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⚡ 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ncix logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NCIX.com_Logo.png on commons, as it is a text logo Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 00:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 23:47, 5 December 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.

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. This is a reasonble issue in dealing with licensing today, but not in 2009. OTRS has been fine tuned in the past several years, and the handling of this ticket at the time was appropriate. ℯxplicit 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zochrot at the former Lydda ghetto.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No license number included in the OTRS release, per [1]. This should be deleted pending valid permission. We can't correctly tag this as any specific free license. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. BU Rob13, this seems overly strict. The copyright holder released it in 2009 under a cc-by licence. I was the one who requested the release, and I included in my email to the copyright holder a link to cc-by 3.0 US so that he knew what he was agreeing to. It was my fault that he did not spell out in his reply that he was agreeing to that version in particular, but it can surely be assumed, in the sense that I sent him that link and he agreed to it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pretty much per Sarah. Our concern is that the image be licensed to be freely reused and modified. Every version of the Creative Commons Attribution license meets that. So whatever license number is actually meant suffices. There isn't that much difference between the version numbers for our purposes. --GRuban (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which version do we tell readers it can be reused under? There are substantive legal differences in the details of different versions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. (Though, honestly, there is no difference in the "human readable summaries" of 3.0 and 1.0, so for the overwhelming majority of people it would not matter.) If Sarah used a link to 3.0 in her explanation of what cc-by is, and then owner agreed to cc-by, I think we say he agreed to cc-by 3.0. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BU Rob13, I've tagged it as cc-by 3.0. I don't mind writing to the copyright holder at some point in future to ask him to update his release, but I don't have time to do it at the moment (although you or anyone else are welcome to). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with SlimVirgin and GRuban. It is reasonable to place this under CC-BY 3.0. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:26, 5 December 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.

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 G3 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:I'm Dreamin' by Christopher Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Simple2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This song never had any official artwork. The image uploaded by Simple2010 is fan-made artwork. Binksternet (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and because the licensing information is inconsistent: The image is claimed to have originated in 1990/1 as the cover, which would make it non-free. However, the author claims to own the copyright and licenses it under GFDL 1.2. Since the image is, as mentioned by nom, a fan work posing as an official cover, I’d say this is a WP:HOAX, possibly a WP:G3. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found that the uploader had previously uploaded fan song artwork as the original. I think ((Image hoax)) and ((db-hoax)) is due. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 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.

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⚡ 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madeleine west.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahcin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is a higher resolution version at http://forums.auscelebs.net/viewtopic.php?t=15524&p=549845 so I somehow doubt this is the uploader's own photo GRuban (talk) 16:26, 5 December 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.

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⚡ 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shannon Bennett Pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahcin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Posed professional low resolution image without camera EXIF, and uploader uploaded File:Madeleine west.jpg which is a clear copyright violation (see above!) on the same day, so I suspect this one is too. GRuban (talk) 16:30, 5 December 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.

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⚡ 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dublin Airport former logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, superceded logo. No need to retain. Cloudbound (talk) 19:15, 5 December 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.