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 in Salvadoran Football Federation, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:FESFUT logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Pink Oboe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Salvadoran Football Federation, El Salvador national beach soccer team, El Salvador national football team, El Salvador national under-17 football team, El Salvador national under-20 football team, El Salvador national under-21 football team, El Salvador national under-23 football team, and El Salvador women's national football team. A non-free use rationale is provided for each usage, but such logos are generally only considered NFCC compliant in the main federation/association article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and the minimal usage required by WP:NFCC#3. The main federation/association is typically considered to be the "parent" entity and the teams are considered to be "child" entities. This has been almost always been the consensus in other FFD/ NFCR discussion about similar logos, and I don't see how this is any exception. So, suggest keep in "Salvadorian Football Federation" and remove from the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Note: I was unable to notify the uploader of the file of this discussion because their user talk page has been protected. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This team logo was the first logo used by the New York Cosmos (1970–85), which was changed to File:New York Cosmos 77.png. However, this logo is almost identical to the later logo that is in the article, with the only difference the inclusion of New York in the logo. This file is not necessary to explain the team logos or to illustrate it. This is a carryover from the old WP:NFCR, discussion here Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Courtesy ping to @ Oknazevad:, @ Marchjuly: and @ Masem: - Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm just to going to repost what I said at that discussion, so people don't have to jump between pages: There is no current logo, as it is an article on a historical team. More importantly, though, the discussion in the article explicitly covers the placement and and font choices for the words on the logo, the original logo. So the original logo needs to be illustrated for the passage to make sense. Also, the change in logo does illustrate the (temporary) change in name, which is discussed in the full team history above. But in general, for a section dedicated to discussing the design of the team's two logos through its history to not include both logos seems like a silly claim. oknazevad ( talk) 04:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

The difference between two versions, which only change in the words used, is really pushing NFCC#3. While there is discussion that the "New York Cosmos" was dropped to just "Cosmos", one does not need to see both logos to recognize that difference. Note that there is clearly sufficient discusion for one of the logos, moreso than most other logo uses, but I really don't think we can justify both if the only change is wording. -- MASEM ( t) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)I'm not sure if the difference between the two logos is significant enough for both to be needed per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. The only real difference I can see between the two is that original logo says "New York Cosmos" and the other simply says "Cosmos". I think this is more than adequately explained by the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged." without seeing both logos. All of the discussion about fonts, colors and "three color blades" can still be understood without seeing both logos since the badge itself remained unchanged. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:56, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:18NightsOfBruce.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasted Time R ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour#Commercial and critical reaction. File has a non-free use rationale which states "To illustrate the attempt to broaden the audience of the tour's American leg, by hooking up with AOL and its customer base", but I do not see why a this particular poster needs to be seen to understand that. The file's caption says "To increase publicity, AOL broadcast a different song's performance nightly during the American leg of the tour." which is unsourced and content that should be directly added to the article itself if relevant (AOL is not mentioned a single time in the article other than the file's caption). Suggest remove per WP:NFCC#8 since the image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary so the contextual significance it needs is lacking and per WP:NFCC#1 since text could be added to the article to say "AOL broadcast a different song's performance nightly ...." to serve the same encyclopedic purpose per item "b" in WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:39, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:1952 Summer Olympics.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cardshark04 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1952 Summer Olympics#Sports. file has a non-free use rationale, but the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and is simply being used for decorative purposes in an embedded list section. Suggest remove per WP:NFCC#8, unless there is some way to convert this to a free license. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 10 February 2016 (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: Kept as PD. It seems certain, even without a publication history, that this image is pre-1923. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:1st World Scout Jamboree poster.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Horus Kol ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1st World Scout Jamboree#Olympia and camping. File has a non-free use rationale, but I don't think it's current usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8 because the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. I do think that this may possibly be resolved by simply moving the poster to the main infobox per its non-free use rational. Another possibility is that this file may be old enough for {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}}. The jamboree was held in the summer of 1920 which means that this has to have been created before then, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

It's a promotional poster made before the event to publicize the event. Mine was scanned from a book 5000 miles away.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response Kintetsubuffalo. If you can provide any information about the book, e.g., name, author, isbn #, etc., then it may be possible for another editor to access it and verify the poster. I don't think it necessarily needs to be online as long as sufficient information is provided which allows somebody somewhere to verify it. As I posted, I think the poster seems old enough, so the book info just helps further verify the poster's age. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:12, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DragonFire ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1954 FIFA World Cup#Seeding. File has a non-free use rationale, but the rationale states the file is "Used in the infobox/header of the article to identify the tournament" which is not the case at all. Since the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, current usage lacks the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. Suggest remove from the article, unless this is possibly old enough for public domain or some other type of free license. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Finland 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Olympic Games 10Euro Reverse.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kevin hipwell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used in 1952 Summer Olympics#50th anniversary coin and Helsinki Olympic Stadium. File has a non-free use rationale, but it seems to be an attempt to combined three separate uses into one rationale so I don't think this passes WP:NFCC#10c. There are other NFCC problems besides 10c. Files use in "1952 Summer Olympics" seems OK since there is some discussion of the coin itself, but none of it is sourced discussion so it could be removed per WP:NOR and thus taking away the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. Coin is also discussed in Helsinki Olympic Stadium#History, but once again none of the content is supported by a reliable source. I don't think the file really needs to be used in both articles since they basically say the same thing and feel file is more appropriate for "1952 Summer Olympics" provided some reliable sources are added in support. Suggest keep for "1952 Summer Olympics" on the condition that reliable sources are added in support of the content of the relevant section, and remove from "Helsinki Olympic Stadium" since the wikilink to the "50th anniversary coin" can be added instead, unless it is possible that this can be licensed as {{ PD-FinlandGov}}. If so, then there would be no need to worry about WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Finnish coins are probably {{ PD-FinlandGov}}, but per c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, we need permission from the photographer. Since we don't have this, the picture violates WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 07:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Stefan2: Would this resolve the NFCC#1 issues for the image of the coin? It appears to be an official document of the Bank of Finland. Would the content of such a document qualify as "PD-FinlandGov"?-- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Possibly. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I doubt it, Marchjuly. First of, this bulletin document is not a law, decree, treaty or anything else that PD-FinlandGov applies to (see translation at: c:Template:PD-FinlandGov). Even if it was, "The above does not apply to independent works contained in the documents referred to in paragraphs 1—5" (ibid). Surely the coin design and the photograph thereof is work independent of the bulletin.

Coin designs are not laws, decrees, treaties or any other kind of documents specified in the law either either. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:59, 11 February 2016 (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: boldly resolved by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 17:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:10am Spanish Mass (2008).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marburg79 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This nomination is only for the "6 April 2015" revision. There is no source to verify copyright status for the image that was uploaded over the top of the church mass image. The live version of the image has been reverted back to the church image. The 6 April 2015 revision should be deleted unless someone can confirm source/copyright and split the image onto a new page. Nick⁠—⁠ ^Contact/ _Contribs 07:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close. This kind of upload is (unintentionally?) disruptive, and doing a housekeeping delete to hide the image is ordinary. I've performed such an action, and if you're not an admin, you won't see anything of the other file. No point in continuing the FFD, since your desired action has happened. Nyttend ( talk) 05:45, 12 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:5th Avenue Records, Inc home office.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 5th Avenue Records, Inc. ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low Resolution; uploaded by a promotional account, likely copyvio (multiple tineye hits: [1]) FASTILY 10:07, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Stanley Donen - On the Town-1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obviously invalid PD claim. Uploader says image was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, but the source image is clearly dated 1996. We have no information about the original publication of the image, and cannot determine whether it carried a copyright notice. If the 1996 publication is the first, no copyright notice was required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. ( talk) 12:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a Photofest image, as indicated at the top left of the photo. Photofest was a photo agency, supplying news images since at least the 1920s (see example or another. There are a number of other PD images sourced to Photofest, which only had their "Please credit Photofest" stamped on the reverse., as in this example, and this one. Exactly where or when it was printed is not necessary to prove publication, as explained by the copyright office: "publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." -- Light show ( talk) 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This level of blithering idiocy demonstrates why you're topic banned here and had been blocked at Commons. Photofest has not been "supplying news images since at least the 1920s", unless they've got a time machine or two, because it was established in the 1980s. [2] The Francesca Annis image you link to in your comment is a perfect example of why you need to consider "exactly when or where" it was published: the text on the back of the photo demonstrates that it was originally published in the UK, so that the failure to include a copyright notice didn't render the image public domain. The fact that at some later, undetermined, date it was redistributed by an American agency isn't enough to demonstrate public domain status -- and the Ebay listing clearly falls short of demonstrating any US publication, since Photofest might easily have placed its own stamp/sticker on every photo in its inventory, anticipating future use. Dealing with you has been a gigantic timesink for competent, responsible editors, because no matter how many times your arguments are refuted, you trot them out disruptively and incessantly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The copyrigt tag {{ PD-US-no notice}} requires evidence that the picture was published without copyright notice before 1978. We only have evidence of publication without a copyright notice in 1996, which was after 1978. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2016 (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 New Democratic Party leadership election, 1989. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in New Democratic Party leadership election, 1989. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:American Go Association (logo).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TDerz ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I can't find any evidence that the association uses this logo. No source was provided by the uploader, and all links from the article American Go Association (such as the link to the company's website) either use a different logo or no logo at all. This is either a fake logo or a former logo. If it is a former logo, then it's better to retag as {{ PD-textlogo}}.On the other hand, if it is a fake logo, then we should delete the file. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Rocco the dog.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rileypie ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused low-resolution dog photo. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nom. is right, although it is a very cute dog. If only we could put it to good use... Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:54, 10 February 2016 (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: convert to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The threshold of originality for Mexico is not known — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:XHLC 98.7radioabsoluta logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rudy2alan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Clear cut case of PD-textlogo (a bit of colour is not enough to add originality), but is it suitable for Commons? (i.e {{ PD-textlogo}} or {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}?) Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's definitely at least {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}, so I've tagged it as such. However, I know nothing about the copyright laws in Mexico. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:30, 11 February 2016 (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: keep infobox image. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Shirley Valentine.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Emerson7 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:PaulineCollins1.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

The article fails WP:NFCC#3a. We only need one picture, not two. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:16, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Lintel.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonett72 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, low quality. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nom. is right. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2016 (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: keep and rename File:Screen6.png. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Screen12.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:Screen4.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:Screen6.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a. We don't need three similar screenshots. We should delete two of them and give the last one a sensible name per WP:FNC#2. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename Screen6, delete others as failing NFCC minimal use in context. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 17:33, 14 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Green circle.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kborer ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused circle. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nom. is right. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Move to Commons and Rename to Thin green circle.png (linked, of course, to Commons Green circle image. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Hi. It does not comply with Commons project scope requirements. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Dublin's City Hall-darker blue.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tebibyte ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nom. is right. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note I've renamed the file to have it disambiguated and unshadowing Commons in case we keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:56, 12 February 2016 (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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Microsoft WSUS Admin 2.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Warren ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Another editor placed a speedy deletion tag requesting deletion on the basis that the Microsoft license was violated due to an image alteration, the alteration being the computer name being blurred out, presumably for privacy reasons. I declined speedy deletion, but since the license was challenged, I feel obligated to bring it to discussion. My personal view is that the license was not violated, since the blur was for redaction reasons only and the blur did not compromise the integrity of the overall image. I will notify the editor who placed the delete tag and invite him to comment on this. Safiel ( talk) 18:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Safiel. Indeed I do not believe the redaction has violated the license. Even if it was, User:Warddr's act of nominating for deletion is overkill; we could easily switch to fair use instead of deletion. (But as I said, not needed.) Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• I don't know if the licence has been violated or not, but deletion does not seem to be correct here. If the licence was violated, then the copyright tag should be replaced by something else instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:49, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Windows Updated Family Tree.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ElectricController ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unusable low-quality image. It is an SVG version of File:Windows Updated Family Tree.png but it is visibly buggy/quirky and 5.76x bigger. Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Fixed. It is not buggy anymore. - ElectricController ( talk) 20:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• You are cheating. Now it is just bitmap inside SVG; nothing vector about it. Why don't we cut the middle man and go straight to the PNG? If it is not genuine vector, being an SVG file has no benefits. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry, I thought it would be better only for being SVG. I just want you to know I am not cheating, I just wanted to do something interesting. - ElectricController ( talk) 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ ElectricController: That's what I assumed. I always assume good faith. But nonetheless, I did not want you to go around doing it to a second and third, all the time thinking you are actually doing some good. We convert the image formats when there is a definite benefit. In case of conversion to the vector SVG, we definitely want scalability, reduced size, increased accessibility. What you did here was to increase loading time, impose wrong software infrastructure (SVG reader instead of PNG reader) and impede the ability to edit the image when new versions of Windows comes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Appears to be a bitmap file with an SVG extension. In that case, it's better to use the bitmap file directly instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:51, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Ulver, February 2003.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DetGylneKorset98 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unclear whether or not this file fails WP:NFCC#1 since the members in this image are not identified. Per the band's article Ulver, at least one member of the band is deceased, but even with that, it may fail WP:NFCC#8 due to it not providing context to the article. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (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 F9 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Billy Osborn headshot.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thepantry ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It's unclear if "private photo" in the summary means that the uploader took the photo, or if the photo was provided to them from someone else. This should be clarified in order to determine if permission needs to be granted for this file to be hosted on Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:37, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Leslie Roy Foote.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Duckduckstop ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Interesting one here. This obviously meets WP:NFCC#1 since the subject is deceased, but I'm concerned that this may fail WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI point 9 since this image looks like it was taken from a sports card. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:46, 10 February 2016 (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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Stalin bier.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lucullus19 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 at its current location in the article. Also, if used to portray Stalin's body at a funeral, it would fail WP:NFCC#3 since File:Joseph stalin body lies in state.jpg already does that. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This picture is the only preserved picture which shows together all eight main contenders having entered a competition for a succession after Stalin´s death. Picture is related to the section called "Aftermath" where are listed all these eight men most deeply involved in the struggle for power after Stalin´s death (in the period 1953 - 1958). Lucullus19 ( talk) 08:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. The section could easily be understood without any image at all. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:12, 13 February 2016 (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: convert to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Unitxt - album cover.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lamro ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Is this file eligible for {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}? Steel1943 ( talk) 23:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Seems so. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:07, 13 February 2016 (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.