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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:125-2503.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmano (notify | contribs).

• Unused pet photo, also quite low quality so probably not worth transferring to Commons, they already have plenty of good photos of this breed. Sherool (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't look like it would be useful for anything. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low quality image, unused, editor gone. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (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: Pending permission. The lower resolution file has been deleted. The higher resolution file is pending permission and will be deleted in a week if it is not received. This image should be easily replaceable by anyone in Bangkok, anyway. kmccoy (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MO Bangkok exterior.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brandopedia (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete The file has been replaced by a better version Mandarin Oriental Bangkok exterior.jpg
• Keep This file has a far better resolution than does File:Mandarin Oriental Bangkok exterior.jpg. It's best to keep the highest resolution photos and get rid of the ones that are smaller. Delete File:Mandarin Oriental Bangkok exterior.jpg; there's no reason to have two identical images, and the smaller one is the one that should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete File:Mandarin Oriental Bangkok exterior.jpg. Agree with Nyttend. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rif-dimashq-map.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LittleDan (notify | contribs).

• Very similar image is now on Commons, File:SyriaRifDimasq.PNG; they're not identical, so this isn't speedy deleteable, but it's no more useful than an identical image, and we don't need to keep an image that will remain orphaned. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nyttend. Orphaned, and replaced in functionality. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Paul.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grbpradeep (notify | contribs).

• Ambiguous authorship (entire description is "Photographed, print taken on paper and scanned") and uploaded by user with long history of copyright violations. No real evidence that the uploader actually took the photo, had it printed, and then scanned it. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless authorship is clarified. Tagged with Template:PD-self, but the same uploader applied that to book cover scans such as File:Victor Paul 5.jpg, so that can't be presumed correct. Postdlf (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fail to see a reason to believe the editor this time when said editor has been wrong so many other times.
• Keep: The subject of the article gave me the pictures and the books which were then scanned--Pradeep (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Did they give you the rights to the images themselves, or just the pieces of paper on which the pictures and books are printed? Owning the physical property of a copy of a picture or of a book isn't the same as owning the intellectual property of their copyrights. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (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: Deleted by Kmccoy (manual close because the bot won't notice it with the nonstandard header) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceresko.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grbpradeep (notify | contribs).

File:Ceresko 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grbpradeep (notify | contribs).

• Uploaded with no real evidence of permission: simply the ambiguous "Rights with the author". It's likely that the uploader is not the photographer, so these are likely copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too ambiguous. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, North America gave me the picture.--Pradeep (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But did they give you the right to upload it to here, and allow anyone else to use it? Stifle (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apbacstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Enriquecardova (notify | contribs).

• Delete This propaganda stamp issued by the Viet Cong cannot be in the public domain based on the ((PD-Vietnam)) template which indicates a minimum of 50 years from issuance +death of author. Sandafayre's stamp atlas shows that the earliest such stamps were issued in 1963, though this source says 1961 (which seem to be a misprint as the heading says 1963-1976), so either way this is not more than 50 years old and even if we discount the author's death, because the designer is likely anonymous, a minimum 50-year rule should apply. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Battle of Ap Bac happened in 1963. Stamp of course had to be issued after the battle to commemorate it. Impossible for it to be pd-vietnam by way of age. I've removed it from the one article it was in because it was purely decorative, unmentioned by the article, and having nothing to do with the section where it was placed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (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.