< August 16	August 18 >

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is lower quality version of File:CompanyLogo.svg. No need for both -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what company is this? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is the logo of Larsen and Toubro. The logo image in use for that article is File:L&T-logo.svg.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  16:48, 26 August 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate image exists (File:Beyonce - Montreal 2013 (3) crop.jpg) and this is a cropped version that is likely not to be used. —JennKR | ☎ 12:41, 17 August 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a logo for a non-notable company, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BPO Plus. Doesn't look useful for us. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2013 (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: Keep. It's not a gallery, it's a single image in line with the advice at WP:NFG to use fewer images as an alternate form of presentation and neither is it a montage. It's not a de minimis image as the book covers (both the copyrightable and non-copyrightable parts) are integral and indeed the subject of the image. A non-free rationale exists to cover the copyrightable parts. NtheP (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a gallery of lots of books and therefore violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is clearly not a gallery or table. It's a single photograph of a lot of books, in an article about a lot of books. They're angled and very low res. It's no more of a gallery than this is for showing multiple dominion cards or this for showing multiple games and packaging materials. Honestly, we discussed this at Media copyright questions here, where no one objected. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a gallery of non-free content and as such should not be used. LGA _talk^edits 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The non-free content is covered under de minimis. It doesn't constitute enough of the photo to restrict our use, in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-free content is not de minimis as the whole purpose of the image is to show the books. De minimis isn't about the size of a work but about the purpose of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - De minimis is related to the size of the content in question. Most of what you see in the photo is simply typeface. Jujutacular (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not. See for example Infopaq International A/S mod Danske Dagblades Forening where the European Court of Justice found that a search engine result page violated the copyright of the searched newspaper articles, because eleven words were quoted from each article. The court didn't even consider any de minimis defence, so it must have been too obvious that no de minimis defence applied. As it is illegal to quote short segments of texts from articles found by a search engine, it must obviously also be illegal to take photos of lots of unfree books. De minimis is all about the purpose of the image: the purpose of the search engine was to refer to the search results, and the purpose of the photo is to show the books discussed in the article. There is no chance that this is de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, I really don't think the Infopaq case is relevant here. Obviously it isn't "illegal to take photos of lots of unfree books"; Wikipedia already does this. Wikipedia policy would absolutely allow higher-resolution photos of each cover, separately, used in an article about that specific book, so the idea that a collection of such photos is forbidden isn't a sustainable claim. Your original deletion nomination does not claim that the image is illegal, but only that it violates Wikipedia policy in regards to galleries.

"De minimis" is a Latin term signifying that we don't need to be concerned with trifles, and it can have very different meanings in different contexts. Jujutacular has been very clear what he means: very little (if any) copyrightable content has been reproduced. What you cite an EU case that doesn't mention "de minimis" at all, it doesn't affect his point.

Reasonable people could come to different conclusions here, within reason. One could logically claim, as LGA does, that this is a gallery and violates Wikipedia policy. Or one could logically claim, as I do, that this isn't a gallery at all, but just a photo of a bunch of books, like the examples I give above, so the gallery policy is irrelevant. Or one could logically claim, as Jujutacular does, that almost no copyrightable content is reproduced, so it's not important enough to consider a violation. But if you try to claim that the photo is illegal, while separate photos of each book would be legal when hosted on Wikimedia's servers, I don't see how that claim is either logical or relevant to the deletion nomination. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If de minimis would have been a possible outcome in the Infopaq case, then this would have been mentioned either by the European Court of Justice or the Danish supreme court. As neither court discussed this, but instead fined Infopaq for copyright violations, it is conceivable that it was so obvious that de minimis didn't apply that it was a waste of time to even mention this in the court ruling.

De minimis is not about the portion copied but about the importance of the copied material. Compare with this screenshot. The screenshot was posted to a website, and the photographer of this image and this image sued the person who uploaded the screenshot for copyright violation. The Supreme Court of Sweden decided that this wasn't de minimis as the purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website displays images, and the uploader of the screenshot was fined.

I'm not sure why you think that the gallery policy is irrelevant. Non-free galleries are not permitted, and collages of multiple non-free images is no exception, as explained in WP:MONTAGE. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"to visually aid the reader" isn't a sufficient use rationale. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"to visually aid the reader" isn't a sufficient use rationale. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keephelps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keephelps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a title card not be used under Fair Use? This is the only image on wikipedia of the 2013 Cyberman redesign since the only other image at Cyberman was already deleted (leaving the article with no main image last i checked). This means we have to explain the difference in words or direct people to another site to see, which is not ideal or practical when we have Fair Use. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cyberman should of course have an image of a Cyberman. There are already a few images of Cybermen in that article, though. Maybe one of those should be moved to the Cyberman article's infobox? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't have a picture of the new design, which is likely the only Cybermen that will be seen again in Doctor Who. It doesn't seem right to only have a picture that is out of date. The Dalek article is a spot-on comparison and that has an image of the new design of Dalek. The image is a title card and the new design is not on Wikipedia anymore if this image is deleted. That's a disservice to the reader as the changes are not something simple to explain with words alone (See the cyberman article). A discussion about the eligibility of this image was already had on the Help Desk here, where it was decided to keep it as it is a title card. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - clear Fair Use rationale and usage ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keephelps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keephelps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a poster for a single episode of a TV series. Only used for decoration/illustration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep helps identify the episode and helps the reader better understand the episode using a picture as well as words. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, we require the identifying image for a TV episode to be a screenshot of a scene that is of critical discussion in the article; outside of such source guidance, the selection of an arbitrary scene for the episode's identification is original research and something that can be incur edit warring. However, in the rare occasion like this where there is actually promotion artwork for the episode itself, this becomes equivalent to official cover art, how the broadcasters have decided to brand the episode, and the same reasoning we allow cover art on other works (as per WP:NFCI#1 is reasonable here. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PDF of wiki mark-up for a proposed page LGA _talk^edits 21:27, 17 August 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PDF of wiki mark-up for a proposed page LGA _talk^edits 21:27, 17 August 2013 (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.

August 17

File:Beyonce Mrs Carter Montreal.png

File:Bpo plus logo (arabic caption).png

File:Kotigobba (Kannada Film).pdf

File:Sirivantha.pdf