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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Please delete this image. I uploaded it and did not notice the watermark on the image. Although this is a copy of an original image published by the FBI, this version has been modified by another website owner. My mistake, sorry. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks a valid license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence is found that the photograph was published before 1971. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wikiacc (¶) 04:04, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ismael-Zambada-García.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StanTheMan87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not taken by the FBI. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/FBI most wanted. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felix Aylmer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cyberia3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deleted on Commons due to insufficient source. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Encyclopædius Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: If you simply click the first Ley link in Spanish it says " Article 1. - For the purposes of this Law, scientific, literary and artistic works include writings of all kinds and extensions, including source and object computer programs; compilations of data or other materials; the dramatic works, musical compositions, dramatic-musical; cinematographic, choreographic and pantomimic ones; works of drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture; models and works of art or science applied to commerce or industry; the forms, plans and maps; plastics, photographs, engravings and phonograms, in short, all scientific, literary, artistic or educational production regardless of the reproduction procedure. Please remove your deletion tags thank you.† Encyclopædius 13:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on my talk page, he is quoting the wrong line of the copyright statute. @Uploader FYI it would be better if we could centralize discussion in one place, not on my talk page for instance. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amorprohibidoshot1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Encyclopædius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Encyclopædius Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry pensatoio.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Albireo8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pensatoio.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vague description of photos that are clear derivative works. Accessing their histories reveal the first description by the uploader: "Company portrait of Otto Koehler. Photo is part of the Charlie Staats Pearl Collection. Image is copy written by Charlie Staats, but has been released for use by the public." Such might not be accepted at Wikimedia Commons, as there is no adequate sourcing or even date of the subject of the photos, not the photos themselves. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Additional file/s by the same uploader:[reply]

File:OttoAPortrait.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

• Delete both, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PabstPearl02.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brownings (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File histories of these three files will reveal their original descriptions that included "Historic image is owned by the Pabst Brewing Company, but has been released to Wikipedia and others for promotion of their Pearl beer brand. Image is released for general use, other than monetary gain by company or individual." This statement, despite indication of having "released to Wikipedia and others," might be questionable at WikiCommons. One related image, File:PabstPearl01.JPG, was deleted by @Stifle: more than 10 years ago because "Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 14 January 2009." PUI means "Possibly unfree images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Additional file/s by the same uploader:[reply]

File:PabstPearl03.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PabstPearl04.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

• Delete all; actual licence prevents commercial use. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2020 (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: Not suitable for Commons -FASTILY 02:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaughan-williams-hoppé.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim riley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A larger version of this file exists on Commons, but it's not clear if it'd be PD in England and thus actually suitable for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overwrite with larger version, and retain the ((PD-US-expired-abroad)) tag. Wikiacc (¶) 18:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how this file got into Commons. I uploaded it in English WP, and have no recollection of uploading it to Commons. I avoid Commons as far as humanly possible after finding over and over again at FAC that you can't rely on the images there to be OK from a copyright point of view. Tim riley talk 19:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't you. Your original license tag was correct. Wikiacc (¶) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a relief, anyway! It's just this sort of inappropriate transfer from local WP to Commons that makes the latter so unreliable. Thank you for explaining, Wikiacc. Tim riley talk 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - non-free in home country. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:43, 16 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ssm-test-svg.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davidmac2003 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused test file from 2014. Jonteemil (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Ryne Goldberg.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Almightey Drill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

What does this non-free file add what the freely licenced en:File:Joshua Ryne Goldberg2.jpg does not? Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

commons:File:Johann Niemann.jpg is a slightly higher quality image but it's not clear that it satisfies the PD-Anonymous criteria. If it does satisfy, the local file can be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasted image 0.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hi iamsam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo; AI Now Institute which (going by the uploader's edit history) was supposed to have it has a different file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to File:AI Now Basic Logo Grey.jpg. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:1958 Chevrolet Delray Sedan Delivery.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Russ Davis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It's not clear how this non-free image "significantly enhances the understanding of Chevrolet Delray to the point that the understanding would be harmed by not having it" (WP:NFCC#8) and the use rationale isn't quite correct as there are plenty of other images used more prominently. Also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:US 3766.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there that show the Art Deco revival in the US? None that I am aware of. Ecphora (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:United States postage stamp (Scott cat no 3471A) (2001).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there that show the Art Deco revival in the US? None that I am aware of. Ecphora (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brazil 389.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexico 746.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexico C100.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2020 (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. Izno (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexico 778.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8:

For Art Deco stamps: Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works.

For Helguera: Fails NFCC 3a, as the other non-free stamp adequately illustrates the concept. Two are not needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Image being used to decorate article about the designer of the stamp. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugal C2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Switzerland 215.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2020 (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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Austria J152.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ecphora (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Excessive use of non-free content, in a gallery-like fashion. A small number of public domain examples can be used to illustrate the article; the still-copyrighted stamps are not critical to the understanding of the article, and since the subject of the article is the art style on stamps and not a specific country's work, cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The design of the stamp itself is specifically discussed in the text and it is necessary to see the stamp to understand how it displays the Art Deco style. The nominator states that this fair use "cannot be justified considering the number of available freely licensed works." What "available freely licensed works" are there? Virtually none that I am aware o and none from this country. Ecphora (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2020 (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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:France 261.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.