Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

File:CAPEX.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, but a local image description page exists. If you are wanting the image deleted, please nominate it for deletion on Commons. If you are requesting deletion of the local image description page only, use {{db-nofile}} if possible; if that is not possible, list it at WP:MFD. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used

Zac67 (talk) 08:12, 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:ANZAC Mounted Division capture of II Corps at Ziza.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 ⚡ 10:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source website lists the file as being under copyright, per: [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 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.

Files used in Parveen Babi article

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: Deleted the second file, the first is OK as identificatory image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two non-free images are being used in the Parveen Babi article. As the subject is deceased, a single non-free image would be within policy but placing two there is contrary to WP:NFCC#3a. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 18:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of actress Parveen Babi with her autograph can be considered as it is having her 'signature' as well. Anyhow the admin can take a decision.Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:30, 26 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.