The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This image was orignally attributed to Vivien Killilea with no evidence that the image was released under a free license. After I tagged the image with {{ di-no permission}}, the summary info was altered to state the uploader is the copyright holder. OTRS verification would be needed to confirm the uploader holds the copyright. Note that the original author information is correct as this image is licensed through Getty and states the photograpoher is Vivien Killilea. Whpq ( talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This image was originally attributed to Nate Crossley without evidence of permission. After I tagged the image with {{ di-no permission}}, the summary info was altered to indicate the uploader is the copyright holder. Unless Nate Crossley is a pseudonym for Vivien Killilea (see this file deletion discussion for File:Alma Cook red carpet Tubeathon.jpg), then this claim not at all credible. Whpq ( talk) 00:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. Defaulting to delete until these can be proven to be free - FASTILY 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
These are very interesting pictures and I'd love for them to be kept, but they need clarification on their copyright status. The description claims that they were part of an album given to Aristide Razu and published by his descendant. However, there's no information given about the actual photographers, who would hold the copyright. There is also no evidence the rights to the images were transferred to Razu or his heirs.
The uploading user was indefinitely blocked a few months ago for disruptive editing so I don't know if they'll be any help clearing this up. Also see c:COM:CRT#Romania for info on Romanian copyright law. clpo13( talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 July 4. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep only on bio. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Excessive non-free use, including
galleries. Not all uses satisfy the
contextual significance criterion. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 23:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Delete: None of the articles discuss the work. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 04:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a screenshot from a movie. The non-free usage rationale states that the purpose is "[t]o illustrate Ferari Fauj". It is not the subject of significant commentary and its useage is decorative failing WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 00:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. Omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understand of the article topic. There is no need to visually identify the associate Pythons. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder but this is a Youtube screenshot. There was no link provided to the original Youtube clip but an IP editor added one although it is not at all clear that it is the correct one. If the provided link is correct then this is a copyright violation as the licensing is standard youtube not creative commons. If the provided link is not correct, then the image needs to be deleted as it does not provide a proper source. Whpq ( talk) 19:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
While the rationale states "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." There is no actual critical commentary about the album's cover art on the band's page where it appears. Therefore, the file does not meet WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 20:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)