Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

File:Charlie Powell Publicity shot.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 ⚡ 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photo also used on their radio profile. WP:OTRS confirmation of permission would be required. Whpq (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: would not satisfy WP:NFCC and does not seem to have evidence of permission. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Large, replaceable, mislicenced. AtomCrusher (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2021 (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:Evergrande Group.svg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for dated deletion by @TheImaCow as missing a verifiable source FASTILY 03:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any evidence that this particular logo is the actual logo of the company. Their main site in Chinese does not use this logo that I can find. The English language site uses a differnt logo with English text and I am unable to find this logo on the English links either. Even if we could verify that this logo was actually used by the Company, it is not the primary logo used for identification by the company itself and so would not really serve the purpose of visual identification. Use of the logo from the main web site would serve that purpose. -- Whpq (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2021 (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:Countess and portrait by Corbet 17 Oct 2009 2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused (personal?) image, no obvious encyclopedic use. Also possible derivative of non-free content (portrait of woman appears to be the focus of the photograph) FASTILY 06:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned image with quesitonable licensing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 2 February 2021 (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.