Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 September 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

File:GSTC Logo Horizontal.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GSTC Logo Horizontal.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2020 (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:Hand in Hand project by Rotaract Club.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hand in Hand project by Rotaract Club.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2020 (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:LeeHoi-Chuen.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeeHoi-Chuen.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:25, 14 August 2020 (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:Mapúa University Horizontal 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions of a logo are not needed for purposes of primary identification. File:Mapúa University logo.png is the main logo and this is just a horizontal version. Logos are substantially similar. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. As pointed out by Whpq above, two essentially identical logos are not needed for Wikipedia's purposes. Which one of the two is deleted probably comes down to personal preference, but both are definitely not needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2020 (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:Chrome 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its use in Flat design, where its presence provides critical commentary for the article. schetm (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The image is used in two articles. For Google Chrome, it is not being used for identification, and the nomination covers the reason for deletion. The nomination fails to account for its use in flat design. The stated purpose of the non-free usage rationale for flat design is "Demonstration of the article's subject, by comparing different versions of the logo produced under different design principles. Because of Google's role in promoting this style of design, a visual demonstration of how they have applied it to their own products is particularly relevant to understanding it." Those are two purposes to consider. The first purpose of design illustration fails WP:NFCC#1 as the VW logos are a free equivalent. For the second purpose there is actually no commentary about Google's design or its importance there at all. As it stands, the usage fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its use in flat design is not necessary because there's already a freely licensed series (VW) there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (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:New York Islanders logo (1995–97).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 the NY Islanders article and remove from the other at this time. Consider whether this and its supporting content should be moved to the season article as a matter of regular editing.. Izno (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the logo was infamous, and its infamy is described in the paragraph directly above the logo. To quote the nom, "the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo." schetm (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It must be "sourced critical commentary" and there are literally zero sources in the logo section of New York Islanders, see New York Islanders#Logo.Jonteemil (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree, but since it is now sourced, Keep. SixFourThree (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the NY Islanders article and remove from the season article. I have added sourcing for the egregious disaster that was the NY Islander's fisherman logo. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI does allow season specific logos to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of articles about individual seasons. So, if the first time this was used as the team's official branding was in then 1995–96 New York Islanders season, then such the logo might be OK if moved to the main infobox. Ideally, it would be best to some sourced content about the new logo (i.e. the team's change of branding) somewhere in that article, but often this type of non-free use is considered OK even if their isn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (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:Hyundai A-League logo (2004–2017).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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyundai A-League logo (2004–2017).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Former MUTV logo (2).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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DECORATIVE and WP:NFC#CS. No contextual connection between the article content and the image. It's just added randomly to the MUTV (Manchester United F.C.)#Presenters and pundits section and omitting it will not lead any significant loss in understanding by the reader of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2020 (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:Canadiens100Anniversary.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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadiens100Anniversary.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Chicago Blackhawks logo (1937-1955).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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Washington Capitals Logo 1995–2002.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:NewDevils.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:American Airlines 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: keep. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The logo is described and referred to in the section, which could be expanded if necessary. Cloudbound (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the logo subsection a bit more, and adjusted the NFUR to reflect the purpose of for having this historical logo in the body of the article. The logo is the subject of sourced commentary and meets WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2020 (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:Badminton World Federation (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:The Football League.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Washington Capitals Home Logo 2002–2007.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Tottenham Hotspur old 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:OldDevils.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Celticfc100.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Celtic 50th Anniversary of Lisbon Lions 1967 (2017–18).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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Washington Caps Alternate.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:CelticCrest1977.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:NewZealandFootballChampionship.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also per WP:NFG. Galleries of non-free former logos like in New Zealand Football Championship#Logos are pretty much enver allowed as explained in WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. These gallery could've probably been WP:BOLDly removed or the individual images could've been prodded instead of immediately coming to FFD. FFD would've really only been necessary in a case like this if the file was boldly removed and then subsequently re-added or the file was prodded for deletion and then de-prodded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2020 (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:Aston Villa.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Former MUTV 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DECORATIVE and WP:NFC#CS. Pretty much the same issues as those faced above by #File:Former MUTV logo (2).png. No contextual connection between the article content and the image. It's just added randomly to the MUTV (Manchester United F.C.)#Presenters and pundits section and omitting it will not lead any significant loss in understanding by the reader of the article. One possibility for keeping this might be to convert it to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because the Manchester United F.C. team crest (File:Manchester United FC crest.svg) is so small and blurred that it might be considered a sort of de minimis. If that's the consensus, then perhaps the file can be kept. In that case though the in article syntax would need to be clean up a bit since {{Multiple image}} would no longer be necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (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:NewYorkIslandersOld.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Badminton World Federation (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 as F7 by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that image (logo) fourteen years ago when it was the active logo. I don't have a lot at stake here. I can inform everyone here, that whoever wrote the cited so-called 'policy' is out of their minds and I don't even have to be a lawyer to say that (which I am not, btw). There is no standard that one has to critique a former logo in order to use it for identification. This is beyond the pale. It is on the level of saying we should not have the 48-star US flag on Wikipedia because there are now 50 stars and the old one can't possibly be used unless you condemn the addition of Alaska and Hawaii. This is incredibly stupid. I really don't care much about the logo, but the logic being used here is insane and must be stopped before it destroys Wikipedia as a whole. --SVTCobra 02:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: Flags, unlike logos, are often public domain and thus not goverened by copyright.Jonteemil (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know. And therefore it was perhaps not the best example. But my point is, there's no "critique" requirement in fair-use law. Critique is merely one of the things that could make use pass the the fair-use test. But educational and informational identification is a much stronger component of the relevant code. --SVTCobra 10:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand what you're saying, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was set up to be more restrictive than fair use per WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE and it's been that way almost since the when the policy was established. If Wikipedia's policy was equivalent to fair use (at least the US's concept of fair use), non-free images of any type could pretty much be used in any article. When the policy was first being developed it was decided that was not a good thing; however, whether that is something that makes more sense now per WP:CCC is perhaps something worth discussing, but that discussion probably needs to take place at WT:NFCC or WP:VPP since it cannot be resolved here.

As for this particular logo, the long-standing consensus when it comes to non-free former logo use is pretty much as stated in WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Generally, WP:NFG doesn't really allow non-free images to be used in an image gallery because such use tend to be primarily WP:DECORATIVE as opposed to contextual and non-free former logos which are simply moved to body of the article once they are replaced in the main infobox tend to have problems per WP:NFCC#8. In Badminton World Federation#Logo there is some content about the BWF's change in branding over the years, but whether that requires that the two non-free files actually be seen for that content to be understood seems IMO to not be the case per not only NFCC#8, but also WP:FREER (WP:NFCC#1). So, if there's anything more (i.e. sourced commentary) that can be added about the BWF's change in branding that perhaps explains the reasons why it changed logos or why these former logos were selected, then that might strengthen the case for each former logo's non-free use. It has to be something better than simple statements which simply describe the logos or state that they were just changed at some point in time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is being used in a gallery. It's got a single sentence of sourced commentary, which states no more than that it was replaced in 2007. The non-free use rationale is merely the boilerplate template, and claims that the purpose of this image, which has not been used by the organization for thirteen years, is identification. Fails WP:NFCC#8 by a wide margin. Delete. —Cryptic 23:25, 14 September 2020 (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:National Lacrosse League (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Ottawasenatorsjerseys.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Tampa Bay Lightning.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Miami Dolphins wordmark 1997-2012.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miami Dolphins wordmark 1997-2012.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:TampaBayLightningAlternate.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Faxe Kondi Ligaen.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to the issues cited above by the nominator, there's also a problem with WP:NFG in Danish Superliga#History. Non-free image galleries are almost never allowed and mixing non-free images together with files from Commons doesn't make it OK. The simple fact that the only sentence related to this logo is "After a single season under that name, Faxe Brewery became sponsors and the league changed its name to Faxe Kondi Ligaen." is not sufficient to justify using this file per WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS. The only possible way to keep this that I can see would be if this can be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since it might be OK per c:COM:TOO United States even if it's too complex per c:COM:TOO Netherlands. The logo is bascially a combination of simple elements and text except for the soccer ball; however, soccer balls seem to be fairly c:COM:CB#Utility objects and c:COM:UA per c:Category:Association football balls so the ball imagery itself might not be considered complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2020 (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:Los Angeles Kings Logo 1967-1982.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Eintracht Frankfurt historial.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Minnesota Wild Alternate.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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minnesota Wild Alternate.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Los Angeles Kings.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:5th Anniversary.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 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:5th Anniversary.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Minnesota Wild alternate 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:BBC Two Paint ident.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 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:LosAngelesKings1988.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:2016–18 Malaysian FA Cup 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Oakland Seals Logo 1967–1970.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:TBL Logo-Old.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Los Angeles Kings Alternate 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:LosAngelesKings1982.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:ASB-Premiership.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also per WP:NFG. Galleries of non-free former logos like in New Zealand Football Championship#Logos are pretty much enver allowed as explained in WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. These gallery could've probably been WP:BOLDly removed or the individual images could've been prodded instead of immediately coming to FFD. FFD would've really only been necessary in a case like this if the file was boldly removed and then subsequently re-added or the file was prodded for deletion and then de-prodded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2020 (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:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Channel 5 1997 ident, Variant I.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MontrealCanadiens1918.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: relisted on 2020 August 25. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MontrealCanadiens1918.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Oneworld 10 Years Anniversary.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 and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 02:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO, convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (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:HSV Hamburg.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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HSV Hamburg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:OHSAA 100 Anniversary 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also because of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:FREER. This is essentially identical to File:Ohio High School Athletic Association logo.png being used in the main infobox with the only real difference btween the two being that the anniversay logo has e banner stating "100 years". Morover, not only is there no sourced crtical commentary about the logo itself in Ohio High School Athletic Association#History, there's no content at all about the organization's 100th year anniversay. This is total WP:DECORATIVE non-free use that completely fails WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2020 (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:Nashville Predators Alternate 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Nordiques proposed - accurate colours.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. Sourced critical commentary about the image is present in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this one fits the exception to the ban on historical logos. SixFourThree (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo". —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (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:Mega 1075 old.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 August 2020 (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:FöreningsSparbanken (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Ott sens campaign.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Ottawa sens logo old.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Bridgefm 2.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 00:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 August 2020 (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:Columbus Blue Jackets Logo 2000 - 2007.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Nordiques proposed logo - correct colours.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this one fits the exception to the ban on historical logos. SixFourThree (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 August 2020 (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:MGM Ident 1956-57.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 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Logo md earlier.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Bridgefm 1.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 as below the threshold of originality. Wikiacc (¶) 00:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 August 2020 (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:Swansea City AFC logo (100th anniversary).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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MSV Duisburg historical.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSV Duisburg historical.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:NZL Premiership (2016–17).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 in the specific year article, remove from other. Izno (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from New Zealand Football Championship per nom and also per WP:NFG. Galleries of non-free former logos like in New Zealand Football Championship#Logos are pretty much enver allowed as explained in WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. These gallery could've probably been WP:BOLDly removed or the individual images could've been prodded instead of immediately coming to FFD. FFD would've really only been necessary in a case like this if the file was boldly removed and then subsequently re-added or the file was prodded for deletion and then de-prodded.
Keep in 2016–17 New Zealand Football Championship per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI.
While it's true the non-free use in the main article about the NZ Football Championship is not WP:NFCC compliant, the non-free use in the individual season article is not the same and is actually be used for primary identification purposes. Common practice over the years has been that non-free use of season specific articles tend to be OK for article about individual seasons when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of such articles. Of course it would be a good thing to have sourced article content about the logo somewhere in the season article, but not having such content is generally been OK for the reasons given in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 for cover art used in a similar manner. Multiple uses of the same non-free file are not automatically always equivalent. The nom isn't clear whether he believes all uses of the file aren't NFCC compliant, but it's important not to automatically treat them as such. Non-free files with multiple uses don't necessarily need to be deleted just because one or more of their uses aren't NFCC compliant; they only need to be deleted when all of their uses aren't NFCC compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should certainly be removed from New Zealand Football Championship; it's in a gallery with two other former logos, with zero sourced commentary or even a mention in the image's NFUR. I'll be renominating the other two for deletion once I finish cleaning up after the botched mass-restoration from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 5.
The use in the season article is borderline. I could be convinced to keep it there despite the lack of sourced commentary, but the boilerplate NFUR rationale is inadequate. —Cryptic 01:43, 16 September 2020 (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:Comoros 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:PHXold.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MGM Ident 1938.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "Tanner (1934–1956)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (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:MGM Ident 1928.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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "Jackie (1928–1956)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (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:Calgary Flames horse head 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:StLouisBlues1967.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MPKB-BRI U-BES F.C. 2017 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:CDVictoria.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. Izno (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to main infobox. This is described as a "former" logo in C.D. Victoria#Old logo and that type of non-free use certainly isn't WP:NFCC compliant as explained by the nom. However, there is no current logo being used in the main infobox which is something that nom probably didn't notice or didn't really consider if they did notice it. All of the club's official social media accounts that I could find (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram) still seem to be using this logo. It has a slightly different background, but the primary logo still seems unchanged. So, it should still be OK for this to be used in the main infobox for Wikipedia's purposes.
If you look at the article's history, you will find that c:File:CD Victoria.png and File:CD Victoria (Honduras).png were once being used in the main infobox. The first one was deleted from Commons by Jcb as copyvio, while the other was deleted from Wikipedia by Fastily per WP:F5. Not much can be done about the Commons file, but the one Fastily deleted can probably WP:REFUNDed if it's significantly different from the file being discussed here. If, however, it's not really all that different, then it might just make more sense to simply move this one to the main infobox instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (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:Seattle Reign FC crest (primary), 2013.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Whalers 10th Anniversary 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:AirAsiaAllstarsFCLogo.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 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:AirAsiaAllstarsFCLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:NewEnglandWhalers.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Aer Arann Express 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: keep. Izno (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: actually this logo looks like it should be {{PD-textlogo}} and transferred to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, under TOO in US, but copyright status in source country is unclear (see c:COM:TOO Ireland). Wikiacc (¶) 02:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Irish TOO is unclear, but Commons precedent suggests that it is probably acceptable. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikiacc. Likely copyrighted in Ireland, but not in the USA. Same principle as File:Aer Arann logo (blue).svg. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2020 (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:Liga Malaysia Logo 2004.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Mega 1075 new.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mega 1075 new.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Djibouti 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:S-Cards map.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:Angels50.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. Izno (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'm in agreement that this probably falls below c:COM:TOO United States and thus can be relicensed as "PD-logo", I would still argue that it can be kept even if as non-free content per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Although this is a aniversary logo, it is being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the particular season where it was used by the team. It would be better if there was some discussion of this choice for the anniversary logo somewhere in the season article, but generally season specific logos have been allowed to be used in main infoboxes of season articles per items 14 and 17 of NFC#UUI. This type of non-free use tends to be treated more like the way cover art is treated in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 when it comes to WP:NFCC#8 when used for primary identification purposes of a season article than it would be treated per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 if it was simply a former logo added to the body of the main Wikipedia article about the team itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The logo contains complex elements and layout, and is copyrighted. As an article about the team's season, it does not need a logo for readers to be able to understand it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (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:Mgm-roast beef and movies.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. Izno (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "Telly (1928–1932) and Coffee (1932–1935)", which discusses the specific lion (Coffee) that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly, but the article has sourced critical commentary about each image and the omission of one or more images would be detrimental to understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2020 (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:Liga Futsal Kebangsaan 2017 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Liga Malaysia Logo 2011.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MPKB-BRI U-BES F.C. 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:StLouisBlues1990s.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:1075TheOasis2003.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 August 2020 (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:CFN-CNBC 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:UEFA Euro 1976 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Liga Malaysia Logo pre2004.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liga Malaysia Logo pre2004.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:FC Yerevan 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:UEFA Euro 1980 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:1075TheOasis1992.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:MGM logo used in the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey".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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFCC#8, as there is discussion about this particular lion located directly to the left of this image in the article. Loosing the image would "be detrimental to (the) understanding" of the evolution of the lion. schetm (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "Leo (1957–present)", which discusses this "Stylized Lion" logo designed by Lippincott.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as there is commentary. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 August 2020 (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:Olympia Alzey.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympia Alzey.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:CBBC 1997 Man and Dog.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd say that considering "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." it does help to increase the reader's understanding and is referred to within the accompanying text. Cloudbound (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourced critical commentary related specifically to this indent can be found in CBBC idents#Yellow animations. Basically, the only content about this indent is a single entry in an embedded list of about twenty other indents that states "Man and Dog - A man walks his fluffy dog on a lead. The dog, however, gets caught on a rock and unravels into a single line, much to the owner's bemusement." Nothing about that meets WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS or even WP:NFLISTS, and removing the file wouldn't be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant section in any way per WP:DECORATIVE. Moreover, there are no images being provided for any of the other indents referred to in that section or even for any of the other entries in the embedded lists found in other sections of the article, which makes any claim that seeing this particular ident is more significant to the reader's understanding than seeing images for any of those other entries quite suspect. The only possible way I could see to resolve this would be to move this file to the top of the article and try to argue that it's a representative image for all the idents mentioned throughout the article; that, however, is a really iffy argument at best and I don't think a consensus could be established for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (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:Coca-Cola Ligaen 1995.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Bridge FM.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 as below the threshold of originality. Wikiacc (¶) 00:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 August 2020 (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:J3 League (Horizontal).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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (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:Winnipeg Jets Inaugural 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Discovery Networks EMEA.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:West-Bromwich-Albion-F.C.-old-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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:CocaColaAmatilBrand.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:CocaColaAmatilBrand.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Former Uni-link (Minerva Accord) 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: keep and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Wikiacc (¶) 00:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. Seriously, did the nom even look at it? schetm (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that c:COM:TOO UK is quite low, however I don't think this logo is above the TOO anyway.Jonteemil (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. As Jonteemil rightly points out above, the TOO for the UK is significantly different from that of the US and {{PD-logo}} requires that the logo be PD in both the US and its country of origin. So, even though it might be argued that this logo is still protected in the UK, it seems clearly below c:COM:TOO United States. Often in such cases, common practice has been to treat the file as PD locally for use only on English Wikipedia and I think that can at the very least be done here. If the consensus is that it’s PD also in the UK, it can be relicensed as “PD-logo” and tagged for a move to Commons per WP:MTC. This probably didn’t need to be discussed at FFD; the license could’ve been WP:BOLDly changed or it could’ve been fairly quickly resolved by asking about it at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC.
Finally, File:UniLinkLogo.svg, the file that seems to have superseded this one, is probably also OK as “PD-ineligible-USOnly”. The only potential problem there has to do with WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. If being an svg is a concern then a png version of the logo should be fine. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below US TOO. Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 August 2020 (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:3. Liga logo (2017).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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:J2 League (Horizontal).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. Izno (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bascially this closes and the closes of #File:J.League Division 2.png and #File:J3 League (Horizontal).png need to be the same; if one of the three files is too simple to be non-free content, they all need to be too simple because they are essentially the same logo. The only possible copyirghtable element is the "J" with the two circles, but that seems to clearly be below c:COM:TOO United States. So, the only question then is whether this should be {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and that depends on how you interpret c:COM:TOO Japan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2020 (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:Vegas Golden Knights secondary 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:2013 Malaysian President's Cup 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Tampabaydevilrays10thanniversarypatch.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: keep. Izno (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one, but am leaning towards Keep. It is being used as the primary means of visual identification in the Infobox, which has long been allowed. I do think that if we're going to start restricting Infoboxes, we should have that conversation over there to involve the maximum amount of input. SixFourThree (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Although this is a aniversary logo, it is being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the particular season where it was used by the team. It would be better if there was some discussion of this choice for the anniversary logo somewhere in the season article, but generally season specific logos have been allowed to be used in main infoboxes of season articles per items 14 and 17 of NFC#UUI. This type of non-free use tends to be treated more like the way cover art is treated in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 when it comes to WP:NFCC#8 when used for primary identification purposes of a season article than it would be treated per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 if it was simply a former logo added to the body of the main Wikipedia article about the team itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2020 (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:Minnesota North Stars Logo 1967-1974.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: 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 ⚡ 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2020 (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:Ermiszonianafc.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Banistmo 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: keep. Izno (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO, at least in the US. Convert to {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, depending on country of origin. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2020 (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:J.League Division 2.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to pd-logo as it falls below the threshold of originality. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not only c:COM:TOO United States, but also c:COM:TOO Japan is relevant here. The "J.LEAGUE DIVISON 2" text of the logo is not really going to be eligible for copyright in Japan or the US; so, the only really copyrightable element is the large "J". Per the TOO of the US, this would be "PD-logo", but it's not as clear with respect to the TOO of Japan. Given that according to Japanese copyright law "Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do", and some of the files shown in c:Category:Logos of companies of Japan so it's probably PD in Japan as well. One alternative if there's any real doubt about the copyright status of the logo in Japan would be to relicense this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO in US and Japan. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 August 2020 (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:NT Nitros old 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The old logo and change is discussed in the article commentary and I see many sports teams showing logo history in their pages. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wiki policy on historical logos. SixFourThree (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2020 (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:3F Superliga 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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:3F Superliga Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:AEK Men's V.C. official 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:2013 FAM League 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Dunhill Piala FA 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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Winnipeg Jets 2011.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Delete. SixFourThree (talk)

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:J3 League Logo.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO in US and Japan. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 August 2020 (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:National League.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (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:Nef-interview-vibe-compressed.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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible copyright violation. Hechosinutiles (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as F9, source here. Wikiacc (¶) 02:39, 16 August 2020 (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:Marlins cap insignia.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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marlins cap insignia.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:San Diego Padres (2020) cap 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: keep and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the MLB infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but convert to {{PD-logo}} and tag for a move to Commons. File:SD Logo Brown.svg uploaded to Commons, and this is basically the same logo with a different color scheme. So, this file should also be OK to convert to the same license.
@SixFourThree: Whether the infobox template has a parameter for a cap image is completely irrelevant to the appropriateness of the non-free use of the file. Every infobox template regardless of what it’s about pretty much has an infobox parameter, but that doesn’t mean a non-free image is automatically OK to use in every infobox. The relevant policy for non-free content is WP:NFCC; it’s a community-wide policy that cannot be superseded just because someone created an infobox for two image parameters. So, it would be better for you to try and base your FFD WP:!VOTEs on relevant policy than on infobox syntax. If this file needed to remained as non-free for some reason, then it would fail WP:NFCC#3a regardless of the infobox syntax. In this case the file is too simple per c:COM#TOO United States to be eligible for copyright protection (at least in my opinion) and most likely uploaded as non-free by someone in good faith who thought all logos automatically needed to be licensed as such. We can correct the licensing, but that has nothing to do with the infobox syntax. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 August 2020 (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:St. Louis Cardinals Cap Insignia.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. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the MLB infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 August 2020 (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:Baltimore Orioles cap.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. The nomination is clearly erroneous: the image is "the primary means of visual identification" (in the infobox). (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image is the primary means of visual identification in the infobox. schetm (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2020 (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:Seattle Mariners Insignia.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Mariners Insignia.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:BuffaloBisons13cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (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:Aviators cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2020 (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:Red Wings cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2020 (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:IndianapolisIndiansCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2020 (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:OKC Dodgers cap.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2020 (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:CharlotteKnightsCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (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:Tacoma Rainiers cap 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: keep and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (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:TennesseeSmokiesCap.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. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 August 2020 (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:Memphis Redbirds cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 August 2020 (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:SouthBendCubscap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (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:CedarRapidsKernelsCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (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:Loons cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (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:Salt Lake Bees cap insignia.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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (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:Snappers cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (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:Lowell Spinners cap.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. No policy based reason for keeping — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (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:IF Chukars cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2020 (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:BoiseHawksCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2020 (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:Hartford Yard Goats Cap 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2020 (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:Rocky Mountain Vibes cap 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2020 (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:Gnats cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2020 (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:DROS Men Hna.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 ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized; see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DROS Men Hna.JPG. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 14 August 2020 (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:Nokia N70 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nokia N70 2.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (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:KCMonarchs42a.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 and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is another easy one. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (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:Portlandbeaverscap2008.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (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:BaltimoreEliteGiantsCapLogo.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 04:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (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:CalgaryCannonsCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (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:Black Bears cap.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Bears cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:TorontoMapleLeafs caplogo.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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. (I think this is borderline, but probably above the US TOO.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 August 2020 (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:TucsonTorosCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 August 2020 (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:Birmingham Black Barons cap 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: keep. The letter "B" is not copyrightable. See generally 17 U.S.C., U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you have got to be kidding me. Does Jonteemil really think this is eligible for copyright? schetm (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Keep. This is crazy. SixFourThree (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{PD-logo}}. Three "B"s on a black background seems pretty clearly to be below c:COM:TOO United States. This probably could've be fairly easily confirmed by asking at either WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC and then simply WP:BOLDly changing the license. File licensing can be tricky and many editors simply choose a non-free license as a precaution or because they mistakenly believe that all logos need to be treated as non-free content. Sometimes uploaders assume that a logo being trademarked must mean that it also is copyrighted; trademark and copyright are, however, different concepts and WP:NFCC is only really concerned with the latter. Commons has tons of logo files which are trademarked, but uploaded under a "PD-logo" license as explained in c:COM:Trademarks; so, sometimes it's not always a good thing to automatically assume that a file originally uploaded as non-free should've been uploaded as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2020 (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:RichmondBravesCap.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 02:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason, and that the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for cap logos. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 August 2020 (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:SanFranciscoSeals CapLogo.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. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 August 2020 (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:Seattle rainiers caplogo.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. Frivolous nomination. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: This file is not even licensed as non-free content which means it's not subject to the WP:NFCC. If the nominator feels that the file is "possibly unfree" and wants to argue that it's too complex to be {{PD-logo}} than that's a completely different argument to make. Trying to argue that Wikipedia's non-free content use policy also applies to freely licensed files is never going to get anywhere at all. FWIW, the file's licensing was converted to PD more than two years ago; so, it cannot be argued that the licensing was changed after the the file was nominated for discussion here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2020 (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:JamestownJammersCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. This is essentially the same grape logo seen in File:JamestownJammersLogo.PNG. Even though the cap logo does so the entire grape image and the primary logo doesn't so the bottom, I don't think that's a significant enough of a difference to justify the use of both files. The focus grape imagery seem to the upper part with the face, cap and bat, which can be clearly seen in both logo files; so, one of them isn't really necessary. If someone wants to argue it's better to keep the full grape image without the team name, then that might be worth discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2020 (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:Columbus Blue Birds.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. NFCC does not apply. Wikiacc (¶) 02:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the image in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed. SixFourThree (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Schetm: The "C", of course, does not qualify for copyright protection, but what about the 3D hat drawing? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mdaniels5757:, I'm not sure if the cap itself is unique enough to qualify - it might be generic enough to be common property, but, regardless, the image is the primary means of visual identification, so, contrary to the nom, this should be kept regardless. And, it's licensed as free too! schetm (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The licensing on the image is PD so NFCC does not apply. The nomination is not valid. -- Whpq (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Whpq. There's nothing really to discuss here unless the nominator wants to argue that the file shouldn't be PD because WP:NFCC doesn't apply to freely licensed or PD files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2020 (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:OaklandOaks(PCL)CapLogo.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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:OaklandOaks(PCL)CapLogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:NewOrleansPelicansCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (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:HollywoodStarsCap.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. Frivolous nomination—the letter "H" is not copyrightable. See generally 17 U.S.C., U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices; see also c:COM:TOO US. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is the nominator even trying? This logo is a red letter H on a blue background - it most certainly does not pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting ridiculous. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2020 (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:El Paso Diablos.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. Moot, now primary means of ID, see Special:Diff/974268291. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because looking at the page, this logo is used as the primary means of visual identification. SixFourThree (talk)

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:SacramentoSolons caplogo.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 and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 04:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 August 2020 (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:OttawaLynxCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 August 2020 (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:Red Roses cap.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 August 2020 (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:LouisvilleColonelsCapLogo.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 02:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since simple fonts (like a script letter "L") are almost never considered eleigible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:FONT. All that's really need here is for this to be converted to {{PD-logo}} and tagged for a move to Commons per WP:MTC; however, the quality isn't very good; so, it might be better to first see if a better quality version can be found and uploaded instead.
There's another problem with the nomimation of this file even if it did need to be non-free in that nothing in the nomination statement above seems applicable to this particular file. It's actually being used for primary identification purposes in a manner of speaking and it's not a former, alternative or anniversary logo per se in the sense that it would be subject to NFC#cite_note-4 in the way the cite_note-4 is typically applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2020 (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:SultanesCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Baseball team infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (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:EdmontonTrappersCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (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:Wasco Reserves cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the independent baseball team infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (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:CT Defenders cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as the primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 August 2020 (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:Milwaukeebears.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. NFCC does not apply to free files. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for that reason. Should have used Template:PD-logo; This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain.. SixFourThree (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: File is not licensed as non-free content which means that none of the reasons given above by the nom are applicable to it's use. Freely licensed and public domain files aren't subject to WP:NFCC. If there's a problem with the file's license (e.g WP:PUF) than that's something that can be discussed; this file's licensing seems correct (at least in the sense that it doesn't need to be re-licensed as non-free); so, nominating it for deletion for not complying with WP:NFCC is a mistake. Making this mistake once is probably OK, but if you're going to be nominating files for deletion at FFD for NFCC reason, then you need to check the file's licensing first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2020 (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:Monterey Amberjacks cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the independent baseball team infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Although I think the reasons why this file was nominated for discussion are not correct (WP:NFCC#cite_note-4 doesn't really apply here and the logo is being used for primary identification purposes in a sense), the logo is basically the same as File:Monterey Amberjacks.png and there's no reason to use mutiple non-free images to provide the same encyclopedic information when using only one will suffice. It makes no difference how many image parameters there are in the infobox template when the team's logo and team's cap logo are pretty much the same. The fish mascot imagery is a bit clearer in the cap logo, but that's not really enough of a justification (in my opinion) for using two non-free file's in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2020 (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:TulsaOilers(baseball)CapLogo.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 02:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (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:PhoenixFirebirdsCapLogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is optimal, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Although I think the reasons why this file was nominated for discussion are not correct (WP:NFCC#cite_note-4 doesn't really apply here and the logo is being used for primary identification purposes in a sense), the logo is basically the same as File:PhoenixFirebirdsLogo.PNG and there's no reason to use mutiple non-free images to provide the same encyclopedic information when using only one will suffice. It makes no difference how many image parameters there are in the infobox template when the team's logo and team's cap logo are pretty much the same. The fiery baseball image is a bit clearer in the cap logo, but that's not really enough of a justification (in my opinion) for using two non-free file's in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2020 (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:Tijuana Toros cap insignia.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tijuana Toros cap insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:YakimaBearsCapLogo2008.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 August 2020 (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:New Olmecas de Tabasco cap 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: keep. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 August 2020 (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:Tampa smokers cap.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. Frivolous nomination—the letter "T" is not copyrightable. See generally 17 U.S.C., U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices; see also c:COM:TOO US. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose This is a single letter T and clearly a wordmark! Did anybody actually look at all these logos before listing them or does Wikipolicy go by the wayside when one is enjoying a lovely evening of mass deletion nominations? Zeng8r (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's PD-textlogo. File page had been updated.Jonteemil (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (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:MichiganBattleCats.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Although I think the reasons why this file was nominated for discussion are not correct (WP:NFCC#cite_note-4 doesn't really apply here and the logo is being used for primary identification purposes in a sense), the logo is basically the same as File:MichiganBattleCats2.gif and there's no reason to use mutiple non-free images to provide the same encyclopedic information when using only one will suffice. It makes no difference how many image parameters there are in the infobox template when the team's logo and team's cap logo are pretty much the same. The cat mascot imagery is a bit clearer in the cap logo and the cat's left paw is extended a bit, but the primary image is essentially the same and the slight differences between the two files aren't really enough of a justification (in my opinion) for using both of them (particularly side by side) in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2020 (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:TucsonPadresCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 August 2020 (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:EvansvilleTripletsCaoLogo.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:EvansvilleTripletsCaoLogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Logo devilrays.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 August 2020 (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:Southern Oregon Timberjacks Cap Insignia 1.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Although I think the reasons why this file was nominated for discussion are not correct (WP:NFCC#cite_note-4 doesn't really apply here and the logo is being used for primary identification purposes in a sense), the logo is basically the same as File:Southern Oregon Timberjacks Main Logo.png and there's no reason to use mutiple non-free images to provide the same encyclopedic information when using only one will suffice. It makes no difference how many image parameters there are in the infobox template when the team's logo and team's cap logo are pretty much the same. The mascot imagery is pretty much the same in both files without the only apparent difference being one is on a white background while the other is on a bluish-green background. A simple color background is generally an element not considered eligible for copyirght protection; so, both files are pretty much identical from a copyirght standpoint and there's no justification (in my opinion) for using both of them (particularly side by side) or even together in the same article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2020 (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:2016 Tucson Saguaros Cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this one. The graphic is not solely the cap logo, and as such does not belong in the Infobox, so it falls outside of established use policy. SixFourThree (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The cap logo is essentially the same logo as File:Tucson Saguaros logo.jpg; so two non-free files aren't needed if essentially the same encyclopedic information can be provided by one per WP:NFC#Number of items. The reader also doesn't really need to see a non-free image of a cap per WP:FREER to understand that the logo appears on the team's cap, it doesn't need to see a non-free image of the cap to understand the cap is black and green, and it doesn't need to see a non-free image to understand that "Tuscon" is written on the back of the cap. So, seeing this non-free file doesn't significantly improve the reader's understand to such a degree that omitting the file would be detrimental to that understanding as explained in WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2020 (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:BCYankees.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. Izno (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: US TOO—above or below? (Sorry, I couldn't help myself). It's borderline, IMO (The Uncle Sam hat is plausibly unoriginal). Keep as {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons if it is below the TOO, Delete per NFCC 3a if above the TOO. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the hat on logo is a complex design with originality, and NFCC#3a is not met. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2020 (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:PortlandRockies caplogo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for current cap logos as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 August 2020 (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:Madison hatters.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. The argument that WP:NFCC#3a is not met has not been successfully refuted. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:NFC, "The NFCI#2 allowance for logos only applies to the use of the logo on the infobox or lede for the stand-alone article about the entity, and should reflect its most current logo." This logo is used in the infobox of the stand-alone article about the team. The team only existed for one year, 1994, so I am fairly sure it is the most current logo. It thus appears to meet the guideline. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NFCC 3a - There's no reason for both non-free logos, and this is the secondary one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether an infobox template has one or more parameters for images is completely irrelevant to non-free content use. Pretty much all infoboxes have image paramters, but that doesn't automatically mean it's OK to use a non-free image. If that was the truly the case, then every BLP article with an infobox could have a non-free image of the subject of the article added to it for primary identification purposes. The person(s) who created Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball or Template:Infobox MLB probably thought that using image would be OK in general, but it's unlikely they even considered whether using such images would be OK per relevant policy and guidelines. Moreover, a WikiProjuect might think that it's OK for all types of images to be used, but the project might not also be making a proper distinction between "free" or "non-free" images and cannot decide to supersede a community-wide policy per WP:CONLEVEL. Some WikiProjects like WP:FILM or WP:TV do take non-free content into account with things like WP:FILMSCORE or MOS:TVPRODUCTION, but sometimes WikiProjects suggest things like WP:WPRS#Logos that are completely contrary to relevant policy (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 70#WP:WPRS#Logos).
If the primary logo and cap logo are both PD images like #File:San Diego Padres (2020) cap logo.svg or maybe like in Chicago White Sox, then WP:NFCC doesn't apply to either image. If only one of the two is non-free, then perhaps the non-free use of the one is OK. If, however, both are non-free, then the point raised about WP:NFCC#3a by the The Squirrel Conspiracy is relevant because there's no need to use multiple non-free images which are essentially the same (from a copyright standpoint) for serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose. That is what needs to be sorted out here. This file and File:MadisonHatters94.gif look quite similar, but whether they are too similar for NFCC#3a purposes in what needs to be clear. The "cheese" element in the primary logo is not present in the cap logo; instead there's a letter "M"; otherwise, the mouse imagery is the same. Whether this difference justifies using two non-free files is what needs to be discussed. If the files were completely different, then perhaps the justification for non-free use of each would be clearer; there is, however, enough of a similarity between the two to warrant discussion and that's where this discusssion should begin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::I respectfully disagree that it is irrelevant, considering that "primary means of identification" is the accepted criteria for non-free media. Not "sole means of identification". It is certainly possible that both team and cap logos can be considered primary means of identification. I just think that this discussion would be more useful in a centralized context where more users are likely to participate, rather than scattered throughout so many Files for Discussion entries. SixFourThree (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
- Whether an article has an infobox and how many image parameter an infobox template has are completely irrelvant to non-free use. Such things have nothing to do with "primary means of identification". Moreover, "primary means of identification" is not really a criteria for non-free content (those can be found WP:NFCCP), but it's rather more of a type of non-free use that is often considered to be acceptable per relevant policy.
  If the cap logo and main logo of the team are both non-free files and significantly different from each other (at least in terms of copyrightable elements), then using both files in the infobox can probably be fairly well justified. On the other hand, if both are non-free files and both identical or pretty close to identical, then both might not be necessary per WP:NFCC#3a if one can essentially serve the same encyclopedic purpose as two. That's the relevant argument here (at least in my opinion). There would be really no way to justify using the same exact logo twice side by side like this or once in the main infobox and once later on in the same article per WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion regardless of how many infobox parameters the image has. These two files, however, aren't exactly identical per se, but they are pretty close; so, what needs to be discussed is how much more additional information is being provided to the reader by using them both and whether that additional information is significant enough to the reader's understanding.
  Finally, FFD is the place to discuss individual file use (including non-free use) and that's what this discussion is primarily be about, i.e. the non-free use of this particular file. If you want to start a more broader discussion on relevant policy or non-free file uses in infoboxes, then you should do that at WT:NFCC or another relevant policy/guideline talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2020 (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:Williamsport Bills cap.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. Consensus is the image is too simple to be copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 August 2020 (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:CatfishCap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 August 2020 (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:Njcardinalscap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Bascially the same logo as File:Njcardinalsprimary.gif with the only differences being the blue background, the yellow coloring of New Jersey and the omission of the trademark symbol. None of those things are generally considered copyrightable elements in their own right; so, there's no reason for two practically identical images to be used side-by-side in the main infobox for primary identification purposes when one would suffice. Which of the two should be deleted is not really relevant, but both are certainly not needed. The fact that there's a parameter in the infobox for "cap logo" means that a cap logo can be possibly used, but it certainly doesn't mean that one needs to be used, particularly if that logo is non-free content and its use doesn't comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2020 (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:CAK Indians cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logo is offensive, but still Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2020 (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:EauClaireBears caplogo.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 and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Keep. It was improperly categorized when uploaded. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should have used Template:PD-textlogo. SixFourThree (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2020 (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:FayettevilleGenerals.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. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 August 2020 (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:Vermont Reds cap.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 August 2020 (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:Cape Fear Crocs hat 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 August 2020 (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:Wilmington Waves - South Georgia Waves hat 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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilmington Waves - South Georgia Waves hat logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Riverside Pilots hat 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: keep and relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 03:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 August 2020 (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:Albany Polecats hat 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. No policy based reason for keeping — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2020 (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:Wilmington Waves - South Georgia Waves hat 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: Duplicate nomination. Sigh. (non-admin closure) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2020 (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:El Centro Imperials Cap Insignia.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 relicense to {{PD-logo}}. Wikiacc (¶) 04:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Should be re-tagged with Template:PD-logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2020 (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:California City Whiptails cap.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the independent baseball team infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Bascially the same logo as File:California City Whiptails.png with the only real difference being the blue background, which is something generally considered a copyrightable element in its own right. There's no reason for two practically identical images to be used side-by-side in the main infobox for primary identification purposes when one would suffice. Which of the two should be deleted is not really relevant, but both are certainly not needed. The cap logo actually looks to be a bit lower in quality (not as sharp) as the other file, which might suggest it's better to keep the other file.
I will add though that the nom's reasoning for nominating the file is faulty in that the file is being used for primary identification purposes and it's not really the type of non-free use to which NFC#cite_note-4 applies. Trying to argue that WP:NFC#CS is a problem for this logo is kind of silly since it's basically the same as the other file being used in the main infobox; so, if one file doesn't mean WP:NFCC#8 than the other doesn't as well. Still a non-free use needs to meet all ten WP:NFCCP per WP:JUSTONE; so, even if NFCC#8 is not a problem, not meeting NFCC#3a still means that the file doesn't comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2020 (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:HD Yardbirds cap.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. No policy based reason for keeping — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the independent baseball team infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (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:LongBeachBarracuda.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. No policy based reason for keeping — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Minor League Baseball infobox specifically has an entry for one cap logo as a primary means of visual identification. The discussion should begin with whether that is appropriate, rather than indiscriminately tagging every single individual logo. SixFourThree (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2020 (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:Hollywood Stars cap.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: relisted on 2020 September 7. Wikiacc (¶) 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.