< March 20	March 22 >

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, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C:COM:TOYS. ✗plicit 00:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (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 ⚡ 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of copyrighted newsletter. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (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 ⚡ 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:PACKAGING. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (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 ⚡ 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what the purpose of this image is. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (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 ⚡ 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of copyrighted website (Facebook). Ixfd64 (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2022 (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, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned modifications of File:Alcazar de Segovia.JPG with "self-drawn window frame[s]". They don't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. ✗plicit 02:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2022 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file violates WP:NFC#UUI as it's a generic logo being used for a specific event, and it is not permitted to use “A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event.” Hamza Ali Shah 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file is on Commons. Please use the deletion process there. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2022 (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 -FASTILY 04:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sample de-PRODded under assumption that a Chinese patriotic song "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China" is harder to understand contextually without the sample and/or the lyrics (which were removed and then hidden from public view). The song has been sung and recorded many times variously; we don't have info emphasizing one version or the other. Furthermore, readers would already know the song as sung in always the Mandarin language and "patriotic" as described. The sample can help readers identify one portion of a recording, but I doubt the sample can help readers contextually connect well with the text and with the song. BTW, the original source is no longer active, so I won't be able to determine whether the sample is too excessive. Speaking of excessive, I thought about arguing against use of wav format, but then as I learned, a NFCC-compliant wav file would be acceptable. George Ho (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from the nomination that the concern here is NFCC#8. I think the file meets NFCC#8 – for most articles about songs, an excerpt from the song has contextual significance, and in this case the excerpt helps to convey the patriotic style and rhythm of the song. But my concern is NFCC#1. According to commons:Template:PD-China, audiovisual works enter the public domain in China 50 years after publication, so a free equivalent can presumably be created, right? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the song is still copyrighted. The lyricist has been identified, so the Chinese copyright lasts fifty years after his lifetime. Meanwhile, its US copyright can last until middle of 2030s or 2040s, especially after restoration by URAA. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'd say keep; it meets NFCC#8 per my reasoning above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:50, 21 March 2022 (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 21

File:Kidrobotwindowdisplay.jpg

File:Treasure Chest Antiques and Collectibles Newspaper.jpg

File:RhinoFoodsChesster.jpg

File:Rjsub.jpg

File:Roeland.png

File:Vance Marune 01 full aud.jpg

File:Tata IPL Logo.png

File:Without-the-Communist-Party-there-would-be-no-New-China-excerpt.wav