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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:OneSavings Bank.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 00:20, 8 May 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: Unclear copyright status. May be restored if it can be proven this is public domain -FASTILY 08:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged PD-USGov. The source of this photo is Stars and Stripes, a publication supported by the U.S. Department of Defense, but explicitly claims copyright on this photo and their whole website. If the copyright claim is legitimate, the image should be deleted. Wikiacc (¶) 03:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not especially clear if Stars and Stripes is public domain now, and it's even less clear if it was public domain when the photo was originally published. Stars and Stripes doesn't have a specific exception to the section of the Copyright Act placing US Government works in the public domain as far as I can tell. This would probably fall under a similar rule to works of the Smithsonian, which are not protected by copyright only if the author was paid with government funds. If the photographer was paid only through funds generated through advertising and subscriptions, the photo may be protected by copyright. I'm not sure that that is the case, as Stars and Stripes contributors are employees of the federal government and are subject to other laws around DoD employees. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See related discussion at Talk:Stars and Stripes (newspaper)#Copyright Status. See also the images at c:Category:Stars and Stripes (newspaper). Wikiacc (¶) 20:17, 1 May 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 May 30. FASTILY 05:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:1993 Larry King Live call from San Luis Obispo.ogg (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.

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation: lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 05:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Howard the Duck Guardians.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Individuality4u (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that this and its companion image are, respectively, costume/practical-effect and live-action CG! expressions of an illustrated character and so, indeed, substantially different than the infobox image. Also, it is objectively inaccurate to characterize two photos as "several images ... in slightly different illustration styles." Two is not several, and these are not, in fact, illustrations. These are necessary in the article Howard the Duck for any encyclopedic understanding of the character's visual distinctions from printed drawing to two different types of live-action film processes, which cannot be adequately described by words alone.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not for reasons stated in the nom – This image is quite different from the infobox image. The infobox is a comic book, this is a live action film. Howard's evolution from comic to film is a significant part of the character (like many characters), and the reader's understanding is incomplete without a picture of both the comic book illustration and the live action film screenshot. That said, there are problems with this particular image. First and foremost, it's dark and low quality, and should be deleted for that reason alone. An image from Guardians might improve the reader's understanding, but not this particular low quality image. Second, this image is similar to the image from the 1986 Howard the Duck film. I'm not sure that we need an image from two live action films, and the 1986 one is more iconic, and a better quality image, than the Guardians picture. If the article included sourced discussion of how the appearance of Howard changed between the 1986 eponymous film and the 21st-century Guardian films, then I'd support inclusion of a Guardian screen cap, but without that, I don't think we need more than the 1986 screen cap. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:23, 7 May 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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince Ahmad Shah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AdvancedScholar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no source; the uploader refers to the Pashto Wikipedia, where the file was uploaded without source in 2014. Whereas I was not able to trace the origin of the file, the photo was used on postal stamps (e.g. [1]), and therefore can not be own work of the uploader. I do not see any indication that the file has been released under free license. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reuploaded this photo through the English Wikipedia due in part to the nature of the Pashto language .png files not transferring over directly. The user who uploaded the original photo from what I understand uploaded it as his own work through Creative Commons, to which I was initially skeptical but assumed good faith being the user in question was an admin for the Pashto language Wikipedia. With this evidence of it being used on postal stamps, this clearly should be brought into question. In light of this, as to confirming the identity of the direct Pashto source, I was not able to decipher due to either Pashto language barriers or simply not being present at all. I guess what would really resolve this is if we contact the original user(ANBI) to see if he could specify the source. Perhaps you could assist with that? AdvancedScholar (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (sort of). The postage stamp is from 1963, so upload to commons and label as Commons:Template:PD-Afghanistan. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 23 May 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⚡ 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claim to have taken the photo is not credible given the uploader made the same claim for File:Haroon Shahid.jpg but that photo was actually cropped from a larger photo watermarked with Faiz Farooq photography. Whpq (talk) 21:28, 8 May 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 F1 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rsz 99247d5d-46e5-4be4-94c3-1dd1117a1b54.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GODUBNATION (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The same image file is being used File:30 Rojullo Preminchadam Ela.jpeg GODUBNATION (talk) 00:00, 9 May 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.