Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

File:Artist Impression of Rameshwar Dock.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 czar 06:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. Described as "an artist's impression of...". Seems to indicate the work itself is made by someone else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:43, 21 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.

File:Cross at the Dockyard.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

Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, the historical photos/drawings are dubious, but there's a set with COOLPIX S3200 EXIF that could be realistically the uploader's. Your position is to throw them all out since we can't be sure? Also note that a handful have already been uploaded to Commons, so they'll have to be pursued there. czar 06:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Czar: My position is trust, but verify. When we have an uploader that uploads a series of dubious pictures they found on the internet, I'm of the opinion we should throw them all out, as the trust is broken. Sure, these images don't by themselves look terribly suspicious, but they look awfully suspicious when you consider the context that this uploader uploaded many images at the same time and of the same subject which are certainly copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:10, 29 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.

File:Docked Fishing Boats.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 czar 06:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:44, 21 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.

File:Fishing Hut.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

Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Old Cannon at the dockyard.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

Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Rameshwar Dock.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 czar 06:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Sambhaji Angre Samadhi - Front.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

Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Sambhaji Angre Samadhi - Side.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

Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Stone anchor as mooring bit.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Triangular stone anchor dimensions.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Traingular stone anchor.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Stone anchors lying on ground.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Stone anchors drawing.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Stone anchors as lintel.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:45, 21 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.

File:Stone anchor lying on wall.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 czar 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on Rameshwar Dockyard. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 21 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.

File:Wafel Beach.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 czar 06:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on a couple articles. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 21 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.

File:Rameshwar Idol.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 czar 06:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. This uploader contributed many images all at once for use on a couple articles. They seem to be from different time periods and with different cameras. Highly likely to be copyright violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:47, 21 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.

File:Mango Research Centre Rameshwar.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 czar 05:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another dubious upload from that same user. Small resolution and varied photos makes this a likely violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:55, 21 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.

File:Salt Water ponds on Wafel Beach.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 czar 05:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another dubious upload from that same user. Small resolution and varied photos makes this a likely violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:56, 21 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.

File:QPPB.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 czar 06:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges, please use a more specific/accessible rationale than "NEU" czar 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Czar

: Sorry, "No encyclopedic use".

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:QPRHomeKit2012-13.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: Keep Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in use: Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Kits czar 05:47, 29 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.

File:Alas dose sa Trese titlecard.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: Convert to non-free and put in the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a title card, so not necessarily self work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Convert to fair use for identification in Alas Dose sa Trese czar 05:56, 29 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.

File:The New Cherry Hospital - September 2016.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 as

F9 by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

NC Gov terms linked seem to be non-commerical terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The licensing statement for images from the source site specifically states "Use of any photos or images appearing on any state website is strictly prohibited." That's pretty much the complete opposite of the public domain license asserted by the uploader. --Whpq (talk) 15:08, 21 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.

File:NotreDameSeal.svg

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 as

F8 by Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned Public Domain file. This version is no longer accepted by the University of Notre Dame and this file is the only accepted version of the Latin seal seal per the university's Public Affairs website. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we keep old versions of the file. Suggest moving to Commons, possibly under another name. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:24, 21 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.

File:1829 braille.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: move to Commons czar 06:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged as "keep local", originally with another template indicating the author did not know if this was PD in the source country. We now know it's PD worldwide based on the date of death of the author, so the original reason not to move to Commons no longer applies. This should be moved to Commons and deleted, which must go through FFD due to the "keep local" template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Commons agrees. I've had generic Wikipedia maps deleted as copyright violations, so god knows what they'll claim about this. E.g., it's a violation because it's 3D and therefore has to be dated from the death of the photographer or some such idiocy. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 23 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.

File:Burpee turkey.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 Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free work. No FOP in the United States for 3D art. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:20, 21 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.

File:1924Stanfordcoaches.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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 10#File:1924Stanfordcoaches.jpg}}

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:1927NYYankees5.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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 10#File:1927NYYankees5.jpg}}

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:Riverside Park indian.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free content (there is no FOP in the USA for 3D works) FASTILY 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The is my Own work shot on my iPhone.- 71.94.120.215 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who owns the copyright to the statue? Also the statue is the subject of commentary in the article. The sources could be weightier, but is there interest in converting this image to fair use? Would be better than using a photo without permission from photographer czar 05:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at

WP:NFCC#8 as it would not be particularly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the park if it is omitted. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, but there is sourced commentary about the statue. Is it enough that we would need a visualization of the statue? I would agree that, no, it is not (NFCC#8). czar 06:43, 30 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.

File:Pic of Govinda Aryal @.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 czar 06:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:45, 21 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.

File:City of Nepal.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 czar 05:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:45, 21 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.