The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Delete nominated image only. Other images mentioned in the discussion were not part of the nomination and not tagged for deletion in any way. Whpq (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image of a statue unveiled in 2020. Not an architectural work, so no FoP. Keeping this as a non-free image would probably be against WP:NFLISTS because there is little information in the article about the statue. I propose deletion. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 02:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Re-license: I think that the reader's understanding of the subject is enhanced enough by the presence of the image that it should re-licensed as ((Non-free 3D art)), so that it can be kept. Furthermore, upon reviewing the article, I found that most of the images used there were submitted by Mgreason, as PD. As such, I recommend that the following images be re-licensed as well:

• File:EdwardConradiStatue.jpg
• File:SandyD'AlemberteStatue.jpg
• File:DAlemberteWindow.jpg
• File:SandalsObelisk.jpg
• File:SeminoleFamilyStatue.jpg
• File:Sodcemetery.jpg
• File:SportsmanshipStatue.jpg
• File:WerkmeisterWindow.jpg

Additionally, it should be noted that Mgreason also uploaded multiple images of plaques to the article, however I am assuming that these are ineligible for copyright as they consist of only text. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for statues. Converting this to fair use would violate WP:NFLIST. ✗plicit 14:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All: Having recieved clarification on list article image use policies from some excellent follow-up research by @Explicit (thank you for doing that), it would seem that my original rationale no longer applies. As such, I have struck my original vote and changed it to recommend that all of the images of statues uploaded by Mgreason be deleted as they do not meet the requirements to be used in the intended context. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ERBoH logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:BANDLOGO disallows non-free logos of music artists "unless the logo itself is discussed in the prose." This file can be replaced by a gallery of c:File:Nice Peter right DigiTour 2011 (cropped).jpg and c:File:Epic Lloyd3.jpg as on List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Firstly, The image in question is not the logo of a band, but rather of a web series, so WP:BANDLOGO most likely does not apply here. Secondly, The two images named as possible "replacements" for the image in question would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose, if used in its' place, as images of hosts or participants do not serve to adequately identify the web series. Based on these factors, I recommend WP:SK, per Applicability point 3. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your assessment. Per WP:NFCC#1, "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Yes, this includes non-free logos as well. For example, the infoboxes for Nerds (candy) and Skittles (confectionery) contain images of the candies themselves and not their respective logos, as images of the products "serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

  Similarly, the articles on other YouTubers usually include images of the people themselves and not the logo of the YouTube channel (unless it is freely licensed [i.e. CinemaSins and Geography Now]). For example, the animated personas of JaidenAnimations and TheOdd1sOut are nowhere to be found on their articles, as free images of their voice actors "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JohnCWiesenthal I still do not feel that alternative images you provided will serve the same encyclopedic purpose (identifying the webseries) that the current non-free logo does. And since a non-free equivalent can't be created without violating the initial copyright, I think that keeping the image in question is the simplest solution. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a logo of a web series, and not a band as claimed, in use in the infobox of the web series article for identification purposes. The logo is a permitted image use for Template:Infobox television. Aspects (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tata IPL 2024 Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wowlastic10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This isn't a free logo and not a suitable license provided. Furthermore, the given source is nowhere seen to have this Image. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This images meet criteria WP:F3 and WP:F9 for WP:SPEEDY, as it is a non-free image improperly licensed as PD. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as F3 and F9. There isn't a valid fair use for this logo either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Contesting the deletion order:𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 Fhsig13 Joseph According to the real owner of this image ie. the BCCI allows non-profitable organistaions to use its logo efficiently, the website attached with logo is genuine and can be shared in this talk page if required. The user putting this topic for discussion is himself violating the organisation rules as BCCI strictly prohibits Editing in its logo. In short, Wikipedia is eligible to use the logo but the logo should not be edited Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Source/Evidence: https://bcciplayerimages.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/bcci/documents/IPL-2021-Brand-Content-Protection-Guidelines.pdf Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is a non-profitable organisation but, It has its own policies which needs to be followed as well. For an image to be used in Wikipedia it needs to be allowed for not only non-profitable usage but also for commercial use according to WP:IUPC. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  File:TATA IPL 2023 Logo.png and File:TATA IPL 2024 Logo.png are year specific logos from reliable websites, while File:Tata IPL 2024 Logo.jpg (the one that's being discussed about) is just a generic logo and using it in year specific articles would be a violation of WP:GETTY point 14. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also what do you mean by Contesting the deletion order; It was just a notification left on your talk page by an automated process of WP:Twinkle. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Allowing non commercial use is not a valid licence for Wikipedia, which requires images to be usuable for commercial and non commercial use. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Better Be Home Soon.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rm w a vu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No proof that this audio sample (i.e. portion of the recording) is contextually significant to either Crowded House (band) or Better Be Home Soon (song). George Ho (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample does not enhance the readers' understanding of the song in a way that text alone could not convey. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don't Stop Now.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rm w a vu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No proof that this audio sample (i.e. portion of the recording) is contextually significant to either Crowded House (band) or Don't Stop Now (song). George Ho (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample does not enhance the readers' understanding of the song in a way that text alone could not convey. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Distant Sun.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rm w a vu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No proof that this audio sample (i.e. portion of the recording) is contextually significant to either Crowded House (band) or Distant Sun (song). George Ho (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, the sample does not enhance the readers' understanding of the song in a way that text alone could not convey. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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. Whpq (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air Vice-Marshal Leslie William Cannon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RevolutionaryPatriot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyright in this image has been restored by the URAA, as Pakistani (and British) copyright periods would still have been running in 1996. The only chance for this image to be considered in the public domain in the US is for it being a British (not Pakistani) Crown image that falls under the special clause that Crown copyright is considered to "expire worldwide" (cf. template:PD-UKGov). However, there is no indication that this is the case. If found to be copyrighted in the US, it could possibly still be used on the subject's article under non-free content provisions, but would presumably have to be removed from Chief of the Air Staff (Pakistan). Felix QW (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

explain URAA and 1996

This is a Pakistani work RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RevolutionaryPatriot, Wikipedia is hosted on servers in the United States. That means that any picture uploaded here must be free to use in the United States, regardless of its country of origin. In short, Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) says that most Pakistani works that were under Pakistani copyright in 1996 are still under copyright in the United States. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean 50 years after 1996 then? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Three Sixty meant it that way. Let's just say that the photo's copyright will last until the end of 2046, ninety-five years after its first publication, i.e. possibly 1951 (Cornell charts). The Pakistani works still copyrighted in Pakistan in 1996 received their own restored US copyright. Right now, the ones published before 1929 are now already in the public domain. George Ho (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Re-License: If my assessment of the nomination is correct, this image can be re-licensed as non-free and kept in the article about Leslie William Cannon, as it would serve to identify the subject. As for the other article that this image is currently being used in, Chief of the Air Staff (Pakistan), I'm not sure that (once re-licensed) it would pass WP:NFCC#8 there, so it would likely have to be removed from that article. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 07:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WQLN TV logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niagara (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete: Not "own work"; no author info; poorly drawn derivative work Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change author/source information and move to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed with JohnCWiesenthal. It's a formal logo of WQLN, yes, however, the author/source info can change to mention that WQLN's owner, the Public Broadcasting of Northwest Pennsylvania, Inc. created the logo, then it can be moved to Commons. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons as PD: This image falls below the threshold of originality, as it consists of only text. Therefore, I agree with moving the image to Commons, licensed as PD. Once that is complete, the version in question can be speedy deleted as it will then meet criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fowler&fowler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The event depicted here has always been dated "in the late 1930s", with the date "c. 1920s" added by ShakespeareFan00 in 2014. If it is from the late 1930s, that is, from 1936 or later, its copyright in the US would have been restored by the URAA and would not expire until 95 years after publication. The image is not in use on any pages. Felix QW (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image most likely meets criteria WP:F3, WP:F5, and WP:F9 for WP:SPEEDY. This is because the image is non-free, improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain, and has been orphaned. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If from 1936 or later, Delete It also at the moment unsourced.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After stumbling across this discussion on Commons, it seems that 1941 and not 1936 is the URAA cut-off for Indian photographs. So on that basis, I no longer advocate for deletion. I assume this cannot be closed just yet since other participants have !voted to delete the image above. Felix QW (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to some great follow-up research by @Felix QW, my original voting rationale is no longer valid, as it would seem that the image is actually in the Public Domain afterall. As such, I am striking my original vote and changing it to support their request for the nomination to be withdrawn, per WP:WITHDRAWN. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iqbal-RahmatAli.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rama's Arrow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Due to the slight distortion of the Commons image, I don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion as a duplicate of this Commons version. However, the smaller resolution combined with the bad contrast means that at least for me, there is insufficient added value in retaining this local file. Felix QW (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As a more serviceable version of the image in question exists on Commons, the image in question is more or less redundant to it. As such, I feel that this image is unnecessary. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jinnahcap.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noman488 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned file whose US copyright was renewed by the URAA in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image most likely meets criterion WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, because the image is likely non-free, but is improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon further review, my original rationale does not apply. As a result, I am changing my vote to recommend regular deletion as the image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jinnahsideposecap .jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noman488 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned file (disclaimer: It was used in List of hat styles to illustrate the cap, but I replaced in favour of File:Leonid Brezhnev 1974.jpg, where the hat can be seen much better). As a 1947 image from Pakistan, its copyright has been restored by the URAA and will not expire in the US until 2043. Felix QW (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image most likely meets criteria WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, because the image is likely non-free, but is improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon further review, my original rationale does not apply. As a result, I am changing my vote to recommend regular deletion as the image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The author of this map, taken from a pamphlet whose place of first publication is unclear to me (UK/India/Pakistan), died in 1951, and therefore should have entered the public domain in its source country some time between 2001 and 2021. Due to the URAA, US copyright will in all likelihood last until 2029. As this is a very valuable historic image, I am not sure whether non-free use might be possible; on the other hand, one could draw a free alternative showing the same proposed "states". Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image most likely meets criteria WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, as the image is likely non-free, but improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain. The image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept, in its' current state. I also feel that the image would be unsuitable for non-free use, as it would fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) as a willing individual could redraw the map, then release it under a free license. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have changed my vote and amended my wording, as upon further review, the first part of my original rationale does not apply. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Smashing Pumpkins -The Aeroplane Flies High - vinyl cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werideatdusk33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Virtually identical to the original cover, just seems to be a 2D digital image rather than a photo of a box that has this swirl design on it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Re-license Delete: This image fails WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use), due to the presence of the image of the standard album cover, in the same infobox. That said, I think that because the alternate cover's artwork consists of only geometric shapes, it falls below the threshold of originality, and therefore could be moved to Commons and re-licensed as PD. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Fhsig13's rationale about NFCC3; however, this image might be above ToO. Zooming in reveals some rather elaborate gradient lines and patterns in the top left corner. Therefore, I believe there is enough originality for the image to be copyrighted. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 01:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Three Sixty. Also, almost similar to a portion of the original packaging. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further review, I have struck my original vote and changed it recommend deletion of the image, as I now agree with @Three Sixty that the image is likely above ToO. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammad Ali of Bogra.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rainmaker23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is likely that this image is from after 1945 and that therefore it is copyrighted in the US due to URAA restoration. There are PD alternatives for identifying the subject on Commons, so non-free use will be difficult to justify. Felix QW (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image meets criteria WP:F3 and WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY, as the image is likely non-free, but incorrectly licensed as being in the Public Domain, and which also is redundant to PD alternatives found on Commons. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon further review, my original rationale does not apply. As a result, I am changing my vote to recommend regular deletion as the image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept. It is also indirectly redundant to the alternatives found on Commons by the nominator. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAF squadron 1965.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PreserveOurHistory (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Pakistani image whose copyright has been restored by the URAA. Pakistani government works do not seem to have a rule such as, say, UK Crown works, that the URAA does not apply to them. Felix QW (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image meets criteria WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, as the image is likely non-free, but is improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon further review, my original rationale does not apply. As a result, I am changing my vote to recommend regular deletion as the image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakistan hockey against australia 1960rome.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dewaar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that this photo, which was shot in Rome and is sourced to a website of the Australian Olympic Committee, was first published in Pakistan. If it were first published in Italy, then it could be a "simple photo" which only had a 20 year copyright period. If first published anywhere else, then it is likely still to be copyrighted in the US because of the URAA. Felix QW (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This image likely meets criterion WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, as the image is likely non-free, but is improperly licensed as being in the Public Domain. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon further review, my original rationale does not apply. As a result, I am changing my vote to recommend regular deletion as the image in question is likely under copyright and as such should not be kept. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.