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⚡ 08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Top 5 Def Jam Unstoppable Street Team in London.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JKibble (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader states that he's in the photo, so he couldn't have taken the photo. No authority to license this photo for free use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't care much for this strict interpretation of the licensing but it's an orphaned photo that isn't used anywhere and not likely to be used anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 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⚡ 08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo of an editor who was never active. Old revision is a copy of File:Chuckandmini2.jpg, which is pending deletion as per WP:F11 (daughter took the photo). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only the June 5, 2006 version which is what I presume is being discussed here. The first version is the same as the second image. The other uploads seem fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 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: WP:NFCC#8 czar 22:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock Goddess young and free.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lewismaster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a, there is already another album cover in the infobox. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple covers are allowed when all of them are important for identification and are cited in the text. In this case, the cover in discussion is not the original album cover but the best known, thanks to the worldwide distribution of the CD edition. Lewismaster (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewismaster: I see, that makes sense. I'm not going to insist, I've just seen alternative album covers deleted before. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: The use of multiple covers has been controversial and no consensus was reached about it in more than one RfC. Identification and presence in the text are two parameters that could justify the presence of multiple covers, but not every editor would agree, hence the deletions you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Normally I'd agree that multiple covers aren't necessary but here, it seems like it was re-released with a different album title so the different versions are helpful for identification purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 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 czar 23:04, 24 July 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⚡ 08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boxclocke, as Pop Icon2.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Boxclocke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader requested speedy deletion under CSD G7, but file was uploaded to Wikipedia 11 years ago, which probably makes it ineligible for that deletion criterion. Image appears to have only ever been used on uploader's user page. Delete as out of scope and I have declined the copy to commons tag as it is clearly out of scope for commons. Safiel (talk) 21:33, 6 July 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.