< January 19	January 21 >

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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not uploader's work. Taken from some website and uploaded here and on ru.wiki; see details - ru:Файл:Serge doronin.jpg. There is no evidence of permission to upload this image under free CC/GFDL licences. XXN, 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only use was in deleted biography. czar 07:09, 27 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mislicensed image. Old unused logo replaced by File:Tiara Air Aruba revised logo.jpg. XXN, 01:03, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private photo that wasn't meant for public consumption and isn't actually relevant to depicting the subject present-day. I don't think it's too much to ask that we not display it here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional flag for fictional land article Amatona. No future educational use. czar 08:55, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo is copyrighted box art, be it the copyrighted photo of the handheld console or the illustrations on the side. Also unused. czar 09:17, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted game with no permission from author/copyright holder czar 09:22, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this card art still in copyright? If so, it either needs to be deleted or cropped to text-only elements. czar 09:27, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is almost entirely copyrighted artwork. Not sure if there's even a way to crop to the product itself. Recommend deletion. czar 09:29, 20 January 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. Consensus formed over many years is that images of different revisions of albums require specific sourced commentary on the image to meet NFCC#8 and without this they usually always fail NFCC#3a. Note that even with this commentary many alternate covers are found to fail the NFCC requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 08:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a, in place of the original album artwork in Talk on Corners. Replaceable by words easily and does not need extra artwork to signify. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the Special Edition seems to have different content and its cover image serves the same purposes relative to that content that the other cover image does for the other album. Powers ^T 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; per Powers' comment above (deals with NFCC#8). Also, I don't think the image's inclusion violates 3a: so many different versions of the album ended up being released, and this image is being used to serve as the primary means of identifcation for what ended up becoming the biggest-selling edition of the album (see Year-end charts section). Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the image used to identify the subject, any additional item needs to have some text-based contextual significance to justify the additional non-free image usage. I don't see such a rationale in this case. If the cover art from the special edition needs to be shown to be understood, cite the sources that say so and put that reasoning in the article. czar 09:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar. Special Edition is not the subject of the article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar. The main cover identifies the subject of the article. WP:NFCC#8 would require significant commentary specific to this image to justify using it for a reason other than identification, and that doesn't exist in the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I elaborated above. I would think consensus is clear on this. Courtesy ping: @LtPowers and Homeostasis07 czar 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that *both* albums are the subject of the article, and so both images are needed for identification. Powers ^T 03:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source specifically discusses how the special edition was the subject of a massive promotional campaign throughout the US—greater than anything done for the original edition (starts on page 11; continued on page 77). Would disseminating this info into article prose in the relevant section constitute adequate contextual significance? Or should I not bother? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is only cause for having one artwork for purposes of identification. Unless you're arguing to replace the original art with the one in question, that point is moot. As for having an additional image, there would need to be enough coverage about that promotion's relation to the new albums art to require said artwork as vital to understanding the topic. From what I read, that isn't the case. czar 05:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is only cause for having one artwork for purposes of identification." Why? There are two albums in the article, are there not? Don't they both need identification? Powers ^T 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Exactly. This discussion leads me to believe that Czar, Ramaksoud2000 and Rob13 haven't even bothered to peruse the actual article. The Special Edition is certainly the subject of the section of the article to which the image is being used to illustrate. And it is clearly distinct from the original edition. "Unless you're arguing to replace the original art with the one in question, that point is moot." I'd like to know which policy or guideline you took this from, Czar. Because it's certainly not in NFCC. Multiple images are allowed in WP:EXCEPTIONS. This article, considering the massive promotional push that the special edition received, is clearly one. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. When I said the second image needs text-based justification, I had seen where the second image was used but saw (and still see) no text-based reason that a second item was needed for identification. If there was something special about this cover, then you could construct a fair use rationale. If it's more representative of the topic than the infobox image, you discuss replacing that image. But we don't need two images to identify the topic: see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8. czar 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When I said the second image needs text-based justification, I had seen where the second image was used but saw (and still see) no text-based reason that a second item was needed for identification." And that's why I asked you a question 72 hours ago about the Billboard source, but you've not bothered to answer because you've been too busy disagreeing with me. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two topics covered in the article, are there not? A single image cannot adequately identify both albums. Powers ^T 18:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I'm in the middle of revamping the article, and I've included two paragraphs of prose detailing how the Special Edition differs from the original version Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried to find sources mentioning its front cover. Came empty-handed. Seems to me that "keep" votes doubt readers' ability to understand the album and the special edition themselves. As a reader, I can adequately follow what the article says about the editions of the album without this image. The artwork of the standard edition is enough; readers can search for other images of the album elsewhere, like Discogs. George Ho (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that above user has likely followed me here from this. Regardless, let's look at his links. In less than 20 seconds, I found this. How would one ever go about finding a source which directly discusses the notability of an album cover—as opposed to the notability of the album itself and its impact? To that end, I quote the NME article that I found on page 2 of his first Google search: "[...] rightfully dismissed as sonic arse gravy by the record-buying public until some divot decided to put their cover of Fleetwood Mac's 'Dreams' on a reissue and it promptly sold 3 million copies [in the UK]." Despite the vaguely-Irish-bashing tone of the whole thing - typical of British press - it definitely speaks to the Special Edition's notability: the original edition did nothing outside of Ireland and Australia, so its cover can't be used to identify the significantly different content and greater impact of the Special Edition. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't follow Homeostasis07. I just happened to browse backlogged discussions at WP:FFD. I recently realized that the image is nominated for deletion. To the user, I looked at your name and... mind my own business. :) I did not vote just to retaliate. I just expressed my opinions on this image. By the way, Billboard says both editions charted. Re-evaluating the track listings, I see very minimal difference between two editions. The Special Edition has four songs remixed and an additional remix of the older song, "Runaway". The album cover of the Special might help readers differentiate from that of the Original, but I can already understand the album without the image. --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you really haven't read the rest of the discussion. That Billboard source you just posted was recently added by me into the article. If you read it, you would've noticed the prose I wrote to go with it, describing how the special edition was the subject of a massive promotional campaign. You're simply not engaging. It's not about you not understanding the article. It's about whether the image violates NFCC. I'm improving the article and trying to explain that the SE image is appropriate for use because that edition of the album is arguably more notable than the original, therefore, NFCC#3 doesn't apply, because the original cover doesn't illustrate this version of the album. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read the bolded votes but did not bother reading replies. Now I finished reading the discussion comprehensively, I see you already added sources. As of now, I'm starting to search for sources as well and shall reply later. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After long thought and lots of editing, I think the article would be fine without the SE image (the Euro one). The US SE release has a different cover. However, an image of the SE wouldn't help readers understand all editions of the album much. Readers may read the whole article and might go for track listings and see the difference between two ~~articles~~ editions, and they can adequately learn about different releases without this Euro SE image. Even when I will add the track listing of the US Tour Edition, the non-free lead image is good enough. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 22:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on the article, however, there's still some confusion over which version is which (reason enough for a second identifiable image being there, I guess). The US Tour Edition was released in 1998, and didn't include "Dreams". Everything I'm finding online about that version seems derived from AllMusic, which has the wrong track listing; wrong release date; even the label is wrong (their American label was Lava); and since when did John Shanks co-write "Hopelessly Addicted" (?). I need to do more research on this. I thought I had a good grip of this album, but obviously this is all a bigger mess than even I could imagine. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This fansite(?) has different editions, though unreliable it may be and discouraged by WP:EL. Tour Ed. does have "Dreams". So do US one and Euro/UK re-release. As for cleaning up the article, how about notifying those at WT:ALBUM? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Homeostasis07. I love your cleanup on the "Talk on Corners" article. Due to the tremendous changes, I shall ping the ones who want the image removed: Ramaksoud2000, BU Rob13, Czar, and IndianBio. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion. I think the point remains, though. There should be one item to illustrate the work unless there is some source-backed rationale for why an additional cover must be visually shown (such that its removal would be a detriment to the reader's understanding). Which cover y'all choose to keep in the infobox to illustrate the work is a content decision, and I doubt anyone has a problem with you deciding amongst yourselves on the talk page. But the point is to keep just one. It doesn't appear that anyone is arguing for replacing the main image, but only to keep the Special Edition in addition, but with a brief skim, I don't see the Special Edition's cover art discussed in sources such that it must be shown visually. czar 08:03, 20 February 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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 08:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free images present in Commons Category:Bride_of_Frankenstein_(trailer_screenshots). Either this is free too to move to Commons or unnecessary and should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any confirmation that this comes from the trailer? It was uploaded without description, so we'd need to confirm that it isn't a separate promotional photo, etc. Has the copyright status of the trailer/film been confirmed in discussion elsewhere? As for now, use the Commons free use images (assuming their copyright is correct) to replace the fair usage on here on enwp czar 18:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK-I found the photo published in the San Bernardino County Sun in 1935. If the paper was ever copyrighted, it wasn't renewed in either 1962 or 1963. Have changed the FUR, added the information and changed the license to PD-not renewed. We hope (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyr3161213libr#page/98/mode/1up/search/frankenstein change our assessment for the film?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935, James Whale) are listed as belonging to the public domain on Archive.org: [1] [2]. Screenshots from those films should also belong to the public domain then. As public-domain films, we should be able to import the entire films as video files into Wikimedia Commons, as well as add as many screenshots as we need. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However-the US Copyright Office shows that Bride of Frankenstein was renewed on December 12, 1962. see the link above. I've seen quite a few cases where a film or trailer was uploaded to Archive and to YouTube as being in the public domain with no copyright notices. A check of another copy of the trailer at IMDB, TCM, etc. turns up a copyright notice.

The studios often used scenes from their films in promotional items like posters and lobby cards, which they didn't always mark with copyright notices. The posters and scenes (1923-1977) are then PD because of the lack of notice. They also incorporated shots into their ads for films with no copyright notice and those are PD because of lack of notice. When they provided film scenes to magazines and newspapers for publicizing the films, many of those scenes carried a rider to the effect that the studio waived the copyright for newspapers, magazines, etc. All print media, but not for television, because they were frightened about what television could do to the film business.

They permitted the scenes to be published in print media without insisting the film scenes be marked in the respective print media with a copyright notice. When these images were used editorially and the newspaper or magazine (printed between 1923-1963) was not copyright-renewed, the work passed into the public domain--the film images also. We hope (talk) 01:40, 10 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of scope. XXN, 10:37, 20 January 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: kept as "PD-ineligible-USonly" - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This logo may not be copyrightable in the US and thus qualify as ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) rather than copyrighted. And if it is free the previous version should be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image appears to be below the threshold of originality. Support re-licensing to "PD-ineligible-USonly" and restoring the previous version. Salavat (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue with Mexico and TOO? Otherwise it's pd-logo and move to Commons czar 05:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

c:COM:TOO doesn't mention Mexico. This website can explain it, but the amended legislature is in Spanish. Another page has the English version. Still, safer bet is "PD-ineligible-USonly" unless Mexico sets the standards the same as the US. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 13 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third image of this montage was deleted on 00:16, 16 June 2009 by Drilnoth per "F4: Lack of licensing information". XXN, 17:09, 20 January 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. EricSerge (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it is on my talk page. my (not so) private space. Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite having "no foreseeable encyclopedic usage" it is also now in an article. Another reason to keep.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo which may be above threeshold of originality and thus non-free. XXN, 17:35, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montage consisting of 2 non-free images originally uploaded on ru.wiki[3]. Mislicensed. XXN, 17:58, 20 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The monster and other stories book.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:03, 20 January 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.

January 20

File:Serge doronin.jpg

File:Tiara Air Logo.gif

File:Chelsea Manning with wig.jpg

File:Amatona-flag.jpg

File:Neo box.JPG

File:NightmistScreenshot.png

File:Nintendo hanafuna.jpg

File:Vsmile 003.JPG

File:The Corrs - Talk On Corners (Special Edition).jpg

File:Brideoffrankenstein.jpg

File:Trav1085 self portrait.jpg

File:XEWK WRadio1190 logo.jpeg

File:Native Hawaiians.PNG

File:Gabe, missing dog.jpg

File:Khinalug logo.JPG

File:Merlin for wiki.png

File:TheMonsterAndOtherStories.jpg