Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

File:Seperator.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic: The image can be reproduced with text only. Coeur (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, this can be made easily with the editor and there is no added value to having it as an image. Jab843 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2015 (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:Bikernieki Memorial (December 2, 2001).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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - copyrighted photo of a non-free sculpture taken from Panoramio. This could be replaced by a freely-licensed photo of the same work. Kelly ^hi! 08:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)~~ ^{- see below. Kelly ^hi! 12:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

~~Delete~~. If I recall correctly it was the picture's author who uploaded it to Commons ([1]). ~~But since the local version is not technically by the author, then I can see that this is reuse and the picture itself would be copyrighted, regardless of content or actual licensing.~~ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The picture at Panoramio is tagged as cc-by-3.0, so it would be OK, right? Couldn't the file could have {{FoP-USonly}}? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't know I missed that. Withdrawn. Kelly ^hi! 12:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{FoP-USonly}} is for buildings in non-FOP countries. This memorial is not a building. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is the template saying that Wikipedia following US law can only host building photos from countries with no FoP? But in this case FoP in Latvia is that non-commercial use of sculptures is okay, so Wikipedia can host? And there is no extra template/law to add/follow. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template says that we can host pictures of Latvian buildings because USA has FOP for buildings. We can't host pictures of Latvian sculptures as there is no FOP for sculptures in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? For example, Freedom Monument has like half a dozen photos of the subject, the main one is featured. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom Monument was designed by Kārlis Zāle, who died more than 70 years ago, so Freedom Monument picture is free. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{FoP-USonly}} isn't for this image, but the image itself is OK and can be kept here, right? Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Freedom Monument is in the public domain because of age, so we can host whatever pictures we want of that monument. Photos of recent Latvian sculptures count as 'unfree' on both Wikipedia and Commons. Photos of recent Latvian buildings count as 'unfree' on Commons but 'free' on Wikipedia, and should be properly tagged with {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explanation. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (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:Chelmer Village Arrow Head Monument.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-free photo of a copyrighted artwork taken from Panoramio. This could be replaced by a freely-licensed photo of the same work. Kelly ^hi! 08:30, 30 November 2015 (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:Czech Republic FA.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 in Football Association of the Czech Republic, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Football Association of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic national football team, Czech Republic national under-21 football team, Czech Republic national under-17 football team, Czech Republic women's national football team and Czech Republic national futsal team. It has non-free use rationales (nfurs) for each, but usage every article except "Football Association of the Czech Republic" seems to to fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The image was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#File:Czech Republic FA.png where the main focus seems to have been WP:NFCC#10c. I'm not sure if that was before or after No. 17 was added to the UUI, but this usage seems to contrary to Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png and other similar discussions held since then. I understand WP:NFCC#3 does not necessarily mean that a non-free image may only be used in one article; However, if all it takes to use an image is for a nfur to be added, then the image could basically be added to any new team article which is created which does not seem like "minimal usage" at all to me. I think clarification is needed as to how or if No. 17 of the UUI applies in cases such as this. Finally, the uploader appears to be a bot. I tried to add a notification to its user talk, but the page is protected. Not sure whom should be notified in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Marchjuly: The bot that uploaded this file, 718 Bot, hasn't performed a single edit since 2010. If anyone may know the history of the bot's function, it would be its operator, east718. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Steel1943: The bot converted certain GIF files (and possibly also JPG files) to PNG. Not sure what criteria the bot used for finding files. The bot inserted the history of the file information page of the original file on the file information page of the converted file, so it is easy to find the uploader of the original file, and it may make sense to notify that uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Steel1943 and Stefan2 for the clarification. I've changed the uploader to Darwinek based upon File:Czech Republic FA.png#History of Image:Czech Republic FA.gif -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (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:Slide Mountain Tower.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader holds copyright. Userpage says uploader is Charles White but photo credited to John Cordi. Kelly ^hi! 11:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Kelly: This discussion probably belongs on WP:PUF. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Steel1943: It is permitted to list possibly unfree files at FFD. You can list any file here if you want the file to be deleted for any reason. FFD and PUF overlap in this respect. I personally prefer to list possibly unfree files at PUF unless there also are other problems with the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Yeah, the overlapping can be a bit confusing. I guess it's just assumed that if a free file is listed here with a possible non-free concern, then the nominator's assumed outcome for the file is deletion? Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the wrong block in Twinkle...it should be OK here though. Kelly ^hi! 06:35, 1 December 2015 (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:Gavin Robinson Advertising Shot.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this is a free image. No source information. No information as to date, venue, or manner of publication. No explanation of how/why the uploader has the authority to license the image. Uploader has apparently created the scan but has no rights in the underlying image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: This discussion belongs on WP:PUF. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I'm proposing deletion of the file, and this listing conforms to the FFD instructions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Ah, considering that your nomination statement did not state that at all. The way you wrote it, it looks as though you are specifically questioning the file being free. In instances where a nomination is not clear its intention, per the updated instruction, a bold text statement of the intent could clarify this confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2015 (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:R143.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 15:05, 30 November 2015 (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:R40.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 15:06, 30 November 2015 (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:R40slant.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (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:R68.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 15:08, 30 November 2015 (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:RamstadLetter.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 15:16, 30 November 2015 (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:Rathole bandportrait.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 15:17, 30 November 2015 (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:Polski Związek Hokeja na Lodzie 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (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:RheaSpeech.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 30 November 2015 (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:RoscoJasper.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 30 November 2015 (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:Rozz Williams Johnnie Sage Christian Death.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 20:53, 30 November 2015 (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:Waldi, Olympic logo 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 in Waldi, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is used in Waldi, 1972 Summer Olympics#Medals awarded and Dachsund#Symbol of Germany, but only has a non-free rationale for "Waldi" and "Dachsund". "Waldi" is the image's Wikipedia article so I can understand its use there. I am, however, not so sure that the other articles satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fine at Waldi, and definitely not at Dachsund. I would not accept its present use at the '72 games page but there could be if more sourced discussion about it could be added. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine in all cases. There is discussion of the use of Waldi as the mascot in Dachshund#Symbol of Germany, and I think the reader's understanding is enhanced by seeing the picture of Waldi rather than just a text description of him. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Dachshund: blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6, and if the dog breed really is a common symbol for Germany, then it should be possible to find a public domain or freely licensed picture of a dog symbolising Germany. Remove from 1972 Summer Olympics per WP:NFC#UUI §6. The dog isn't discussed in the part of the article where the image appears, so the picture additionally fails WP:NFCC#8. Keep in Waldi provided that a valid FUR is provided. The file doesn't seem to be a logo, as suggested by the FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: File:Waldi 1972.jpg are File:Olympic games 1972 symbol Waldi 0736.JPG are free images available on Commons. If there are no copyright problems with them, then one of them should be used instead of the non-free in all cases per WP:NFCC#1. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC+9)‎
  - User:Marchjuly: I nominated the Commons images for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1972 Summer Olympics. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the update Stefan2. It does appear that the Commons files are headed for deletion per c:COM:TOYS which means we are back to discussing the non-free usage of this particular file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 22 January 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:Scouts of China 1930s.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: convert to {{PD-China}}. — ξ ^xplicit 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is being used in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China and Scouts of China, but it only has a non-free use rationale for "Scouting and Guiding in mainland China". The "Purpose of use" that article, however, says that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. The first usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10c because it has no nfur for the article, but it is not likely that it would satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if it did. Second usage has rationale, but it is incorrect and the image does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8.

Is a caption like the one used to describe the image in particular case sufficient to satisfy NFCC#8? What rationale should used for non-free images not being used as the means for primary identification in infoboxes, but still being used in an article as the subject of critical commentary? Should {{Non-free use rationale}} be used instead of {{Non-free use rationale logo}}? Can "Non-free use rationale logo" be used if |use= is set to "other" and |Purpose= is specified? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to meet the requirements for a non-free historic image, and this doesn't seem to meet that. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the images should be removed or that the license should be changed?

In addition, the source simply says "The logo may be obtained from Scouting in Mainland China." Not sure what that means. The original title of the article was "Scouting in Mainland China". Can the source of the image be the Wikipedia article it is being used in or a Wikipedia editor's user page? I've noticed that many of these scouting-related logos have questionable source information and rationales. In fact, this image in particular appears to have been deleted once before, only to be simply re-uploaded. Is there any recourse when a non-free image which has been deleted or removed once before is simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note-the original image was speedied without discussion, both against Wiki policy, has nothing to do with "simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used". Get over yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: Actually, the two sentences were meant to be completely independent of each other. The first one was about the image in question for sure, but the second sentence was really intended to be more of a general question and not a reference to you or any particular editor. In hindsight, the proximity of the diff and the tone of the second sentence connect the two in a way I failed to fully consider at the time. I certainly could have been more careful and phrased things much better (i.e., more neutrally), so I sincerely apologize for any offense I may have caused. I hope you will accept this apology and my explanation in good faith. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the image from Scouts of China because it does not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by NFCC#10c. Still not entirely clear as to whether use in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China is acceptable as historical image so would like additional feedback if possible. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retag as {{PD-China}}. c:COM:CRT#People's Republic of China states that the copyright to works made by organisations expires 50 years after the first publication and this logo is apparently from the 1930s (although no source has been provided to verify this). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons - this satisfies both {{PD-China}} and {{PD-1996}}. -Zanhe (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2015 (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:Hockey Canada.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: keep in Hockey Canada, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 except in Hockey Canada. Fails WP:NFCC#9 on three pages. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg, I tend to agree with you Stefan2 about No. 17 of NFCc#UUI. However, as I asked in WP:NFCR#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, some may argue that the logo is the de-facto official logo of all of the teams under the Hockey Canada umbrella and, therefore, should be allowed to be used. Does No. 17 make any allowances for this kind of situation or is strict interpretation appropriate? -Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The teams are sub-entities of Hockey Canada, as far as I have understood. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2015 (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.