The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, or easily conveyed in text. Not contextually significant to Above Horizons. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused derivative work of presumably copyrighted packaging. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a selfie of Yida Huang, as such, this is not an own work. Permission needed for base file needed. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2022 February 7. ✗plicit 06:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2 issues. Original file is a fair use file. Current version has no permission. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Conflicting license. Uploaded with ((PD-self)) & fair use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
No permission/source for base avatar. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2 problems. 1. Non-photographs should be in PNG/SVG. 2. OF3 is the rank of Major. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2 problems. 1. Non-photographs should be in PNG/SVG. 2. OF7 is the rank of Major General. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
possible copyvio, unable to verify PD-Italy claim, missing both a verifiable source and publication date FASTILY 08:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
scanned historical photo of a notable individual, dubious own work claim FASTILY 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Convert to ((PD-ineligible-USonly))
. No comment on ((PD-UK-typographical-25))
eligibility, however anyone is free to transfer if you're confident about this. -FASTILY 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Must have been taken from 45cat instead of "Scan from the original cover" as claimed. Nonetheless, I think the label has nothing creative and complex enough for US copyright. Information is too factual, the background is plain, and text doesn't contain lyrics. Unsure whether it is copyrighted in the UK, but there are other images using one of Parlaphone logos in Commons: c:Category:Parlophone. Also, another Parlophone logo is considered free to use. Furthermore, published editions have 25-year British copyright protection. The label's UK copyright as a published edition has expired already. If ineligible for UK copyright, then the image should be transferred to Commons. Otherwise, mark it as "PD-ineligible-USonly
". George Ho (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete local copy as duplicate of Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty unlikely that this logo would be copyrighted, c.f the examples here include several more complicated ones that were denied registration. Since the identical Commons file is larger, we can just delete the local one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)