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: relisted on 2019 January 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2019 January 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:LSMR-409.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson 5ive Title Card.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sarujo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Would the logo in this screenshot meet the threshold of creativity for copyright protection? I've been debating chalking this up as PD but I need a second opinion. Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 01:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Luigi970p: seems copyrightable. commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States has some examples of public domain and examples of copyrightable. Rather directly on point seems to be File:Disney Junior.svg, which is copyrightable (its copyright was registered). It doesn't take much to meet a threshold of originality - just any spark of creativity. --B (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (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: Relicense as non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shingle Inn logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't see the shield part of the logo as a simple shape. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These ornaments and shield are hardly beyond generic clipart. I'm not familiar with Australian TOO, but I'm fairly confident about US. --Ben Stone 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely copyrighted unless it can be demonstrated that the shield was published pre-1976 with no copyright notice. This passes commons:COM:TOO with flying colors. --B (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2018 (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: Relicense to non-free. No consensus on keep vs. delete Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waterloo-Mathematics.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kyuko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Too complex for PD-textlogo Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 12. Obviously, @Ronhjones: is correct that it is too complex for PD-textlogo. I googled and found at [1] that the shield has been used since 1961, which means it is most likely subject to copyright. (If it is considered a Crown Copyright, it would have needed to have been published 1946 or earlier to be public domain in the US.) So unless someone can offer evidence that it is PD, the question is whether to keep as fair use or delete. --B (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comptroller and Auditor General of India logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SshibumXZ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obsolete. Better version at File:CAG HQ LOGO.png —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sarvatra: Umm ... the license on the Commons version does not look valid and the Commons image should be deleted. Unless someone can make a case for it being PD or that the CC license is actually valid, the Commons one will be deleted and this one should be restored to the article. --B (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @B: I didn't see that. I think GODL-India would be a valid license in this case as the image is sourced from gov.in —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2018 (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: relisted on 2019 January 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-4D Phantom II.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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. Mostly because it's far from clear here whether WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 are met and the keep arguments are somewhat perfunctory on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carliertwo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#3, 8. The fact that the same artwork was used with a different color background is more than adequately conveyed by text alone, and using two variants of the same image violates the minimal usage principle/ The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC #3 and #8. The cover is not discussed in the article and differences to the other cover could be described in prose. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) 20:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's inacurrate, the cover is discussed in the article. « The artwork representing white lines on a blue monochrome, was first used on the back sleeve of the 1978 "Hong Kong Garden" single; it had been created for the band's first ever b-side "Voices" ». @ JJMC89 --- Carliertwo (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(It looks black to me, so I originally thought that referred to the other cover.) Ok, so it is discussed, but is it not the subject of sourced critical commentary. That is just a basic (unsourced) description of the cover. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source has since been added in the article. This second answer is even more puzzling as the user wrote about the image that it looked black to them whereas it is a deep blue monochrome with white linha sinusoida. So in the end, there isn't WP:NFCC #3 = as one item can not convey equivalent significant information in this case and #8 either = its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding @ JJMC89 — Carliertwo (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a source doesn't make it critical commentary. See Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment below. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This backcover of a 1978 single is used to show where the design of this 2016 cd compilation comes from. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the article next to the infobox to show the primary 1978 visual image associated with the artwork, and to help the user quickly identify the genesis of the 2016 artwork. Carliertwo (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• procedural effect: The complainant Hullaballoo Wolfowitz failed to notice the uploader Carliertwo on their talkpage with {subst:fdw|1=Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg} which is inadmissible and a sign of contempt. The complainant is currently in a edit war on several Siouxsie related articles and wants to keep their procedure unnoticed by the users of those articles. Carliertwo (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This meets WP:NFCC #3 "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". In artistic matters, two images placed side by side, instantly shows the existing parallel, and the user understands the visual link between this 1978 image and the 2016's artwork of the infobox : it creates an artistic bridge. It also meets the NFFC # 8 " its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. " The 1978's image is used because of its historical and encyclopedic value as a starting point for the 2016's sleeve. Woovee (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Oh, come on. The argument for using a nonfree image here boils down to it being absolutely essential to understanding the article to see precisely what shade of dark blue was used as a background for the artwork on a different release by the same artist. That's just ridiculous -- but, even if buys into the importance of the issue, the color difference could be illustrated with a free image, a simple square in the original background color. Everything important would be communicated by the statement "The same artwork was used on an earlier release, presented against a much darker blue background". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no significant sourced commentary about the re-use of the image for the CD cover. The only source provided is the liner note from the CD itself. The most significant aspect, its re-use versus is adequaltely covered in text, nd as such fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets all the criterias including WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. Comment This 1978 artwork / sleeve has got an important historical value, as its visual/sleeve preceeds in time another similar iconic artwork; the one made by Peter Saville for the 1979 landmark album Unknown Pleasures by Joy Division [2]. Kempsir (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2018 (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: remove File:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg from List of Dad's Army characters and delete the others per WP:NFLISTS — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warden Hodges Dads Army.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jack1956 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Mavis Pike.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jack1956 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Rev Timothy Farthing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jack1956 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Maurice Yeatman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jack1956 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maverick1306 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Various non-free character images being used in List of Dad's Army characters which fails WP:NFLISTS. Non-free images of fictional characters are generally allowed for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the characters themselves, but not really for individual entries/section of a list article about the characters of the series; moreover, there is already a cast shot being used at the top of the article which is sufficient per NFLISTS. Four of the files are only being used in the list article and it doesn't appear there's sufficient sourcing for stand-alone articles about these characters to be created. Copy-and-paste articles could be split off for sure, and if someone wants to try that they can; however, if those articles ultimately end up deleted or redirect/merged back to the list article as a result, the images should not also be re-added by default. Suggest delete for these four files, unless someone creates stand-alone articles where they can be used.The fifth file "File:Janet Davies as Mrs Pike in the Dad's Army episode 'Never Too Old'.jpg" is being used in two articles. It appears to have at one time been used for primary identification purposes in the stand-alone article Mrs Fox about the character, but that article was either redirected or merge in to the list article; therefore, the justification for non-free use is no longer the same and "for visual identification of the fictional character in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" no longer applies. The file is being also being used in the stand-alone article about the actress herself which is probably OK per item 10 of WP:NFCI since she's dead, unless WP:FREER is deemed to be an issue. So, suggest keep for the article about the actress, but remove from the list article.Just for reference, the use of these files was somewhat discussed awhile back at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Merged or split off list articles and two others also seem to be of the opinion that the non-free use of the individual images don't comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - personally I think it would be a shame if these images were deleted from the page. While I know that technically the article is a list if we look at it as a series of mini articles I think we could justify keeping them. The page would be much poorer and less informative without the images. Jack1956 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that the loss of these pictures would greatly diminish the article; I also agree that the article in question, whilst technically a "list", is really a compendium of mini-articles. I'm not sure I agree that the photographs clearly present a problem in relation to WP:NFCC, and in fact I would say that their "omission would be detrimental to [the] understanding" of these mini-articles (WP:NFCC section 8, contextual significance). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have been through the whole of WP:NFCC and I just don't see the problem. Seems to me these pics are entirely within the provisions there. For those of us with pictorial brains this article would be very severely diminished without the pictures for recognition. I don't recall names - I need pictures. [For full disclosure, I am a housemate of another editor who has commented on this proposal, but wish to submit my own views as above.] Chris Golds (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @B: Pings usually don’t work when enclosed in the ((Relist)) template since your signature ends up in a different line than the rest of the text. (On that note, pinging Jack1956, Timothy Titus, and Chris Golds.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear violation of NFLISTS. The argument about these being "mini articles" does not hold weight given that there is no secondary or third party sourcing to support the article,none of those would stand on their own. Even then, we should have sources that explain how the visual appearance of these characters are needed to support NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 16:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with Marchjuly and Masem. This is an unequivocal violation of WP:NFLISTS. The headline image File:Dadsarmy 1.jpg is an acceptable image for the top of the article. The other character specific images are not permitted under our NFLISTS guideline and also violate WP:NFCC #3 minimal usage and WP:NFCC #8, significance. Each character's visual appearance is not discussed in the sections with sourced prose. There is no significance to their visual appearance other than as visual decoration for the article, which is a clear violation of the NFCC policy. The argument that this is a series of mini-articles is of no consequence here. The reason these are not stand alone articles is that they can't stand alone as articles, and therefore there is no allowance for a non-free image for each of them. This was attempted without success. This idea that this list is a series of mini-articles would undermine the very principle of WP:NFLISTS and would effectively gut policy. In addition, much of the content in these sections is wholly unsupported by references. If we allowed this usage here, we would open the floodgates to innumerable articles where such images could be used. If this argument sustains here, there's no reason to not liberally include non-free images in List of minor DC Comics characters, List of Muppets, and literally thousands more. I remind the closer of this discussion that by default, a close of "no consensus" equates to delete, as the default case is to not include non-free content unless consensus occurs to include such content. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the excellent reasons stated above. This is really a series of mini articles rather than a list and the images are essential for identification purposes. Dreamspy (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dreamspy: With respect, the mini-articles concept has no merit. If these were capable of being articles, they would be. They're here, in this list, because they are not. If you want to characterize a list as a series of mini-articles, you of course may. But, it doesn't change the fact that this is a list. Therefore, the article must comply with WP:NFLISTS. As I noted above, if this article should allow such usage, then literally thousands of articles would allow such usage, and WP:NFLISTS would be void, as would a critical element of WP:NFCC policy in general. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2019 (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: relisted on 2019 January 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A&D Company logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelaide Hills Council.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yeti Hunter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo has been removed from Adelaide Hills Council article, presumably because it is no longer the current logo of the council. The new logo is very similar, but the stylised "A" is slightly different, and the wording has been changed to san serif font - see [3]. Suggest the existing file be kept and reinstated, but tagged for update?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2018 (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 -FASTILY 00:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parks and recreation the stakeout.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Parks and recreation beauty pageant.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation sister city.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation kaboom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Toms divorce parks and recreation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation the set up.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation leslie's house.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sweetums parks and recreation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Galentines day parks and recreation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation telethon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation freddy spaghetti.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Parks and recreation the master plan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above screenshots from episodes of the second season of Parks and Recreation may not comply with WP:NFCC#8. The visual aspects of the images themselves are insufficiently covered by sources, and the articles are already understood without the images. Edit: Those images are used in the articles with GA status, but I'm confident that those GAs would be fine without the images. George Ho (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC); expanded, 19:07, 25 December 2018 (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, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hagler-marvin-11.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dogfacebob (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image of Marvelous Marvin Hagler is used for this and that article and is tagged with CC BY-SA 3.0. However, the image looks too professional, and I doubt the license that 20minutos.es is using applies as it would apply to the website's own work. The image may not be the website's own work, so the licensing would be invalid. George Ho (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found a slightly different version of the same photo here and what looks like a autographed version here. The same photo is also being used by the International Boxing Hall of Fame on their website here. Hagler was inducted into the IBHOF in 1993, which was well before this photo was uploaded to Commons and likely before it was uploaded to the source website. Moreover, if Hagler himself has autographed the photo, then there's a good chance it is some sort of official PR photo taken when he was active (his last pro fight was in 1987). For sure, he could autograph any photo of him if some fan wants him to, but I really doubt the cited source is the originator of the photo, but most likely got it from somewhere else instead. So, the license would be invalid per c:COM:LL in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given the presence of these reverse search results, and given the website makes no claim the image is their own in places where it used on their site, and given their licensing stipulates that they do make use of third party materials which are not covered by their Commons compatible licensing, the situation with regards to this image is murky at best. We need a clearer indication as to the licensing of this image than is presented so far. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (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.