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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mini Bassam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bassam Atheeque (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, personal image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (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: Consensus is to keep. TLSuda (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tvx1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems to be a heraldic image, meaning a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find the passage in Wikipedia:NFCC#1 that deals with "heraldic images". Anyways the licensing information and the fair use rationale for the article on which it is used are provided. Tvx1 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See c:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blazon). All coat of arms images are replaceable by a freely licensed drawing based on the same blazon. --12:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Now I got this image from Italian wikipedia. They got it from this site, who made their own "drawing" of it based on the description of it. Interestingly enough, they release their contents under a creative commons license 3.0, as you can see near the bottom of the home page. Does that mean that picture I have uploaded is actually copyright protected at all and is in the public domain? Tvx1 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 is not a free licence. Besides, I think there was a deletion discussion somewhere where someone pointed out that many images on that website probably come from other sources, meaning that the website isn't allowed to license them anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have found this discussion where you yourself admit that such images qualify as irreplaceable by free images. I don't know how I could possibly "produce" a free equivalent of this image if the design is copyrighted by the municipality in question. Tvx1 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I have replaced the file's licensing tag with a more accurate one, and improved the fair use rationale. It still stand by the fact that it's not possible to replace this file with a free equivalent. Tvx1 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a flag, and not a coat of arms. (Of course it should be removed from User:Tvx1/sandbox.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:54, 22 August 2014 (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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google Doodle-Indian Independence Day.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pratyush Chowdhary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't think it serves any special purpose as independent India's first stamp is already available on Commons. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Google doodle showcasing independent India's first stamp itself serves some purpose, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and any small detail should be posted whether is serves any special purpose or not. More over the independent India's first stamp is already available on Commons is not the same Google doodle which is specifically mentioned in the caption, so please reconsider before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.199.170 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for violation WP:NFCC#8, not critically discussed in the article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete wp:nfcc#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and yes the image is increasing readers understanding, so please reconsider .

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.