The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused. Low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:BMW Mini automobiles. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Artist impression of building. Permission needed. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Artist impression of building. Permission needed. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep and convert to free license. ✗plicit 01:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in the main infobox of James Wesley Rawles which fails WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). Despite the claim made in the non-free use rationale provided for this file, there's nothing at all "unique" about this particular signature. It's not overly artistic or creative in any way, and just appears to be pretty much a standard signature that wouldn't be eligible for separate copyright protection under US copyright law per c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. There's also no sourced critical commentary in the article regarding the signature that actually makes it important for the reader to see; in other words, omitting the signature in any way would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of what's written in the article about Rawles. The question then is whether this really needs to remain licensed as non-free. As previously stated, personal signatures are, for the most part, not considered eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and thus can be uploaded and licensed as ((PD-signature)). In this case, however, the uploader of the file appears to also be Rawles and Rawles doesn't seem to be a very well-known public figure; so, I'm not sure whether this file is really encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia readers even if the file's licensing can be converted to PD. It seems more of a vanity upload (at least to me) than something that increases the reader's understanding of Rawles, and thus adds very little (if any) encyclopedic value to the article. I'm also not sure whether there are any WP:BLP issures related to uploading and using signatures of individuals like Rawles and licensing their signtaures as PD. My suggestion is to delete the file if it needs to remain licensed as non-free, but I'm not so sure what to do with it if it can be relicensed as PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata, thumbnail-sized. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata, thumbnail-sized. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata, thumbnail-sized. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata, thumbnail-sized. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata, thumbnail-sized. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: I searched the VRT system and did not find any emails from "Keir Gravil" referencing this image. f you are the copyright holder and/or have been authorized to publish this file to Wikipedia, please follow these instructions to get the file restored. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Image is averted to be own work. EXIF identifies Keir Gravil of KSA Photography as the copyright holder. VRT confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: VRT confirmation pending...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution and lack of metadata suggest this is a screen grab. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused image with unclear purpose. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Low quality logo; superseded by File:Virgin Sun Airlines Logo, May 2000.svg and no longer used. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused film poster, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Uploader is blocked indefinitely. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Source website does not indicate a free license. Screenshot is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot of non-free [1] software. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)