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. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin Owens.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bigkev'sbigfan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

9-year-old orphaned unencyclopedic image of a non-notable individual which overrides relevant image on Commons 94.174.101.121 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear which Kevin Owens the file shows, it may be an old image of a notable person. The file on Commons is now at File:Kevin Owens, wrestler, 2016.jpg because of the ambiguity of the name. There are the articles Kevin Owens and also Kevin Owens (basketball). The description of the file on this wiki should note which person is meant or if it's another Kevin Owens. If that's not the case, it can't be used in any article. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not unclear which Kevin Owens the file shows (check Special:Diff/98662929), but the low resolution and the fact that there is no EXIF makes me worry that it might be a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, it's the basketball player, I've also found that now. This also looks like the same person. The question is, why the file is not in his article anymore. On the other hand, there's no other free image of this person which is used in the article. If it really is a copyvio, it could be used with fair use. But then, it's no image for Commons anymore. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed in Special:Diff/116319598 as unsourced info. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Now it's in the article again. It had been removed together with other dates in this revision without telling why the photo should not be used there. I think the reason has been for the other removed dates. If there exists a photo, it should be used, until there is a better one or until it is deleted. But I don't understand the reason "unsourced info" for removing a photo from an article, so that it's getting orphaned and unused. That doesn't make any sense IMHO. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I had assumed the image was of a non-notable person due to the fact that it appears to have been uploaded by a WP:EXTERNALREL user (based on his edit history of that article). If it actually is the basketball player then that's fine, although in that case it should probably be renamed and/or migrated to Commons to avoid this conflict happening again. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 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⚡ 03:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ankuaàn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No idea why a Japanese cover is needed for an article about a Romanian product. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 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 in Kansas Jayhawks, remove all other instances. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KUsam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in List of birds of Kansas and various other articles. Fails WP:NFCC#9 in Draft:Kansas Jayhawks women's volleyball. Should be removed from a lot of the pages on which the image currently is used. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you're happy. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:Logo for the Kansas Jayhawks article, among other places. If there's a problem with the logo being misused elsewhere, remove it from its improper use. And, as I recall, a bot should take care of the old version. schetm (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schetm's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 18 January 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⚡ 03:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pres. Noy on YouTube Worldview.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hollyckuhno (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Benigno Aquino III, and doesn't seem to be needed in ABS-CBN News Channel either. Fails WP:NFCC#9 in User:PatTag2659/sandbox2. Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Orff-Carmina Burana-O Fortuna.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beyond silence (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't see why O Fortuna, an article about a poem, should contain a sound recording of a modern musical version of the poem. Remove from O Fortuna per WP:NFCC#8 and also from User:Amir R. Pourkashef per WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article is mainly about Orff's musical setting. Without it, the text would be unknown and there wouldn't be an article. In turn, that piece itself is by far the most widely known part of Orff's cantata. Using a 30-second excerpt on that page seems well within WP:NFCC and WP:FAIRUSE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with above. The sample is very helpful in this case. I recognized the music and can now tie information re the author to something that I knew before - the music. Rybkovich (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Bednarek's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 18 January 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.