Koehl, who added the tag recently, to join this discussion. ★ Bigr Tex 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WP:CSD#F8 doesn't apply for a number of reasons (it wasn't moved and therefore there is none of the history from this image there). ★ Bigr Tex 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we need to change the historical use of this image to point at the new image or just let it become a red-link? ★ Bigr Tex 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, we should not break discussions, and there's only one page to edit. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (thanks for the invitation here) Dan Koehl (talk) 07:58, 24 June 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:Niagarafallsfromtop.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obsolete version of File:Horseshoe Falls 2006.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 2 June 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 logo of the Council.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: convert to non-free czar 05:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File was uploaded as "own work" and licensed as {{PD-because}}, but this seems more likely to be the non-free logo of the Manbij Military Council. I've tried finding some kind of official website for the group, but have not had much luck. I did find this Twitter post which is dated before this file was uploaded. I think this might be possibly converted to non-free use if it can be properly verified and sourced, but I don't see how it can be considered freely license without an explicit declaration of consent to do so from the group itself. Finally, the fact that this uploader's user talk page is filled with inappropriate image use warnings also makes it a bit hard to simply take them at their word so I think OTRS verification should at the very least be required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with relicensing as non-free. That Twitter picture is probably the only proof we can get, that being a war zone for now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: File was converted from "PD-because" to non-free and a non-free use rationale for "Manbij Military Council" was added by Editor abcdef with this edit. I cleaned up the nfur a bit and added the aforementioned Twitter link as the source. So, I think this can be closed unless anyone has any other concerns which they'd like to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 27 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:Northbangkoklogo.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use czar 05:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is licensed as {{self}}, but it looks more like a non-free logo. If this is really the uploader's own work, it might be a good idea for OTRS to have something on file which clearly says so. The file can be see here which means it probably can be converted to non-free if the free license is questionable. File has been tagged with {{Wrong license}} for more than a year and uploader's user talk page is full of various image usage notifications/warnings, so it might be a good time to straighten this out for once and for all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 2 June 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:Chantal Hochuli.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence at the source page to indicate that this is a free file. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:42, 2 June 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 Monika of Hanover.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source page says this image is "2011©Marianne van Dam". Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 2 June 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 Ortrud of Hanover.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 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:NXT TakeOver The End 2016 Logo.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple fix. Added a fair use as logo is owned by WWE. Discussion should be closed as a keep under fair use. Salavat (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fair use rationale seems sound. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:44, 7 June 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:ILLANOiZE Album Cover Art.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently album cover. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 2 June 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:Sanwat Singh.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphoto. Out of project scope. Shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 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:Sanwat Singh Yadav.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphoto. Out of project scope. Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 2 June 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:Justin Bibee.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Justin D. Bibee was deleted. Appears to be a photo of the uploader, so the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder/photographer. Shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 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:PCV Justin Bibee.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BoxHazelwood. Stefan2 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 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:Songjoongkisia.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relicense as CC-BY 4.0 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was an F11, but the source site seemingly claims it's CC. Given the watermark in it, I'm not entirely convinced, so bringing it to FFD to settle the matter Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a CC-BY logo below the last photo on the page, so the photo seems to be licensed. It says Posted by 파비안™ at the top of the page which is consistent with the watermark. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image has a CC BY 4.0 license. There are more than 1000 images from Tistory on Commons, including 52 from this same blog. See Commons:Category:Images from Pabian. Random86 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cropped version of this file is in fact already on Commons: File:Song Joong-ki at Style Icon Asia 2016.jpg. Random86 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 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:Spba gold coast.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: tag as non-free unless there is proof that it is old/PD czar 04:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TOO enquiry, I think this more than just a simple text logo, there are others like this that may also need to be reviewed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not below the threshold of originality. There is also a copyright tag which says that this was published before 1923, but there is no way to verify this claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, exceeds TOO. ★ Bigr Tex 21:11, 17 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:View from Ballou.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear who Matt Edmundson is and what his connection is to the uploader. It's also unclear if this is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-1.0 or PD-author, as both licences are mentioned on the file information page. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 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:Crabtreelogo.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. This is not the article about Crabtree. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 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:Brand Change.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 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:Pauline M. Newman.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete ★ Bigr Tex 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description on Flickr says:

“

Copyright: The copyright status of this image is unknown. It may also be subject to third party rights of privacy or publicity. Images are being made available for purposes of private study, scholarship, and research. The Kheel Center would like to learn more about this image and hear from any copyright owners who are not properly identified so that we may make the necessary corrections.

”

If the copyright status is unknown, then there is no reason to assume that the cc-by-2.0 claim on Flickr is valid. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from an archival collection donated by the ILGWU to Cornell University. There is no reason to remove the image from Wikipedia. It was created by the ILGWU for publicity purposes, and later donated to the university. Toby Higbie (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cornell University doesn't know the correct copyright status of the image, we can't keep the image unless we ourselves somehow can identify the correct copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if Cornell University say they do not know the copyright status, we should be skeptical about the extremely specific copyright status they declare (cc-by-2.0). Because the Cornell University is not the copyright holder, they cannot license the photo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 9 June 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:Paul Gogarty icebucketchallenge.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete czar 04:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says This video or parts thereof is in the public domain, not for profit and may be shared.. As it isn't known whether the entire video or only a part of it is in the public domain, it isn't known whether this specific screenshot is in the public domain or not. Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 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:Grant EstesST.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this on Flickr. The file information page says that this was uploaded to Commons by Lord Ozzy (talk · contribs) but c:Special:Contributions/Lord Ozzy doesn't contain this file. Most files by the user have been deleted as copyright violations, so maybe it's Flickrwashing or something. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 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:Kit Lambert 1966.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid public domain reason. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 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:PorthCountySchoolMap2015.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why the fact that it was created by "the local council authority of 'Rhondda Cynon Taff'" would mean that this is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 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:Schooner Nora-av-Ven.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete ★ Bigr Tex 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid public domain reason. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, what I should do here! I believe that the picture should remain as it is the only known photograph of a historic ship that was scrapped in 1999. Whoever took the photograph is untraceable. Surely it qualifies under the allowable low resolution image rule, where just one image is shown to improve the quality of the article? Razzladazzla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzladazzla (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Razzladazzla: if you think it does (I believe you are referring to WP:NFCC#3), please make sure the image conforms to the rest of WP:NFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:41, 7 June 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:Saab-9000-instrument-cluster.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid public domain reason. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete as well. I don't see evidence of a free license anywhere, and while it's possible {{PD-Art}} and commons:COM:UA would apply both of these are fairly speculative (the dials there may inject an unacceptable 3D aspect, for example).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 7 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:Paris11.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution orphaned image that wouldn't have a foreseeable encyclopedic use. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - If need be I'll transfer the lot to Commons but either way these shouldn't be deleted ...., They're of historic value and could easily be added to any article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Davey2010, If you want to move these, I encourage you to do so. ★ Bigr Tex 19:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BigrTex - I've only seen your comment by pure coincidence as the ping never worked, Anyway I've now transferred the file to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris11.jpg so there's no need for it to be here, I would people infuture instead of nominating files - Ask me and I'll transfer them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 23 June 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:Place d'Aligre, Paris, France 2004.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. Exact subject within Paris is unidentified. I don't see an encyclopedic use. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check if the exact subject can be identified by inspecting the uploader's contributions at the time when the file was uploaded? Files like this should be renamed, not deleted. Commons has lots of similar files in c:Category:Files of Paris with bad file names which are awaiting identification. I suggest tagging it with {{rename media}} until someone is able to identify the subject. User:EuroCarGT managed to identify a couple of similar photos of Paris. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I renamed it to File:Place d'Aligre, Paris, France 2004.JPG. The uploader put the location as a caption. --///EuroCarGT 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - If need be I'll transfer the lot to Commons but either way these shouldn't be deleted ...., They're of historic value and could easily be added to any article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:Paris63.JPG to File:Place d'Aligre, Paris, France 2004.JPG by EuroCarGT (talk · contribs) at 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've now transferred the file to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Place_d%27Aligre,_Paris,_France_2004.JPG so there's no need for it to be here, I would people infuture instead of nominating files - Ask me and I'll transfer them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 23 June 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:Train tracks near Boulevard Poniatowski looking towards the 12th arrondissement of Paris.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution orphaned image. Unidentified subject. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the photo was taken what seems to be near goo.gl/maps/Kwur61sKwQB2. On the exempt train tracks on the left side. I will see what will be the appropriate title for this image. --///EuroCarGT 17:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to File:Train tracks near Boulevard Poniatowski looking towards the 12th arrondissement of Paris.jpg, I also added the coordinates on the move description. --///EuroCarGT 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - If need be I'll transfer the lot to Commons but either way these shouldn't be deleted ...., They're of historic value and could easily be added to any article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:Paris75.jpg to File:Train tracks near Boulevard Poniatowski looking towards the 12th arrondissement of Paris.jpg by EuroCarGT (talk · contribs) at 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: While Commons hosts unused images so long as they are of historic (or educational) value, on Wikipedia unused images should be deleted per WP:DEL12. Unlike Commons, Wikipedia is not an image repository. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they are of historic value and it seems a waste of time deleting them when they could be transferred to Commons where they could be used, I agree we're not a repository however if transferring's an option then we should take it. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've now transferred the file to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Train_tracks_near_Boulevard_Poniatowski_looking_towards_the_12th_arrondissement_of_Paris.jpg so there's no need for it to be here, I would people infuture instead of nominating files - Ask me and I'll transfer them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 23 June 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:Pbb nash.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too inexact source. I can't find this on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 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:Father Tom Vaughn 1965.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of publication provided. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 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:VRANJEloc.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map, low res, and no attributed author Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 2 June 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:Haldi art.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, probably PD-old, but I can't query the source with a blocked user. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:55, 2 June 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:Rogerelliott.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relist czar 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 30#File:Rogerelliott.jpg

Wrong license, looks like an obvious PD-art, but whose the artist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist unknown: [1] czar 04:40, 30 August 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:David Spade as Don Lapre.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8. The fact that David Spade has parodied Don Lapre can be explained in text, and it has. This image doesn't add to any context to critically-discussed information in the article Don Lapre. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 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:Blackburn Rovers FA-cup 1890-91.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relist czar 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 30#File:Blackburn_Rovers_FA-cup_1890-91.jpg

No author, so it's not possible to confirm it as a corporate work, In any case the link given to the FAQ making the claim appears to be be dead., and 70 (after publication) for corporate works is a new one to me. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it may have been a photo in a newspaper, given Lancashire Telegraph. Very likely falls under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} unless it wasn't published for decades.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 7 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:Horham Hall from The Growth of the English House by J. Alfred Gotch.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: re-tag czar 05:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was the book published in the US? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I see give a publication date of 1909 in the UK, which means that {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} applies. Also, {{PD-UK}} applies seeing as the copyright term in the UK is 70+pma for literary works with a clear author, and 1942+70 is 2012.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 7 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:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 4.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No author, and a permission claim in respect of "friend", No way to confirm this, and unable to query uploader as they seem to be blocked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 2 June 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:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 5.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No listed author, permission is "from a friend", cant query with uploader as they seem to be blocked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 2 June 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:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 6.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete ★ Bigr Tex 22:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No listed author, permission is from a "friend". Can't query with uploader as they seem to be blocked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional -

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:SunandaGandhi (cropped) .jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:59, 2 June 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:Delmarseal.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the uploader created this, it's probably a work for hire, so the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 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:MinneapolisFromUofM.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says This image is Copyrighted and must not be used, reproduced or copied without consent of the owner. This contradicts with the PD-author licence below. Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 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:Chanchhaya.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relicense as {{Cc-by-4.0}} per source ★ Bigr Tex 23:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source site listed says CC 4.0 not PD, and this image isn't immediately on the link given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://justinsomnia.org/2003/02/first-trip-to-phnom-penh-cambodia/ does contain the image & license at the bottom.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 7 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:SRTLO.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 2 June 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:Granvilleelliott3.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Relist czar 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 30#File:Granvilleelliott3.jpg

Wrong license, based on the style, this is PD art surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 2 June 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:Jacksonsother 500px.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source so permission cannot be quickly verified, but the image is in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Photo listed with public domain license here.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- License confirmed. - Do we have an equivlanet of commons License reviewed template?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have. But the image will be tagged with having been kept at this FFD discussion; I think it has the same effect. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 7 June 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:Gold and enamel pendant reliquary Byzantine, 13th century AD From Thessaloniki, Greece St George and St Demetrius.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact is PD, photo isn't necessarily and there seems to be no sourcing/authorship. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 2 June 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:Cocoa in the MMB.jpeg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low res, Attributed to "Timothy Demske." a name that doesn't seem to have an obvious connection with the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 2 June 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:Rearwindow.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep ★ Bigr Tex 02:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source, so permission claimed can't be verified. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to File talk:Rearwindow.jpg this is an "own work".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 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:Torlakovac - panorama.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source, so listed permission cannot be verfied. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:45, 2 June 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:Sb05 (58).JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, personal photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 2 June 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.