< February 29	March 2 >

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two images nominated:

File:2008 Approved 103 Colmore Row.png
File:103 Colmore Row 2015.jpg

These are copyrighted artist's renditions of a proposed building. I don't believe that it meets are non-free use criteria, especially for the 2008 image, a proposal that has been abandoned. Propose to delete, and post a free pic when it is built. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2016 (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: Remove Gallery from Article ★ Bigr Tex 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logos being used in WHDF#Previous Logos. Files have a non-free use rationale, but this type of decorative usage is not allowed per WP:NFG because the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Each file also fails WP:NFCC#10a since no source information is provided for any of the images other than "The logo may be obtained from WHDF", which is generic text the template automatically adds when the uploader fails to provide the required information.

Is it possible for "File:Whdf67.jpg" to be converted to ((PD-US-no notice)) since its image caption says its the logo for 1965? I'm not sure how to verify whether this without any source information though. So, if it's not possible to convert any of these to a free license or better incorporate them into the article to satisfy WP:NFCC, I suggest remove from the article for all three files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1967 logo. Not sure on the 1978 and 2000 logos, which may not be original enough to be copyrighted. The current logo (not nominated here) is definitely not original enough for copyright. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unlikely that a logo from the United States from 1965 or 1967 still is copyrighted in the United States. The vast majority of all United States logos from that period should be PD-US-no notice, so if we can just find some evidence that File:Whdf67.jpg really is from that period, it should be safe to retag it as PD-US-no notice. There is no source and the information about the year is inconsistent (it says 1965 in the article but 1967 in the file name), so it is not currently possible to determine that the logo actually is from the period stated.

File:Whdf78.jpg is mostly lettering, and lettering is ineligible for copyright protection in the United States, so I suggest that we retag this logo as ((PD-textlogo)). I note that there is no evidence that the logo is from 1978 or that the logo isn't fake as the uploader didn't provide a source.

File:Whdf00.jpg is also mostly lettering. In the United States, lettering seems to be ineligible for copyright protection not because it necessarily lacks originality but because it is text. For that reason, the logo might be fine as PD-textlogo, but it is possible that some of the light effects would be determined to be something other than lettering and thus subject to the originality criterion. I note that there is no evidence that the logo is from 2000 or that the logo isn't fake as the uploader didn't provide a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: I tried looking for sources for these files, but had no luck other than a Logopedia page and this. The latter, however, gives 1957 as the year when "File:Whdf67.jpg" was used, but does say 2000 for "File:Whdf00.jpg". This website give 1966 "File:Whdf67.jpg" and 1984 for "File:Whdf78.jpg". Anyway, not sure how reliable any of those websites are or whether they took the images from Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logos being used in KTVL#Notable former news staff. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but decorative usage like this in galleries is generally not allowed per WP:NFG because the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Moreover, "KTVL NewsCenter 10 Logo 1981-1983.png" is sourced to a YouTube video, so not sure whether ((Non-free television screenshot)) should be being used instead of ((Non-free logo)). "File:KTVL 10.png" and "File:KTVL News 10-KTVLdotcom.png" are essentially the same logo (the only difference between the two seems to be that one says "KTLV -TV" and the other says "KTLV.Com" at the bottom of the logo), so both are not really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. So, I suggest remove for all three from the article, unless they can be converted to a free license per below.

If these files are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, they would not have to comply with WP:NFCC and could be converted to ((PD-logo)) and tagged with ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). I think "KTVL NewsCenter 10 Logo 1981-1983.png" falls below the threshold of originality, but I'm not too sure about the other two. The "CBS eye" element seems to be considered public domain based upon File:CBS logo.svg, and the rest looks like simple shapes and some text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2016 (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 first logo; keep second logo in Hungarian Football Federation, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 03:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos which appear to be the same with the only difference being in the in ball imagery used in each respective logo.

The description for "File:Hungary FA.png" says it is the Hungarian Football Federation logo, but the file is not being used in that particular article. File is being used in and has non-free use rationales for Hungary national futsal team, Hungary national under-17 football team, Hungary national under-19 football team, Hungary national under-21 football team and Hungary women's national football team, but none of these usages seem to satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI.

"File:MLSZ.png" is being used in "Hungarian Football Federation", but it is also being used in Hungary national beach soccer team, Hungary national football team and Magyar Kupa. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but only the one for ""Hungarian Football Federation" seems to meet WP:NFCC. Usages in the individual team articles does not comply with No. 17 of NFC#UUI, and the usage in "Magyar Kupa" seems inappropriate per No. 14 of NFC#UUI since the logo is not specific to the tournament itself.

According to the Hungarian Football Federation's official website and offcial Twitter account as well as this FIFA page this UEFA page, "File:MLSZ.png" appears to be the logo being currently used by the federation. "File:Hungary FA.png" can be seen it this January 2007 archived version of the federation's official page, but it looks as if it was replaced at by January 2008. "File:MLSZ.png" was updated with this edit. I cannot see the "older" version of the file, so I cannot tell if it was the same as "File:Hungary FA.png".

Suggest delete for "File:Hungry FA.png" unless there's way, which satisfies WP:NFCCP, to incorporate it into the federation article as a former logo. Suggest keep for "File:MLSZ.png" in "Hungarian Football Federation", but remove from all the individual team articles and the tournament article. Also, suggest that the use of "File:MLSZ.png" not be allowed in any of the individual team articles where the "File:Hungry FA.png" is currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2016 (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: speedy delete under F8. — ξ ^xplicit 03:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in WCVI-TV#Logos. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but none of these logos themselves are the subject of any sourced commentary within the article, and decorative usage such as this in galleries is not really allowed per WP:NFG because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. "File:WCVI CW39.png" and "File:WCVI2011.jpg" are also pretty much the same logo with only some differences in text, so both are not really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. So, suggest remove for all three of these files from the article, unless they can be somehow better incorporated into the article in a way that satisfies WP:NFCC, or they can be converted to a free license.

It might be possible for these to be converted to ((PD-logo)) and tagged them with ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). Public domain or other freely licensed images are not subject to the NFCC and could therefore be used in such a way. FWIW, the two "CW" logos do not seem to be eligible for copyright based upon File:The CW.svg (the rest of each logo seems to be nothing but text some simple shapes) and "File:WCVI-TV.jpg" also seems to be too simple for copyright protection based upon File:UPN logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the logos seem to be ((PD-textlogo)), so if a source can be provided, we can keep them. On the other hand, if there is no evidence that the logos are correct, I'm not sure if we should keep them. The URL in the FUR templates goes to a page which does not contain any of the logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stefan2: I tried searching for archived versions of http//:www.wcvi.tv, but the Internet Wayback Machine won't work because "robots.txt" is in use. I then searched via Archive.is and found this for File:WCVI2011.jpg from 2013. Archive.is, however, is not really considered to be OK to link to on Wikipedia to per WP:DEADREF (Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC), so I'm not sure if that makes a difference for this particular purpose. I haven't had any luck for the other logos. I guess deletion of the files should be considered per WP:F4 if proper sources cannot be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in KTXS-TV#Coverage area. File has a non-free use rationale, but logo itself is not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. Moreover, the file is essentially the same as File:KTXS logo 2014.png being used in the infobox, with the only difference being the a single letter. I don't think this difference is significant enough to require two non-free logos per WP:NFCC#3a. The station's official website currently shows the "KTXS" logo being used, so I think it's going find a way to incorporate the "KTXE" logo into the article in a way that satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria. So, I suggest delete for the "KTXE banner "logo, unless it is somehow possible to convert it to a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any article. Useless files that is not mentioned anywhere. Also, it seems to be a personal photograph of a user (Mr. 57) who uploaded it. Nairspecht (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2016 (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: No Consensus (WP:NPASR or WP:BOLD) ★ Bigr Tex 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in the infoboxes for KXLF-TV and KRTV. Each file has a non-free use rationale and is tagged with ((Non-free logo)), but the logos are nothing more than channel numbers and call-letters. These seem to be too simple to be eligible for copyright and OK to convert to ((PD-logo)) and tag with ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is unfree, then the file violates WP:NFCC#1. If this is not unfree, then we don't need this copy as we have a different copy on Commons: File:SaintLeonard.JPG. The file doesn't currently satisfy WP:F8 as the file on Commons doesn't have a confirmed copyright tag, but regardless of the outcome of the file on Commons, we wouldn't want to keep the local copy of the file. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the uploader of this file and as a new wiki user was unable to upload it directly to wikipedia as free use until my account was confirmed and therefore uploaded it to Commons to use in the meantime. I would rather remove this file from commons and retain it on Wikipedia and keep it in the article it is being used in Kieran Leonard. This image has been given to us for use by the photographer specifically for Wikipedia and is not licensed under any copyright. The image is used by us for promotional and identification purposes for wikipedia.L0813 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, you added a template saying that you have ensured that the photographer has sent an e-mail to OTRS, as explained at WP:CONSENT. If this hasn't been done, or if the e-mail isn't sufficient, then we can't keep any copy of the picture at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2016 (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: Procedural Close, File is currently only used in the article for which it has a rationale. ★ Bigr Tex 22:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as non-free and used outside the article namespace, but I'm not sure if the file meets the threshold of originality. If it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, then it should be retagged. If it meets the threshold of originality, then the WP:NFCC#9 violations should be removed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla in general supports owner's groups. What type of statement would I need to receive from Tesla to allow the linking in the for a Tesla fan user box which I would also consider fair use? Stephenpace (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephenpace This is largely more about our strict rules about how non-free images can be used on Wikipedia. Since this image is not published under a free license, it permitted uses are very limited, and these limits including only using it in an article for identification of the subject, only using it if a free replacement isn't possible, and an outright ban on non-article uses. You would need Tesla to release their logo under Creative Commons share-alike version 3.0, text is here. An alternative would be for Tesla to release it as public domain. Either way, this means that Tesla (or their artist) would give humanity perpetual rights to re-use and modify the image for any purpose. It is almost guaranteed that no corporation will be willing to do that, and I would be greatly surprised if Tesla did. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I take a photo of the badging on my own car and release that photo under creative commons? Would that work under these rules? Stephenpace (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephenpacel. That's a tricky question, but I'll take a shot at answering it. I think it depends upon your intent at the time you took the photo and what is seen to be the primary focus of the photo. If you were just taking a picture of your entire car and the logo just happened to be included there because it was "part" of the car, then the logo might be considered de minimis and OK for Wikimedia Commons since the logo itself is not the primary focus of the photo. (I'm referencing Commons because that's typically where CC-licensed images are encouraged to be uploaded. Even though there are some differences between Wikipedia and Commons when it comes to images, both seem to be fairly consistent on this point.) If, however, the whole point of the photo was to show the logo (and the part of your car where it was located was simply part of the "background" so to speak), then I think that might be considered a derivative work and derivative works are generally not considered OK for Commons per c:COM:L#Derivative works and c:COM:DW#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. In order for you to upload such a photo to Commons, I think you would need not only a free license for the photo you took, but also a free license for the logo as well. I believe the same would apply to Wikipedia for a both the photo and logo to be considered freely licensed and not subject to WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Exactly the same situation as in MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, except that this is the soundtrack of a video game. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, all I'll say is that I don't think it's appropriate for the Films project to be making blanket "rules" regarding non-free content. We have WP:NFCC, which is project policy; individual pieces of non-free content should be judged against those criteria. Using a line from a WikiProject's Manual of Style as rationale for conducting a cull of soundtrack covers seems inappropriate to me, when there is a policy that highly supersedes any individual project's MOS. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the statement at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack is simply based on WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This album is notable in its own right and is the subject of multiple reliable sources. If an article provides the primary coverage for multiple notable subjects, those subjects can have identifying artwork. - hahnchen 22:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the album currently doesn't have an article suggests that the album is not independently notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of notable subjects without their own articles. Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower for example. The album has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources.[1][2][3][4] - hahnch e n 16:07, 11 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence at the source page to suggest that this image is released under a CC licence, therefore should probably be deleted. Anemone Projectors 15:55, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in Guadeloupe and Saint Martin. That article discusses scouting in general and not only the organisation Scouts et Guides de Saint Martin (the French organisation using this badge).

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in Scouting Antiano, but the article discusses the Dutch organisation which uses the badge, so it maybe passes WP:NFCC#8 in that article, although it possibly should be used in an article about a subdivision instead.

I'm not sure if the words 'collection of Chris' satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. I suspect that the source is a real badge, and I don't know how to indicate this in the source field. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When talking about these small island countries, there may be 1000 Scouts at best. We can't pare it down much smaller than it currently is.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of members is irrelevant. We only use a logo in the article about the entity. If there are too few members, then the notability criterion might say that there shouldn't be an article about the entity, but the logo still can't be used except in an article about the entity. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in New Caledonia. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is a general article about scouting at a specific location. The image should only be used in the article about the organisation itself. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is small enough that the organization itself is under the broader topic. Keep per Nyttend's rationale of January 29.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the organisation is non-notable, then we shouldn't use the organisation's logo at all. Compare with MOS:FILM#Soundtrack which says that we do not use cover art of non-notable film soundtracks, only cover art of film soundtracks which are so notable that they get their own articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (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; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree file uploaded as a primary means to identify the subject in question. The problem is it is one of three non-free files being used in the article Descendants of the Sun under the same rationale, they can't all three be the primary one. Whats more this file is essentially a crop of File:DescendantsoftheSun.jpg being used as an album cover for the original sound track, visually there is nothing that this file adds to this article other than information about the ost, however the section on the ost is a minor part of the article KTo288 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2016 (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; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free files in the article Please Come Back, Mister, the two files are almost identical, one in landscape format used as a promotional poster, and this square one used as an album cover of the ost, the ost is a minor part of the article and it should be this file that should be deleted. KTo288 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2016 (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.

March 1

File:2008 Approved 103 Colmore Row.png

Non-free former WHDF logos

Non-free logos in KTVL

Hungarian Football Federation logos

Non-free former WCVI-TV logos

File:Ktxebanner.png

File:Tejas Nair.JPG

Non-free KXLF and KRTV logos

File:Saint Leonard in 2016.jpg

File:NFC-Throwback-Uniform-SEA.PNG

File:Tesla Motors logo.svg

File:Super Mario Galaxy - Original Soundtrack cover.jpg

File:500 Days of Summer soundtrack cover.jpg

File:500 Days of Summer score cover.jpg

File:H5O Soundtrack Cover.jpg

File:Krrish 3 Soundtrack Cover.jpg

File:At Middleton Soundtrack Cover.jpg

File:Joe and Jake.jpg

File:Scouting in Saint Martin-Sint Maarten.png

File:Nouvelle Caledonie (Scouts de France).svg

File:Descendants of the Sun OST Part 1.jpg

File:Please Come Back, Mister OST Part1.jpg