From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Martin Johnson musician.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- this editor has already had a file delete because they failed to provide evidence of ownership (other file had the real photographer's name and copyright) this file doesn't list anything however since the uploaders last file was deleted we shouldn't take any chances with this one. also note the uploader was asked to send a statement of permission for both files and has not done so. Dman41689 ( talk) 06:23, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Logo artwork but claimed as own. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:CM Punk at summerslam.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Although claimed as own work, this looks very like a screencap from broadcast footage. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:09, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Summerslam 2012.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Although claimed as own work , this looks simillar to broadcast footage. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Bucks Head sign.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- No
freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I quote from the very same Commons article on copyright that you just linked: "...The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist..." It also says that works of "artistic craftsmanship" are acceptable for publication, including on Wikipedia. It is obvious to me, and hopefully to anyone else viewing this, that pub signs are the exact sort of work which would only be created by a skilled labourer who specialised in creating these signs. As pub signs are hardly intricate sculptures, the same artist/studio which painted it would surely also be he who carved the wood and make the mount - especially when you consider that these signs can be generations old - and so I find it beyond question that the creator was both a craftsman and an artist.
Falastur2
Talk
12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- To further quote, Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder. This is a painting on a piece of wood, it's a graphic work. And while I do not deny this may be suitable for en.wp as fair use, it is most certainly not free. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- But if it's a painting on a piece of wood that the painter prepared, it's artistic craftsmanship, and therefore is free... Falastur2 Talk 00:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- To further quote, Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder. This is a painting on a piece of wood, it's a graphic work. And while I do not deny this may be suitable for en.wp as fair use, it is most certainly not free. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I quote from the very same Commons article on copyright that you just linked: "...The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist..." It also says that works of "artistic craftsmanship" are acceptable for publication, including on Wikipedia. It is obvious to me, and hopefully to anyone else viewing this, that pub signs are the exact sort of work which would only be created by a skilled labourer who specialised in creating these signs. As pub signs are hardly intricate sculptures, the same artist/studio which painted it would surely also be he who carved the wood and make the mount - especially when you consider that these signs can be generations old - and so I find it beyond question that the creator was both a craftsman and an artist.
Falastur2
Talk
12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Delete is not free to upload, there might be a case for Fair Use, but one does not exist on the current usage. LGA talk edits 07:33, 16 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: nomination withdrawn. Diannaa ( talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- No FOP in France. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Well, (1) Wikipedia isn't in France; (2) this is not a case of FOP; (3) the use of this photo is permitted by Article 9 (2) and Article 10 (2) of the Berne Convention; (4) it's also permitted by Article L122-5 of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle in France; (5) the previous picture had been there for years; and finally (6) there are way too many armchair lawyers on Wikipedia, especially among those who produce nothing of their own and criticize the substantial work of others to compensate. Show me the case law that prohibits this use. Agateller ( talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Question While I agree FOP could be an issue, has someone other than me done the math on this, the Folies Bergère was opened in May 1869, for the architecture to sill be in copyright (and thus FOP be an issue) the architect Plumeret (for which I can not find any information) must have lived for about 70+ years after he designed it. Given we are talking about the 1860's, it seems to me unlikely that the building's architecture is in copyright. LGA talk edits 08:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Withdrawn - Per reasoning stated, Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Zilla Shit 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album coverart Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Zilla Shit.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover art — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:09, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:SB-courhouse-drawing.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not a work of the federal government as claimed. Eeekster ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Yes it is. It's on the website. House1090 ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Delete no proof that it is the work of the federal government (being on a website is not proof) . LGA talk edits 07:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Delete it's from the website of the state courts of California—not part of the federal government—and the EXIF metadata appears to say it's by a newspaper. — innotata 04:45, 18 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Rumble In The Bayou.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover art — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:40, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Martin Johnson musician.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- this editor has already had a file delete because they failed to provide evidence of ownership (other file had the real photographer's name and copyright) this file doesn't list anything however since the uploaders last file was deleted we shouldn't take any chances with this one. also note the uploader was asked to send a statement of permission for both files and has not done so. Dman41689 ( talk) 06:23, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Logo artwork but claimed as own. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:CM Punk at summerslam.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Although claimed as own work, this looks very like a screencap from broadcast footage. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:09, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Summerslam 2012.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Although claimed as own work , this looks simillar to broadcast footage. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Bucks Head sign.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- No
freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I quote from the very same Commons article on copyright that you just linked: "...The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist..." It also says that works of "artistic craftsmanship" are acceptable for publication, including on Wikipedia. It is obvious to me, and hopefully to anyone else viewing this, that pub signs are the exact sort of work which would only be created by a skilled labourer who specialised in creating these signs. As pub signs are hardly intricate sculptures, the same artist/studio which painted it would surely also be he who carved the wood and make the mount - especially when you consider that these signs can be generations old - and so I find it beyond question that the creator was both a craftsman and an artist.
Falastur2
Talk
12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- To further quote, Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder. This is a painting on a piece of wood, it's a graphic work. And while I do not deny this may be suitable for en.wp as fair use, it is most certainly not free. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- But if it's a painting on a piece of wood that the painter prepared, it's artistic craftsmanship, and therefore is free... Falastur2 Talk 00:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- To further quote, Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder. This is a painting on a piece of wood, it's a graphic work. And while I do not deny this may be suitable for en.wp as fair use, it is most certainly not free. -
mattbuck (
Talk)
00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I quote from the very same Commons article on copyright that you just linked: "...The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist..." It also says that works of "artistic craftsmanship" are acceptable for publication, including on Wikipedia. It is obvious to me, and hopefully to anyone else viewing this, that pub signs are the exact sort of work which would only be created by a skilled labourer who specialised in creating these signs. As pub signs are hardly intricate sculptures, the same artist/studio which painted it would surely also be he who carved the wood and make the mount - especially when you consider that these signs can be generations old - and so I find it beyond question that the creator was both a craftsman and an artist.
Falastur2
Talk
12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Delete is not free to upload, there might be a case for Fair Use, but one does not exist on the current usage. LGA talk edits 07:33, 16 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: nomination withdrawn. Diannaa ( talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- No FOP in France. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Well, (1) Wikipedia isn't in France; (2) this is not a case of FOP; (3) the use of this photo is permitted by Article 9 (2) and Article 10 (2) of the Berne Convention; (4) it's also permitted by Article L122-5 of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle in France; (5) the previous picture had been there for years; and finally (6) there are way too many armchair lawyers on Wikipedia, especially among those who produce nothing of their own and criticize the substantial work of others to compensate. Show me the case law that prohibits this use. Agateller ( talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Question While I agree FOP could be an issue, has someone other than me done the math on this, the Folies Bergère was opened in May 1869, for the architecture to sill be in copyright (and thus FOP be an issue) the architect Plumeret (for which I can not find any information) must have lived for about 70+ years after he designed it. Given we are talking about the 1860's, it seems to me unlikely that the building's architecture is in copyright. LGA talk edits 08:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Withdrawn - Per reasoning stated, Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Zilla Shit 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album coverart Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Zilla Shit.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover art — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:09, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:SB-courhouse-drawing.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not a work of the federal government as claimed. Eeekster ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Yes it is. It's on the website. House1090 ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Delete no proof that it is the work of the federal government (being on a website is not proof) . LGA talk edits 07:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
- Delete it's from the website of the state courts of California—not part of the federal government—and the EXIF metadata appears to say it's by a newspaper. — innotata 04:45, 18 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by
INeverCry (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
- File:Rumble In The Bayou.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover art — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:40, 15 June 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.