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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:K-Pop Night Out at SXSW, Jay Park, 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bonnielou2013 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploaded on commons File:2014 K-Pop Night Out at SXSW, Jay Park.jpg Rodrigolopes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User:Rodriogolopes has now added the tag that Wikimedia Commons had reviewed the Flickr license and OK'd it. I am asking help of User:Rodriogolopes not to make the same mistake that I made this time - perhaps I uploaded to WP too early? Thanks,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (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: One Deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 09:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MBC Bollywood logo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MBC Bollywood logo2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Per WP:NFCC#3a, this article should only contain one logo, so one of the files listed above should be deleted. Additionally, both of the files currently violate WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2015 (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: Delete. Hans Barbosa, all I can say is.....wow. Freemasons, conspiracy to start not one but both world wars, confiscation of gold, secret trials, 911 conspiracy. I think you missed the bit that JFK was about to reveal this information, that day in Dallas. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:1934 $50,000 Bond.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hans Barbosa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Source includes numerous known fakes, such as the $100,000,000 notes discussed here. These fake bills were certainly not from the bureau of engraving and printing, and were quite probably made recently enough that they would not be public domain.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the same problem also apply to File:1934 $5M Bond.png? I changed both of them to {{PD-USGov}} earlier because they looked like US government works. Before that, they were listed as "unfree" (but they were not used anywhere in the article namespace). Sorry if I made an error when changing the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect so, though I'm not an expert on the history of American banknotes. Godot13 would be much more familiar with the subject matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the above-mentioned images are of objects produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The circular warning from the Federal Reserve Board serves as further support. IMO, neither PD-USGov nor money-US would apply. If it is to be treated as an anonymous work published in the US, there is no way to reliably ascertain the date of publication (at the very earliest sometime after 1934 I would think).--Godot13 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, while the Federal Reserve does issue currency, it is the BEP that designs, engraves, and prints the notes. Stating that the Federal Reserve is the physical author of any issued note is IMO incorrect.--Godot13 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final time I'll say this-these bonds are real. Their origin can be traced back to two freemasons in 1871 who conspired to start two world wars and to force all of the nations to exchange their gold for these bonds that were essentially safekeeping receipts for the gold. After WWI the Treaty of Versailles was set up to help rebuild the world and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) was created by the founders of the Federal Reserve. All the gold in Europe—and, it appears, everywhere else—went to the US Government in exchange for these Series 1934 safe keeping receipts / bonds. It is rumored that 8 ships departed China for the US with gold so it could not be by looted by the Japanese occupiers. In 1998 the 60 year hold ended, the boxes were dug up, and the people who originally gave their gold for paper wanted it back. The US said no such exchange occurred. Later, in a secret court in the Hague, the US lost the litigation of the claim and was ordered to turn over the gold by September 11, 2001. The US did not turn over the gold and the Twin Towers were attacked, accompanied by a mysterious collapse of the World Trade Center number 7. Their existance is now covered-up due to secrecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Barbosa (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed the bonds are real, but their existence is suppressed due to secrecy, then isn't the use of the image a violation of non-free-content? If the images are secret, then they are not in the public domain. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way, without reliable references to confirm that, and with reliable references which say that they are fakes... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2015 (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.