Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:IFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
XFD backlog
  Jul Aug Sep Oct TOTAL
CfD 0 2 14 19 35
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 0 3 1 4
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 or the country of origin.
  • 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 October 20}} 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 October 20}} 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 October 20}} 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 1926, not 1920.
  • 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:

October 8

File:Golden Lion size.jpg

File:Golden Lion size.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ramòn DeLa Porta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Wikipedia:NFCC#1. There is a free copyright and similar topic image. SCP-2000 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Also, please use{{ping}} when you talk to me. Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The nominated image is the three-dimensional artwork of the prize. The one at Italian Wikipedia (it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png) is the drawing (two-dimensional) derivative of the copyrighted sculptural work; someone at it-wiki should either re-categorize it as non-free (but fair use) or nominate it for deletion. The "free" one shan't be transferred to Commons. -- George Ho (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Just for the note, Italy lacks freedom of panorama especially for buildings and three-dimensional artworks (c:COM:FOP Italy). George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Is a picture of Oshri Cohen holding the award acceptable per Commons rules and copyright law? George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@George Ho:I think the image acceptable per rule.--SCP-2000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible to crop the image if it were used, to remove Cohen's face? I'd rather not have him be the "main" image of the Golden Lion article and thereby get UNDUE prominence. (If so, then delete and used a cropped version of the Cohen image.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Without knowing or the file page describing where the photo was taken, I am uncertain whether the award portion of the Cohen image is suitable for Commons. Strangely, photos of other people holding their own awards, like Neil Patrick Harris, one guy holding an Oscar, and one supporting actress holding an Emmy, aren't yet deleted. I found one 2012 Commons discussions about the issue. By reading the discussion, those photos were supposed to be generally discouraged (unless cropping out awards is possible?), and de minimis may not apply. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

September 20

File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg

File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GabeMc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unnecessary non-free image. Seeing one of the last photos of Jimi Hendrix does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the Death of Jimi Hendrix. damiens.rf 03:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Text in the article describes the circumstances: "By around 2 p.m., he was sitting in a garden area outside the apartment enjoying some tea while she took photographs of him holding his favorite Fender Stratocaster guitar that he called the "black beauty".[19] In the opinion of author Tony Brown, "Jimi doesn't look particularly healthy in these photographs: his face seems a little puffy and on only a few of the pictures does he attempt to smile."[20][nb 4]" The photo allows readers to see if they agree with Brown's opinion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The points the image illustrates are sufficiently conveyed by text alone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ojorojo. If Tony Brown's opinion is important enough to be quoted in the article, we also need to show a representative example of these photos for the quotation to be useful. Both "doesn't look particularly healthy" and "his face seems a little puffy" are subjective to the point that they need to be accompanied by the photo in order to be understood. One couldn't imagine the appearance of the photo or Hendrix in them on the basis of those quotations alone. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 08:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Black Dog45.jpg

File:Black Dog45.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb26554 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is the front cover of the French single release "Black Dog". It is currently used at both the "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Black Dog (song)" articles. However, I'm concerned about whether the usage in "Misty Mountain Hop" article complies with WP:NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion (#8). I'm also concerned about whether the usage also complies with MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, including rules #1.2 (disallowing decorative use) and #1.4 (being specific, unique, and irreplaceable to the article). If the usage doesn't comply with either of the rules, then the image should be removed from "Misty Mountain Hop".

"Misty Mountain Hop" was released as an album track of Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album (officially untitled but had official logos identifying the album) and as the B-side track of "Black Dog". Many single releases put "Misty Mountain Hop" underneath "Black Dog", indicating that B-side track is below the A-side one.

I tried removing the image, but the edit was reverted. I don't know why "Misty Mountain Hop" is included in those front covers when, in fact, it's been released as B-side. Maybe the band requested it, I guess? However, the record label (or company) still released the song that way. Some other single releases by other artists have two songs in their front covers; I don't know whether that's a coincidence. Also, I don't know why the song is classified/categorized as "single", despite multiple sources treating it as a "song". "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" is listed as a single, but I don't think sources list the release as "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog" (unless I missed one). However, I think the "single or song" debate, which is discussed at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop (where somehow B-side tracks by Led Zeppelin are treated as "singles"), is probably separate from the image issue.

Single or song, I don't think the image helps readers understand the song "Misty Mountain Hop" in any way, and I don't think removing it would affect their understanding of the song... or "single"(?). The readers would already know that the song/single "Misty Mountain Hop" is released as a B-side, especially without the French sleeve. Also, it wouldn't affect the categorization/classification, would it?

There are alternatives to the French sleeve: back cover of the Italian release, or a B-side label of the US release, which I may upload at Commons eventually. I may more likely choose the US one because it's free to use and the expression of facts isn't original enough for US copyright protection anyways. The Italian image is non-free and wouldn't improve the article quality or readers' understanding in any way. Also, the Italian release puts "Led Zeppelin" above "Black Dog" but didn't do the same for "Misty Mountain Hop". Also, the Italian release takes images from the parent album. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot, the song "Misty Mountain Hop" was never individually charted in music charts. If the song were listed, a chart would list the single release as "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" instead of "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog". George Ho (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep George is again on his campaign to remove single picture sleeves from song infoboxes. However, the discussions don't favor his view (see this, this, this, etc.), so he's trying it again here. Most picture sleeves give a much better idea of the artist, the song title is usually prominent, the accompanying graphics often reflect the time and style, and how it may have been promoted. I don't see that there is a "free equivalent"; a photo of the single label (which George favors) simply does not convey the same information. Also, they aren't "purely for decoration" and are only used in infoboxes (isn't the "Images and notation" section of MOS:MUSIC more geared to images that appear in the main body?) —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17

File:Flag of Johor Military Forces.svg

File:Flag of Johor Military Forces.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quickbar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

(Malaysian Military?) flag, possible derivative of non-free content; no evidence that this is freely licensed FASTILY 07:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fastily: Hello there. The Johor Military Force, or JMF, is a military unit falls under the jurisdiction of Sultan of Johor. Established in 1886, you can say they are sort of Malaysian Army, however, under the control of the Sultan. Regarding the flag, the JMF has two flags, one for the JMF's Commanding officer and another one is for the soldier. The file above is the later. During the Sultan of Johor's coronation in 2015, both of the flags along with a bunch of other flags (e.g. districts in Johor's flags) was introduced to the public as one of the state's flags <see here>. A state flag is not copyrighted. Quickbar (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia, works by the Malaysian government are copyrighted for 50 years. If this flag was introduced in 2015, then it is still copyrighted, and therefore non-free. -FASTILY 22:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fastily: Hi again. Yes at first, I share same views as you. You can see from the history of the file which at first I set the flag as a 'non-free use' image. On 1 November 2017, the government of Johor has put all the 'State Flags' under public domain, however, it still need to follow the protocols (i.e. flag size, how/when/where to display the flag etc.) <See here: Official document (PDF) Ref #: SUKJ.BKP.100-2/1/4 (23)>. Hope this helps. Quickbar (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"flag size, how/when/where to display the flag" suggests restrictions on derivatives, which would make the flag not free enough for Wikipedia. Alternatively, you may convert the file to non-free, provided that a valid fair-use case could be made. -FASTILY 08:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

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

File:The End TXF.jpg[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:The End TXF.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trust Is All You Need (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used educationally, just as decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The NFUR states this scene is iconic and this is expanded upon in the reception section. However, the current article has no such additional information nor could I find any in the history from about the time this image was uploaded and added to the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:45, 18 October 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:Pilot x-files.jpg[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Pilot x-files.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lamro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete a stated purpose of "infobox" is clearly not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 18 October 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:Fallen Angel 1x09.jpg[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Fallen Angel 1x09.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alan-WK (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is no commentary about the scene nor could I find anything about the make-up which is claimed in the NFUR. Fails WPNFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:51, 18 October 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:Fire 1x11.jpg[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Fire 1x11.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alan-WK (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is no commentary about the scene nor could I find anything about the make-up which is claimed in the NFUR. Fails WPNFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 18 October 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:Youngatheart.jpg[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Youngatheart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quiddity99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - There is one sentence in the article about the hand. Not really significant enough to meet WP:NFCC#8 as it is a general statement, and there is no discussion of the makeup as claimed in the NFUR. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 18 October 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:C Cut003.JPG[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 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:C Cut003.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cthulhu spawn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in an educational or critical context, just an arbitrary image chosen for decoration in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - the stated purpose does not require an image in order for the reader to understand it. As such, this fails WP:NFCC#1 as the text is sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 18 October 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:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg[edit]

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

My PRODding on the screenshot with brief reasoning was contested, so I decided to take this here. I don't believe that the screenshot of Married... with Children character Steve Rhoades (portrayed by David Garrison) boring the whole courtroom in "I'll See You in Court" improves readers' understanding of the episode. Also, I believe that, even without the screenshot, readers would already understand the whole episode's plot and the controversy preventing the episode from being aired in the US.

WP:NFCC#8 requires that removing an acceptable non-free image would affect or detriment readers' understanding of a topic (and probably its article quality?). MOS:TVIMAGE says that a screenshot "may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." However, the scene is briefly mentioned in the Plot section. Furthermore, (almost?) none of the reliable sources (including books and articles) discussing the scene itself has been found. I tried finding reliable sources discussing the use of "Perry Mason" theme in that scene without avail. Showing the scene might help readers merely identify the episode, but not one source has identified the scene as the iconic part of the episode. Regardless of broadcasting and content controversy, without adequate critical commentary of any specific, I think not one non-free screenshot of any scene is iconic well enough to be displayed to readers. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC); edited, 03:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The image is not claimed to be used for identification, but rather to illustrate a key part of the episode. However, there is no significant sourced commentary about the image or claimed key point. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that this is one of the very rare cases where WP:IAR actually applies. While I acknowledge the legitimacy of the policy argument here, I believe that there is a general trend on Wikipedia towards gearing articles towards editors rather than readers, and while this one picture is certainly not going to make or break the project, it benefits the project to have a visual depiction of a "lost episode" that summarizes the general idea of the plot (I was unable to think of a particular scene that would be considered "iconic" or overall be obviously better than any other scene). The picture would therefore generally improve the project and is not an egregious violation of the project's perspective on non-free content (it's not easily replaceable, it's not part of an excessive amount of non-free content on the page, it's not high quality etc.). I respect and understand the other perspectives, I simply disagree and wish to record my disagreement. Canadian Paul 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're concerned that deleting the image would affect everyone's understanding of the episodes, there's one other image found at Allmovie. However, I'm still unsure whether a screenshot of four characters as main plaintiffs of the case would help much and whether omitting the image affects what readers and editors would already understand via mere CC-BY-SA text content. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Or the screenshot of the characters watching the tape in the Bundy living room. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - "The case begins with Steve presenting a lengthy opening statement, during which the stenographer and the judge fall asleep." is perfectly conveyed by words alone and there is no need for the reader to see it to understand what happened. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

File:McClintock & wife Anne at their 155th celebration in their garden.jpg[edit]

File:McClintock & wife Anne at their 155th celebration in their garden.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrew D McClintock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Permission from Hugh McClintock does not specify the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and was just "to be used in this Wikipedia entry". Given the above for File:McClintock. Line drawn portrait by Raymond Piper.jpg, I am concerned that Hugh McClintock may not be the copyright holder. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nosebagbear, you marked this as OTRS permission; does that permission statement address the issue presented herein?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. JJMC89 is an OTRS agent and has confirmed that the permission does not contain an acceptable license. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jay Alani Profile Pic.jpg[edit]

File:Jay Alani Profile Pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loopiterr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is asserting they are the author and copyright holder of this publicity photo. EXIF shows the author is "Priyesh Vishwakarma|" and the image is being used for publicyty, see here for an example. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Priyesh is the guy who edited this photo so I guess during Lightroom export it picked up that info. Please suggest should I have to ask him for another picture having EXIF of my name or should I change the information for this picture? Loopiterr (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Loopiterr: You can have the editor clear this up with an email to WP:OTRS to verify the copyright holder. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Whpq: Thanks for advising. I'll ask him to mail. Just a query should I ask him to mail at info-en-q[at]wikimedia.org or info-en-o[at]wikimedia.org? And is there anything specific that has to be written in the mail?. --Loopiterr (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:GOC WDP3A 15534R at Chennai Egmore.jpeg[edit]

File:GOC WDP3A 15534R at Chennai Egmore.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kvs15501 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is stating that they are the copyright holder and has acknowledged previous publication via Instagram. The image is watermarked with a copyright notice and no indication of a free license from the source account. Verification of license is needed. Whpq (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent nominations[edit]

October 14[edit]

File:Kathleen Lynn.jpg[edit]

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

Fair Use Rationale states that "subject is deceased, no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created". However, there are at least two other public-domain (copyright ineligible/expired) images of the subject in the article on the subject. We therefore don't need (and can't really make a fair-use claim for a need to have) this copyrighted image. Not any more at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Emblem of India 1947-1950.png[edit]

File:Emblem of India 1947-1950.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cordyceps-Zombie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused media file, because I have my file uploaded from Commons (see File:Emblem of India (without motto),svg). TaleofTalisman (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Dangerousmoonlight-03.jpg[edit]

File:Dangerousmoonlight-03.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot is used in the Cast section of Dangerous Moonlight. The fair use rationale states its purpose is "Illustration of key scene in film", which is not a valid fair use. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the actual caption: "In a key scene, Radetzky plays his composition, Warsaw Concerto for Carole Peters in the midst of a ruined city. The scene was reminiscent of actual events in Poland at the time." In the body of the article , under "Production" is the explanation for the use of the illustration: "Since music was such a key element in the film, Walbrook, who was an accomplished amateur pianist, is seen playing in the film, although the music on the soundtrack is played by the professional pianist Louis Kentner. Kentner's involvement was initially uncredited, as he thought that being seen to be playing film music would not help his career. He changed his mind on seeing the film's success." The note is also indexed by a reference source: ""Dangerous Moonlight". BBC website. Retrieved: 7 May 2012." With all this connected story element, the illustration should stand. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be critical commentary of the image itself in the article text. Without the image, there would be no caption, so that cannot be used to support the image and even what is here is not critical commentary of the image. The rest of the information that you copied from a different section that the image is not located in, talks about the music and not the image itself, so this is still not critical commentary of the image. You also do not explain how the image passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

File:Arrow Dynamics Logo.jpg[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 F5 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Arrow Dynamics Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JlACEer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by lossless PNG version: File:ArrowDynamics.png Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Reyk YO! 09:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Replaced by a better version. Why does this need discussion?JlACEer (talk) 13:53, 15 October 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:Strophoid.PNG[edit]

File:Strophoid.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reyk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This graph is no longer used anywhere and has been superseded by a nicer looking SVG version. I would have G7 speedied it, except that someone edited it to add labels a while ago. Reyk YO! 05:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg[edit]

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pricejb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was previously deleted at FfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 8 concluded that the copyrightability of the image and/or any fair use claim should be discussed in more depth here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per same reasons of previous FfD. Unused and unusable. -- P 1 9 9   12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete low-resolution, very blurry, would be a detriment to any article it is forced into -FASTILY 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value as the file is of terrible quality. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the file's low resolution, but there's no other file out there which actually shows the subject of the article. Originally brought up as a copyright violation, but I'm still not sure why. Only orphaned because it was previously deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the one who initiated the deletion review. Copying from my proposal there: One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the image, in its original context in the article (Veil of Veronica):
There are at least six images in existence which bear a marked resemblance to each other and which are claimed to be the original Veil, a direct copy of it or, in two cases, the Mandylion. Each member of this group is enclosed in an elaborate outer frame with a gilded metal sheet (or riza in Russian) within, in which is cut an aperture where the face appears; at the lower extreme of the face there are three points which correspond to the shape of the hair and beard.
  • Veil of Veronica
  • The Vatican Veronica.

  • The Holy Face of Vienna.

  • The Holy Face of Alicante.

  • The Holy Face of Jaén.

    • Comment I am under the impression that the Vatican Veronica is displayed every year and that for that reason a free alternative could be created. Is that right? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Delete - Likewise under the impression that a free alternative may be available. At least as importantly, if we're going to base an image on fair use, this may be our only one, but it looks like there are better images out there that would be better suited, no? What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Seems like more discussion on WP:NFCC#1 is needed.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think it is now obvious that this file fails NFCC#1 due to the frames and the annual display that makes taking new photos possible. I've gone ahead and created what I believe is a {{PD-art}} version and also of better quality: File:Vatican Veil of Veronica.jpg. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

    October 16[edit]

    File:Original implant.jpg[edit]

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

    per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Original implant.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

    October 17[edit]

    File:Facepalm jeez.jpg[edit]

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

    Image copied to Commons but a nocommons tag is present. No reason it can't exist there as a {{user page image}}. Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

    File:Hitlermusso.jpg[edit]

    File:Hitlermusso.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vzbs34 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Unused and redundant to repaired image: File:Hitlermusso2.jpg Begoon 13:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

    October 18[edit]

    File:London Overground as a circle 2007-2010.svg[edit]

    File:London Overground as a circle 2007-2010.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Briantist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    This London Overground map is orphaned and outdated and there is a newer version at File:London Overground as a circle.svg. Additionally, some of the stations on this map have spelling mistakes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, redundant to other SVG file. Salavat (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

    File:Illustration of Fullmetal Alchemist Characters.jpg[edit]

    File:Illustration of Fullmetal Alchemist Characters.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GreenessItself (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Originally tagged for speedy deletion by Gotitbro as a created by a banned user (GreenessItself) FASTILY 23:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

    October 19[edit]

    File:Taylor Wimpey.png[edit]

    File:Taylor Wimpey.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Unused logo, superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

    October 20[edit]

    File:Breeze.png[edit]

    File:Breeze.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cdeboghorski (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    I saw some similar images to this car online so I don't claim this to be own work and this is orphaned. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


    Footer[edit]

    Today is October 20 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 20 -- (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 "===October 20===" 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.