Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	18	87	105
TfD	4	48	52
MfD	10	30	40
FfD	7	13	20
RfD	5	48	53
AfD	0	3	3

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

To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:

How to list a file for discussion manually

Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 December 16}}` 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=2025 December 16}}` 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=2025 December 16}}` 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 1932, not 1926.
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:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

December 8

File:KhanJoachim.jpg

[edit]

Prompted by a CSD message for another image on Joachim (Star Trek). This image is a screenshot of the character's death. The article doesn't rely on or reference the image itself, and the composition, production, acting, etc. of the screenshotted scene are not subject to commentary or discussion in the article. The FUR claim of "critical commentary and discussion" does not seem fulfilled since the file's upload in 2007. --EEMIV (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as handily failing to meet WP:NFCC#8. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg

[edit]

The copyrighted banner extends beyond the c:COM:De minimis: it is large and centered. The banner should be blurred/squared, or the image should be removed completely. — Ирука¹³ 02:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per c:COM:De minimis point 2: The "Copyrighted work X is identifiable but is an unwanted intrusion to the subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed." The example of the painting in this section is a very comparable example in terms of size relative to the entire image frame (this is less than 10%). In the present image, it is very clear that capturing the poster was not the primary intent of the photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second point doesn't apply here. The copyrighted images are much smaller and located in the corners. The only thing that even vaguely resembles this image is the image of the scarlet-yellow painting. However, unlike the image in question, this painting is obscured by people.

Next, "cannot be easily removed." I believe the exact opposite. Even with my rudimentary image editing skills, I was able to easily remove the adv. portion without losing the image's encyclopedic value. And if you say that even a gram of this value was lost, you'll confirm that the inclusion of the advertising image was an intentional act on the part of the photographer.

This image is most similar in size and location to the third image from point 6. Moreover, in the second image, the copyrighted fragment took up even less space, and, nevertheless, was removed.

And I'm more than sure that even if the sixth image had just the smallest (square) fragment of the three, it would have been retouched too. Wdwd, please comment.

P. S. The copyrighted fragment takes up 1/7 of the image in question (15%), I measured it. — Ирука¹³ 09:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wata-slab SMB cart.jpg

[edit]

The goal stated in FUR is achieved by placing photo of an empty package (WP:FREER). The reader can see what the packaging of a specific game looks like in a specific article (WP:NFC#UUI). In addition, this photo has its own copyright, which is unacceptable per WP:FREER#3D. — Ирука¹³ 03:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg

[edit]

We don't have an article on the book and the two paragraphs about it at the source aren't enough to justify a non-free image. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The upload to the Luis Elizondo biography appears to have been done in good faith, but unfortunately, non-free book covers, movie posters, etc, are only allowed in their dedicated articles. Author Stephen King has no book covers in his article. Neither do UFO book authors Jacques Vallée, Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, Leslie Kean, Whitley Strieber, Erich von Däniken, etc. Relevant policies: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:NFCC#8. However, if someone were to take and donate to Wikipedia an original photo of Elizondo holding his book, that should qualify imo, but the emphasis in the photo has to be Elizondo the author not the book cover. 5Q5|^✉ 12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah. I can make an article on the book itself -- it's gotten lots of coverage. But it's so silly to have to do that just to satisfy NFCC. Feoffer (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would defend it if it was a larger portion of the biography, equivalent to a full sized page in another article. But two paragraphs is not that. And that photo wouldn't help, if it was enough of the focus it wouldn't be de minimis and if it wasn't it wouldn't show enough to be useful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, that's fair -- there's definitely enough RSing out there to make a whole article. Feoffer (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's free anyway so now that's not even necessary. I do think it would be interesting so I'd say go for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great for his particular case! Thank you! But what about the policy in general?

I don't really know how to explain our aversion to notable, irreplaceable fair use imagery. Obviously, image usage way back in 2001 was far more restrictive, but in 2025, nobody is going to sue the Wikimedia foundation for hosting an image of a book cover, and there is no "free alternative" to the cover of an author's memoir. Remind me -- what good does it serve to limit the usage of such images? When an author writes a memoir and agrees on a cover, that's probably something readers are going to want to see, right? What am I missing? Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the question is, to me, how much of the article discusses it. Per WP:NFCC, "content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In certain circumstances I would argue it could be justified, but others may not and say it is only warranted in a full article alone. I think the per-article understanding is overly pedantic and not focusing on what the policy actual means, but it just depends on what you can argue here, really. I would not have brought this to a deletion discussion if the way the article was written suggested the book was a key aspect of him or the book devoted a large portion to it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is there any we could "evolve" the rules somehow? Showing a memoir cover on author's bio doesn't feel like something that should be forbidden. The cover might not even meet the threshold of originality for copyright, given that the image featured on the cover is public domain. Feoffer (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Feoffer Is the image actually public domain? If so, the rest is just text with no real creative design, so this would be PD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, relicensing is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as PD. The image is definitely a US government work. See this news article which identifies it as "U.S. Department of Defence". The rest of the cover is simple text which is not eligible for copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relicense - Agreed that nothing on the cover seems copyrightable - certainly not the text and likely not the government image.
⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: HarperCollins Publishers (William Morrow imprint) owns the copyright to the cover art of Imminent but not the public domain image within it. Elizondo owns the book's text. Here are some examples of past FfDs concerning use of book covers in non-book articles, including author articles, all delete: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 5Q5|^✉ 13:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't own copyright to text this simple. It is words and beige, far, far, far below the american threshold of originality. The Cyberpunk 2077 logo was ruled by the copyright office too simple for copyright. And yes, sometimes they delete, sometimes they do not, NFCC#8 does not say must have a dedicated article but contextual relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I encourage the reading of this expert article "Book Covers And Copyrights" before placing a bestselling book cover in the public domain. 5Q5|^✉ 13:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A book being bestselling doesn't make the threshold of originality not exist, or put an image in copyright that was public domain. You cannot copyright the word "Imminent" or the phrase "Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs". Cyberpunk 2077 was a bestselling game, and its text only logo was explicitly declared uncopyrightable by the copyright office because it was just text and minor styling, despite being far more stylized than this cover. That article is unrelated to this situation, it is about derivative works of copyrighted works, e.g. a photo of Obama that was copyrighted, not a photo from the American government, which cannot be copyrighted, reproduced exactly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two templates available are Template:PD-ineligible-USonly and Template:PD-ineligible. According to WP:IUPC, the uploader has to be able to "prove that the image is in the public domain". Since no such publisher or other official PD declaration exists, the publisher could, if they want to, challenge the PD designation. 5Q5|^✉ 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official declaration" because none is needed, nor would one be expected. A publisher is not going to issue explicit declarations for their covers. The image is verified to be a US Federal government work. The rest of the cover is just simple text. Neither is copyrightable and the combination of the two does not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they cannot, because they don't own the image. It would be PD-Ineligible and PD-USGov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, my delete vote is only to remove the image from the Luis Elizondo article. I am fine with it being used in an article dedicated to the book, if such an article qualifies. Amazon UK has a different color scheme for the cover with additional wording. Once a book cover is in the public domain it can be sold on posters, shirts, mugs, and such without any payment to the publisher or author. I couldn't find any examples of Imminent book cover merchandise as of this writing. As a matter of principle to protect the business model of the publishing industry and the thousands of book covers in its past and future catalog, the publisher may decide to challenge the PD status, but if it doesn't, that's on them. 5Q5|^✉ 13:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That no one has done it yet does not mean that (why would people sell merchandise of this terrible book cover, and why would that matter? most merchandise like that is illegal, that would prove nothing). The image is public domain. There is no creative content on this cover that was not created by the US Government, who cannot claim copyright. You cannot own copyright to simple text, because there is a threshold of originality! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg

[edit]

There is no evidence that the image was officially published (WP:NFCC#4). There is no evidence that it is Edmond de Goeyse in the image (WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL) – written from him personally, and not from a description. We can just as easily get a free image by drawing a new portrait and publishing it under a free license (WP:FREER). — Ирука¹³ 03:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

[edit]

A non-free photo of a free three-dimensional object. The object is on display in a museum. Free photo could be created (WP:NFCC#1 / WP:FREER). — Ирука¹³ 04:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the second time this photo has been brought here by the same editor for the same reason. As explained last time, Digital Museums of Canada allows its images to be shared, with attribution, for educational purposes. "Materials on and accessible through this website were produced and/or compiled and posted for educational and personal purposes. Users may use the Content on this site as permitted by law, and subject to the following conditions: Users must acknowledge the source of the material. The source citation should include the URL digitalmuseums.ca or the URL of the Canadian museum or heritage organization that created the material". Since the use is not for profit and educational--and attribution is included--I do not feel there is a problem here. Furthermore, the rationale that someone can go to the museum and take another photo is flawed. Just because this item is part of the museum's collection does not mean that it is on display. Museums typically have a small fraction of their collections on display. Also, many museums do not allow photography of their displays for preservation reasons; thus, they share their collections digitally. Rublamb (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the attribution is incorrect. The rights to the photo do not belong to DMC, they are only exhibit photo. Sam Waller Museum owns the rights, but that's not stated on the file description page.

The file description page states that this is a non-free logo. This is not true. It's a free "logo" and a non-free photo. — Ирука¹³ 12:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is correctly linked to its source. That is its attribution. Wikipedia and Wikicommons do not differentiate between a text attribution and and weblink attribution. (However, a text attribution can easily be added to the file if that is an issue). Sam Walter Museum shared its photo through the collaborative DMC, which has a general copyright statement for all images. Such file sharing comes with agreements regarding copyright, which is why DMC can have a general statement of copyright for its entire database. You are correct in a sense--this is a non-free image unless used for educational or personal purposes. That limitation is why the image was added through Wikipedia instead of Wikicommons. If you think this image was added under the incorrect category, it can simply be moved. That is not a reason to delete the image. Do you have a recommendation for a better category? Rublamb (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Rublamb, that the museum has granted permission. Additionally, this low-resolution image is used to identify the organization on its Wikipedia page. We allow such primary image usage to ensure clarity. This is a completely unnecessary request for deletion. Jax MN (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:L(eonard). C(harles). Bowkett.jpg

[edit]

Invalid license. Image is not PD as the work was created after 1930. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is PD in UK, as "70 years after publication (unknown author)".~~

~~It is PD in US, as "95 years after publication (URAA restored)". — Ирука¹³ 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)~~ problems with maths — Ирука¹³ 00:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia follows US copyright law, so the 95 year rule applies. Work was created circa 1934 which is less than 95 years ago. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say just update it to the correct licensing as the file itself is Encyclopaedic. Felicia (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Updating this to the correct licensing means we need to delete this file. The provided date is circa 1934, with the publication of this card almost certainly in the UK. There is no evidence of US publication at the time and given it looks to be a rugby card, I doubt very much there was any US publication. As such, the 95 year rule does apply as noted by User:Aydoh8. Conversion to non-free content would not be possible as use for visual identification is already provided through a PD image (File:Leonard Bowkett - Huddersfield.jpeg). -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:APP-06 E 1.pdf

[edit]

The same problem as here - and it was uploaded after a lot of explanations that the user should not do it. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blows way past minimal usage. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marilyn Manson - Personal Jesus.ogg

[edit]

De-PRODded under previous assumption that the "Marilyn Manson version" section is large enough for a sample like this. "WP:COVERSONG and WP:NFC#cite_note-3" were cited, but they have been yet to be proven to apply to (non-lead) files used in body article. Kinda unrelated, but the assumption that such rules apply was challenged or refuted by an admin (Link to archived discussion). Even the same person who de-PRODded this file also started the discussion at WT:NFC about.... well, just cover arts (revision link to another discussion).

Regarding this file, I still have concerns about its contextual significance to the version itself or the song whose original version was already a hit years prior. Of course, I may anticipate those "text isn't auditory" and readers-won't-understand-how-songs-sound-like-without-samples arguments, despite otherwise. If no one object to deleting this file, then this sample would fail to contextually signify the whole song after all. George Ho (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. - There is no section where the musical content of the song is discussed enough to warrant a non-free file.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 22:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't wanna name you initially as the one who de-PRODded the file, but now I am. Why the sudden change of stance? George Ho (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho I prefer to remain a mystery. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The rationale is pure boilerplate and its claimed usage is not supported by the article itself. -- Whpq (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isaiah Kenen.jpg

[edit]

File:Isaiah Kenen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Verify the copyright status of this photo, as well as the others. If there's no free image that would serve the same purpose here, keep this image as a fair use image. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Candidyeoman55: You are the uploader of the file. It is part of your responsibility to do a search for free alternatives before uploading non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png

[edit]

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Logo below the threshold of originality that must be moved to Commons. Brazil has a high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

File:CA Paulistano.svg

[edit]

File:CA Paulistano.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Below threshold of originality. Move to Commons. The country of origin of this work is Brazil. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the center is just C.A.P, just text. Not above threshold of originality. Therefore PD. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond TOO. But there may be a PD based on the time of publication. This needs to be proven, of course.. — Ирука¹³ 03:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's PD, because it's just vintage text. Brazil's threshold of originality is high Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just text in a vintage font. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Secondary images of Miss Moneypenny

[edit]

Images of other actresses portraying Miss Moneypenny may not contextually signify much about this fictional character. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They may be very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film with a particular actress portraying the character.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film. "Contextual significance" (WP:NFC#CS) doesn't limit to such demographic but applies to everyone else, especially those who've yet to see the films. Well, it says that screenshots should significantly increase readers' understanding of the fictional character herself enough to make omitting such screenshots detrimental to understanding this character.

As I see, this character has been just a secretary to "M". I'm afraid I have found images of portrayers not much of improvement but rather.... decorative perhaps. How do the screenshots (of actresses portraying the same role) improve your understanding of the character... besides what she looks like differently? George Ho (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The images are obviously purely decorative. Less than one sentence describes each image. — Ирука¹³ 01:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These images are worth keeping if you've only seen one run of Bond, for example (Casino Royale is more on the public mind than Octopussy, after all). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Moneypenny didn't appear in the 2006 film adaptation of the novel, unfortunately. Did you mean perhaps the 1960s spoof (of the same name)?

if you've only seen one run of Bond: This is pandering to Bond-fandom, isn't it? Honestly, I've yet to see you explain (further) why deleting the screenshots would impact the understanding of the character. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

File:Melanie C - I Don't Know How to Love Him.png

[edit]

De-PRODded (by non-admin user) due to assumptions that, if the first version of the song, the content about the version itself is large enough to justify usage of this cover art. (see Explicit's explanation here) However, I'm doubtful that's the case here.

As shown in the article (old ID link), the section barely covers essential content that would've made omission of this cover art unjust Rather I've seen info about her performance and recording of the song. If the section were a standalone article, I would've redirected the page to the parent album article as potentially a less notable topic in question. Furthermore, I would've orphaned the whole cover art.

The matter isn't about the section itself but rather the cover art's contextually significance to the previously recorded/performed song made for an off-Broadway musical. If no objections, then the cover art may have failed to contextually signify the song after all. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added just now this free alternative (File:Mel C arriving at the Royal Albert Hall.jpg) neither as intended replacement nor for the section's infobox but for the section itself. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Section about the Melanie C cover could be it's own small article - there is significant discussion and sourcing for it. Since it could be it's own article, the cover is warranted for contextual significance.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 22:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

1967–1970 Beatles album covers

[edit]

These album covers were published in the United States without an attached copyright notice (sources: Heritage Auctions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [the "notice" on the back cover appears to apply only to the lyrics], eBay for Magical Mystery Tour, eBay for Yellow Submarine, eBay for Abbey Road, eBay for Let It Be) within thirty days of their publication in the United Kingdom. Per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, Wikimedia Commons treats works published "simultaneously" (within thirty days) in the US as first published in the US. They should thus be transferred to Commons and tagged {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Simultaneous US publication|country1=United Kingdom|publication year=1967/1969/1970}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete it I’m a big Beatles fan plz don’t Neoogai (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are kept as-is or transferred to Commons, they are not being deleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Neoogai. There is no doubt about your good intentions, but please understand that the basis of such discussions are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agreed with the logic of moving to Commons.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 14:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Commons, per above rationale. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg

[edit]

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This is below the threshold of originality, so it should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 23:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg

[edit]

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

It's below the threshold of originality. Move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 23:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg

[edit]

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I uploaded this logo and now I think this is Public Domain actually. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below t.o.o., therefore pd. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The design is too complex. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the home country of it is Brazil, and it has a high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not produced a single example of what Brazilian courts have deemed too simple for copyright. ✗plicit 13:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is simpler than a 3D logo by Paes Mendonça which was ruled ineligible for copyright by Brazilian courts. For more information, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil#Threshold_of_originality Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, below T.O.O. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

File:Estonian Football Association logo.svg

[edit]

File:Estonian Football Association logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Below the threshold of originality, move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}. There is no information regarding Estonia's threshold of originality. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|Estonia}} - Unclear if meets TOO in home country.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 23:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

File:Old Man (Neil Young single - cover art).jpg

[edit]

Should, preferably, display the other (Canadian) single release as the sole lead image representing the Canadian musician's recording rather than this (German/Austrian) one per WP:NFCC#3a (discogs). George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize until just now that it's used in two articles. Just now, also using another portion of the Canadian single in the other article. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The single covers show a more complete image of the single cover than the Canadian single release alone. Instead, Delete the Canadian singles File:Old man by neil young Canadian vinyl side-A.webp and File:The Needle and the Damage Done Neil Young Canadian vinyl side-B.webp as they are redundant. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.

Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long before cassette singles and then CD singles arrived in stores. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. Like Black Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it on Discogs, seen here. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels fail WP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than one prominent aspect of the subject, right?

With all due respect, regardless of which portion to use, be it a plain vinyl record or a picture sleeve, the right... or an important release matters more. (Portion ≠ release.) Also, a release can be a "prominent aspect" that a reader would realize and have sought for. (Shall I explain further why video game community has preferred displaying English-language cover arts, like Super Mario World? Well, Japanese editions of Final Fantasy IV and Tales of Eternia are unique cases for you to study.)

Also, various single releases of "Old Man" didn't use one universal single cover art (discogs). Unsure why you've thought the German/Austrian single is the most important out of all initial single releases to display, and unsure why we must compare "Old Man" to a Led Zeppelin song.

It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...? George Ho (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per George Ho's rationale. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:19, 12 November 2025 (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.

December 9

File:Bangkok skyscraper collapse.png

Uploader seems to be suggesting that anything created by a dashcam is public domain. I cannot find any precedent for such a broad, sweeping claim about dashcam footage. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aplucas0703: See PD-automated on Commons; things not produced by human input are indeed generally considered public domain. Dashcam is not specifically mentioned but from other categories and uploads I've seen it generally falls under this. Camera does not move at any point during the video this was taken from. ^EF⁵ 01:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 I'm really not convinced of this argument. I think someone could easily (and correctly) argue that choosing where to drive their car is human input sufficient for copyright protection. This might apply to CCTV footage or traffic cameras that receive no input, but a moving car is significantly different. By this interpretation, all footage captured from a drone would be in the public domain. It's difficult to even know if the footage was captured by a camera manually activated or automatically activated, but I don't think it matters in this case. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 The category you cite is populated almost entirely by items with other licenses. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that point but the rest of what I've said is still a valid argument. ^EF⁵ 01:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that, but then that's equally an opinion as mine. Dashcam has been a subject of contention (in the US), although I'll note that looking up ToO in relation to dashcams in Thailand I find zero results, so there doesn't appear to be any defined law relating to CCTV/dashcams. ^EF⁵ 01:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. - Dashcam video is not "entirely of information produced by an automated system." Nor is it the "work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence."

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg

Should be PD-India due to time period of publication Jay Cubby 15:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe this image is in the public domain in the United States? — Ирука¹³ 01:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SheriffJohnStone.jpg

F5 CoryGlee 15:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files at 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

Uploaded last year and then inserted to the "2013 Washington, Illinois tornado" article. This matter was raised recently, but not much discussion has been made (WT:NFC; article talk page). I'd thought about PRODding the images initially, but then I fear the possibility of the active uploader reverting the tag to contest the deletion proposal.

The one who raised the issue favored one of the screenshots showing the intensity of that tornado. However, a huge tornado isn't that surprising to look at, IMO, despite casualties and devastating losses and damages. Not just the "minimal number" issue, the more concerning would be "contextual significance" issue. Of course, one would disagree and choose either one, but even with captions, the tornadoes depicted in the screenshot... I couldn't tell the difference from other tornado incidents other than... text, and non-free image still wouldn't improve my understanding of the tornado itself impacting Washington, Illinois. (I'd thought about "irreplaceability" issue initially, but then I don't know freer images depicting that tornado itself, so...) George Ho (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Washington, Illinois tornado at peak intensity.jpg, delete File:Washington tornado seen over rural farmlands near Roanoke, Illinois.jpg. Generally accepted that non-free images of tornadoes are fine in articles (I can name numerous discussions regarding this; see here, here, etc.) I can also name countless tornado GAs and even an FA with a non-free image of the event itself. However, I don't see the need for two of them. ^EF⁵ 00:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link for ya (diff). George Ho (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Washington, Illinois tornado at peak intensity.jpg, delete File:Washington tornado seen over rural farmlands near Roanoke, Illinois.jpg. I'm inclined to keep the peak intensity image over the Roanoke picture since it depicts the tornado at the point that it had its most notable impact. And per EF5's comment, there is some precedent for keeping non-free images of tornadoes (although @EF5: the link you have for the Joplin tornado goes to a nonexistent page.). For irreplaceability, it is the case for most tornado articles that there are free images of damage, thanks to NWS surveys, but none of the tornado itself, as those are usually captured by private storm chasers or incidental witnesses. Though I do see value in the question of what essential information the photo conveys unless there is something unusual or significant about the tornado's appearance. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Washington, Illinois tornado at peak intensity.jpg, delete File:Washington tornado seen over rural farmlands near Roanoke, Illinois.jpg. One low-quality non-free image of tornado seems fine due to irreplaceability, but not two.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:E nomine finsternis limited edition CD cover.jpg

Unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a due to File:Finsternisalbumcover.jpg. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. - No significant discussion of the second version, doesn't warrant a second non-free image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple image. Changed the license to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — Ирука¹³ 07:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as PD (in US only) per Iruka13. Looked closely; didn't see any complex elements that would guarantee protection under US law. Unsure about threshold of c:COM:TOO Germany. George Ho (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

December 10

File:Kurdish Peshmerga.GIF

Dubious own-work claims. Low resolution, no EXIF, and three of these are clearly pictures of a monitor. ✗plicit 00:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

File:Helen Keller & Anne Sullivan issue of 1980.jpg

Fails NFCC1 -- there are other depictions of her in the section which work just as well Jay Cubby 00:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree — The file in question is listed under Posthumous honors to show that a Commemorative US postage stamp was issued in Keller's honor. In regards to NFCC 1: As a unique image of a commemorative postage stamp, there is no free equivalent available anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's point one, but probably point eight. The image only confirms the fact that such a stamp was issued. This is not enough to place a non-free image in an article. — Ирука¹³ 12:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image depicts the national honor that was given to Keller by the USPS in 1980 and as such merits inclusion in the article.
In regards to NFCC 8 — Contextual significance. The image is listed under Posthumous honors, and in that context has significance and is appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FDNY Engine 81 Ladder 33 on Bailey Avenue.jpg

Judging by the Flickr account (photos description and photo of the account owner), the photos were taken from a family archive. It's not even certain that they were taken by a family member. — Ирука¹³ 03:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Little Farmer Ad.jpg

One of the frames of the advertisement that does not reflect its main idea (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука¹³ 22:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~, the image isn't critical but without it there is no depiction of the add besides the description in the article, which can only do so much. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to note that the frame is one of the most common depictions of the advert that I have seen and I pulled it from an article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a bit more consideration, I am moving to slight keep. I think that the nominator nominated this assuming that a random frame had been chosen, but in addition to Variety, as listed on the file page, a few other articles and the YouTube video use this image as their thumbnail. Their are a couple other thumbnails floating, but this is certainly one of them. I'm pinging @Iruka13 to ask for their opinion on the matter. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video has no official cover, no unofficial cover, and no "special" frame. In such cases, even the presence of a free image in the infobox, according to WP:LEADIMAGE, can easily be questioned. — Ирука¹³ 04:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – critical commentary inadequate to support this frame (of a girl, a man holding a potato chip product, and a woman). Furthermore, reading the synopsis, the commercial is more about the girl herself raising a potato (seed?) as a future plant, and the synopsis itself is easy to understand (in text) without this frame. For better example, see When Harry Met Santa (Christmas example). George Ho (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sia - Fame Won't Love You cover art.jpg

File available on Commons as File:Sia – Fame Won't Love You cover art.png. Listed here due to uploader's reversion of {{Di-replaceable non-free use}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the Commons copy itself for deletion (DR discussion). --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dependent on Commons deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png

Should be replaced by a poster (Facebook), which I think is more significant than the title card itself. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is my nomination unreasonable? The logo itself is a nice change from that of the preceding season, but I still wonder why it has been perceived to clearly signify Big Brother 26 (American season). It hasn't used a number after Big Brother 10 (American season). It doesn't use other elements that can help reader clearly identify a season, like All Stars seasons and Big Brother 11 (American season). George Ho (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wanderer in Genshin Impact.jpg

Updated version uploaded at File:Wanderer in Genshin Impact.png Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIFA Intercontinental Cup logo.svg

File:FIFA Intercontinental Cup logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Below the threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below the threshold of originality of which country? — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CESC Limited Logo.svg

The uploader of this image states on the file description page that the image was taken from the company's official website. On the company's official website, this image was only available in .png format, never in .svg.

The image contains multiple distortions relative to the original image, which are more common when images are automatically converted to .svg. In this case, these are watery-looking artifacts along the edges, turning the headlights into a blurry mess. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is the original .png image from the official website.

I believe that given the availability of an official, high-quality .png and its poor-quality reproduction in the "slightly better" .svg format, we should give preference to the former, as recommended by MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука¹³ 01:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at FFD. @Pppery, Buffs, and Isla: Pinging previous participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is a horribly crappy autotrace. Delete to replace. Jay Cubby 14:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

File:Gareth Mallory Profile.png

I question the contextual significance of this non-free screenshot(?) of Ralph Fiennes as "M" (real name Gareth Mallory). Sure, Fiennes (as "M") appears face- and clean-shaven and well and professionally dressed, but I'm skeptical about the image's impact on readers, especially general ones, of the article about this "M" character of the James Bond franchise.

Actually, I'm questioning more about its "irreplaceability" factor. I may want to use a free pic of Fiennes himself, like one from 2018, another from 2013, or one from last year. George Ho (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been replaced. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 15:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Didn't realize that SchroCat (uploader) switched the images. Regardless, changed back for now per Iruka13. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind. The uploader re-reversed back to one of free images (diff). Thinking about tagging this non-free screenshot soon with "db-author"... George Ho (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what the character looked like in all three films, but the replacement photos provided are too different from the non-free image. — Ирука¹³ 12:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per your reply, I switched a free image back to this non-free one for now. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

The uploader then re-reversed back to the free image (diff). Shall I tag the screenshot with "db-author" then? –George Ho (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iranian football badge.svg

File:Iranian football badge.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

It's just the flag, a simple ball which is below the threshold of originality, and text, which is also below it. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they decide not to move to Commons, they'll make it PD-US. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tata IPL 2026 Auction Logo.png

The article isn't about the auction alone make it unsuitable for the page for NFCC Vestrian24Bio 14:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFCC#8. Vestrian24Bio 16:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is the logo of the auction, which is only one part of the article on signings (and does not require a separate article). Thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:K2 new logo.svg

File:K2 new logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Speedy move to Commons. The country of origin of this logo is Italy, a country with a very high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some Italian logos

Speedy move them to Commons. These images are Italian works, a country with a very high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also move File:Sky Cinema Due +24 - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Due +24 HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Due HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno +24 - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno +24 HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno HD - 2021 logo.svg , and File:Sky Sport Uno HD - 2020 logo.svg to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now, do not transfer all to Commons – Sky Italia was/is a subsidiary of Sky Group, a British company. Huh... Either forgot or didn't realize that Sky Group is now part of Comcast. The logos you wanted to transfer are still subject to c:COM:TOO UK as they have been still part of the British company, regardless of Sky Italia's HQ location. George Ho (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked to move the Italy-specific logos, not all logos used by Sky Italia, as some of them may be or are identical to the ones used by Sky UK. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are not made by Sky Italia then? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "Sky Sport" is the Italian branch, while "Sky Sports" is the British one. Some words like "Uno" and "Due" are clearly Italian, so these would be Italian works. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those logos are still of British property, despite being used for Italian channels. Most likely, the Sky Group, the British entity, must have used "Uno" and "Due" to appeal Italian senses, huh? Also, the Sky logo still has some graphic effects that may guarantee protection from the British law. (some of them may be or are identical to the ones used by Sky UK) Your own words. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With "only the potentially identical" I meant these logos: File:Sky Atlantic - Logo 2020 (TV channel).svg , File:Sky Investigation (television channel).svg , File:Sky Cinema Collection - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Family - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Action - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Suspense - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Romance - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Drama - 2021 logo.svg and File:Sky Cinema Comedy - 2021 logo.svg . These I just mentioned are probably or possibly identical to those used by Sky UK and therefore shouldn't be moved to Commons. The others I mentioned previously above are not likely to be, or more certainly, not used, by Sky UK. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... Still, both Sky Italia and Sky UK are still part of Sky Group. Why should Sky Italia be treated like a mere Italian entity to be subject to c:COM:TOO Italy, not one belonging to the British company subject to "COM:TOO UK"? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ones only used by Sky Italia should be treated as Italian works, respecting Wikipedia precedents. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which Wikipedia precedents? George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the logos of British subsidiaries of American companies. The logo of Lay's is below the threshold of originality in the United States, but the logo of Walker's is possibly above the United Kingdom's threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that the precedent you cited is corrected. Actually, was hoping you find other "Italian" logos that are of British properties. I've just now listed the Walkers logo (File:Walkers logo.png) for discussion. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

December 14

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg

Per WP:NFC#UUI#6 this image should be removed from all articles except Drowning Girl. — Ирука¹³ 09:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plrk (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSI Tirunelveli Diocese Logo.png

Clearly, the uploader is not the copyright holder. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion but given that the Diocese of Tirunelveli of the Church of South India was established in 1859, there is the possibility that this logo is in the public domain. What is needed is information on when this logo came into use. Whpq (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

File:DHYB video.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Same case as with all the other recently deleted Nicole Scherzinger photos here. Sricsi (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for deletion. As for whether NFCC applied, I uploaded the file originally so clearly disagree, the nominator agrees that makes is 1:1 - happy to go with majority/expert opinion >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from {{outdent}} to a bullet for you if that's all right. --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It supports the section about the video's content.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 22:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately – I can see a screenshot of just the singer in the music video's setting. "OTHERSTUFF" concerns aside, I couldn't fathom how and why omitting this file would harm the understanding of the song itself. Sure, the synopsis of the music video may be detail-y and all, but this doesn't justify the use of the screenshot, despite the rationale by the one who voted "Keep". Furthermore, is the use intended to improve the understanding of (what) the song or the music video (is all about) or to just merely identify the singer [performing(?) in the video]? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident. ~2025-40752-07 (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of vote made by this editor on an unrelated image (diff). ...Wait, is this vote intended on a music video screenshot or an unrelated screenshot (of a horrible shooting incident)? George Ho (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LADbible-logo.jpg

Replaceable by File:LADBible Group.svg, whose author has given permission via verified email to use the copy. Also, currently orphaned and previously taken to FFD eight years ago. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and move to Commons. Logo is just text, so not copyrightable.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about c:COM:TOO UK? The publisher that made the logo (in SVG format) gave everyone the permission to use the logo under Creative Commons license. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? If the more complex one is permissible, why wouldn't the less complex one be? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The complex one you're referring to is the Commons copy (in SVG format), right? If so, well..... George Ho (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walkers logo.png

May be very similar to other logos seen in Lay's. Indeed, this logo alongside the Walkers brand itself most likely belongs to PepsiCo, an American conglomerate. [For more Britishness, here is the collection pic of old 1970s Walkers crisps/chips (permalink)]

This logo was mentioned at another FFD discussion as attempt to exemplify some "precedent" that may be, IMO, questionable (link). I get the concerns about c:COM:TOO UK, despite one 2020s case that may have raised originality standards guaranteeing a UK work some protection under British law. Nevertheless, most likely, the logo is more.... American-ish[?] (despite "Walkers" in place of "Lay's")? and should be transferred to Commons. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC); edited, 19:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Keep and move to Commons. - Graphical elements of logo are clearly the same as Lay's, created first and in the US. I'd be shocked if it met the threshold for originality in the UK, even with the latest ruling.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.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 G10 by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion moved down below for the same image, under a different file name

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:Bondi Beach gunmen.jpg

Procedural nomination, with no opinion at this time on the deletion or retention of the image. This image was nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg, but FFD rather than MFD is the proper venue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the nomination appears to be Delete: Low quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg

I don't believe this image fulfils WP:NFCC#8. The image doesn't add anything to the article, nor is it such a high quality visual aid to warrant it's use. orangesclub 🍊 16:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an image of unique historical significance showing in real time a terrorist attack in progress. The image cannot be recreated. The article that incorporates the image is about the attack. Green Montanan (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're explaining compliance with WP:NFCC#1, not WP:NFCC#8 ie how the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. The grainy image of two men with guns on a footbridge (which we have a better, free photo of anyway) does not add anything that cannot be described with words. orangesclub 🍊 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. A picture is worth 1000 words. Seeing the terrorists with the guns in their hands on the footbridge is not the same as the description in words. Green Montanan (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident. ~2025-40752-07 (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low quality and doesn't add to the article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image of the bridge illustrates the site of the attack perfectly fine. I'd say this one would be even better in illustrating the scenario, but it's pretty low quality. Hsnkn (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user that uploaded this image has filled out the non-free content criteria very well so there is no doubt as to whether the image can be used. This is a significant event in Australian history and deserves to be illustrated with any kind of image. The image being of low-quality does not matter for this article's use, a high-quality one would be nice but they would be difficult to find due to how quickly the circumstances were changing. If there are better ones, I might advocate using one of those but in the absence of an alternative, this should remain online. I disagree with the image not meeting criterion 8, I think the image also meets the majority of the other parts of that guideline. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

procedural question

Question - Why is this at MFD? This appears to be an image, and I thought that the XFD forum for images was Files for Discussion. Have I missed something, or has the nominator missed the forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I'm not familiar with deletion discussions for images not on commons. Can the conversation be moved? orangesclub 🍊 17:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This adds significantly to the article. Seeing this is far more appropriate than trying to explain it in words. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The image of the bridge was perfectly fine, and there is an external video linked in the article too. Also, the current free use rationale falsely asserts that the image is an artwork being discussed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The summary clearly states "For visual identification of the object of the article." The article is about the shooting, and that is what is depicted in the image. Green Montanan (talk) Green Montanan (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Montanan: Please read what's attached to the file again. "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work" This is incorrect, as the article is about the mass shooting, not "this work" (the photograph). Also "Any derivative work based upon the artwork..." and "The use of a low resolution image of the artwork will not impact the commercial viability of the art" are other errors with the fair use rationale. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should replace "this work" with "what is depicted in this work". Green Montanan (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your other issues are. Are you saying that photography is not artwork? Green Montanan (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that when uploading this photo, you used the template for "This image is the object of discussion in an article", which states in bold "The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows"? It'd likely be better to redo the fair use rationale as a "Historic photograph" under "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember what buttons I pressed to upload the image. Green Montanan (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lede photo of terrorists in the very act –and offhand, I don't recall such. Provides excellent geographic and spatial orientation. Dynamic, with excellent composition. Doesn't display gore, as opposed to, say, the Zapruder film. Which was also grainy. What this photo adds to the reader's understanding is the visceral, grim determination of the terrorists. kencf0618 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Today is December 16 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 16 – (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 "===December 16===" 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 Creating articles 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 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

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Secondary images of Miss Moneypenny

1967–1970 Beatles album covers

Discussions approaching conclusion

December 9

Non-free files at 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

Recent nominations

December 10

December 11

December 12

Some Italian logos

December 13

December 14

December 15

December 16

Footer