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: Obvious hoax, copyright violation. Adambro (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IrishIndependent.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Denhamd2 (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic - this image has been faked from the genuine File:IrishIndependent.JPG (which has "JPG" in upper case) for the purpose of supporting the hoax article Beechlawn Rovers. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2009 (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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnny Clegg And Savuka - Scatterlings Of Africa excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs).

• Way too long for a sample: 1m7s. ChrisDHDR 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too long. More than double the max suggested size.--Rockfang (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2009 (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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:History c3.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).

• Insofar as the purpose is to show what Noli de Castro looks like, this image is replaceable by a free image already on Commons. Insofar as the purpose is to show his connection with TV Patrol World, pure text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Insofar as the purpose is to show a TV Patrol logo, the article already shows the current logo, an additional logo is not needed for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 17:44, 30 August 2009 (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: - Kept, licence is correct- Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit body Ahly09Home.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ebsawy (notify | contribs).

• Copyright infringement - use of adidas logo. Dancarney (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - use of club logo also (probably) an issue. Dancarney (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell? That's too small to be recognizable. In any event, if someone does want to delete this image, why not just upload a new copy of it with the logos blanked out? --B (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say de minimis applies here. While we might know, from outside information, what the logos are, when we produce them using so few pixels the original owner no longer has a claim. So keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytom (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with B. The extremely low quality of this picture cannot be a copyright infringement. — sligocki (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Copyrighted material is unrecognizable. Sumanch (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (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.