Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10

File:Missouri DotProject status small.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map of a US state with certain counties shaded in. Given that it's very unclear why certain counties are shaded and others are not, it doesn't seem to have much use. Also low-res enough the county names are hard to read. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do orphaned images get deleted automatically after about a week of not being used, or is that only certain circumstances? -2pou (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @2pou: That's fair use images only. This one was uploaded on 2004, so has likely been orphaned for years. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:16, 12 July 2020 (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:Heronimo6.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. Appears to be a photo of a (presumably) non-notable editor that they uploaded themselves in 2004. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2020 (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:Tommytrojancovered.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and low-res, better-quality images of this subject are freely available (see File:120107-LA-USC-UCLA02.jpg, which is a much clearer image of this subject on Commons). Hog Farm _Bacon 04:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -2pou (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (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:Richard2003.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Old photo of a user who appears to be retired (three edits since 2012, none since 2018). Since the user doesn't seem to be wanting to place this on their userpage given they are long inactive, this should probably be deleted since Wikipedia is not file storage. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it was on the userpage of the subject who clearly wants it gone. It's covered by CSD U1 in my opinion, since it's never been used outside that user page. SpinningSpark 13:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2020 (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:Salt Pan Creek, vandalism.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res. I can't think of a good use for an image of a knocked-down rules sign, especially since the red text isn't even readable. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2020 (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:IBook G3 - Front view.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low-res, no obvious use. The image is of an early laptop showing long lines of code. The image is blurry and none of the code is really readable. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2020 (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:Rd-mp-220705.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. Is an image of text from a web chat room (or possibly an early version of the enwiki Reference Desk). Without any sort of context to indicate why this text is important, this image has no real use. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely a RD post, though what's going on has long slipped my memory. It seems to have been trying to fix a technical issue, as it's used in a talkpage response here (inline linked not embedded, which is why I guess it didn't show up). I don't know if that technically counts as orphaned or not. But there's no reason to keep it fifteen years on. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2020 (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:Tanganda-box-1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the licensing is correct for this orphaned image. Since the trade dress/packaging design is the focal point of the image, I think the likely copyrighted status of the trade dress would make this non-free. I'm not an expert at image licensing, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2020 (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:Tomb of Mamaidev.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where is best to propose images for deletion, so sorry if I have it wrong. Uploader claims "camera click" as source, which means they have photographed something, somewhere. I'd hazard a guess from the typography that it has come from a postcard or poster but, really, it could be anywhere and there is no certainty re copyright status. Sitush (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going by the image history, the words on the image are not original, and were added later. The original version does not contain them. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well spotted. Can it be reverted? Is the original any more appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a nagging suspicion the original may be a screenshot. The original uploader apparently has a history of uploading copyrighted images (see user talk of uploader). It just looks like a screenshot to me, but I have no proof. I think the birds are giving me that impression, as it's very sharp in the sky, except for pixelated around the birds, like in video games where it's pixelated around moving objects. The Sun also gives me that vibe. I have no proof for this suspicion though. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost certainly cropped from something. Have a look at about 2:38 in this video. The scene encompasses a larger area than the image that was uploaded. It's not clear what the original source is as I suspect tthat neither the video nor the uploader created the image. The cropping in the uploaded image when compared to the scene in the video would support the idea that text, logo and credits visible int he video scene were cropped out. -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq's findings. Honestly, might be best to speedy this thing given the iffy license. I'm gonna remove it from the article it's used in because of licensing issues. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:24, 10 July 2020 (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:May Simón Lifschitz as Chanel in Warrior Nun.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 per this discussion and under G7 - uploader request. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of an actor playing a specific role being used in the actor's article. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that, I'll delete the file and remove it from the article! Thank you for checking it over. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I don't know how to do that...! But I've removed the image from the article. If anyone can help me delete the image too I'd appreciate it! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:40, 11 July 2020 (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:Warrior nun.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This promotional poster is claimed to be used for visual identification in the main infobox and was used as such when first uploaded. It has since been replaced by File:Warrior Nun (Title-screen).png and the poster moved elsewhere in the article. The poster is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and is no longer being used in the infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the poster has been replaced by a title card in the infobox and is not discussed in the article, it fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2020 (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:Davisoldbuilding.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have clear source/author information indicating that it was published before 1925. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:34, 10 July 2020 (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:GS Service Van.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no apparent use, duplicate of an image on Commons. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2020 (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:Faslane1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of a vandalized sign. Lower-res, and the presence of the top of somebody's head in the bottom of the picture makes it unlikely to be used. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2020 (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:Jeff McBride.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. So low-res and blurry it's rendered practically useless. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2020 (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:Moonlightwalks.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as own work, but since it's a screenshot of a likely copyrighted game, it would need to be converted to fair use. Since it's orphaned, probably better to delete it. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not own work since the uploader in fact credited American Bishoujo in the file summary. Confusingly, the uploader also indicates the image is CC BY-NC-ND. This is the website of the game. It does not have any of those listed licenses but the licensing is in fact quite free. Mostly because the image is not used, and a bit because the licensing is murky, I'd say delete. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2020 (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:Octi&iubi2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, incomplete license, may be a screenshot that violates copyright. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2020 (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:Shenithar location of dhani matang dev.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be own work but I have significant doubts. Uploader has a history of copyright issues. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 10#File:Tomb of Mamaidev.jpg where it appears uploader has modified some other work and claimed it as own work. In this case, there are instances of this image with text on it. See this blog post. Looking at the flag in the top right of the image, in the blog image, there is text but it is not present in the uploaded image. However, the flag has been poorly reconstructed when removing the text and is quite apparent when compared to the blog image. Less apparent but present when you look closely is missing bits of tree next to the flag, as well as rectangular edge from removing the text at the bottom of the image. Whpq (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious licensing from a user with a history of copyright violations. Best to delete this to be on the safe side. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:03, 10 July 2020 (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:Dhani Matanf Dev Temple at Chandruvo, Kutch, Gujarat.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims to be copyright holder but given the history of copyright violations, and the small web resolution of this image, I don't find the claim to being the copyright holder at all credible. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 10#File:Tomb of Mamaidev.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 10#File:Shenithar location of dhani matang dev.jpg Whpq (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2020 (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.

NSYNC single covers

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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iwantyoubacknsyncgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tearinupmyheartgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Itsgonnabemelimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Iwantyoubacknsync.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tearinupmyheart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Krystal (restaurant) 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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

too complex for PD-simple, would not pass WP:NFCC#8 if converted to fair use; should probably be deleted FASTILY 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on USPTO guidelines, this logo is not eligible for copyright protection under US law. I don't have the time or patience to actually search whether they applied for copyright and got rejected, but based on the guidelines, there's not much in this logo to qualify for copyright.--Ben Stone 01:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is upon you, the uploader, to prove that the file is free beyond reasonable doubt. I am disputing your PD-simple claim; the logo has a gradient, complex oval shape, and makes use of an artistic font. If you "don't have the time or patience" to defend your position, then the default result of this discussion will be delete. -FASTILY 22:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a registered trademark symbol below the l, so at least some component of this is a registered trademark. Definitely seems to be above the threshold of originality. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously above threshold of originality. However Hog Farm just FYI that trademarks are a non-copyright restriction and do not affect the image's copyright status or ability to upload. (t · c) buidhe 11:56, 14 July 2020 (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:She-Venom (Anne Weying).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: relisted on 2020 October 1. Izno (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:She-Venom (Anne Weying).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.