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⚡ 03:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zach mcgowan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lafmm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious own-work claim, this photo is widely available on the internet in high resolutions, including the subject's management website. Evidence of WP:VRT permission is required. ✗plicit 00:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until VRT permission can be acquired; the chances of this being own work are astronomically low. Sennecaster (Chat) Sennecaster (Chat) 02:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless VRT confirmation is obtained. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2021 (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⚡ 03:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No known date of publication, date, author, or good source; the source is a direct link to the image. Cannot be copied to commons due to missing/low-quality information and orphaned here. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:56, 5 December 2021 (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⚡ 03:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused derivative work of non-free "Tank Man" picture. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - derivative image of a copyrighted work with no useful purpose here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2021 (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 -FASTILY 01:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merina Jahan Kabita.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:City Bank Limited (Bangladesh).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Skitto sim cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

All of these images are claimed to be Public Domain wuth a permission link to the image on the the flickr account for Kbs BD. Based on the name, the flickr account belongs to the uploader. This is a case of license laundering. The uploader is not the copyright holder. This is the source for the file:Merina Jahan Kabita.jpg which has no indication of a PD license. The other two images are logos / promotional material for companies again with no proof that these are PD as claimed. One cannot upload somebody else's copyrighted work to Flickr and slap a PD tag on it. Whpq (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense File:City Bank Limited (Bangladesh).jpg to non-free logo. Delete the other two for questionable licensing with no usefulness if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: With respect to licensing the City Bank logo, the version of the logo appears to be outdated. The bank's web site makes use of a version of the logo without the 'making sense of money" tag line. If you look at the bank's list of annual reports, it looks like they last used that version of the logo in 2018. This logo is the one they are using in their web site. -- Whpq (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I have replaced the logo with the new one. File:City Bank Limited (Bangladesh).jpg should now be deleted as orphaned with incorrect licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2021 (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⚡ 03:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

My previous nomination on the German/Dutch picture sleeve of "Love Train" single release had been relisted three times, lasting months since the first listing, and ended with "no consensus". Honestly, one "keep" vote was based on disbelief about the picture sleeve being of Dutch (45cat, discogs) and German releases (45cat, discogs) rather than an American one (45cat, discogs, eBay (1), ebay (2)), which hadn't used a picture sleeve since its release. Another comment concerned the sourcing and expressed surprise about the US single lacking a picture sleeve.

I appreciated those comments, but I was unsure how they may relate to how the image complies with WP:NFCC, especially "contextual significance" and "irreplaceability" criteria. Furthermore, to me, they didn't comment on how deleting the German/Dutch would affect the understanding of the song (and its single release). Maybe disbelief and surprise are enough to make the sleeve meet NFCC? In the previous nomination, maybe I didn't provide enough sources proving that the sleeve is of German/Dutch release. Now here I am providing more... or so I thought: Groove Collector, FAGOStore. I don't know why I couldn't find other sites providing the German or Dutch single release. Maybe either one is rare to find?

Anyways, as I said in previous nomination, the free image File:Love train by o'jays US vinyl.png should be sufficient enough. Call it boring if you like, and call the picture sleeve "exciting" if you want, but I still struggle to see the need of a cover art (i.e. picture sleeve) unless deleting it is proven to deprive readers more from understanding the song. Hopefully, the consensus should be clearer than the one from the previous discussion. Or, no comments would imply no objections to deleting the sleeve as it has been done before (from my experience).

BTW, I found one US company sleeve displaying O'Jays' albums, but the sleeve doesn't explicitly identify the song. Of course, that sleeve turned out to be part of redistributing (or later pressing of) any single by a specific singer or group (45-sleeves). George Ho (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2021 (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.