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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:INS Vikramaditya Squadron Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shashpant ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of squadron members in a article about the ship. Started purpose is for visual identification but the article is not about the squadron and its usage is not for identification. No significant sourced commentary about the image and the lack of this image would not impair a reader's understanding of the subject and as such this falls WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep relicense and move to commons as c:Template:GODL-India. This file is a copyrighted work of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, licensed under the Government Open Data License - India (GODL). see National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – Government of India#Government Open Data License – India for more. [FYI: Whpq ]--DBigXrayᗙ 22:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with withdrawing the nomination after correcting the licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2018 (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.

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 2018 December 29. B (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bush portrait on 1DEC2018.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of William de Roos, 6th Lord Roos in Bottesford church.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obsolete: File has been replaced by File:Sir William de Roos, St Marys church, Bottesford (geograph 2739140).jpg, which is identical except for the lack of a watermark. bjh21 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you could have just overwritten the original? Every file has the option "Upload a new version of this file" under "File History". That would save us the need for a discussion, and the need to use the delete button; the history of the file would also be saved. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have overwritten the file with one that was eligible for speedy deletion (under CSD F8), but that feels to me like gaming the system, and I would prefer to be above-board about things especially where I'm a visitor. I also couldn't immediately find the Wikipedia equivalent of COM:OVERWRITE, so I couldn't tell whether such an overwrite was even permitted. --bjh21 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I see. I missed that your image was uploaded to commons, being that you link to it on en.wiki above. There's a process to move images from en.wiki to commons.wiki but I haven't attempted that before (I upload exclusively to commons myself). The image would have needed moving first and then an overwrite. Ah well; an image without a watermark is objectively better than one with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that we have an overwriting policy here. But if we were to have one, I'd say that the answer is probably to obey COM:OVERWRITE for everything except for fair use images, which should ALWAYS be overwritten (because we're going to delete the orphaned fair use image and overwriting it allows the history to be preserved). --B (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2018 (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.