Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24

File:Denis Blazevic.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:00, 24 December 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.

File:Asad Memon in College Dress FPS.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:02, 24 December 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.

File:800px-Eight Mile Road-fixed.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original image is available on Commons (File:Eight Mile Road.jpg) and is the one which is used. This version is inferior and un-needed. XXN, 00:09, 24 December 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.

File:Chris Slade.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is clear here. Unused - out of scope. XXN, 00:12, 24 December 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.

File:Embarq logo.svg

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: public domain ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like pd-textlogo. Should have fair use tags replaced with "public domain because ~~the designer didn't study US copyright law~~ it doesn't meet the threshold of originality" tags. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo falls below TOO, relicense to "PD-logo" and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time i uploaded, i tagged it non-free as an abundance of caution. But i completely agree that PD is more appropriate. --Ben Stone 14:15, 25 December 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.

File:Chris Hampton.jpeg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:19, 24 December 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.

File:Damion beach.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:20, 24 December 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.

File:Demon earth.gif

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. XXN, 00:26, 24 December 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.

File:Behdad Esfahbod.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:27, 24 December 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.

File:LKR Three Students.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope / no permission (uploader is not the author).

Also affected File:LKR Guitar Boy.jpg. XXN, 00:30, 24 December 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.

File:Brad2.gif

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:32, 24 December 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.

File:Benwaycrop2.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad crop. Unusable - out of scope. Don't transfer it to Commons. XXN, 00:35, 24 December 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.

File:Dlh.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope.

+ File:Mlhscrn.jpg. -- XXN, 00:37, 24 December 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.

File:Corporate Look.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 01:11, 24 December 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.

File:Old Hair Style.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 01:11, 24 December 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.

File:Profilepic.png

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 01:12, 24 December 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.

File:Mohawk Haircut.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo - out of project scope. Also affected:

File:Graduation Friends.jpg
File:Office Friends.jpg XXN, 01:13, 24 December 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.

File:ControversialGaryColemanHospitalBedPic.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#8 Nobody's understanding of Gary Coleman is significantly increased by the presence of the image of an unconscious Coleman posed by his wife, who sold the photo to a tabloid, and the omission of the photo doesn't diminish anybody's understanding of Gary Coleman. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 24 December 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.

File:Mary Had A Little Lamb Vocal Male Rendition 02.ogg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auto tuned audio of a random person saying a few sentences from "Mary Had a Little Lamb". No foreseeable use. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:48, 24 December 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.

File:Michael Thomas Slager.jpeg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#South_Carolina, "The Supreme Court of South Carolina held in Seago v. Horris County that a South Carolina county can hold copyrights on government works." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:51, 24 December 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.

File:Rhode Island DMV Seal.png

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island government works are copyrightable. See Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:10, 24 December 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.

File:Dali on the Rocky Steps.jpg

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 czar 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, being used just for illustration on Philadelphia Museum of Art. The article contains no commentary on this particular artwork. Kelly ^hi! 10:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary was removed at some point. I have restored it to where it once was. --evrik ^(talk) 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any commentary on the artwork, besides a caption that says it is surreal. Still fails WP:NFCC#8 as not being required for a reader's understanding of the topic. Kelly ^hi! 08:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is explains the relationship between the exhibitions and the steps. --evrik ^(talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we close this as a keep. --evrik ^(talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just mentioning that an exhibition existed isn't commentary on the artwork itself. Even if there was such commentary, this exhibition isn't a significant part of the museum or its history. I don't believe its use in this article would ever significantly enhance understanding of the museum itself, so fails WP:NFCC#8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:19, 3 January 2017 (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.

File:Plaque of Tide Mills Time-Line.jpg

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. Still no fair use rationale forthcoming over four months after nomination, and there are significant questions about whether this would even meet WP:NFCC#8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a 2D graphic work, not covered by freedom of panorama in the UK. Kelly ^hi! 11:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Fair Use can be argued successfully, since it is discussed in the article, and provides a source for the Windmill in the Tide Mill location too. It is, in fact, a reference! Fiddle Faddle 19:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no fair use claim or rationale on the file page. If there were, it would likely fail WP:NFCC#8 because a text reference could be used. Also, the photo is credited to "Melanie Trent" and permission is needed. I'm not trying to be difficult but those are the hoops that need to be jumped through for a photo like this. Apologies. Kelly ^hi! 19:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I love the phrase "I am not [doing something], but [I really am, just am using other words to seek to conceal what I am doing as something else]", which is a phrase never to be used, especially in deletion arguments. I and the person who took the picture shared this camera at that time. She happened to be wielding it for these pictures, so I credited her as the owner of the copyright. The community will do what it will do. "I'm not arguing with you, but, well, yes, I am." (Apologies. Hmm, those don't sound sincere either). Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further, your argument about failing that fair use criterion fails. It has nothing whatsoever to do with use of text as references. IT can easily be argued that this picture passes that criterion. Fiddle Faddle 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:14, 24 December 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.

File:Us senate result 1972.PNG

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 move to Commons. Seems like both sides are represented, so going for Czar's attribution argument as the image has been in use for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:1972 Senate election map.svg FASTILY 01:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reference and transfer to Commons. MB298 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why in the world would we keep this? Superior version is available. Keeping this one will just confuse people looking to use it. --Majora (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - I don't think English Wikipedia is a good place for orphaned images. Commons is a suitable place for them. Orphaned images are welcomed there. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inferior. Commons takes orphaned images, but it's a bit silly to pollute it with an image that's inferior in every way to another image and depicts exactly the same thing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Eh, if the svg had the same colors as the png and thus was functionally identical, there would be more of a case, but I can see this image being useful if only for attribution after being around for so long (since 2004). On balance, I think it would be best to move the set to Commons (see this image and its siblings at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 9#File:World population history.png) where the set of similar pngs can be considered as a group. Though noted that image standards have changed in the last decade... czar 09:29, 15 January 2017 (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.

File:SHAPE-Structure.jpg

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 - appears to non-copyrightable. Nthep (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source is a direct link, I wasn't aware of NATO releasing materials under PD, but this does seem to be a simple orgnisational chart. No other data in file description page such as dates. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is too simple to argue about copyright in my opinion, it can be vectorised trivially. I propose that and then delete the file with low quality. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one qualifies as PD-simple at all - "selection and arrangement" can still be a source of a copyright claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether it is Pd-simple
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get the source link – http://www.afsouth.nato.int/images/2004/JFCN/Structure.jpg – to load. However, a bit of searching revealed http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/structure.htm and looking at the section branching from "Allied Command Operations (ACO)", it seems that our image is out of date, as there are nine named first-level subgroups now. There's more detail starting from https://www.shape.nato.int/structure. Perhaps it's time to create a new structure chart as a vector graphic and retire this one. I really can't see that there's sufficient scope for creativity in the contents of that page section to generate a copyright which might stop anyone basing a new image on it, but I suppose we should gauge opinion on that before taking the trouble to make one. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is available in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20040821000448/http://www.afsouth.nato.int/images/2004/JFCN/Structure.jpg czar 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons. The arrangement is the simplest possible arrangement conveying the facts of the organization, and so I highly doubt its copyrightable. Facts cannot be copyrighted and the arrangement is not at all creative beyond conveying those facts. We need an updated chart, but we should move the historical one to Commons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:36, 18 January 2017 (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.

File:CNBC TV18 logo.png

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: PD-textlogo, group with similar images on Commons czar 09:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is tagged as PD logo, but I'm not sure it's below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as PD-logo and potentially move to Commons. Image is a derivative of the CNBC logo which is currently hosted on Commons (and survived multiple discussions, see file usage on Commons). While the television channel in question here is Indian it may qualify to be copied to Commons due to it being a direct copy of an American logo? Salavat (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the logo is a complex configuration of simple geometries and colors. I checked the DR on commons and it still seems protectable to my eyes. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether it meets the threshold of originality
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:08, 24 December 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.

File:Skyler Day 2016.jpg

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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 15#File:Skyler_Day_2016.jpg}}

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.

File:SOTE-CD.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reproduction of the book cover above, fails NFUR —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 24 December 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.

File:Latezippymorocco.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that it is by the U.S. government Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:14, 24 December 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.

File:International Education College logo.jpg

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploaded by another user in PNG format: File:International Education College logo.png. It's a non-free logo, we can't keep 2 identical versions, one of them being unused. XXN, 23:16, 24 December 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.