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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. The keep arguments failed to address how these images abide by the WP:NFCC policy. — ξ^xplicit 02:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

File:The Groove Line - Heatwave.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Heatwave the groove line 1978 UK vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This image is the front cover of the Dutch release of the UK/US song, The Groove Line. I uploaded the UK side label to visually identify the release itself (not the band) and to illustrate the song's nationality. As for side labels vs picture sleeve, perhaps a central discussion is needed? But this is the discussion about one song, and that's it. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, perhaps some people would want a picture sleeve from overseas instead of a side label from home country. But I still think a side label is enough if the home country's edition was packaged in a generic sleeve. George Ho (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the alternate cover is significantly different form the original, it was not widely distributed, being just a Dutch cover where it did not even chart. Aspects (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Dutch picture sleeve? George Ho (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also add the British original! The Dutch label can go in a gallery below, if need be. Stereorock (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "add", Stereorock? George Ho (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stereorock and Aspects, I uploaded File:The Groove Line by Heatwave US vinyl single.png as free to use, especially since the early to mid 1970s Epic Records logo is considered not original enough for copyright protection. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dutch sleeve is valuable and interesting artwork which provides a snapshot of the group at that time. Side labels are generic and do not vary between songs except for just the text which already exists in the infobox. - JGabbard (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your vote to the very bottom, Mr. Gabbard. As said before, the US vinyl label is uploaded in Commons and free to use. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says that the non-free image must be irreplaceable if no free equivalent with the same purpose exists. However, three of them have the same purpose, yet the label of the US vinyl is free to use. Therefore, the picture sleeve fails. Unsure about the UK one, though I used it because two of the band members were British. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:FREER. If that applies, the Dutch sleeve and the UK label do the same effect as the US label. Dutch image should be deleted per that guideline as readers can understand the article content without the image. I don't mind UK label deleted if one opposes its existence. George Ho (talk) 00:10, 4 December 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esperanto magazine november 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aleks Andre (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Equivalent image of the same cover considered freely licensed with what appears to be an OTRS permission :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. You may delete this one indeed: I uploaded it before thinking about contacting the redaction team to ask them to participate in the OTRS – what successfully happened. — Aleks Aɴᴅʀᴇ (talk) 04:55, 15 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extreme Networks logo - new.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Josve05a (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying non-free status as Commons:File:Extreme Networks logo - new.png was tagged as simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:53, 15 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 as non-free --Majora (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:EbenezerMorley.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lucas0707 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is a claim that the image may be under copyright because it came from a website, but the image appears to be well out of copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free: There are reasons why it could be copyrighted and we are unable to conclude a PD reason. We don't know when and where it was first published. The earliest source I've found is Butler, Byron (1991). The Official History of the Football Association. London: Macdonald. ISBN 0356191451. Neither do we know who the photographer is and when they died (a relatively recent death is not even a stretch: assuming that the photographer was 20 years, took the photo in 1924, and died at the age of 90, they would have died in 1994, just twenty-two years ago). (Keep in Ebenezer Cobb Morley, remove from Association football per WP:NFCC#8) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For precautionary sake closing as keep as non-free. --Majora (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 for Wrecking Crew only. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gold Star Studios - Wrecking Crew.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ilovetopaint (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free photo being used in the infoboxes of The Wrecking Crew (music) and Gold Star Studios. A non-free use rationale is provided for each use, but only the use in "The Wrecking Crew" seems justified per WP:NFCC. "Gold Star Studies" is essentially an article about a business and "The Wrecking Crew" are only one of the "artists" who used the studio for recording, etc. There is no mention of "The Wrecking Crew" anywhere at all outside of the image's caption and this particular image itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. The non-free rationale claims the photo is needed to show "the innards of the studio", but there is nothing in the second paragraph of Gold Star Studios#Peak years which requires that this photo be seen to be understood. The building no longer exists, so a freely licensed equivalent or its interior/exterior is no longer possible, but a non-free image of the building's exterior (such as this, this, or this), the studio's logo (apparently shown here) or perhaps even something like this of the two founders in the studio seem more appropriate for the main infobox if their respective copyright information can be found. Suggest keep for "The Wrecking Crew (music)" and remove from "Gold Star Studios". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people who are the primary subject of the photograph are the members of the Wrecking Crew. They are the focus of the picture, not Gold Star Studios, which is only in the background, and whatever reference to Gold Star is only contextual (this not an exterior photograph of the building, but rather an interior shot, where the studio interior merely serves the background placing the actual subject in context). The Wrecking Crew article should be the rightful place to present this image, provided it is only used in the info. box there and nowhere else. Fair use would permit that. I realize that the picture appears in the Gold Star article. If the image can only be in one article than it must be there not the in the Gold Star peice. As for the Wrecking Crew, it will in no way harm the commercial opportunities of the members of the Wrecking Crew, but rather enable them to have access to a wider audience through the greater dissemination of their likeness (the Gold Star Studio is no longer in business, so I don't think it could hurt their commercial opportunities). Furthermore, this picture was taken over 50 years ago. Ghmyrtle just went though the trouble of organizing an accurate caption to place under the photo for the Wrecking Crew article. The article addresses a worthy topic where this particular photo is needed. So, let's do the right thing and retain the photo at least for the Wrecking Crew article, where it truly needs to be. Perhaps someone could re-edit the rationale given in the image file to be more specifically tailored to the Wrecking Crew. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the image from the Gold Star article, and re-worded the rationale in the file description to refer to the Wrecking Crew, which is the primary subject of the photograph--the photo needs to be in the Wrecking Crew article. We can find an exterior shot for the Gold Star article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference Garagepunk66 and in case my original post wasn't too clear, I'm not suggesting that the file be removed from the "Wrecking Crew" article; I'm only suggesting that it be removed from the "Gold Star" article. Moreover, even though part of WP:NFCC#3 requires us to try and minimize non-free use as much as we can, this does not necessarily mean a non-free image can be used in only one article. Addition uses are permitted if they can be properly justified according to WP:NFCC. The problem in this case is that I don't thing non-free use of this file can be justified for the article about the studio itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was guessing. I just wanted to make sure that the photo's presence in the Gold Star article did not jeopardize its inclusion in the Wrecking Crew. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:51, 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIS Ski Flying WCH 2014 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fanmalysza (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Considered simple at Commons, after a deletion discussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:28, 15 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: move to Commons czar 06:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farming Simulator Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying non-free status given this is a mostly text ( albiet gradiented) text, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status has been changed to PD-logo. Image should now be deleted as it is available on Commons. Discussion can also now be closed. Salavat (talk) 04:51, 21 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlexanderAndersonBrompton01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Edwardx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete - unused, obsoleted by higher-resolution File:Brompton Cemetery, London 54.JPG (by the same photographer). Kelly ^hi! 15:52, 15 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.

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sovereignty Council .jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by مؤيد العودة (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an old image, but I'm not so sure it is PD-US as claimed. Possibly PD-Egypt given the publication it appeared in. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's become part of the public domain. Because it is outdated. age of this picture is 58 years old It was published in Magazine مؤيد العودة (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Again with the "publication date" issue. Al-Musawar is a long running magazine and given its history I think the file would have been published there pretty soon after it was created. ((PD-Egypt)) names a 15 year copyright term for photographies recreating reality mechanically and I think this photo would fall under that. Most likely PD for a long time in Egypt and thus also missed the URAA recopyrighting, but I wonder if مؤيد العودة has information on when the image was published, say which edition of the magazine had a copy of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Jo-Jo Eumerus The picture published in the edition of August 1958.مؤيد العودة (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep then, add ((PD-Egypt|commons)) to the filepage and add the publication date to the information section; 1958+1+15<1996 so URAA does not apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done . The picture Licence has been modified , The date of publication is mentioned too . مؤيد العودة (talk) 08:14, 18 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.

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suraiya receiving award from PM Vajpayee in a government funcyion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vkjoshi123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

What's the status of such images in India? That it was "taken" at a public function doesn't mean it's public domain. Who took the photo is important, where they official for the government for example? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 15 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soviet Major General P.G. Novikov.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The USSR may have had different copyright standards to the US, but it certainly had them. Russia certainly did. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and from what I know Template:PD-Russia does not contain any provision that puts this file into the public domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown author, and since Novikov was a colonel between 1939 and 1941 the photograph cannot have been taken later then that time, so it might fulfill criteria #3 on PD-RUSSIA. Kges1901 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Copyright law of the Soviet Union. As far as I can tell, this is hosted on generals.dk, which claims copyright, and thus this picture can only be used on the Novikov page as Fair Use, single article only. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Sergeyevich Gorbachyov.jpg, File:Portrait photo of General A.D. Tereshkov.jpg, File:Major General I.E. Turunov.jpg, File:Soviet Lieutenant-General I.V. Boldin ca. 1942.jpg were uploaded by the same user with the same rationale and should be deleted and reuploaded as fair use. Kges1901 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these are considered Fair Use (and I can now see the rationale for that) then I will by happy to reuplaod as such.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy[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: Relist Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartoon of Justice Thomas refusing to explain Alice ruling.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PraeceptorIP (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - seeing this cartoon does not substantially enhance your knowledge of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International lawsuit. B (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Its presence enhances readers' understanding of the scope, quality, and extent of criticism of the Court's opinion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it do this? Please explain to me how this cartoon enhances my understanding of criticism of the Court's opinion in a way that could not be accomplished through prose alone. --B (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critique in comic-strip form is not something that can be reduced to words alone. However, there are a number of other reasons why this cartoon enhances a reader's understanding of "reception" section of this article. First, it provides a visual representation and reference of the Law Comics commentary. Second, the visual depiction of the characters, their expressions, and their spatial relationship provides necessary context to the excerpts of dialogue in the article. Third, the apparent levity of the comic strip provides a unique contrast to other commentary in this section, especially when contrasted with scholars like Quinn who characterize the opinion as "intellectually bankrupt." The use of the image is judicious, limited, and minimal; for readers who think that legal scholarship only occurs in dusty old textbooks, it helps expand their perspective about the quality and form of discourse on complex legal issues. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Notecardforfree. The finger wagging and "Yes you do" response to Thomas's refusal to explain is a legitimate editorial comment and informs the reader. Thomas did ignore the need to explain. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• An unregistered person just unilaterally deleted the image, alleging that it was "racially offensive." Notecardforfree properly reverted that; and I commented on that person's Talk page that his action was inappropriate and I supported Notecard. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very little sources discuss the image. Tried to find other sources to keep the image, but found almost none. The passage didn't say much about Thomas fondling an eagle or making a mad look at a woman. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @George Ho: see my comments above. It is important for Wikipedia articles to discuss the full range of commentary and discourse about topics covered in our articles, including commentary in comics. The discussion in this article is sufficient to provide readers an understanding of the context and significance of this image, and there is no doubt that it helps enhance readers' understanding of this case. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is the court case, right? The image illustrates the opinion about the court case, but the opinion doesn't seem hard to understand. Also, I'm uncertain whether Law Comics is independently notable or the opinion violates WP:UNDUE. However, a reader wouldn't care less about the image as much as what the article says. If the image is removed, the readers would still understand what the court case is about without the image. Can you prove that the readers would not understand the case without the image? George Ho (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image helps readers understand the breadth, quality, and format of commentary about this case. To that extent, the article is not only about the case itself, but also its impact on society, culture, law, and legal scholarship. Indeed, the Alice in Patentland comic (from which this image is taken) has received coverage in more formal legal scholarship. See, for example, Robert M. Jarvis, The Patent Attorney in Popular Culture, 98 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 469, 511 (2016) (discussing the comic's notability). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the source. I see the source mention the comic on p. 503, but the coverage is too brief and lacking there to determine notability. I don't see the point of emphasizing one of opinions about the case other than showcasing the image. There is another article "Two Years after Alice v. CLS Bank," but I can't access it without buying it. George Ho (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Jarvis article may not have been the best example, but the whole discussion of notability is besides the point (at least not in this discussion -- feel free to discuss issues re WP:WEIGHT on the article;s talk page). WP:NFCCP permits the use of non-free content when it helps readers understand the significance of the article's topic. As discussed above, the comic helps readers understand the breadth and range of commentary on this case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: According to this article, the comic is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"NC" stands for non-commercial, which Commons do not allow. In fact, Commons wants images that can be used commercially by others. The copyright owner doesn't allow others to share it commercially. Therefore, the image is considered non-free. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for non-commercial CC files were previously used but then became deprecated. Also, c:Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses says such NC files are forbidden in Commons. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cited Wired article says that the Law Comics cartoons are "a series of comics that aim to make iconic legal cases more accessible to the masses." That is quite apt in this case. The comment on the Alice case does make more accessible one view of the case (one with which I disagree, but many scholars agree with the cartoon instead of with me). I second Notecard's views expressed above. By the way, Ho is off base in demanding that Law Comics has to be notable. The Alice case has to be notable (it is!). But those who comment on it do not. They just need to present content that is worth considering. Law Comics meets that test here. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article doesn't mention much about the comic, PraeceptorIP. It briefly mentions cameos but not much about Thomas' cameo and fondling with the eagle and the bubbled dialogue. George Ho (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's a nonfree image that is not at all necessary for the articles in which it is used. I am also objecting to the image's use in said articles but for different reasons.--Nowa (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It may not be licensed for purposes of Commons, but it is permissible on U.S. Wikipedia. It does not have to be necessary for the articles in which it is used--just helpful. It is helpful for the reasons stated by Notecardforfree. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sure it is hard to find actually racist commentary in words in acceptable sources (plenty of that in trashy blogs and comment sections of course) but hey put it in a cartoon by depicting a supreme court justice as Mr. T and you can get it in Wired nudge-nudge wink-wink. Vile and probably a BLP violation. I'll note that Wired doesn't have a BLP policy; we do. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To those using the "Wikipedia is not censored" rhetoric to challenge Jytdog's, the section says in spirit that any "objectionable or offensive" material can be used for encyclopedic uses, not any other, especially when a content is against the rules. WP:offensive material says the same thing. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not Cartoonpedia. Appears to be a BLP infraction. QuackGuru (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The use rationale asserts that the image is used to explain commentary on a Supreme Court decision. The idea that prose commentary cannot be explained in prose is preposterous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-free, non-iconic. That cartoon is neither iconic nor well-known as notorious and seems used as decoration to grandstand on a viewpoint, as if remarks in text were just not dramatic enough to push the related POV. I think it is difficult for many users to realize Wikipedia cannot just use non-free images to illustrate a point, but rather a non-free image really must be iconic, or "notorious" in wp:RS reliable sources, or be a common logo (of low resolution); otherwise numerous non-free images get deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not free, not of iconic historic value, nothing that can't be adequately explained in text. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:50, 7 December 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.

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobertRawlinsonBrompton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Edwardx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete - unused, obsoleted by higher-quality File:Brompton Cemetery monument 16.JPG by same photographer. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 15 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.

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⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vb6c3199.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richardhandscombe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed work for hire, but I think we need evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 15 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.

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⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowers Theatre.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richardhandscombe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed work for hire, but I think we need evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 15 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.

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:B5S2919.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhoro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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.

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:B5S3533.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhoro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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.

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⚡ 13:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:B5S3593.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhoro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this message on my talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 16 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.

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⚡ 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen Salote in London.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EraserGirl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Our article on the subject contains two free images; the use of a non-free image is questionable. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 15 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.