The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ⚡ 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

File:JCEA0071.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Delreijabir ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused personal photo Whpq ( talk) 03:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat ( talk) 05:31, 8 August 2021 (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: As discussed below, the image is unsuitable for Wikipedia as-is. Please request extraction of the logo at the Graphics Lab. - FASTILY 08:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

This non-free image is claimed to be a logo but looks to be a combination of text logo with a background image from the web site of the organisation. The actual logo porton looks to be text. See this footer logo as an example. Note that part of the text is white so will disappear if you view this on a white background. This file whould be replaced with the text logo. Whpq ( talk) 13:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Many thanks Whpq. Is there anybody around who could extract the logo text from the image it is embedded in and can the background be any other color other than white so that part of the logo does not stay invisible, please? Best wishes, --Armatura ( talk) 14:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The text logo is too simple to be copyrighted so it can be uploaded to Commons. Commons has a Graphics Lab that has editors proficient in graphics editing that could help. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2021 (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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. - FASTILY 08:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Incat hull 093 Volcán de Taidia.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bogong ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used in a large table. It is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article about the manufacturer of these boat hulls. Whpq ( talk) 13:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

HSC Volcán de Tagoro the twin of the ship shown in this photo has its own detailed Wikipedia article. It is reasonable to expect that this brand new ship will also get its own article after it formally enters service in the next few weeks. So the photo would not only be useful in the table of Incat ships, but also in a probable future article on Volcán de Taidia itself. -- Bogong ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The image needs to meet all of the non-free non-free content criteria. "Being useful" does not grant an image an exemption to meeting the criteria. As for use in a possible upcoming article, that arcticle doe snot exist and this image would need to meet WP:NFCC#1 which I highly doubt would be possible as an existing ship could have a free image taken of it. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:48, 8 August 2021 (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 F7 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

File:The Queen's State Visit to Ireland.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peter Ormond ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use: we have free-use images of the Queen and Prince Philip, and of President McAleese. We have free-use images of the Queen in Ireland. There is no valid reason to use a copyrighted image. DrKay ( talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

We do not have an image of the Queen with President McAleese in Ireland. Peter Ormond 💬 20:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's insufficient reason because the same information can be imparted by text: "President McAleese met the Queen in Ireland". It doesn't meet WP:NFCC #1 or #8. DrKay ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete per WP:F7 as a Getty image. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:44, 8 August 2021 (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: Withdrawn as a duplicate Whpq ( talk) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor After Their Wedding.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peter Ormond ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is asserted to be PD because it was published between 1926 and 1963 without the copyright being renewed. There is no evidence provided that the copyright was not renewed. Note this is an image from the Bettmann Archive via Getty Images. Whpq ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There's a discussion going on about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 5. Peter Ormond 💬 20:59, 8 August 2021 (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: This image does not exist at the cited source which suggests it may be unofficial and/or original research. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a citation proving this is an official logo - FASTILY 08:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Lego Disney.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Striker2020 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It's unclear where the current logo comes from (I'm guessing https://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Disney which isn't a source) but there doesn't seem to be a universal Lego Disney logo. On the packaging of any set it's mostly the Lego logo with the Disney wordmark next to it (like [1]) but even that isn't consistent, in [2] the placement is different, in [3] the Disney wordmark is microscopic in favor of the Toy Story logo and in [4] it's again completely different. Though notably none of these feature the Disney wordmark in a blue oval like this file. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 21:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I change the new logo because I rename this page Lego Disney. If you're unclear with this current logo and I will search for a new one. Striker2020 ( talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It could be an adaption of the logo that it featured on box of the new sets, example. The Winnie the Pooh set linked above is a bit different as it is part of Lego's Ideas theme which is separate from the main Disney theme. The Toy Story set came out in 2019 so likely before all of the Disney stuff got bundled together and Toy Story was its own theme. The Donald Duck one is also different as it would have been released under their BrickHeadz theme instead of the Disney theme. Salavat ( talk) 14:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Salavat, assuming this is consistent for new sets (which I don't know), the Disney wordmark is typically white (which won't work for us) or sometimes, for example [5] or [6] black. Not blue/purple. I guess one could make this out of File:LEGO logo.svg + File:Disney wordmark.svg, but unless this can be confirmed to be consistent on new sets it wouldn't be of much use. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (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.