The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
File was uploaded as a non-free logo, but its design might be simple enough to qualify as either {{ PD-logo}} or perhaps {{ PD-USonly}} if the design is above the Romanian threshold of originality. On the other hand, if the consensus is that the logo's design is complex enough to require a non-free license, then it's use in 1947–48 Cupa României and 1953 Cupa României is mainly decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and it should be removed from those articles.
So, if simple enough for public domain, convert to an appropriate PD license and tag with {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If non-free, keep in the stand-alone article about the team itself and remove from the two individual tournament articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion, and previously taken to NFCR, because of a dispute regarding the fairness of our using it. I do not dispute that — this specific imagery from Dennō Senshi Porygon had worldwide coverage for its effects on those with photosensitive epilepsy and prompted the creation of industry standards to prevent such an incident in the future, so I can't see how anyone could question the idea that some depiction of the scene can be fair use for an encyclopedia article. However, we have two images of the same scene, and there's no reason to keep both this one and File:Denno.ogg. This one being only a single frame and the other being a few seconds of the scene, and as the other one's much more informative (given the importance of the flashing, it's quite important to have the video, and not just one frame), I believe it's much better to delete this one and keep the other, not vice versa. Nyttend ( talk) 01:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Image is not the subject of discussion in any article, and gives no benefit to informing readers about the article or the GWIRF (NFCC #8). No evidence of previous publication (#4); no evidence it is the GWIRF's logo. Also used in user sandbox (#9). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. — Vensatry (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. — Vensatry (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably copyvio (low resolution, no metadata etc). As I consider, it was uploaded independently in ruWP with the same copyright violation. But moreover file could be found in web with more resolution Dmitry89 ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
File was uploaded as a non-free logo, but its design might be simple enough to qualify as either {{ PD-logo}} or perhaps {{ PD-USonly}} if the design is above the Romanian threshold of originality. On the other hand, if the consensus is that the logo's design is complex enough to require a non-free license, then it's use in 1947–48 Cupa României and 1953 Cupa României is mainly decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and it should be removed from those articles.
So, if simple enough for public domain, convert to an appropriate PD license and tag with {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If non-free, keep in the stand-alone article about the team itself and remove from the two individual tournament articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This was previously nominated for deletion, and previously taken to NFCR, because of a dispute regarding the fairness of our using it. I do not dispute that — this specific imagery from Dennō Senshi Porygon had worldwide coverage for its effects on those with photosensitive epilepsy and prompted the creation of industry standards to prevent such an incident in the future, so I can't see how anyone could question the idea that some depiction of the scene can be fair use for an encyclopedia article. However, we have two images of the same scene, and there's no reason to keep both this one and File:Denno.ogg. This one being only a single frame and the other being a few seconds of the scene, and as the other one's much more informative (given the importance of the flashing, it's quite important to have the video, and not just one frame), I believe it's much better to delete this one and keep the other, not vice versa. Nyttend ( talk) 01:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Image is not the subject of discussion in any article, and gives no benefit to informing readers about the article or the GWIRF (NFCC #8). No evidence of previous publication (#4); no evidence it is the GWIRF's logo. Also used in user sandbox (#9). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. - Vivvt ( Talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. — Vensatry (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8. — Vensatry (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably copyvio (low resolution, no metadata etc). As I consider, it was uploaded independently in ruWP with the same copyright violation. But moreover file could be found in web with more resolution Dmitry89 ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)