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. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Welsh booklet cover "Holi ac Ateb ar Wybodaeth Eglwysig (Questions and Answers on Church Knowledge) by Rev Hugh Arfon Evans 1948.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Welshdick (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, not in an ideal format (pdf), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diocese of Bangor Year Book for 1964 - cover page only.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Welshdick (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, not in an ideal format (pdf), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The file is not used in any article, clearly fails NFCC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 2 January 2018 (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⚡ 07:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foreword to the booklet "The Parish and Churches of Capel Curig" by Rev H. Arfon Evans 1948.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Welshdick (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused scan, no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @Fastily: OTRS Permission confirmed, file moved to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (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⚡ 02:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Kultury Basrelief Young Engineers.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Denghu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

3D artwork. No freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and Salavat. Green Giant (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is allowed to take photographs of objects of no special strategic value in the Moscow Underground (Moscow Metro) if the camera is not a professional one (otherwise it is still allowed if you have permission of the Moscow Underground authorities). Here is a link to Moscow Metro regulations (in Russian): http://mosmetro.ru/info/ I added the image to the Park Kultury Station (Koltsevaya Line) article. It can be useful for people interested in the interior of this station and in Soviet fine art. Denghu (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2017 (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. I think it's dubious to apply PD-simple to this. With lack of other comments suggesting this, going to go with deletion. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo candidature Iekaterinburg - Expo 2025.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LightTower936 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doubtful that this image is owned by the uploaded. More complete source info needed. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I realize I'm the nominator, but I'm thinking it's simple enough to be ((PD-simple)) or ((PD-Textlogo)). Ytoyoda (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2017 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

unclear if ((Attribution)) applies. I suspect this may be non-free, in which case it would fail WP:NFCC#8 (no critical commentary in the article it is used in) FASTILY 20:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but just what is your point here? They clearly publish their work under a free licence, provided that they are credited. So we can use this, and we have to credit it. So what's to discuss? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the author explicitly permits free use with attribution on his website. If you wanted to make sure I suppose you could write him. groupuscule (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2017 (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⚡ 02:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:209sumsequence.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Genesyz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even if the copyright status is resolved (IMO, the file is uncopyrightable as having insufficient original content), it is a graphic representation of 6¹ + 5² + 4³ + 3⁴ + 2⁵ + 1⁶ or ${\displaystyle 6^{1}+5^{2}+4^{3}+3^{4}+2^{5}+1^{6))$. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete–replaceable by math wiki markup, as seen above:
  

((math|6<sup>1</sup> + 5<sup>2</sup> + 4<sup>3</sup> + 3<sup>4</sup> + 2<sup>5</sup> + 1<sup>6</sup>))<br>
<math>6^1+5^2+4^3+3^4+2^5+1^6</math>

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Copyright is irrelevant because it's just an image of some text, with no creative addition to that text, and the uploader has already made the same text available by adding it to Wikipedia as text. But because it's just text, it's not useful as an image (regardless of the current dispute over whether the text it depicts is useful as an addition to 209 (number)). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gibson Southern Crest.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhatsa26X (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used in a Gibson Southern High School#Gallery. Non-free images are typically not allowed to be be used in image galleries per WP:NFG because such usage tends to be decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8. There is no sourced critical commentary about this crest anywhere in the article (it's not even mentioned in passing anywhere at all). If someone wants to add sourced content about the crest to the article, then the file could possibly be moved so that it's near the relevant article content; however, simply adding the file to a gallery of other images to "show" it clearly does not meet WP:NFCCP and the file should be deleted.

There are also problems with the file's non-free use rationale and copyright license. The file is not really a logo (at least for Wikipedia's non-free content purposes) and the boilerplate rationale is more for a case where the file is being used as the primary means of indentification of a logo at the top of an article, not in the article body. Perhaps ((Symbol rationale)) and ((Non-free symbol)) can be used instead, but these things will also need to be addressed if the consensus is that this file should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Gibson Southern High School. Salavat (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (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.