Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29

File:Urbaniacs BarnStar1.png

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 ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old barnstar used only twice for a WikiProject that was deleted at MfD. None of the editors who used or received this barnstar have been active since 2007. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Essentially an orphaned file. Salavat (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2017 (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:King Edward Village Model - SW corner view.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of the model, which is likely not made by the uploader. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, model is likely owned by the King Edward Village developers. Also file is only used in user space so is basically orphaned. Salavat (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2017 (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:Dimock2.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photo; unlikely own work. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of the Dimock portrait and contributed the jpeg of the image to Wikimedia.org. The original is over 150 years old. Any copyright concerns are defunct, imo.Cabinet of Art and Medicine (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a blank information template to the file, filling it in will help support your licensing claims especially if you provide a source to prove the images age. Also the license "PD-old" may be more applicable then "cc-by-sa-2.5". Salavat (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salavat, I updated the file with information I hope you guys find sufficient.Cabinet of Art and Medicine (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (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:Simon Tanner photoBW.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal picture from a non-confirmed editor who never became active. Possibly a copyright issue, as the uploader is depicted in the picture at a time before selfies were common. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as an un-used file. Salavat (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2017 (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:Gabriele wrun3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is in picture and could not have taken it, so not an own work. Orphaned. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2017 (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:AirheadsS.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably use the logo in the infobox in place of a non-free image of the product packaging. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (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.