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

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{ PD-ineligible}}. — ξ ^xplicit 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Tegan-and-Sara-I'm-Not-Your-Hero.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EditorE ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It was arised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I'm Not Your Hero/archive1 if this file is free or not. The file is composed of simple text and the Warner Bros. Records logo, a file that is tagged as PD in Commons. The source of origin is unknown, but it is likely to be Canada or more likely, the US, as the song was recorded there. In either case, Canada's copyright laws are similar to those of the US. If the WBR logo is PD, I don't think the file should be labelled as fair use. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 01:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: remove File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg and File:BVIPassport.jpg from gallery; delete File:SaintHelenaPassport.png per File:St helena passport.jpg and File talk:St helena passport.jpg; convert File:Britcolpass.jpg to {{ PD-UKGov}}. — ξ ^xplicit 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benbread ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:BVIPassport.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bonus bon ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:SaintHelenaPassport.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bonus bon ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:Britcolpass.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrisieboy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Non-free images of various passports being used in British passports#Gallery of British passports. Can these can be converted to a free license such as {{ PD-UKGov}} or something similar? If they can, they would not be subject to WP:NFCC and could be used like the other freely licensed images in the gallery without any concerns about decorative use; otherwise, the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking and purely decorative usage in galleries of images is generally not allowed per WP:NFG.

The NFCC concerns for each file are listed as follows:

• "UKpassport-cover.jpg" has a non-free use rationale for the infobox of "British Passports", but file's usage in the gallery fails NFG, WP:NFCC#3a (file is used in infobox, so no need to repeat usage) and WP:NFCC#10c. Suggest keep for the infobox, and remove from the gallery.
• "File:BVIPassport.jpg" has a non-free use rationale for British Virgin Islands passport so I suggest keep for the stand-alone article, but remove from "British passport" per NFG and NFCC#10c.
• "File:SaintHelenaPassport.png" has a non-free use rationale for British passport (Saint Helena), so I suggest keep for the stand-alone article, but remove from "British passport" per NFG and NFCC#10c.
• "File:Britcolpass.jpg" has a non-free use rationale for Cypriot passport, but the image is being used in a decorative manner in Cypriot passport#Gallery of historic images, so unless it's appropriate to move the image to the infobox (and revise the rationale accordingly), I suggest remove from "Cypriot passport" per NFG. I also suggest remove from "British passport" per NFG and NFCC#10c.

Once again, if these can be freely licensed like File:UK passport 1924.JPG because they are either too old or otherwise ineligible for copyright protection, then they could be kept in every article where they are currently being used and possibly be tagged with {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• British government works become {{ PD-UKGov}} 50 years after they were first published. File:Britcolpass.jpg is described as a pre-1960 passport in Cypriot passport, so I guess that that representation of the coat of arms is {{ PD-UKGov}}. File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg has a different representation of a coat of arms, which thus (per c:COM:COA#Copyright on the representation) has a separate copyright. The image quality of the Cypriot passport is quite low, so I can't tell whether the textual definitions of the coats of arms are the same, but the representations are clearly not the same, as you can tell by for example inspecting the animals' tails, which are drawn differently. File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg appears to be a more recent passport (it's of a modern European Union design), so I assume that the representation of the coat of arms on that picture therefore is more recent than the representation of the coat of arms on the other passport. It's possible that this other representation also is in the public domain, but without any information on the first publication date of this representation, we have to assume that it is unfree. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Icbl english.pdf ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zghfarnsworth ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Jpeg has been extracted and uploaded to File:Icbl english.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skiddum ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Neutrality Disputed. This graph fails to be neutral. The same colors are being used for Education and Medicare so at a glance, Education appears to take up a far larger percent of the budget than it actually does; also, National Defense has been split into two separate categories to make it less apparent that it takes up the highest percentage. Please fix it or remove it. The image is also around 8 years old, and should be replaced anyways. 67.7.243.38 ( talk) 06:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• This seriously fails accessibility guidelines as the colors are far too similar. A new chart needs to be created with fewer categories on the pie chart, less than 8 so each can have a clearly distinct color. This is why well-made charts create a category called "other" Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G5 by Mackensen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

File:BruceLee.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lupenquarto ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Bruce Lee. Fails WP:NFCC#10c in Game of Death and also seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in this article. Stefan2 ( talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete. I incorrectly nominated it as PUF, but my thinking was pretty much the same as the nominators, i.e. I just picked the wrong venue. I should also note that the uploader Lupenquarto is a serial sockpuppeter, now blocked.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Since the uploader is a sockpuppet, you could just use WP:G5 instead. I've tagged the file as such. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:OUTIM.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ajaysandy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

One non-free poster File:Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai.jpg already present §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:MathGirlEpisode3.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vjungic ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshot of an animated film, used only to illustrate that film's article -- but the article itself is up for AFD as not satisfying either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Close If the article is deleted, this image will be orphaned, and eligible for speedy deletion 7 days later. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• The FUR is invalid as there is no evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. To comply with WP:NFCC#10c, the uploader must provide evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied, and a simple statement, The logo may be obtained from Math Girl, does not contain such evidence. Additionally, WP:NFCC#10a states you should provide some information and that it is optional to provide some other information. The uploader has only provided the optional information but not the mandatory information, and the file is thus not in compliance with WP:NFCC#10a. The nominator's argument is irrelevant; it's depending on the outcome of the AfD, and the file will automatically qualify for deletion under WP:F5 if the article is deleted. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 5#File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg. — ξ ^xplicit 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NewYorkActuary ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in Nehemiah Corporation of America as it is not a logo for Nehemiah Corporation of America but for The Nehemiah Program. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am the uploader of this file, which depicts the registered trademark of a now-defunct financial program. It appears in the article in the section that devotes substantial discussion to the program. Criterion #8 has been met here, because inclusion of the image significantly increases understanding of the financial program by serving as its primary means of visual identification. This is especially relevant given that there have been several homeowner-related programs in the United States (both in the past and present) that go by the name "Nehemiah Program" or the similar-sounding "Nehemiah Project", none of which are related to the program being discussed in the article. Inclusion of the trademark for this particular Nehemiah Program is essential in helping the readers know that they have reached the correct article. And because the program was a distinct legal entity, inclusion of its trademark adds understanding (via visual identification) that would not be achieved simply by adding the logo of the umbrella corporation that sponsored the program. Furthermore, the article's discussion of the program is sufficiently detailed so as to permit, in theory, the spinning off of that section into a stand-alone article, at which point inclusion of the trademark would not raise any issues. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This is not an article about a programme, so if they try to reach an article about the programme, they have not reached the correct article when they spot this logo. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

It's not quite as simple as that. Readers can easily reach the article via the Search function, as illustrated here. And to illustrate the 'real world' potential for confusion, a similar search on Bing (shown here) displays the name of the Nehemiah Corporation, but also displays many other unrelated programs of similar name. Considering that much of the article documents the challenges made against the Program by various U.S. federal agencies, including a finding by the Internal Revenue Service that donations to the Program were not tax-deductible, the need to provide visual identification of this particular program (whose logo is not used by any of the similar-named programs) takes on an importance not often seen in 'typical' Wikipedia articles. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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