Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

File:Border 2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice at the bottom left corner plus two non-free logos. Listing for deletion because of the file's age. ✗plicit 04:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, map and logos would fall under fair use, the information added to the map is unsourced, and the map itself could be replaced by an OpenStreetMap file. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2022 (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:BLS Wolfpack.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work, this is the logo of Boston Latin School's athletic teams. {{PD-logo}} can't be applied to this complex logo, WP:VRT permission required. Fair use isn't justified as this image is being used in a section of the school's article. ✗plicit 04:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (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:Touch screen Wawa.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contents on screen are presumably non-free. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (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:Tamla Motown logo variant A.webp

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: Procedural close. Not clear what is being asked for and/or not an obvious matter for FfD. If you think the file should be deleted, then please tag it with {{Db-g7}}. Otherwise, please direct source/copyright questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions -FASTILY 00:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded the Tamla-Motown logo as "PD-ineligible-USonly" for now. As I'm thinking, the logo itself isn't complex enough for US copyright (c:COM:TOO US), even with the "T" curving into the "M", which is also curving and sliding across the whole name "Motown". However, as I feared, the logo itself may have sufficient creativity for UK copyright (c:COM:TOO UK). When I was looking for history of Tamla Motown, a non-US record label, as I found out, EMI distributed Motown and Tamla catalogue under Stateside label and then established the Tamla-Motown label (Motown.com, Adam P. White). Nonetheless, I can't be sure whether the logo is an American or British work. Various companies in various countries distributed the Tamla Motown catalog (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Canada). Also, the logo was marked a "trade mark of Motown Record Corporation". Probably the logo is more likely American as Motown has been an American record company. I still can't be too sure about Motown as its creator or author. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2022 (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:Heligoland User Page Image 1.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created by Heligoland (now Nick) for their userpage; however, this is no longer being used there or anywhere else as it is an orphan. I recommend it be deleted. TartarTorte 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no point in deleting it. It's his own work and isn't otherwise subject to deletion for lack of use (ie. not copyrighted or fair use, etc...) CUPIDICAE💕 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. I would say keep if the file is used but it isn't. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:35, 17 February 2022 (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:SRG KPL 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFC#UUI unacceptable usage example, as it's a generic logo being used for a specific event, and it's not acceptable to use A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2022 (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:Jeopardywinnersscreenshot2002.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free website. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2022 (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:Lake Urmia 2010.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original website is offline, but archived snapshot gives no indication that this is a NASA image. [1] Currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2022 (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.