< February 25	February 27 >

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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is not the copyright holder and thus cannot release it under a free license Werieth (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2013 (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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the soundtrack page into the film. So this image becomes too redundant to the film poster. George Ho (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the uploader is inactive since October 2012. Contacting that person is not possible. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2013 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Dadi13 (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to have gone with PRODded article Armin causevic. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (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: keep. No policy cited in deletion request. Chick Bowen 16:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images violate Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposed modification to WP:NFC. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a very dodgy RFC to cite. The problem with the RFC is that it said "NFCC #8 should not apply to currency images". However, there was widespread support for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's "strong oppose" on the basis that NFCC #8 should apply to currency images, but currency images may very well pass NFCC #8. Unfortunately this appears to have been lost on the non-admin who closed it -- it's not clear that he actually read the reasons for the positions being taken at all. Jheald (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2013 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently the logo of Niagara College. It is tagged with ((self)), so the uploader apparently claims to be the creator and copyright holder; that is likely not true. It is unlikely that the college has released this logo under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license as claimed, and we have no evidence that this is the case. So we could use this logo on Wikipedia only in accordance with the non-free content criteria. But its only use is in an image gallery in the Niagara College Teaching Winery article, and Wikipedia policy generally does not allow non-free images in galleries; see WP:NFG for more information. In summary: We have no evidence that this image is freely licensed, and it cannot be used as it is now under the non-free content policy, so we have no use for it. —Bkell (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is not now the logo of the college, and I don't see any claim that it is a historical logo. In the article it is presented with a complete lack of context. Clearly if it is what it is claimed to be, the uploader didn't create it. I don't see any reason to keep it given all these deficiencies, even if the claim of user creation were true. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was uploaded in 2008, so if it isn't the logo now, perhaps it was when it was uploaded. wouldn't this qualify as ((PD-simple)) ? (perhaps the file itself was created in some manner by the uploader) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a very complex leaf in the logo. Sometimes, just drawing a border around a logo is enough to gain copyright protection. Compare with this example where the logo which just says "CCC" isn't copyrightable whereas the one below with the border is copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2013 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. I uploaded this non-free image a few days ago, but after further research have found a public domain replacement and uploaded it at File:Ian-Hay-Beith.jpg Tim riley (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Amended Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (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.

February 26

File:Dpwh logo.png

File:Drugstore Cowboy ost - elliot goldenthal.jpg

File:Armin's Signature.svg

File:Malaya&BritishBorneo 1Dollars front.jpg

File:Niagaracollege canada.JPG

File:Ian-hay-iln-20Aug1932-p270.jpg