The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
contributed by 816phloh, a confirmed sock-puppet of Morning277
also source and author lines are contradictory —rybec 05:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is not the copyright holder and there is no source information Werieth (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion. This is a copyright free drawing. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's indisputably a drawing of a British military cap badge/insignia. I cannot find it anywhere else on the internet so I can only assume that the original uploader drew it himself. As he's no longer active I can't check that. As British military cap badges have formed much of the discussion recently I think there needs to be a distinct formula for using them. Is it acceptable for example to post one badge under minimal use with Crown Copyright as the licence? When is a drawing of a cap badge/insignia acceptable? It's been a bit of a minefield for me so I would appreciate any help given. In the meantime I will seek advice from the Crown Copyright office. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted; file has been replaced with File:Ulster Defence Regiment Insignia.jpg. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Also needs permission from the photographer as it is a photo of a 3D object. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion This file doesn't violate NFCC because it is an image of the badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the article which it is placed in. Its creation and description is well covered in the text of the section it is in. Removal of this image would most definitely be detrimental to the reader. It complies with minimal use and in fact I have the permission of the copyright holder, whose website it was taken from, to use the image along with a selection of other images he supplied for the same purpose. It can be e-mailed to "permissions" straight away. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Deleted under speedy criterion F9 and F11. Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for use declined by copyright holder as stated at OTRS #2013071810001357. Cindy(talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Kept and re-tagged as PD-text-logo. Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OB, replaced by The More You Know Logo 2013.jpg Jh3555 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just use an actual free image of Cyndi Lauper from Commons instead of this screenshot? Do we really need to use a screenshot of Lauper's cameo to give reader prove she was actually in the movie? I don't think so, especially if it has the text "www.thenakedbrothersbands.com" on it. An free image of Lauper is enough. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]