The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 05:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walt Disney Pictures Logo as of 2022.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HM2021 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC criterion 3 (it's the whole 45 second intro in 1080p) and NFCC criterion 8, as it is not discussed meaningfully in the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete copyright violation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far more than is necessary to identify and understand the logo. An image would be more appropriate. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 04:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm generally a proponent of keeping fair-use media in articles, but this is over the top. We don't need a whole video to explain their brand. While it's the subject of critical discussion, a picture would be sufficient for the reader to understand it.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 05:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paramount Pictures intro 2020.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Knightoftheswords281 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC criterion 8, as it is not discussed meaningfully at any length in the article. Also fails NFCC criterion 3 since it's a 10 megabyte 1080p video. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete copyright violation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator. — Knightoftheswords 01:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone please speedily close this as G7. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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⚡ 05:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copyright Evidence screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Discott ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The wiki switched to a CC BY CC BY-SA license in October 2020. [1] We should be able to replace this screenshot with a free one. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ixfd64 that's a good reason. Its also about time that we updated the screen shot anyway. Lets get a new CC-BY screen shot loaded up on Commons then and replace this one with the new screen grab. Thats a long way of saying, lets delete this image now that it is going to be replaced and the free use rational no longer applies. --Discott (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new screenshot as File:Copyright Evidence wiki 20231208.png on Commons. I noticed the website is actually under the CC BY-SA rather than the CC BY license, but that is not an issue. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicense to PD as too simple in both US and India. Whpq (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grit, Guts and Gumption.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vishal14k ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I do not believe this image qualifies for copyright in the United States. It's just a solid background with text. Replace tags with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably PD in the source country as well. India has a fairly high ToO despite being a common law country. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of Dalton Wells Historical Marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by QHistoryStudent ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. There is no evidence to suggest that the text is freely licensed. ✗plicit 14:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination if a non-free license for the noticeboard itself can't be added per WP:NFCC. As pointed out above and at c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, the text and imagery found on such signs are generally treated as copyrighted unless it can clearly shown they're not. While it's possible that the photo used for the sign is no longer eligible for copyright protection, the text on the sign seems to be too recent to be considered within the public domain. It also seems really hard to try and argue de minimis here given that the entire focus of the photo is the sign itself. Although the Flickr license is acceptable, it only covers the photo (not the photographed noticeboard) and arguing that it does would be essentially arguing in favor of Flickr washing. Even though it's unintentional, it's still Flickr washing and thus not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like the camp is run by the Dalton Wells Management Unit of the State of Utah and doesn't seem to be under US federal government control. Utah isn't one of the US states for which states works created by its employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain according to the Harvard State Copyright Resource Center; so, unless it can be clearly shown otherwise, the sign probably needs to be assumed to be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can find no indication that the text in the sign is copyright-free. The text addresses events that occurred within the last 100 years, therefore it is unlikely that it is in the public domain. I will therefore delete it. QHistoryStudent (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ther, I support that it should be deleted.a

  QHistoryStudent (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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