The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2019 January 9. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones (Talk) 16:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Magazine cover that does not satisfy fair use provisions. It is not being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, as claimed by the fair use rationale -- it is actually being used merely as metaverification of its own existence as a magazine cover, in an article that already has a different photo in the infobox itself. The uploader was working under the misapprehension that because the subject was once on the cover of a local interest magazine in his own local media market, that constitutes an instant free pass over WP:GNG which exempts him from actually having to pass WP:NPOL the normal way -- but simply photographing the cover to prove that he was on it does not accomplish anything in that regard. The question of whether the magazine article helps to support his notability or not vests in the substance of what the magazine article says about him inside the fold, not just in showing photographic proof that the magazine cover existed. Bearcat ( talk) 17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hanoi and its environs.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 17:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2019 January 9. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones (Talk) 16:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Magazine cover that does not satisfy fair use provisions. It is not being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, as claimed by the fair use rationale -- it is actually being used merely as metaverification of its own existence as a magazine cover, in an article that already has a different photo in the infobox itself. The uploader was working under the misapprehension that because the subject was once on the cover of a local interest magazine in his own local media market, that constitutes an instant free pass over WP:GNG which exempts him from actually having to pass WP:NPOL the normal way -- but simply photographing the cover to prove that he was on it does not accomplish anything in that regard. The question of whether the magazine article helps to support his notability or not vests in the substance of what the magazine article says about him inside the fold, not just in showing photographic proof that the magazine cover existed. Bearcat ( talk) 17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hanoi and its environs.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 17:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)