Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

File:Map of Fort Bartolomeo, Barraux (by Ercole Negro - 1597).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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, missing OTRS evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a drawing from 1597 need to be registered with OTRS? That said, there's a copy of this on Commons (File:Fort barraux Ercole Negro.gif), so this jpg probably isn't needed. - Eureka Lott 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The drawing is more than four hundred years old and should be in the public domain worldwide, but this copy is of bad quality, and File:Fort barraux Ercole Negro.gif looks better. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was there a concept of copyright back then? Anyway, delete per "Low quality duplicate of Commons image".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 12 December 2015 (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:Marienburg.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 15 November 2015 (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:Masonry Act5016.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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 15 November 2015 (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:Matt Glass.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be professionally taken portrait - no evidence the uploader is the photographer. Kelly ^hi! 03:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are claiming it's their own photography. Also, Googling I see that the two people mentioned (the subject and the purported photographer) may be professionals. Inclined to keep thusly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the uploader also uploaded the logo of their company, I'm inclined to believe this is actually Jordan Wayne Long.[1] Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Matt-head.jpg to File:Matt Glass.jpg by INeverCry (talk · contribs) at 01:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 November 2015 (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:Qt logo 2015.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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions File:Qt (Bibliothek) logo.svg is considered a textlogo. Not sure how this file should be copyrightable either; it's text over an uniformly coloured background. Unless this being a SVG file does make a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 15 November 2015 (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:ColleyvilleHeritageHSLogo1.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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work but the logo is organnisational. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2015 (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:Image-3 Suprapubic Catheter.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Previously deleted~~ (This was the KEPT copy from a group): Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_February_9#File:Image-5_Suprapubic_Catheter.png - Low quality medical image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we delete images just because they are low quality?

The person in the image is not identifiable.

We do not send patient consent to OTRS / the WMF as that would be illegal in most areas of the world.

What is wrong with this image exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We delete unused images if it is unlikely that they will be useful in the future. Unused low quality images are often not useful. No idea if that is the case with this picture or not, or whether it is easy to produce higher quality medical pictures like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional concern is that it should be possible to show the Catheter without showing other anatomical details which may not be relevant, Doc James, in your opinion are the other anatomical details here relevant to the main subject of the image? I am aware of your position in respect to 'anonymised' medical images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been meaning to take a better image next time I put in a suprapubic catheter. Why do we not think this is from a relative of the patient or the patient in question? The image is used else I would not care.

Even if this image was identifiable we have no mechanisms to handle consent within the WM movement. There are dozens of multi million dollar organizations that deal with this issue (consent and its enforcement). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't have any evidence that consent was obtained from the person in the photo. Please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Personality rights. For such a personal photo, I think we should use extreme caution and delete it. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights aren't as I understood it a concern here, given the image is effectively anonymised.Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Keep - Of course, censorship is discouraged, but that's not the main reason for deletion or keep. How does "personality rights" apply to this person when his face is cropped out? Do faceless bodies also have rights? I can't argue for anonymous people's rights because... "anonymous" is too vague and ambiguous to argue for either deletion or keep. I don't think a consent would be necessary if there is no face, even when... his body is revealed. Would "no face, no rights" be the right phrase? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we missing some text revisions of this page? On the available text revisions, I see no evidence of a {{ffd}} tag, although the log shows that the page has been deleted. For transparency, could any missing text revisions be undeleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. some further investigation shows that this image was the one Retained from a group, so the original rationale doesn't seemingly apply. However, my additional concern about possibly cropping the image is still relevant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we can get a better image. Feel free to crop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not wonderful quality but I took a look around and couldn't find any other free images. As for context, the penis makes sense to include - a suprapubic catheter can be used when a urethral catheter isn't feasible, for example when the penis is injured and the urethra can't accommodate a catheter. Keilana (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a 'Keep myself, given Keilana's analysis. However, I'll leave this to run it's course. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per reasons stated (above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image and others like it were deleted on the Commons as they were deemed likely not being the uploader's own work; "the likely copyright holder of a photo taken in a medical institution is the institution (not the subject)". See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Catheter2. FWIW, the user who uploaded them is blocked on the Commons and on de.wiki as a sockpuppet. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone on commons says something does not make it true. Do you have any actual evidence? That was wrong when they said it before and it is still wrong now. The person who pushes the button on the camera owns the picture. Not the area in which a picture is taken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t expect that argument to have been based on the location per se, but rather taking the photographer to be an employee of the institution (and assuming a jurisdiction that assigns copyrights to the employer). On an unrelated note, all the socks identified in that DR have edited here as SPAs. The whole thing is rather odd; I found this edit particularly so.—Odysseus 1479 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it was an employee rather than a family member, a student, or a physician? And who is to say that the contract does not give exception for taking images for publication at work? Many do by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- there's no reason to delete this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Relist at Deletion Review_{see below} per the evidence presented by Diannaa above. Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am collecting examples of cases when someone calls for a model release for a photo. See meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Development of a model release process for photos and video for more. I added this one. If anyone knows of more such cases then please refer me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was the KEPT copy from a group is not correct. The entire group was deleted, and Doc James restored this one. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL by Doc James? Kelly ^hi! 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, wheel warring starts with the 3th admin action, in this case through a re-deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Still, Doc james doesn't get a !supervote over the community's decision. They should have gone to WP:REFUND or deletion review like any other editor. I suggest that Doc james undo their admin action and redelete the file and follow proper process. Kelly ^hi! 20:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this should be relisted at WP:DRV as this was an out-of-process undeletion by Doc James of a file deleted by the community. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it was inappropriate to undelete the file given the previous FFD discussion, but is there a need for a deletion review now that we have a deletion discussion of the file? Isn't it better to continue discussing the file here and then eventually reach some consensus which results in the closure of this discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the justification given here [2] are reasons to delete an image
  - We do not delete images because they are low quality. The colleges deal with consent not us and we do not delete images because we do not have signed consent from the person in the image. This is even more true when the person is not identifiable.
  - If the penis is what is bothering people we can black it out.
  - We are finally having a proper community deletion discussion now. I think it is perfectly fine to let it proceed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Low quality' is listed as one of the reasons at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. That said, low quality images should only be deleted if they do not seem to be useful for the project. If you disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion, then you should discuss the matter with those who participated in the discussion or list the file at WP:DRV instead of undeleting the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The undelete was more than 6 months ago and we are having a discussion now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's being used in an article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suprapubic Catheter, My name is Terry i am a (paraplegic) i use a wheelchair to get around. The images are of my Suprapubic Catheter, which i have to use. You may use the images as you like. Hope this will be of help."Terry" — Preceding Terry comment added by Suprapubic catheter (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above was placed at the top of the section. I'm moving it here to avoid confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2015 (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:Genogram-symbols.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a PNG rendition of File:Genogram symbols.svg. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (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:AlanisMorissetteIronic.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 ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the standard (Canadian) cover art to replace the European cover. Somehow, the European one reincarnated. I was able to add the Canadian/American image as another image, which represents well the singer's nationality (or dual nationality). Since both covers similarly identify the song, even when they look different, the European image should be deleted in favor of the Canadian one. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh that's the american cover, there's no european one...I would say actual cover vs. some random cd release in canada = keep the original BlaccCrab (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove images, BlaccCrab. Look at images of the one you always favor. If you want the REAL American one, here it is. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2015 (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:User-KurteousDerhen.jpeg

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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2015 (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:Shakra1.jpeg

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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear scope; unclear author; not in use. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an unused userphoto. Delete as out of scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (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:Brookfield Asset Management old logo.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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2015 (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:Sanjay Singh.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality. We have a better picture of this person under the same name on Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (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:Mattfosterarteworks.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: keep. User edited just over two weeks ago. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image of long-absent editor. Kelly ^hi! 21:53, 15 November 2015 (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:Liga I logo.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 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is used in Liga I#Sponsorship to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 since the current text is more than sufficient to explain things.

Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the WP:NFCCP, and simply tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} or should it go to WP:FFD for a full discussion? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is not critically discussed and WP:NFCC#10c as the FUR states that it is used in a way it isn't used. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (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:MFA 2004 map.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons and delete local copy as F8 A map about voter turnout in youth may well serve an educational purpose about how elections work; i.e it may satisfy the commons:Commons:Project scope. Fixed the source to a better source link.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 16 November 2015 (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:Miners castle rocks and water.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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 23:18, 15 November 2015 (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:Miss Clit at LBAT 1.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 ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MissClitBlowflyLBAT5109.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Missclit.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MissClit2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MissClitatRadioRoom5209.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Orphaned from deleted article. Kelly ^hi! 23:35, 15 November 2015 (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:Marlin-1894C.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current version copied to Commons. Previous versions are unneeded and possibly non-free. Kelly ^hi! 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same weapon (notice the wood grain, it's identical in all versions), for the record. Why is there a copyright concern, @Kelly:?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the log, the first revision is an unfree 'fair use' file, but the rest of the revisions are claimed to be freely licensed. The fair use file was speedily deleted by User:Magog the Ogre. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2015 (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.