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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:EME that.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aaronforjesus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused; superseded by File:EME that.svg. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rehman 15:08, 25 March 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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Britt-robertson-secret-cirlce-casting-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Сяра (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

copyrighted image by photographer Deidhra Fahey ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 07:17, 15 March 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⚡ 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Proposed Haymarket Square Hotel Boston 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NewtonCourt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is being used in an image gallery at Haymarket - Boston. This does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as the lack of this image of a proposed hotel is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the open air market which is the primary topic. Whpq (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As the "Future" section of the article explains, the proposed Haymarket Square Hotel project would include a reconstruction of Blackstone Street and a complete redesign of the current market. Showing an image of the proposed hotel would help readers understand the scale of the hotel and its impact on Haymarket.NewtonCourt (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As an absolute minimum, the file should be moved to the section where it is actually discussed. If there is discussion about the overhaul of the square and what it would look like then putting an image of it there seems like fair game, the article topic would cover the future appearance of the square too after all.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no actual discussion related to the proposed market that actually necessitates the use of the non-free image. The single relevant sentence (that there is to be a proposed hotel) is as follows: "In 2013,[55] MassDOT accepted a proposal[56][57] from Normandy Real Estate Partners[58] for construction of the Haymarket Square Hotel. As of early 2016, the proposed hotel was under review by the Boston Redevelopment Authority.[32]." A proposal was acceptedmade, not even accepted yet, there's no discussion about the proposed hotel other than it has been proposed. The link for the hotel itself is a link to the file not to any article about the proposed hotel. If there was a separate article about the hotel itself, I think this would somewhat justify an image (although I'd argue that a non-free image of the proposed site would be sufficient) but not based on the single statement that the project was proposed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:UM2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahesh thipparthi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It is used to illustrate an article on a temple, but does not indicate why it is relevant. No source. Image has a border and no exif, also leading me to think it could have been taken off a website. Deadstar (talk) 14:58, 15 March 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silvano Bortolazzi, "Cavaliere" is an italian poet also the tenth knight of italian history, founder of World union of Poets march 2016.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnjaliWasim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems to be a backdoor way of getting a deleted article back on Wikipedia. The associated article Silvano Bortolazzi was deleted at AfD, unanimously, and was deleted again via CSD G4. This .pdf is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to reinstate an article that has been roundly rejected by the Wikipedia community. Safiel (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unused file. Wikipedia is not a web host. This is not the way to contest a deletion. --Whpq (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is the reason for deleting both article and this file? Is this just a veto action? First tell the cause of deletion of article. If there is no cause, how can it be used to vindicate the status of a file? How does a file with reliable citations in it just be eligible for deletion? Is deletion a game? AnjaliWasim (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for deleting the article was lack of Wikipedia:Notability as explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvano Bortolazzi.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an older version. The newer one is simply deleted. This is the reply I got for the deletion :

"Because it's spam, please refrain from going on spamming Bortolazzi again. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)"
How was it decided that Silvano Bortolazzi article posted in March 2016 is a "spam"? It could be nice if any of you could clarify.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjaliWasim (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

• It was definitely eligible for speedy deletion, anyway delete: useless file, mixing up copyvios and exaggerations about a non notable person being promoted via Wikipedia. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (It's time for an SPI) Knight of the Order of Merity of the Italian Republic is *so* common, awarded 135.448 times as of now. Anyway that's a ffd, we're dealing with an useless pdf, not with the subject of the pdf itself. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems Knighthood is given free in Italy, as per this person. Still, the person does not mention why he deleted the article and why he is going to delete the file. Silvano is one of a rare person who gets a knighthood for his poetry. And the user's talk seems as if Nobel nominations are given for non notable persons, and similarly knighthood in Italy are also given to non notable persons.

AnjaliWasim (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnjaliWasim --Vituzzu (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I close my talk. The users here may do as they wish, without citing any valid reasons. (as they have been) Kiron Krishnan (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (Also note I have deleted all my previous comments here too. I realize it is impossible to delete a wiki account. So, I would better leave like this) Kiron Krishnan (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This doesn't qualify for WP:G4 since the original page was an article while this is a file, but I don't see why WP:F10 wouldn't apply. Out of project scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traviangames logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshua Issac (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This logo seems to be incorrect, based on what is said on this URL. The correct version is already on Commons under this name (commons:File:Traviangames logo.png) so deleting the local copy should suffice at fixing the issue unless there are doubts about the licensing of the Commons copy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this logo is outdated. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:06, 19 March 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.