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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly a ((PD-textlogo)) that can be re-licensed and moved to Commons as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple logo, much like this file. I believe it should be re-licensed as ((PD-logo)) and moved to Commons as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:01, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ((PD-logo)); the CBS eyemark is itself in the public domain, and neither the simple text nor the arrangement thereof is copyrightable. As such, this should be re-licensed and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:04, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty clear ((PD-textlogo)). There is no need to make a fair use claim; this should be re-licensed and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly a ((PD-textlogo)); there is no need to keep it locally under a fair use claim. It should be re-licensed and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:07, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a ((PD-textlogo)); it is composed simply of three simple rectangles with one simple white letter atop each one. The arrangement is below the threshold of originality in the United States, so I think that this should be re-licensed and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly a ((PD-textlogo)); it's composed solely of white text on a red background. As this is below the threshold of originality in the United States, this should be marked as public domain and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:11, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a ((PD-textlogo)); it is a simple arrangement composed of text, and the text itself is not copyrightable. As such, this should be re-licensed to indicate its PD status and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be below the threshold of originality in the United States (see this image and this image for comparison). As such, I think that this should be re-licensed to indicate its public domain status and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:16, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty clear ((PD-textlogo)) that can be re-licensed and moved to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:17, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is probably below the threshold of originality in the United States. The only thing that would plausibly be creative is the distorted red F, but I don't think that it would be above the TOO (compare File:Los Angeles Football Club.svg, which was denied registration by the copyright office and appears to be more creative). We're currently treating this file as non-free, but I don't think we need to do so; we can re-license this photo and move it to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 17 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be below c:COM:TOO USA. The text itself is not copyrightable, and the whole logo is composed of very simple shapes. There is a pattern on the left side of the bar of alternating colored squares, but this doesn't seem to be any more creative than c:File:Nikon Logo.svg, which was denied registration by the U.S. copyright office. As such, I think we can re-license this photo to reflect its status as public domain and then upload it to Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:24, 17 March 2023 (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, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as it's the old logo, and its inclusion does not significantly benefit the article. Fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with the current logo File:Jaffna Kings.png, which is much better for providing context for readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2023 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I previously nominated this file, hoping that comments would arrive. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, so it was procedurally closed as "not actionable". This time, I'm more confident that this image qualifies for transfer to Commons, yet someone at WP:MCQ assumed that the whole image, and I mean the whole image, is copyrightable but that the whole logo itself is possibly free to use. In comparison, one of similar images was kept at Commons per one DR discussion. If the MCQ lasted a little longer, I would've pointed out one image (not similar, but...) showing just credits and nothing else (FFD discussion). How the admin who responded at MCQ would assume that the overall text, including credits, song title, category and matrix numbers, is copyrightable is beyond me. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2023 (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, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the outline of the woman enough to actually be above the threshold of originality? If so, we don't usually allow non-free former logos (and in any event, I see little value in retaining the logo for a three-week stunt format under any license). One possible complication is that although nominally a US-based station, WLYK has long been operated by Canadian interests as an additional station for the Canadian city of Kingston, Ontario, which may open the question of which country's TOO should be followed. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that EnWiki cares only about U.S. TOO in terms of labeling as non-free vs public domain (((PD-ineligible-USonly)) exists for this purpose). In any case, that woman (note the particular detail of her hair and fingers) appears above the threshold of originality in the United States, and should be treated as non-free. It's currently unused, and non-free files have to be used somewhere to be kept on Wikipedia, so I think that this out be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks to be above the United States and Canadian TOO's and has no obvious use in the WLYK article. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2023 (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.

March 17

File:Jaffna Stallions logo.png

File:WLYK 102.7 The Pole Logo.png