Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7

File:Academy of Music and Arts of Albania.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 02:12, 7 December 2016 (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:Vodafone logo.png

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: Reinstating previous close of Keep only on Vodafone. Nobody seems to disagree. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file being used in Vodafone, Vodafone India, Vodafone Italy, Vodafone Portugal, and Vodafone UK. File's non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 13#File:Vodafone logo.png and the result was "keep", but only for the main article. File was removed from the child articles, but gradually re-added again. My question is whether this logo really needs to be treated as non-free of can be converted to either {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. File:Vodafone Logo klein.svg already exists on Commons and if that is considered to be below the TOO for the UK (Vodafone seems to be headquartered in London), then there's no reason why this particular logo cannot be treated the same way and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Even if we're being cautious because the TOO of the UK tends to be fairly strict, this does seem to be below the TOO for the US, so it can be treated as "PD-USonly" locally on Wikipedia. If, however, the consensus is that this does need to be treated as non-free, then the previous FFD discussion is still valid in my opinion and the file should be removed from all of the child articles and "Old FFD full" template on the file's talk page should be updated according to clarify this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've nominated the logo on Commons for deletion, I highly doubt it falls under the threshold of originality in the UK. I'd also argue that it's also too complex for it to be considered free even by U.S. standards; the nominated image should be removed from all pages except Vodafone. — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not PD in the UK. That much I am 100% certain on. I also agree with Explicit in that it is probably above TOO even in the US due to the shading and design of the graphic part of the logo. As such once the Commons one is deleted, and I'm pretty sure it will be, I'll start removing the additional uses here and update the file talk page. --Majora (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is deleted from Commons, then the Wikipedia file should be treated as non-free. If not, then I think we should treat the Wikipedia file as PD-textlogo as well. FWIW, I did ask about the Commons' file at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/12#File:Vodafone Logo klein.svg, but the only reply received was that it was probably PD in the UK. Perhaps more feedback will be received in the DR for the Commons' file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2016 (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:MeParis.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userspace image Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2016 (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:TomaGeorgeMaiorescu.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo, article on subject was deleted. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (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:Squatch1.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2D copy of Canadian art. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking a picture of another piece of artwork does not give the photographer copyright, and thus he cannot release it into the public domain. There's no evidence the original artwork was in the public domain. Since the uploader himself said "The image itself belongs to the Chehalis First Nation and I have appropriated it from them. Use beyond what they have approved is a breach of cultural protocols and is one more act in a long line of cultural misappropriations but I feel I have license for this" he seems to have known he was on shaky ground. Note that the uploader is indeffed so he will not be able to respond. Meters (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (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:Pipeline Radio2.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was used in an article of a non-notable radio station that was deleted in AfD. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (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:Jay J Armes.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission other than a claim from the uploader. This should be verified by OTRS. The uploader last edited in September, I hope they can see this prompt in time to get the verification through. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (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:Wiese and others at the Obersalzberg.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need to clarify which use is the problem - image is currently used on two articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2016 (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:Derek Miller.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be an official portrait of a county official, but even if it was, only federal government works are ineligible for copyright. State and local governments retain copyright. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:42, 7 December 2016 (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:Epps, C. Flowood Police Department.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Public_records. Works by state or local governments are still copyrighted. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Uploader has received a release from the copyright holder, and will forward to OTRS. See User_talk:Ramaksoud2000#Chris_Epps_mugshot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the image is non-free it's use might not pass WP:NFCC#1 since Epps is still living and, even though he is incarcerated, a freely licensed image of him might already exist or might be created. I also have concerns about WP:NFCC#8 since I don't see why the reader needs to see a mugshot photo of Epps and how it improves the reader's understanding that Epps broke the law and was arrested and sentenced to prison for his crimes. Even if the file is freely licensed, I don't quite understand how using it is actually encyclopedically relevant to the article for similar reasons and am concerned that it might be a BLP violation. Of course, there's nothing wrong with neutral writing about an individual problems with the law, but sometimes it seems that these types of photos are being used more to further "punish" or "embarass" the individual than for encyclopedic relevance. I think care should be taken per WP:MUG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS agent (verify): I have verified permission by the policy agency that the image is free of copyright. If the image should be used in an article or not in regards of BLP should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is is public domain. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to take a second look at this by Josve05a. Without going into much detail due to confidentiality, I don't believe the information we received via email to be consistent with actual copyright law. I would still consider this file to be permission needed, and I've rescinded the OTRS template from the file. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:01, 12 December 2016 (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:1991 Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brochure no longer being relevant does not release copyright protection. This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:08, 7 December 2016 (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:1992 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator no longer being in business is not a valid PD rationale. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:09, 7 December 2016 (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:1999 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator no longer being in business is not a valid PD rationale. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:11, 7 December 2016 (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:2001 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator no longer being in business is not a valid PD rationale. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:11, 7 December 2016 (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:2003 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:12, 7 December 2016 (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:2002 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:13, 7 December 2016 (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:2000 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:13, 7 December 2016 (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:1997 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:14, 7 December 2016 (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:2004 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is still copyrighted, even if the subject of the brochure is no longer in business. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see:

File:1994 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf
File:1996 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf
File:1998 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf
File:1993_Safari_Trek_Brochure.pdf
File:2005 Safari Trek Brochure.pdf Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:44, 7 December 2016 (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:Everything we create is not ourselves 2.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

File:Everything we create is not ourselves 1.jpg
File:Hexiangyu Death of Marat.jpg
File:Tank Project Details.jpg
File:Tank Project.jpg
File:Coca Cola Project 1.jpg

These images are used in article He Xiangyu as examples of artist He Xiangyu's work. No evidence of permission is provided since these are derivative work and not entirely the uploader's own work. Wcam (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2016 (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:Top Eleven - Be a Football Manager 2017 Game Icon.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (removed from Nordeus); the fair-use rationale is anyway faulty, as this image doesn't identify the company (or the article is not about the game identified by the image) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (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:CanadianFoodLabel.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian government works are copyrighted. See Crown_copyright#Canada. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:52, 7 December 2016 (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:Harley-Davidson XR-750 page exmple.png

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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots of Windows software (the part that isn't Wikipedia) are copyrighted. Also, image isn't used for anything except an old talk page discussion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:07, 7 December 2016 (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:Kevin Cotter.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works of state and local governments are copyrighted in the U.S. See WP:Public records. Michigan is no exception. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:11, 7 December 2016 (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:Richard Oland's lifeless body.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material submitted as evidence in a trial does not lose copyright protection. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:28, 7 December 2016 (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:Tim Greimel.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 ⚡ 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan government works are copyrighted: Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:31, 7 December 2016 (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:File name.ext

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. 77.246.49.54 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Will opposition party ever rule this country or they are just there as a place holder.23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)77.246.49.54 (talk) I doubt[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.