Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 25



File:Kumari Sweta.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Kumari Sweta.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Pdutt321 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Seems to be edited from a photo. Original source needed. In addition, a duplicate was uploaded on commons with a different date in Information --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 08:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder nor that any valid free license has been issued for this image. I also see no valid purpose under which this photo can be used in a non-free manner; this is an image of a living person where we could reasonably expect someone to be able to take a photo of her. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete unless evidence of permission is provided via VRT. The same image is at  which is stated to be the subject's official site.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:Me-TV Tennessee Valley.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 F1 by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Me-TV Tennessee Valley.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Brainyshark03 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This logo had previously been tagged as non-free, though it's simple enough that it might well be a PD-textlogo. The more general MeTV logo is hosted on Commons as being below TOO (see: ) and I doubt that the introduction of the words "Tennessee Valley" below that logo would rise above the TOO in the United States. I'm bringing it here for discussion about whether this is truly a non-free file. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and relicense to PD-textlogo as it is definitely below the ToO. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:M55s139.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:M55s139.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by VT-Vincent ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyrighted desktop takes up a large portion of the photograph and may not be de minimis. Although we could crop out the copyrighted graphics, the photograph is not useful due to its low resolution. Currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:Am-rank.gif

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Am-rank.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Sf46 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Superseded by SVG File:NZ-Air-OF8.svg. Lewis Cawte (Talk) 20:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The description of File:Am-rank.gif indicates that it is about the Royal Rhodesian Air Force, while that of the SVG File:NZ-Air-OF8.svg indicates that it is about the air force of New Zealand. I don't think that these refer to the same entity. Why does the New Zealand logo serve as a valid replacement for the Rhodesian logo? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On 11 June 2017, Cdjp1 replaced the previous set of dedicated Rhodesian insignia with their New Zealand counterparts in this edit to Rhodesian Air Force; the remainder of the previous set of insignia have been deleted as unused in 2019.
 * I don't know enough about insignia to say whether these are just different realisations of the same design, much like different concrete realisations of the same heraldic blazon, or whether there has been some kind of mistake. Maybe Cdjp1 knows more? Felix QW (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the rank insignia used is the same pattern many former British territories use for their air force officers, with New Zealand's images chosen as the darker blue of New Zealand's uniform tend to align more closely with the blue seen in photographs of and surviving samples of the Rhodesian Air Force uniform. Cdjp1 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Olivia Nielsen.jpg
<div class="archived boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: speedy delete local copy as scaled-down duplicate of Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Olivia Nielsen.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Victuallers ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete public domain version available on commons. Discussions here indicate relationship between Danish PD and photographic works. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.