Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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.

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2019 April 25}} 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. Also, add {{ffd|log=2019 April 25}} 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:fdw|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:fdw-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=2019 April 25}} 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 1920, 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}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality - The image 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 file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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:

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[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

  • (None at this time)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

April 19[edit]

File:Weyes Blood on Boat Sub Pop 2019.jpeg[edit]

File:Weyes Blood on Boat Sub Pop 2019.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sam carman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

portrait/promotional image of notable individual, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 07:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - EXIF shows the author as Kathryn Vetter Miller. Unless the uploader can verify this via OTRS, then this is a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd like to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt, but given that the uploader also has an image on Commons similarly claimed as "own work" that is up for speedy deletion due to copyvio concerns, I suspect that the license of the image under discussion isn't valid either. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Peggy O'Keefe Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.jpg[edit]

File:Peggy O'Keefe Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Levrad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

portrait/promotional image of notable individual, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 07:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Barof Film Poster.jpeg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Barof Film Poster.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sohel1997 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clearly bogus license, a movie poster is not uploader's "own work". I can't find a source for it via google images though. funplussmart (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Also see File:Kidnap official poster.jpeg and File:Password Film Poster.jpg which have the same problems. Plus probably everything else uploaded by this editor. Per this post they made, I think it's confusion on the licensing and it can be resolved but there are COI / PAID concerns now. Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Coke Studio for the deaf.png[edit]

File:Coke Studio for the deaf.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nauriya (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used "to serve as the primary means of visual identification in the relevant section of the article". As this is a section of the article, the purpose of visual identification by itself is insufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Horace on mic.jpg[edit]

File:Horace on mic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Horace Hamilton Heidt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low resolution derivative image of File:Horace Heidt 1937.JPG. There's no real need to remove the background, and certainly no need to size it down this small in the process. Whpq (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

File:NASA KSC TWA Tours.png[edit]

File:NASA KSC TWA Tours.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MadeYourReadThis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by File:NASA KSC TWA Tours.jpg (different format) Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion: The JPG on Commons is the original, meanwhile the bloated PNG here is a cropped screenshot from that JPG's website. --Ras67 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cambridge Muslim college logo.png[edit]

File:Cambridge Muslim college logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muslimsson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious non-free use rationale. This image of an alternative logo is unnecessary as we have another logo for the college (File:Cambridge Muslim college logo.jpg). Breaks WP:NFCCP criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and 8 (contextual significance). The other logo is preferred as it appears on the college's homepage. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - This logo is a transparent PNG image which is what is used on the official website. The other image is jpg, presumably from a screen capture. The other image is the one that should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The gold-on-red version is clearer on the pale grey background of the infobox. However, I'm ok with either of these files. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It needs to be clear which picture is to remain and the file that is kept needs to be cleaned up with tags.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (and delete the .jpg). Fix the backgroud color to match what is used on the website by either using <div style="background-color:"> in the infobox or by directly editing the file. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Yellow lovebird standing to the edge of it's cage.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 00:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Yellow lovebird standing to the edge of it's cage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SHAHMMM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan SHAHMMM (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

April 21[edit]

File:Marvelmanspecial.jpg[edit]

File:Marvelmanspecial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miraclemanr23.jpg[edit]

File:Miraclemanr23.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg[edit]

File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ntnon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Miraclemanbook3.JPG[edit]

File:Miraclemanbook3.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article has a lot of non-free media and this is adding nothing critical or educational. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Doron Kempel Headshot.jpg[edit]

File:Doron Kempel Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrfunbus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Look like flickr washing. Single file in the photostream. And the license - Mark 1.0. --geageaTalk 15:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

File:Elasticsearch logo.svg[edit]

File:Elasticsearch logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daylen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't seem unique enough to be eligible for copyright in the United States. (Note: It is unclear what the country of origin of this image is.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:University College Cork emblem.png[edit]

File:University College Cork emblem.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jacbourg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
  • cf File:University College Cork logo.svg
  • Do we need, and can we justify, two non-free images on this article ffor "identification"? "Precedent"' has been cited in edit summaries: [1], but I thought it was worth raising the question here for clarification. Pinging Guliolopez, an editor who I greatly respect, and sincerely hope is not offended by my raising this, as concerned. -- Begoon 13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi. If both images had the exact same purpose ("identification of the subject"), then that would perhaps not be justifiable. However, before this more recent version was uploaded (replacing a perfectly viable alternative with a more complete FUR rationale IMO), the FUR purpose given was not just "identification". But also to "illustrate the organization's intended branding message". Two crests/logos with the exact same purpose are perhaps not justifiable. But two university logos/crests with different purposes? (One for "identifying the subject", another for "understanding the branding message"?) In my view this is justifiable. And, apparently, has historically been seen as justifiable/appropriate on many dozens (hundreds?) of university infoboxes. Where two FUR images (one crest and one logo) appear together. (The articles/infoboxes on Princeton, Harvard, U of London, Columbia and many many others all include two FUR images. Without question or concern. I'm not sure why we would apply a more stringent interpretation of WP:NFC#CS here. Not least when, per WP:NFC#CS, the "single item" criterion only applies when the FUR purpose given is "identification". Which isn't the case here. Or, at least, wasn't until very recently.) Coupled with the fact that these are not commercial/monetizable images, I do not see why we would not/could not justify retaining both. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      If we're comfortable with all that as a reason to retain multiple non-free images then I'm happy with that. It didn't initially seem justifiable to me, hence the question. I'd welcome further opinions, though. -- Begoon 14:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. The emblem is included in the logo. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - If that's the case, then why not delete the logo instead? And, for that matter, are we saying that the logos (or crests) of Princeton, Harvard, London and other similar Infobox elements are to be brought into the scope of this FfD? (I am happy to extend the scope if we think there's a misapplication of policy to the elements of these University Infoboxes - that therefore requires a broader discussion.) Guliolopez (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    If the emblem is preferred over the logo, that's OK with me. I guess they could be, or a bundled discussion of others could be started after this one closes. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. FWIW, while I hadn't set out a specific "bolded" position when this discussion opened last month, given that this has been relisted a few times, it's probably worth noting that it was/is/remains a "keep". Specifically, while WP:NFC#CS (if strictly interpreted), advises against having two FUR images with the same purpose, that isn't the case here. The purpose of the FUR crest may be "subject identification", but the purpose of the FUR logo is "brand illustration". While this may seem like splitting hairs, it appears to be the model used such that many dozens (if not hundreds) of university articles include several FUR images (often including both a crest image and a brand/logo image). Both within the same context. Otherwise, and in the absence of a broader discussion on the practice of including both, it seems a very specific application of WP:NFCC#3a to delete just this image in just this article. Hence: keep.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    File:University of London.svg and File:Princeton shield.svg have been deleted per WP:NFCC#3a since my comment above. It is not just about this one file. There is no reason to have the same image in the article twice (once as a substantial part of another) since it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of topic and could be described with text in reference to the logo (WP:NFCC#1). Those two phrases basically boil down to the same thing. Also, see WP:NFC#CS. When the emblem emblem is not a part of the logo, e.g. Columbia, then that is a different matter. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

File:KingCrimson VinegarDoppio 2.jpg[edit]

File:KingCrimson VinegarDoppio 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Uuruuseiyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete. This file is not in the public domain, as the source was written in the 1990s by a currently (as of nominating) living person. In addition, the file is unused and will not see use for a long time as character lists do not use images for each character. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Rosebride3.jpg[edit]

File:Rosebride3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Otto4711 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: does not add educational, critical value but is a decorative image. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Bibhorr-formula.png[edit]

File:Bibhorr-formula.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GenWhizz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious "formula" with no use in real-world mathematics (despite its inventor spamming it all over the Internet to boost his ego); see [2] Equinox 19:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Xi Jinping Poohbear comparison meme.jpg[edit]

File:Xi Jinping Poohbear comparison meme.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EverettTheUrban (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image that is not essential to the understanding of the topic. The censorship incident is a minor indecent. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It does help illustrate the meme, which text alone has difficulty conveying. weak keep Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The meme is a minor matter in the biography. At the time of nomination, there is literally a single sentence about Xi being compared to Pooh, and no actual commentary about the image itself. That really falls well short of the significant context that would be expected to support the inclusion of a non-free image. -- Whpq (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The meme is a significant example of ChiCom censorship surrounding matters deemed disrespectful or irreverent to Xi Jinping. As Abzeronow said it's difficult to convey via text only and I have included this on other articles pertaining to PRC censorship. EverettTheUrban (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - according to Template:Non-free film screenshot, the only explicitly allowed fair use of screenshots from a copyrighted film is "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and its current usage to illustrate an internet meme or censorship is not covered by that rationale. There are plenty of freely licensed images for Xi Jinping, and as far as Chinese censorship is concerned, the Winnie the Pooh incident is extremely minor. The blocking of Google and Facebook etc. is of far more consequence. -Zanhe (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The image is now also in use at Internet censorship in China, Winnie-the-Pooh, and Winnie the Pooh (Disney character). There is no separate rationale provided for usage in each of these articles, and as such fails WP:NFCC#10c. The uploader was notified of the need for rationales for use but ignored the notice. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am still getting used to making edits to the wiki, so perhaps you could've elaborated on how I made a rationale instead of copypasting the same "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" template. I don't understand the supposed need to remove it, it demonstrates the petty extension of Chicom censorship for what would otherwise be a harmless children's character. This whole debate seems asinine considering the image serves a purpose by visually demonstrating the subject matter, don't see why you can't use a bit of common sense and leave it be. EverettTheUrban (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I understand that the normal sequence of events, in the case of a file that deserves discussion, is to hold the discussion first, and then, if the consensus is for deletion, to do the deletion at the end of the discussion. I'm carrying out the sequence in reverse for what I believe are good reasons. The copyright holder has contacted Wikimedia requesting that this image be removed. ticket:2019042410002213 While it may be that our editorial argument supporting an exception to copyright policy will prevail, if that happens the image can be restored and I think it would be a better course of action to remove the image while this discussion takes place.

I do appreciate the awkwardness of carrying on a discussion about an image when the image is not viewable within Wikipedia, but that's not much of a problem as the image in question can be found here.

At the risk of sounding like I'm getting on a soapbox, I am fully supportive of the concept of fair use in some situations. In the case of a logo, or an album cover, the image is not replaceable by definition. In the case of the logo, it is the entire point that the logo is the unique expression of an image associated with the organization. Without fair use, we'd have almost no logos, because most organizations, understandably, want to retain intellectual control of their logo. (Obviously, a few do permit and acceptably free license). The fair use exception where we use a low enough resolution so that the image is unlikely to be useful to people who would choose to use it inappropriately, but with sufficient resolution that it serves as identification for the article, is a great example of a solution that fits the needs of both parties.

However, I've noticed that we sometimes try to stretch fair use to situations where we think it would be nice to have a photo but we don't happen to have a free one. In this particular case, a corporation has an substantial resources to the creation of an object and is arranged for high quality images. They, understandably, would like to retain control of how and when those images are displayed. This is not analogous to a company logo. It is quite plausible that a company would accept that that logo to be used in an article about the organization, while wanting control over images of its products. I don't think the argument that the product has not been released (presumably explaining why Wikipedia editors could not take a photo of an operation) qualifies as an argument that we can use their photo under fair use provisions. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did upload the picture. You were right to delete it if it was asked by the designer. But I insist on the fair use claim, also used to illustrate many proposed aircraft: if it's not possible to take a free picture of an in-development aircraft, a fair use picture is the only way to depict its configuration, and in this case it is fairly uncommon.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:William Ifor Jones Bethlehem Bach Choir.jpg[edit]

File:William Ifor Jones Bethlehem Bach Choir.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Icondaemon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a family photo in the possession of the uploader and scanned by the uploader. Per this note, the photographer is deceased. Does the copyright transfer with inheriting the photo? Whpq (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg[edit]

File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EverettTheUrban (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is being used decoratively with no substantial sourced coverage about the image to support its use. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It provides an example of Lord Buckethead standing with other electoral candidates, sourced from the candidate's website. Leave it be.EverettTheUrban (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete ¶ Nothing about this copyrighted photo is needed to understand the accompanying prose (WP:NFCC#8). The article already has NFC of this character (WP:NFCC#3a). Furthermore, as it's apparent from this image we're discussing, this character appears in public, and File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg should probably be deleted as well (WP:NFCC#1). — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Neither of these two images ought to be deleted. We retain other images of political figures on their respective articles, I see no difference here. EverettTheUrban (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Leader, Mahatma Gandhi.jpeg[edit]

File:Leader, Mahatma Gandhi.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sarah.Angela97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

wax statue from Madame Tussauds Amsterdam, derivative of non-free content. FASTILY 20:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Alessandra biaggi headshot.png[edit]

File:Alessandra biaggi headshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Msuthny (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by Muboshgu with the reason "Nysenate.gov is not a work of the U.S. federal government" FASTILY 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsure of the exact classification, but is fair use due to it being a government website. Msuthny (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Msuthny, there is no fair use rationale for a living person in WP:NFCC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - the PD licensing on the image page is incorrect as pointed out in the nomination. As the subject is a living person, WP:NFCC#1 precludes the use of this image under Wikipediia's non-free content guidelines. There is a licensing link at the bottom of the source page indicating Creative Commons, however the specific CC license linked there is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US and is insufficiently free for use on Wikipedia as it has restrictions on derivatives, and commercial usage. -- Whpq (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:The IV Doc Logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per G7 by Fastily (non-admin closure) funplussmart (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:The IV Doc Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whoisjohngalt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obsolete Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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


File:TAITRA.svg[edit]

File:TAITRA.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BrockF5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replace with File:TAITRA Official Trademark.svg at Wikimedia Commons as of Commons:Threshold of originality. Brock contact... 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

File:Fin-pres-2006.png[edit]

File:Fin-pres-2006.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mishap85 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Duplicate of File:Fin-pres-2006.JPG. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment, I would probably delete the JPG before the PNG, seems to be of better quality. Salavat (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 01:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is April 25 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 25 -- (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 "===April 25===" 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.