Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	1	1
TfD	7	0	7
MfD	2	0	2
FfD	2	1	3
RfD	29	10	39
AfD	0	4	4

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 9}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 9}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 November 9}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

November 1

File:Houston MyLoveIsYourLove.ogg

[edit]

Sample's ability to contextually signify the song and the whole album still questionable, despite the de-PRODding two years ago. Demonstrating the song ≠ "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the song article. The article had critical commentary that even the nominator admitted to when they prodded it two years ago, it had critical commentary when I removed the prod and it still has critical commentary now that it is nominated for discussion to justify its inclusion in the article, thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

[edit]

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be noted first that George Ho initially nominated this file for deletion using a false claim that this song is in the public domain when it wasn't - [1]. I provided the information that it is in fact not in the public domain because it was copyrighted in the 1950s (and someone actually paid half a million dollars for the rights to publish it when it was used in the film) in the discussion, whereupon he "discovered" (as he puts it here) that it's not in the public domain. I challenged the deletion then because it is entirely wrong to speedy delete something based on false information, but here he wants it deleted again and for me to provide counterarguments here, so here I am.

This recording is without doubt the most prominent one of all the versions recorded. It won a Grammy (the soundtrack album it's in also won a Grammy), sold a million copies, and spawned numerous covers. It there is one music sample to be used in the Man Of Constant Sorrow article, this should be the one. As for contextual significance, its use can be justified per WP:NFC#CS where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. All recordings are unique, and it is impossible to correctly represent the song performance without using the actual music itself, for example its phrasing, arrangement, interpretation, the accompanying instrumentation, nuances, etc. Different recordings may also have different tunes (e.g. the recording by the Stanley Brothers is completely different to the ones by Joan Baez or Bob Dylan), so you can't actually use the scores from (presumably copyright-free) old recordings (e.g. by Emry Arthur) to represent the version by the Soggy Bottom Boys. They have different tunes. The only way you can correctly identify the song is by using the actual music itself. You certainly cannot use another versions to represent this version in the O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack) article. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both Man of Constant Sorrow & O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage of the clip in either article. -Fastily 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png

[edit]

This non-free image of a tornado is being used in Tornadoes of 2022. The image is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It is the source of critical commentary, as the drone footage (which is what this screenshot was taken from) is the topic of several articles ([2][3][4][5][6][7]). The drone footage was also presented/used by the European Severe Storms Laboratory at the AMS 30th Conference on Severe Local Storms, where they used photogrammetry (basically near the time of this screenshot) to determine the tornado had winds up to 118.0 metres per second (264 mph). So no, this does indeed have commentary regarding this actual video/photo, which was taken by Reed Timmer, who also has their own Wikipedia article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment — As discussed over on the Wikimedia Commons amid a huge review of weather-related photos, photographs of tornadoes, especially notable ones with lots of lasting RS media coverage, almost always qualify under the NFF guidelines as they are historical events and photographs cannot be reproduced as that specific tornado cannot ever happen again. This idea was also confirmed by EN-Wiki administrator Rlandmann (no-pinged), who has spent months reviewing thousands of weather-related images to see if they are free to use or copyrighted. Switching tornado photos to NFFs was even recommended by Rlandmann. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: — Your nomination statement “the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado” is factually incorrect. The section this NFF is used in covers the tornado outbreak of April 29–30, 2022. The topic is that outbreak of 25 tornadoes, not “Tornadoes of 2022” in general. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I personally think it would suffice; at least in the relevant article dealing with the 2022 Andover tornado. There isn’t any known free alternatives. So I actually have to agree with @WeatherWriter (and disagree with @Whpq) on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that said; IF (and only if) a free alternative, even if it is at an absurdly poor resolution, were to ever become available; this image must be immediately deleted and replaced with the free one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a CC0 licensed photo of the damage/aftermath of the tornado; but that isn’t going to change my opinion since this deals with the tornado itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in an article for the 2022 Andover tornado. That is a redirect to the real article which is Tornadoes of 2022. The fact that there are no known free alternatives only means that it might satisfy WP:NFCC#1. But a non-free image must meet all of the non-free content criteria, and this image was nominated as not meeting WP:NFCC#8. None of the information in the section (not article) about the Andover tornado needs this image to be understood. -- Whpq (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @Whpq, FYI, the link you posted for the cover. Is a redirect to “Tornadoes of 2022”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction: supposed to ping @WeatherWriter, not the other. Wrong ping, oops!) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is a section on the Tornadoes of 2022 article. I interpret the sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics, given no sections related to each other besides the shear fact they cover tornadoes that occurred during 2022. Several sections (“outbreaks”) on the Tornadoes of 2022 article have their own stand-alone articles as one section covers one unique outbreak. In this circumstance, the section linked to specifically covers that outbreak and no other tornadoes during the year 2022. To me, I do not see it as a photo for “Tornadoes of 2022”, as the Andover tornado (and subsequent outbreak) is not mentioned in any other section in the entire article, as that section is specifically for that tornado/outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics is incorrect. The topic of the article is Tornadoes of 2022. -- Whpq (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've contacted Reed Timmer and asked if he's willing to release the image under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not get a response from Reed Timmer, so it is assumed no permission is given. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 11:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partially per Fastily. I really don't thing its removal from the page could cause any problems. There's already a plenty of media to demonstrate a lot other stuff. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

November 2

File:WWKX logo.png

Non-free former logos are generally not allowed and usually do not comply with NFCC criterion 8. Attempts to have it deleted by orphaning have been reverted. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this logo might be below the ToO. The Cyberpunk 2077 logo is no less complex than this one, and was denied registration by the U.S. Copyright Office. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia Hawkins.png

It seems some editors are out to further prove that the objective is prettying up articles, not respect for copyright. This was added to the article a mere 32 hours after the article's creation, which itself was a reaction to news reports of her death. It's long been held that WP:BLP applies for 1½–2 years after a subject's death. FFD outcomes have usually shown that adding non-free images to BLPs is a no-no. Even so, it's plainly obvious that we haven't even come close to exhausting all opportunities to locate a free image. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I've been reading for years and years that AGF doesn't apply when it concerns copyright. Did that change while I was too busy to notice? WP:CCC shouldn't mean that our editorial direction becomes so inconsistent that even regulars can't keep up with all the shifts in direction. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to the policy that says you shouldn’t assume good faith on copyright, as I’ve not seen that. My understanding is the one found at the policy I linked: "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law." Innisfree987 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:CCC, WikiBlame indicates the above was added in this 2009 edit. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

November 3

File:President Anura Dissanayake portrait.jpg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded image is from an official website that states "All website content @ 2024 President's Office All rights reserved.", hence this appears to be copyrighted content. JVPAppuhamy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2024 (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.

File:Dr Nihal Abeysinghe.jpg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=369881488146051&set=a.369881454812721 JVPAppuhamy (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2024 (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.

File:PosterArtists.jpg

Decorative non-free use in Paul Martin (illustrator)#Gallery of poses which fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free images are pretty much never allowed in image galleries because said usage almost always is more illustrative than contextual, and pretty much always fails WP:NFC#CS. There's nothing about this image that requires it be seen by readers of the article and there's no sourced critical commentary specifically related to it as an image; moreover, there's certainly no need for it in a gallery with five other freely licensed / PD images. Readers don't need to see an image of Martin winning an award since such information can be more than sufficiently understood by text supported to a citation to a reliable source. The single sentence "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries (pictured)." in Paul Martin (illustrator)#Commercial artist doesn't even come close as a justification for this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE. Hello. I am the person who originally uploaded this image in 2021. I knew the person who owned this original clipping and allowed me to upload it to Wikipedia. I ONLY had the picture. I had no idea what was the date or source of the picture. I researched for quite awhile, and finally was able to pinpoint the original source. Namely, The New York Herald Tribune newspaper dated Feb. 22, 1931. A New York City librarian by email assisted me in figuring out the details surrounding the 90-year-old clipping. Hence, this uploaded clipping did not originate from anywhere on the Internet or at any public library.
This picture is shown in mini size in the WP article and only for identification purpose. It supports a sentence in the article that goes, "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries." But it indirectly supporters the surrounding sentences as well. This is a rare image of the artist. So it is actually quite important to preserve. Yes, there are a few others, but that is the entirety of them all. This picture is more effective than text, which can often be misleading. It did not appear in any other newspaper but this one. There must be countless more grievance cases elsewhere. I think it will be in the public domain in another two years anyway (and then not even have to be dramatically reduced in size). Yes, there is a reference (no. 131) stating where the picture is located, but one would only be able to view it with a premium subscription to newspapers.com. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are several images public domain images of the artist being used in the article, including the infobox image, which are more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes; moreover, it's not really the purpose of non-free use to preserve "rare" images just for the sake of doing so per WP:IRREPLACEABLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this image can be exported to Commons. So it's not possible to click a link in a reference, in order to view the image. It's forced to stay at WP, at least until it falls into public domain (? Jan 1, 2027). It actually was the only image of him that existed with an artwork, until less than one month ago. I just recently located that circular image of him with the Girl Scouts' director. JimPercy (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All images will eventually enter into the public domain, and Wikipedia's isn't forced to keep a non-free image just because there's only a few years to go until it enters the public domain. If you can find sourced critical commentary related to this particular image itself (not what it depicts but the actual image itself) and can somehow incorporate that into the article, then perhaps the image could be moved from the gallery to where the content is found; however, there's no need to have a non-free image simply because it shows Martin standing in front of this or any other of his works simply because the file is "rare". Furthermore, there's nothing about the sentence "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries." that requires a non-free image of that particular scene be seen by readers to be understood. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Marchjuly. How about if I take out the image with the caption "Check exchange" from the heading "Gallery of Poses?" It will be accessible via a reference link instead. That way, everything will be back to how it was until recently. The outcome will be the same. Specifically, getting rid of an image.

The importance of the poster is illustrated at reference 6. It begins, "This poster was pictured and sold in every Girl Scout Equipment catalog from Fall 1931 to Fall 1936." There are four links in that reference. The Girl Scouts had a Spring and Fall Equipment catalog back then. Hence, Martin's painting was pictured and sold in twelve consecutive catalogs. All issues are viewable at Internet Archive. It also appeared on the cover of two of those catalogs. Most American Girl Scouts from that era would have seen Martin's painting. It was their official poster for six straight years. My guess is that the Girl Scouts' official painting was not updated due to the Great Depression, but nonetheless. JimPercy (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC) PS. Yes, a picture of the artist is rare.[reply]
@User talk:Marchjuly. I just made the edit with the summary words, "removed excess picture from Gallery." I deleted the image that had the caption, "Check exchange." I'm hoping you can now remove the deletion tag you've placed. Thanks, JimPercy (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be my last comment here for a while because I've already posted enough and it's best to give others a chance to comment. Since you're asking me a question, though, I'll respond. In my opinion, nothing you've posted above or done in the article has changed my assessment of this file's non-free use; in fact, you seem to be somewhat misunderstanding not only the intent of Wikipedia's Non-free content use policy, but also how it applies to images such as this. Wikipedia doesn't need to preserve this image, and it doesn't really matter that there's no way to link to it. If you'd like to do those things on your own off-Wikipedia, you may do so; however. Wikipedia is not intended to be used in such a way. Of course, others might not agree with my assessments with respect to this image. If enough people agree with your assessment, a consensus for the keeping the image will likely be established. That's the purpose of bringing it up for for discussion here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the above exchange and don't find it convincing. Remember that Wikipedia keeps a permananent record of even deleted images and we can put a note at Category:Out of copyright in 2026 (or whatever the appropriate year is) to remind us that it will enter the public domain and can be restored then. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I removed it from the WP article yesterday. I think the item in question would fall out of copyright Jan. 1, 2027. (1928 +1 +1 +1 = 1931.) JimPercy (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Tugendhat campaign logo, Unite Rebuild Win.png

Invalid fair use that violates WP:NFTABLE, and also WP:NFCC#8, as campaign logo doesn't significantly enhance the article. Looks like this could just be pd-logo, as the logo is just text and the Union flag which is not copyrighted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to "PD-logo" or "PD-ineligible-USonly": This fails WP:NFCC as pointed out above, but it does seem like a good candidate for {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It seems to meet c:COM:TOO US for local use on Wikipedia, but might not per c:COM:TOO UK. The basic imagery of the Union Jack itself isn't eligible for copyright protection any more, and the image of the flag used in the logo seems to be pretty standard clip art. Given c:Category:Union Jack graphics, this would seem to be OK for Commons, but it should be fine to treat as PD locally here on Wikipedia even if it's not. If the consensus is to convert this to PD, the originally uploaded version deleted per WP:F5 could be restored as long as it's the same as the current version, and nobody goes ahead and uploads a cleaner SVG version to Commons to replace the png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur with reclassifying as PD-ineligible-USonly. I originally flagged it fair use because it replaced a fair use image where the Union Jack was blurred out; it probably meets TOO in the UK but definitely wouldn't in the US. AceSevenFive (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atoll K.jpg

We have several free posters for this film, so this file is not necessary, and doesn't meet the fair use criteria any more: c:Category:Atoll K (1951). Yann (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that this was uploaded in 2009 and that Commons files were uploaded much later, the file could've probably just been boldly replaced at left to be speedy deleted per WP:F5. Nominating it for speedy deletion as replaceable non-free use was also an option per WP:F7. The only thing that really needs to be discussed here is whether this file is (like the files on Commons) also within the public domain, and thus there might be some value in converting it from a non-free license to a free license. If that can be done, the file could be moved to Commons and added categorized like the other files related to this film. An archived version of this file's source can be found here and it looks like it might be a French poster. Is it possible that the image could be within the public domain per c:COM:France? The film came out in France in October 1951, and France's copyright law seems protect works for 70 years after their publication. If this is the poster used for the film at that time, then might it not have entered the public domain on January 1, 2022. If it did, then perhaps this might be OK for Commons and could be used as the primary image for fr:Atoll K (the French Wikipedia article about the film) if French Wikipedia wants to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MPTV Logo.png and File:WMVS 2020 Logo.png

Invalid fair-use rationale because there's no significant commentary regarding it. So, this image (along with WMVS 2020 logo) needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and if we keep these images outright, move to Commons and relicense them as (PD-US-1978-89), according the result of discussion regarding undeletion by Taivo (which also in turn based of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino, where it become free through formalities.) 103.111.100.82 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If these are PD, then they should be moved to Commons as suggested above. If they're not, then it makes more sense to me encyclopedically to keep the primary main logo for Milwaukee PBS and delete to two individual station logos instead. The sections about the individual stations actually started out as stand-alone articles about each station, but recently merged into the main article. This changes the non-free rationales for those two files' respective uses since they're no longer be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone articles about the stations themselves. Assuming the merging doesn't end up being undone, it's the non-free uses of the two individual station logos, not the main logo of the brand itself, that now have issues per WP:NFCC. The non-free use of logos used for primary identification in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about organizations are typically given a little more slack when it comes to WP:NFC#CS much in the same way as is done for cover art because the entire article itself is about the said organization; so, as non-free, the main logo's use seem OK (at least to me). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and affirmation. Since the main PBS logo is PD, this image can be moved to Wikimedia Commons and relicensed as such license (PD-US-1978-89) similar to main PBS logo (see See miscellaneous section). 2404:8000:1037:4E4:F92C:FA4D:AE44:A5BC (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons unless there's significant commentary regarding it. 182.1.234.31 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

File:Balon.PNG

Definitely not a PD-textlogo as claimed. Unsure what FUR it qualifies to be. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the soccerball clearly is not a simple logo and would merit copyright protection Traumnovelle (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think each individual flag and the shape of Brazil are in public domain. Is this specific arrangement original enough to be copyrighted? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stranglers - Dead Los Angeles excerpt.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the album that contains the track heard in the sample. Critical commentary about the sampled content insufficient. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teardrop Explodes - Reward excerpt.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the band who performed the content heard in the sample. Critical commentary insufficient to justify usage. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruts - Jah War excerpt.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the album that contains a portion of a track heard in the sample. Critical commentary insufficient to justify usage. George Ho (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phillips family.jpg

Non-free image of 4 living people. Use rationale is not adequate nor sufficient. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They are all still alive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have any consensus on how we handle images of people who disappeared? Because for minors from 2010 onwards we have File:Kyron Horman.jpg, File:Timmothy Pitzen.jpg, File:Sky Metalwala with age progression.jpg, File:William Tyrrell in a Spider-Man costume.jpg, File:Mekayla Bali.jpeg File:Rebecca Reusch.png, File:Owen Harding Missing Persons Photo.jpg all of which are NFCC. (In addition to these we have 6 articles without images. I didn't check if any of these had images but they were deleted.) A high profile older example is File:Madeleine McCann, aged three and (age-progressed) nine.jpg. It seems to me these are all cases where the limited exception agaist images of living persons would apply like File:Lucy Letby mugshot.jpg (see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 18#File:Lucy Letby mugshot.png) and File:Saif al-Adel in Afghanistan, January 2000.jpg where given they've disappeared it's not plausible that a free alternative could be created. I think NFCC#8 is a more important consideration. While we allow images like Letby and Saif al-Adel in articles on the subjects, we're far less likely to allow such images in other articles even if we don't have articles on the subjects (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74#Non-free use reassessment for example). However I think the case for disappeared people is fairly different from perpetrators of crimes etc. While images of perpetrators are often widely distributed they serve little purpose. By comparison images of disppaeared people are generally widely distributed precisely so that as many people as possible who might come across them might be able to identify them. So arguably they significantly increase the readers understanding and it would be detrimental to exclude such images. But I don't feel that strongly, and have no experience with historic NFCC#8 judgments. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne There is a reasonable exception for prisoners who have life in prison without parole/whole life order, who the same reasons apply to as dead people (such files are usually kept). No free photo of them can be taken. With disappearances: if they are the presumed dead kind of disappearance, and it has been a reasonable amount of time, then it may apply as well. This is about the case of a family subject to a recent disappearance who is recognizably still alive. No one knows where they are but a photo of them was just taken. So the reasons for the exception given for historical photos is not present here. And when it comes to subtopics in articles, it depends on the individual case and how important identifying the perpetrator is in it. If they're key to the notability of the event (and usually dead) the image is often kept, if the notability of the event is more on other aspects often not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: No, actually most of the casses I highlighted are cases where there is no presumed death and it's very uncertainty what happened to the person. Note that for cases like McCann and Sky Metalwala, there only reason there are age progression images is because there was no presumed death at the time of the age progression, otherwise there would be no reason for such images. Even for those which are now a presumed death like William Tyrrell, the images in our articles came from before that assumption. [8] In fact cases where the is a presumed death seem to be ones where we don't have images. This makes sense since if there is a presumed death there's much less of a compelling reason why it matters that anyone know what they look like so while NFCC#1 might be clearer, NFCC#8 is not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked and the only other cases of those I highlighted where we have a photo where there seems to be a presumed death is Disappearance of Rebecca Reusch and maybe Disappearance of Owen Harding. Both articles were created quite a while after the disappearance and for Reusch at least the presumption seems to have come early on. Harding wasn't quite as soon although still still perhaps fairly soon and well before the article. (It's a little different since there's no suggestion of any criminal actions, it's just that there's no evidence of him being alive nor of any abduction or any reason to think he might just have decided to leave. And he disappeared under circumstances where a death whether by accident or intentional on his part and without the body being found seemed easily possible. But because of the lack of any likely criminal element the case isn't being treated as a homicide which can help make it clear there is a presumption of death. But from what I can tell, it does seem to be presumed even if our article doesn't really say it.) Perhaps that argument could be made for Madeleine McCann too, but it's unclear to me if either the Portuguese or British authorities are as conclusive as the German ones. In any case, the image came from well before that so it's similar to Tyrrell in that regard. So by my count of this very limited data set we have 6 with images when the person is or was believe to be alive when we had those images. We have 3 cases where we don't have images but no presumed death (Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen and Disappearance of Dulce Maria Alavez). We have 2 cases where we have images and a presumed death. We have 3 cases where we don't have images but do have a presumed death (Disappearance of John Beckenridge and Mike Zhao-Beckenridge, Disappearance of Perry Cohen and Austin Stephanos and Disappearance of Alessia and Livia Schepp). So while it isn't as quite extreme was I thought, it does seem to me we're significantly more likely to have images when there is no presumed death than there is as I said above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I should mention given the way this discussion seems to be heading and the concerns this raises for other cases especially where there's reasonable suspicion the disappeared might be alive I mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Photos of people who disappeared raising the question of whether we might have a wider problem we need to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think any case where death is not presumed should not have an image in most cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is plausible for me to go into the bush and take a photo of some incredibly rare insect I fail to see how it is implausible for me to go into the bush and take a photo of a person. They haven't really disappeared, they're just living off in the bush. And I'd argue the former is more important to my understanding of an article subject (photo of what a species looks like) versus a photo of people involved in a disappearance. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about Osama bin Laden before his death and Saif al-Adel. In fact I suspect a lot more people have regular access to Said al-Adel than Phillips family. Also, finding a rare insect in the bush seems plausible since you have a vague idea where to look. There is no way to know for sure where disappeared people are even the Phillips family. For all we know they might now be in Australia or even Afghanistan by now (the last sighting was over a month ago). That's the point of disappeared. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I still believe we have no idea where they are is a fair description of the case, let's assume that we're certain enough that you could photograph them somewhere in the Marokopa bush that we can treat it the same as photographing a rare insect. Especially with mentioning Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and Said al-Adel got me thinking. Do we have any sort of consensus on how we handle dangerous to would be NFCC photographers? I'm sure this must have come up before but the only thing I could find is Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 48#File:Joaquín Guzmán Loera, aka El Chapo Guzmán.jpg although in that case it was more of an aside. It was formerly used as a rationale suggesting there was some acceptance for it but it doesn't seem this was ever tested via FFD. In this case, we know that generally when the father has been spotted this has been with a gun although the most recent people to see him and the children were able to film it but only from a distance as they walked away (so it was mostly their backs). I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect anyone to try to photograph their faces under these circumstances. This wouldn't be unique to photographing humans. If we're just talking about photographing a rare insect in NZ or in many other countries this is generally something which someone with decent training and preparation can undertake reasonably safely and where there's no reason to think finding the insect would generally risk anyone's life. But what about trying to photograph a rare insect only known to be in North Korea or something that only occurs on the top of K2? Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That also goes for all living people. There are plenty of living people who it is ridiculous to assume someone could reasonably take a free photo of them, but we don't allow it unless we have confirmation it is basically impossible. They were just sighted, so this is not that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's requirement for fair use is quite ridiculous if you ask me, but that is the standard and it is what should be enforced in FfD. Can't do anything about Osama retroactively. I also don't believe you need to know what they look like to understand the article. A father and his three kids have intentionally disappeared and gone bush, knowing what they look like doesn't improve the understanding of that compared to something like an image of a species or an image of a building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does certainly enhance understanding, as much as any history portrait type image enhances understanding, but an image can possibly be taken of them that is free so it still fails NFCC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Traumnovelle's last comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, NFCC#1 is not necessarily failed just because it might be possible one day to take a free photo, but just because text alone serves. Not every article needs an image, and in this case, knowing what the people in question look like does not appreciably add to the reader's understanding. Text alone serves to describe the situation, so the image is replaceable, not by someone happening across them and snapping a photo, but by just not using one at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade Doesn't that go for all NFCC historical portraits though? You can certainly sum up perfectly well who someone is through text, so the image isn't needed, but the historical portrait of a dead person rationale is one of the most used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many, not all, yes. I suspect it is one of the most overused. Of course, there are cases where seeing the person's appearance does appreciably add to the reader's understanding, but for a lot of articles, it's what the person did, not what they looked like, that matters, and seeing what they looked like doesn't add anything appreciable to knowing about them. So, yes, I strongly suspect that's one of the cases where we have a great deal of NFC overuse. (In addition, I suspect in many cases, people didn't actually try to get a freely licensed image before slapping an NFC one up, so it might be replaceable by free media that way too.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on that front, in that I think identifying the person who is most important to an article is one of the most important things and cannot be done through text. That also goes for pretty much anything - include say, the covers of books or films or songs, where there is not a single article that cannot be just as well explained with only text. It's for identification. I feel it's more about enhancing understanding than mandated. So I think its wide use is justified. I agree that this file should be deleted, though, and people don't often try enough to find a free one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've seen this plenty of times before. WP:NFCC #1 is clear on this point. There's no valid justification for keeping this file. As Seraphimblade says, not every article needs an image...much less a non-free one. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man of Constant Sorrow by The Soggy Bottom Boys - single cover.jpg

The cover art itself is hardly needed to identify the release of the specific recording. Sure, the recording itself may be notable and may have won accolades, but the single release itself wasn't that successful. It charted in just two countries: flopped in France; modest on the genre-specific chart in the US. When the song hit one million copies by 2016, I think most of them were digital sales. Physical sales hardly contributed much, IMO.

Furthermore, the cover recording itself isn't the main topic of the article and doesn't need a cover art just to represent the recording. Indeed, some or plenty other song articles omit one or more cover arts belonging to later cover recordings, like Last Christmas, Ain't Nobody, Something's Got a Hold on Me, and The Way You Move.

If deleting this cover art doesn't detriment the understanding of the whole early 20th-century song (the article subject) or the subject of discussion, then this cover art would fail to contextually signify the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This file also fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) as it can be replaced with this image of the song's CD release sourced from Discogs (albeit cropped to show only the label of the disc). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a promo release. I'm unsure whether presenting just the CD itself can make any difference. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because the arguments presented by the nominator have no basis in rules or guidelines. There are no such rules about chart positions or when a recording is released or if sales are digital or not to determine whether a cover art can be used in an infobox. If George Ho wants to establish such a guideline, then it should be discussed by the wider community first, and not use it as arguments in deletion discussion. The cover art serves as identification for the recording in question therefore it would contextually signify it, same for all cover art for song infoboxes, therefore actual rules or guidelines on which infobox deserves a cover art would need to be cited, rather than a simple assertion of contextual significance. The recording is in fact the most prominent of all the recordings of this song with a Grammy win and a million copies sold, if there is to be a cover art for any recording of the song, it would be for this recording. And that cover art perfectly identify the song, showing its link to the film's fictional band.

If someone thinks that another file is more appropriate (and JohnCWiesenthal suggested one), then it can just be replaced and the file can then be automatically deleted. However, a file should not be deleted based on random arguments not based on rules or guideline as to which infobox deserves a cover art or what cover art should be used. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

File:Navalized prototype Shenyang J-35 stealth fighter.png

The file is an image of a carrier prototype of Shenyang FC-31. We have an abundance of free images on c:Category:Shenyang FC-31, and even the carrier prototype is still here (at least not dismantled) and could be revealed in later public events (such as during Zhuhai Airshow). The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is currently no free equivalent of the carrier prototype of Shenyang FC-31, so in my opinion it does not violate WP:NFCC#1, i think we should Keep it WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WP:NFCC#1 is not whether we have or have not free images of this prototype on Commons as now, but rather of whether we can or cannot get free images. This is why using fair-use image of a living person is usually not allowed here, as we could still photograph the person or request free images from others. As the prototype is still there (and may be further developed and publicized), it is still possible to have it photographed in the future. Of course, if the project were later cancelled and the prototype scrapped, then this image would be justified.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the aircraft been in attendance at any public events? I'm inclined to keep this image unless there is proof that a photo could have been reasonably obtained. If not, this feels similar to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg in a broad sense. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The land based version is due to be unveiled in this year's Zhuhai Airshow. As long as the naval version is still an active project, I believe we can still reasonably expect for free photos in the future.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, sure. But that's speculating. At the moment I would say that there is no free equivalent nor could one be created. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral So be it.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World in Conflict USS Missouri (BB-63).JPG

The file is a screenshot of USS Missouri (BB-63) in the game World in Conflict, where it is used to describe the warship appears in a mission of that game. There is only minimal description in the image box and in text, and the image only serves as an illustration, replicable by free images on c:Category:USS Missouri (BB-63) to illustrate such fact. One should also remember there are already 3 more fair use images in the article.

(Moreover, due to strong reflection, Commons images would be way much better in terms of graphic quality.)

The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it provides no critical commentary or useful info for a reader beyond what existing free photos would provide. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

File:Screenshot 20200420-103535.jpg

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 as F9 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author might be the copyright owner, but the file name makes me skeptical. So please upload a higher resolution image or an image with EXIF data. Sreejith K (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyright violation per this Facebook post in 2014.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2024 (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.

File:WIC tactical aid carpet bombing.jpg

The file is a screenshot of World in Conflict depicting a Soviet carpet bombing run. As an illustration of how the game is played, File:WIC Tank Skirmish.jpg also serves this function by depicting a combined arms skirmish. That file is better because unlike the nominated file (where there are only a single bombing run), that file shows the player can command different units in that game.

The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#3a, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for two non-free images. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the tank image already serves the purpose of demonstrating gameplay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PolaAlonso.jpg

To apply {{PD-AR-Photo}}, the author and original place of publication must be known. — Ирука¹³ 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mario Party DS NA logo.webp

The logo is not simple. As non-free, not satisfying WP:NFCC#9, it should be removed from WP. — Ирука¹³ 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheBritinator (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, goes way past the threshold for simple shapes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The logo is too detailed to fall under PD-shape. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination; this logo has too many elements that are not simple enough and would pass the threshold of originality for copyright. Note that File:Super Mario 64 logo.webp was deleted for roughly the same reason. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Note that Japanese threshold for originality is significantly lower than other countries, and fonts are not copyrightable simply because they are stylized, although I do consider this file might be more worthy of artistic appreciation when compared with simpler ones like c:File:Mario Party Logo (MPSuperstars).png.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the gradients and overall composition push it just past the ToO. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

File:Attachment-Identity-Morality triad.jpg

File has been on WP for a decade and never been used. There are no references or precedents cited, suggesting WP:OR. Some of the concepts here seem related to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and similar personality quizzes, but others appear to be completely made up ("ego crimes"). I confess, the whole thing looks like nonsense to me. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KES footer logo.png

There is no evidence on the file description page that this version of the coat of arms is actually freely licensed. — Ирука¹³ 05:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugalia logo.svg

Former logo which does not significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Also fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with a free, current logo File:Portugalia Airlines New Logo.svg. Also has a non-free rationale for Qualiflyer article, but would not be a valid free use there either, as it's not the logo of that company/reqrds program. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qualiflyercard.png

Image of this bank card does not significantly enhance the article, as the card is the same as the company logo with a couple of additional logos. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items- as File:Qualiflyer2.png suffices as the only non-free image on that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ring Lady.JPG

The image is not in the public domain because it was taken after 1976. The publication date is also questionable. — Ирука¹³ 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yarmouth Castle fire.JPG

Since neither the date of publication, nor its location, nor the author of the photo are known, it is not possible to determine the licensing status of the image. — Ирука¹³ 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location: 120 miles east of Miami and 60 miles northwest of Nassau on 13 November 1965. Author indeed unknown (a passenger on Bahama Star). I think that this is probably cropped from the photo distributed by Associated Press on the following day; it looks a little different, but note that that image is a b&w version of the "blue separation print" for colour reproduction. This one is definitely the same image. It most probably appeared in the American papers on 14-15 Nov.

But would this not qualify for non-free use on enWP? - Davidships (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

File:Moonlight and Valentino.jpg

I don't see how this meets WP:NFCC#8; the only mention of this specific performance from 2009 in the article this is used in is in a list of performances. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Der heimliche Aufmarsch.mp3

The file is the original recording of Der Heimliche Aufmarsch, written and reportedly sung (in this version) by Erich Weinert (1890–1953). German copyright law protects works for 70 years p.m.a., which means the file will enter German public domain in 2023 (1953+70=2023). This also means that {{PD-URAA}} is invalid because the file is still copyrighted in Germany on 1 January 1966.

The file is therefore not in American public domain, and might need to be converted to fair use or deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is 2024, last I checked, not 2023. That means the file has entered German public domain. I'm not quite sure why you're saying it might have to be deleted..? It's in German public domain, not American: Weinert was German and not American. Doesn't it make the most sense to follow German laws rather than American? -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turn-Me-Loose.jpg

Cover art not contextually significant to the song previously sung by prior band or the cover recording itself, which charted in only one country. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shortenin' Bread - The Beach Boys.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the song itself and musician who performed the content heard in the sample. Exemplifying/Demonstrating work ≠ contextual significance. Critical commentary insufficient. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

Today is November 9 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 9 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===November 9===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

November 2

Recent nominations

November 3

File:MPTV Logo.png and File:WMVS 2020 Logo.png

November 4

November 5

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

Footer