Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23

File:JROTC Ribbon U-205.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 ⚡ 00:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this may just be two rectangles, does the stitching make this ineligible for {{PD-shape}}? – Train2104 (t • c) 02:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are ribbons copyrightable? Does this being made by the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, a federal program sponsored by United States Armed Forces, come into play?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:41, 23 November 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:The Strange Case of Wilhelm Reich.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free scan of a newspaper used twice just to decorate sections mentioning the fact that those news where once published. The understanding of those section's texts are not augmented by the presence of this image. damiens.rf 03:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the information within is largely illegible but appears to already be in both articles. 165.91.13.149 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 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:LadyBlackhawkCostume.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree Image that is being used to illustrate a point of trivia. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image replaces a lower resolution screen cap that also had the Cartoon Network logo. If that one could be used for a long time, I don't know why this one is making you upset.Posters5 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it;s a straight replacement I doubt that the other image met the non-free content policy. It's just that i hadn't been noticed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 23 November 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:Alice&hannah.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission from the photographer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably bogus. See same image here dated 2012 according to Tineye Bri.public (talk) 19:48, 25 November 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.