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 3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beachboyssmile2.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.

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⚡ 05:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:YoAxis McRap 2020.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quadaxis007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Personal image, out of scope. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was used in an A7'ed article. No obvious use case now. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 07:34, 11 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.

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) 16:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSV Duisburg historical.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiggy! ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 03:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I sagree with Schetm. This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes and 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) 17:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
• Keep as below TOO. Each of the four are below TOO, and the compilation doesn't change that. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schetm. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:34, 19 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.

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) 17:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:AirAsiaAllstarsFCLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JebatMalaya ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 03:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with schetm. This is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:43, 17 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.

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. Izno (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mega 1075 new.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mbrstooge ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with schetm. This is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? It's block text in an oval. I don't think it's raised above the TOO. schetm (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as below TOO. Simple text in an oval, no complex arrangement. Cf. File:Geek Squad logo.svg (registration refused). Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, over threshold of originality as there is selection of different sizes of text, shading, 3D effects, rotation, and multi-coloured elliptical background. As such it is copyrighted and as an old logo fair use claim is not possible. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 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.

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⚡ 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miami Dolphins wordmark 1997-2012.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charlesaaronthompson ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wordmark is a fairly standard cursive script, and I don't think the addition of a colored background raises it above the TOO. schetm (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the "standard cursive" does not really hold when it's used for an image/workmark. There's still a uniqueness established for the Miami Dolphins with this lettering. It would be interesting if we can obtain a "Style Guidelines" for the Miami Dolphins on how the logo should be used. The guide would state the font style used for wordmark but I imagine the font used was created specifically for the lettering. – The Grid (talk) 15:38, 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.

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. Izno (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liga Malaysia Logo pre2004.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JebatMalaya ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (Unless there's something I missed about Malaysian TOO). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Malaysian TOO doesn't matter unless we're considering moving it to Commons - if it's below TOO in the US and not there, we can keep it locally as PD. I think it probably is, though there's enough creativity in the placement of those pentagons to imply a football in the negative space that I'm hesitant about it. —Cryptic 01:27, 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.

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. Izno (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:CocaColaAmatilBrand.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Studentshow radio ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 03:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is probably too complex per c:COM:TOO Australia, but it might be PD per c:COM:TOO United States. If that's the consensus, the file's licensing could be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on English Wikipedia. The text is obvious not eligible for copyright protection; so, that just leaves the sphere. It doesn't seem to have ay complex imagery of 3D effects, but bascially seems to be nothing more than a white circle with some red and gray "stripes" added to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as below US TOO. Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The design behind CCA is complex enough to be copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 11 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.

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 1. Izno (talk) 18:02, 1 October 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.

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) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:EvansvilleTripletsCaoLogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NatureBoyMD ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed with Schetm. This logo 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) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as below TOO. IMO, this is no more copyrightable than File:Los Angeles Football Club.svg (registration refused). Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍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.

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) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympia Alzey.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiggy! ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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) 03:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This seems too complex to be PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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) 17:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
• Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍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.

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) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Bears cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesmiko ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Schetm, it is not complex enough to pass the threshold. If logos like the Mets' don't, I don't think this this one does. Besides, 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) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as below TOO in the US. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 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.

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) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tijuana Toros cap insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ccwstandard ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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]
• Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Schetm. 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) 15:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as below TOO, at least in the US. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons, or convert to {{tl|PD-ineligible-USonly}, depending on Mexican law (which I am clueless about). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 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.

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) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Mariners Insignia.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalel2007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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 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) 15:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline, but Keep as below TOO. Convert to {{PD-logo}} and move to Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 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.

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⚡ 05:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Maa New Logo in Telugu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chinnusaikrish ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is a duplicate version of [File:StarMaaLogo.jpg] SP013 (talk) 21:27, 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.

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⚡ 05:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maa TV 2002 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Krishna1507 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

SP013 (talk) 21:38, 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.

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⚡ 05:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wally Fowler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RadioBroadcast ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sourced to a blog, this is claimed to be a "historically significant photo" and tagged with {{non-free historic image}}, but there's no explanation for the image's historical significance. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:48, 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.