Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

File:New Barangay LS logo.jpg

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: Letting the bot process this Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File Is waaaaaaaaay too big for Fair use, Not meeting the Low Resolution Guideline of WP:NFC Lor^Talk 04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free reduce requested. The bot will reduce the file relatively soon. Discussion can be closed on that basis. Salavat (talk) 03:20, 24 September 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.

File:Cavalry-barracks.jpg

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of possibly non-free 2D work. Kelly ^hi! 09:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "other information" says otherwise; needs more discussion as it's not clear what the claim is based on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The photographs appear to be out of copyright, but there is no evidence that the text is as well. In fact, at the very bottom right of the sign, you can see "VIZability Computer Graphics", which would indicate it's protected by copyright. — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 28 September 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.

File:Aryan Singh Rathore.jpg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic: selfies by persistent hoax autobiographer, now blocked. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Per nom. Reh man 23:47, 19 September 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.

File:Britney Spears - Unusual You (cover).jpg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image very likely belongs to an unofficial release. The song's only listings on discogs as a standalone single refer to it as not being on the label. Fan-sites also clarify the single as being fan-made Traveltoromantis (talk) 18:24, 18 September 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.