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⚡ 03:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackpink - The Album physical artwork.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MotherofSnakes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is excessive non-free media. All four of these can be easily described in text and there is no justification per WP:NFCC for five covers, four of which are this simple. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 23 October 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesmiko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the noise around the star raises it above the TOO. schetm (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The main issue here has to do with WP:FREER not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4; so, the nom's reasoning for bring this to FFD isn't really correct. File:Hollywood Stars.png, the other file being used in the main infobox, is licensed as PD and that seems fine. If the non-free file was simply the same star logo on a black background, then it would be OK to simply change the non-free license to ((PD-logo)) as well. The non-free file, however, has an addition "white scatter effect" added to it (which might be intended to be stardust). This seems like a significant difference that goes beyond a simple shape and might actually be a copyrightable element; so, I agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this point. If the consensus also turns out to be the same, then this file needs to remain non-free. The question then is whether we need to have it along side the freely licensed primary logo or whether simply describing the cap logo as such somewhere in the article is an acceptable alternative to the non-free use of the file. That's a pretty tricky question and is definitely something worth further discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as non-free logo. It's a borderline case as far as TOO is concerned, so it's probably best to consider it as having sufficient creativity for copyright. Having said that, it properly belongs as the non-free team logo, so that the "entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image". In looking at the team's website, it is clear that this is the only logo now used.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In agreement with Jonteemil, WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied here. Also, the logo is complex and hence protected by the copyright.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is only used on Wikipedia: pages and one User: page. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:31, 1 December 2020 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siachenline.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ritabharidevi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If was deleted on Commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GyongLaNJ9842.png. It was originally uploaded to en.wiki at File:GyongLaNJ9842.png. Now own work of the uploader. It should be easy to make a replacement so I don't think fair use is possible. MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2020 (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.