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: No action. Please don't upload this to Commons folks -FASTILY 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SKY-Q-Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MetrolandNW (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File has since been replaced by a free alternative on its article Sky Q. This being an old logo is also no longer used at the top inside the infobox for primary identification, i.e. no longer compliant with non-free content criteria. Jf81 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Jf81:, these Sky logos should never be uploaded to Commons. They are PD-USonly in some cases but c:COM:TOO UK is a very low bar. I'm not sure if these are simple enough for the bar we have for PD-USonly, we generally put the bar a bit lower than the US Copyright office does. The US Copyright office would likely deem both File:SKY-Q-Logo.png and File:Sky Q - Logo 2020.svg as ineligible for copyright protection. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia based in the US? It would be following US regulations only in that case. --Jf81 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jf81: Legally yes, but Commons policy (not law) requires files to be free in the source country. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for clarifying. There are however numerous Sky logo files already on Commons. --Jf81 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jf81: And half of them exceed c:COM:TOO UK and are not properly licensed. Some are okay, for example c:File:SKY Basic Logo.svg but various other files in c:Category:Sky logos are not. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sky-Logo2017.png. That was the result of a question from Marchjuly. Marchjuly, any comment? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I can add to this discussion that hasn't already be stated by Alexis Jazz. The threshold of originality of the UK is quite different from that followed by US copyright law. So, many logos that might be ((PD-logo)) in the US would likely be considered still eligible for copyright protection in the UK. The UK's TOO seems to something akin to sweat of the brow while the US tends to require more original creativity be evident. Commons policy generally requires that a logo be "PD-logo" in both the US and its country of origin for the file to be kept. This is most likely why logos originating in the UK often seem to end up eventually deleted from Commons. Of course, this doesn't stop people from continuing to upload such logos to Commons, but being on Commons doesn't automatically mean OK to be on Commons. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, is sometimes able to host such logos under a ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) license, but this only treats the file as PD locally on English Wikipedia. That could work for this file if the consensus is that color gradiations aren't considered to be creative enough for copyright protection under US copyright law. Whether it's worth doing such a thing in this case likely comes to down to whether seeing the former logo is deemed encyclopedically relevant to the reader per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. It seems it would be better if there was some type of discussion of Sky Q's branding history to connect this logo contextually to the article content than simply a caption stating "Former logo of Sky Q" even if the file's licensing is converted to PD. That, however, is just my opinion. If, however, the consensus is that this needs to stay non-free, it will likely need to be deleted per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 unless sourced critical commentary about the logo or the change in branding can be found and added to the article; that's not really opinion, but an already long-standing consensus as to how WP:NFCCP applies to non-free former logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2021 (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⚡ 23:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal Animation Studios logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MinionsFan1998 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fan-made logo, no educational value. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2021 (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⚡ 23:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official crest of the Anglo-Chinese School with flames.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Melvsim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus PD reason. No evidence that the logo was made or first published in 1930. Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2021 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veterans Museum and Memorial Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonesy101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously published in http://memory.loc.gov/master/afc/afc2001001/68664/pd0001.pdf. Despite extensive photo credits, the photo of the museum doesn't seem covered by the credits so the origins are unknown. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (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⚡ 23:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limean Archbishop's Palace.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vivaperucarajo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Reading es:Wikipedia:Autorización para insertar material de PROMPERU con Copyright, I get the feeling that this only covers use by Wikipedia and/or on the web. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2021 (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⚡ 23:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of strange caption on "Man from U.N.C.L.E.".png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mghoffmann (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This Wikipedia screenshot includes File:The Man from U.N.C.L.E.jpg, which is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2021 (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 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PromiscuousSample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hotwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Maneater sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diasporas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both were previously nominated individually but then were kept by default, the result of "no consensus". To this date, the samples are still used at Loose (Nelly Furtado album). They should've been removed from that article when the previous FFD discussion was closed (and another). Indeed, there was no support to keep the samples in the album article. Rather there was one support to keep/use them in their respective song articles, Promiscuous (song) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). The samples in the individual song articles may or may not meet WP:NFCC#8. However, I'm defaulting to decide that the samples may still fail the criterion in any way, so I'm hoping that a vote can give a rebuttal. Furthermore, telling from the previous individual FFD discussions, the samples may still fail WP:NFCC#8 at the Loose album article... unless fresher votes can prove me wrong. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC); expanded, 23:26, 11 October 2021 (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⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:UnderneathItAll.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17Drew (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in three articles: No Doubt, Rock Steady (album) (Featured Article), and Underneath It All (Good Article). I'm not confident that the sample meets WP:NFCC#8 in the band article and the album article. I'm also not confident that removing the sample would affect how readers learn about the band and the album. The sample may or may not the criterion in the song article. Let's then remove the sample from either two or all articles. George Ho (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2021 (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 from Rock Steady (album) -FASTILY 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hey Baby (No Doubt song - sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17Drew (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Rock Steady (album) and Hey Baby (No Doubt song), both Featured Articles. Uncertain whether the sample meets WP:NFCC#8 when used in the song article. At least it's used in the "Composition" section rather than the introduction. However, I doubt that the sample meets the criterion when used in the album article, and I believe that the album can be already understood without any samples while reading the article. Of course, someone may disagree. George Ho (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (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 from Punk rock -FASTILY 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:All The Small Things.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously nominated; the result was "no consensus", leading to keeping the sample in both "All the Small Things" and "Punk rock" articles to this date. Actually, there were split votes to keep the sample in or remove it from the genre article. Well, the "keep" vote IMO didn't have much depth other than merely keeping it in both articles.

I thought the result should have been "kept in the song but removed from the genre". I still think there is one too many samples in the genre article (violating WP:NFCC#3a), which is soon to be (telling from votes at the FARC page) demoted/delisted from being Featured Article any longer. I believe that the sample may also fail WP:NFCC#8 (different criterion indeed) at the genre article. Recently, at the song article, I moved the sample down from the intro to the "Background" section for further context. Whether the sample meets WP:NFCC at the song article is still up for discussion. Maybe it does. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 12 October 2021 (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.