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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 December 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dril.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Will Survive 1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is of the 1993 re-release of "I Will Survive". It fails to comply both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; one of other front covers and sleeves of original release should be sufficient enough for readers' understanding of the song. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The record cover consists only of letters. It may not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection. See Template:PD-simple. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer, Malik. The background has possibly copyrightable symbols and design pattern(s), seen in the 1993 re-releases. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The background design appears to consist of the letter G (upright and inverted). I don't hold myself out to be a copyright expert, but I don't know if there's sufficient original content to consider this record cover eligible for copyright protection, although I also understand taking a cautious approach. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, common sense certainly supports the concept behind NFCC 8. Quite apart from the copyright issue, I think it's questionable whether including such a generic record cover in the article adds anything that enhances readers' understanding of the subject, but that's a matter to discuss on the article's talk page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold of originality in the UK is very low. Kee Scott Associates made the sleeve and is a British company. Also, Polydor Records is British. It is potentially copyrighted in the UK, but I guess I'm unsure about it being so in the US. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that link. I find the caption to the image of the book cover here quite relevant: a book cover consisting merely of stylized text is in the public domain in the US but likely wouldn't be in the UK. As I wrote, I'm not a copyright expert; I don't know whether US copyright law applies because Wikipedia's servers are in the US or whether UK copyright law applies because the record was issued in the UK. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The file needs to be PD in both the US (where the WMF servers are located) and in the country of origin; so, if it's below c:COM:TOO#United States but not c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, it cannot be kept as ((PD-simple)). It might be possible, however, to license the file as ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) and this is sometimes done for UK logos, etc. which are PD in the US but not the UK. While converting the license in this way means the file is no longer subject to WP:NFCC, this is really just a remix cover which is not itself the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere within the relevant article; moreover, the remix itself is only briefly mentioned otherwise (Phil Kelsey, who it's credited to, is not even mentioned once) without any sources cited in support. So, it's not clear if the file's really needed even if treated locally as PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2018 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indians 2019 uniforms.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dshibshm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The team’s uniforms are mentioned in the article, but this work of art isn’t discussed at all. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image is no longer being used in any article. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2018 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayor John Avery Emison.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Avery Emison (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to have been uploaded by the subject, who took the picture and how is the copyright transferred? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2018 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imran hussain mp 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J18h (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Cropped copy of the background image from the subject's website (at the time of upload). It's described as self-created and CC-0 but I think this is probably a misunderstanding by the uploader; they don't describe themselves as associated with the subject. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2018 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greg Knight, MP (East Yorkshire).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Politicalmanusa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Described as "photo I took" but looks likely to be copyrighted by the subject; the same photo was being circulated with a press release two years before it was uploaded here as self-created. Note that the uploader had another file about the same person (File:MP408.jpg) deleted as unsourced shortly after upload. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2018 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 December 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:4OD Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.