Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP: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	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	27	27
TfD	1	2	2	5
MfD	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	2	20	22
RfD	0	0	34	34
AfD	0	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 for listing files for discussion

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 May 23}}` 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 May 23}}` 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 May 23}}` 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: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.

May 15

File:Bert sesamestreet.jpg and File:Ernie sesamestreet.jpg

[edit]

File:Ernie sesamestreet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Fandom (https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Bert) is not a source. That is a third-party wiki and tells us nothing about the copyright holder in order to evaluate whether this counts as fair use. Is it promotional material from the creators of Sesame Street? If so, it's probably fine. Or is it an AP photo from a professional photographer at a Sesame Street event? If so, it's not fine. Unless/until a valid source is given, this is not acceptable as fair use. B (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure these are promo images from Sesame Street. I have no idea where they came from which is why I cited the third party wiki as the source as that's where I got the images from. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we need an actual source - not just our assumption that they look like promo images. --B (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to tineye.com, these are both widely used images dating back at least a decade. ANY official photo of these characters would probably be copyrighted. Why is the specific source of origination so important? Fandom is indeed the SOURCE of the image where the uploader found it (which is what they are supposed to do according to our instructions). Buffs (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, aside from our own image use policy saying that the author is required information for an image ... there is the issue of the photographer's copyright. If this is a press kit photo, then that's not an issue. But it could be an AP photographer and if so, then they deserve to be compensated for their work and using it does not count as "fair use". (This is WP:NFCC#2.) WP:GETTY spells out that this is prohibited. Since no real source is given, we have no way of knowing whether it's a press kit photo or an AP photo. So a real source needs to be provided. --B (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but nor for nominator's reason. The article already uses File:Bert and Ernie.JPG at the top of the article. These additional images violate WP:NFCC#3a. There is no need for more multiple non-free media files when one does the job of identifying the characters. ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

File:Eat Bulaga! title card.jpg

[edit]

Same as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Oishi logo.png. This isn't a complicated logo under US law, and can be freely exploited on enwiki ({{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}). Relicensing nomination. By the logic of Template_talk:Freedom_of_panorama_(US_only)#RFC:_Does_US_FoP_apply_to_foreign_works?, English Wikipedia has no obligation to follow the restrictive RA 8293 (copyright law of the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator

124.104.16.92 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To anon IP user: this is a relicensing request, not a request to delete. Relicensing involves admin inervention due to the need to restore high-resolution version, yet discussion is required (not a simple case). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

concur with relicensing Perhaps a better screenshot would look better. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Those red balls are way too complex and easily meet the threshold of originality even in the United States. The full resolution really shows the details. ✗plicit 14:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinball Wizard Germany PS.jpg

[edit]

Even if irreplaceable by this freer image, File:Pinball Wizard by the Who UK single.webp (portion of the British release), which is not subject to NFCC, the non-free German sleeve may still not contextually signify the original recording of the song or the song itself. Sure, it's relatable and more appealing than the freer image, but my concern is about whether omitting this German sleeve would affect the understanding of the song. If deleted unopposed, then the front cover may not be contextually significant after all. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that the front cover is also used in other continental European releases (discogs, 45cat). --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more contextually significant than a picture of the record with nothing more than text. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's definitely too many images at Pinball Wizard, but this is a better image as far as recognizability goes than a basic image of the disc. It's not a policy problem to have a single cover in the article, so I'd say keep this and delete the other two instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those other two are free to use (just in this project). One of them is for the Elton John single, ya know. Why should an amount of images in the article matter, especially to mobile readers? George Ho (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

File:Microsoft Copilot Icon.svg

[edit]

Given the fact that the Bing logo is in the public domain from unoriginality, it stands to reason that this logo, with a similar style, would also be PD. House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 05:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

change to PD per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really say anything other than link to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft 365 Copilot Icon.svg SergioFLS (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seems like this was successfully registered to the US Copyright Office as VA0002412662 / 2024-01-11 SergioFLS (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

File:Operazione Gladio.jpeg

[edit]

Bogus license, no source. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is screenshot from wikipedia Wikitalovin1 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the uploader was trying to bring over a copy of it:File:Operazione Gladio.png, which probably would've been suitable for non-free use in the Operation Gladio article. hinnk (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethiopian Regiment Liberty To Slaves Smock.jpg

[edit]

Uploader was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. Their remaining claimed own works are dubious. File:U.S. Navy Uniform Civil War.jpg even cites Pinterest as the source. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 04:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GMA Pinoy TV logo.png

[edit]

Violation of WP:NFCC. Replacable with c:File:Gmapinoytv.png. 124.104.16.92^{Talk to me} 13:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Commons licensing tag is probably wrong. COM:TOO Philippines says that copyright may be established in the Philippines "even if [the work] lacks a significant level of creativity" and "some logos that may be simple for the American jurisprudence may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines." This image is more complex than the Photo Sikwate example given there. hinnk (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gmapinoytv.png.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}. Enwiki is not compelled to comply with the vague and suspected low Philippine threshold of originality; see Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works? for the reason (with respect to unfree Freedom of Panorama rules in around a hundred countries like the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

File:Frederick Douglass Statue.jpg

[edit]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frederick Douglass Statue.jpg. Plausible case for fair use with the right template. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and please add the right template. I recall recently reading a WMF statement that U.S. panorama laws do not have to be upheld on Wikipedia (can someone link that, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense for non-free use in Statue of Frederick Douglass (College Park, Maryland) only. Not sure what Randy means unless they're suggesting it be treated as a British work because of the sculptor's nationality. hinnk (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to non-free use, but only if it's for certain that the photo itself isn't also non-free; if the photo is non-free, the file needs to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 regardless of the copyright status of the statue. The statue should be assumed to be protected by copyright per c:COM:FOP US given that it was installed in 2015 per Statue of Frederick Douglass (College Park, Maryland). The statue, however, can be treated as non-free content: {{Non-free 3D art}} can be used for the copyright license, and {{Non-free use rationale}} can be used for the non-free use rationale. This only will work, though, if the photo is the own work of the uploader because only the copyright holder of the photo can release it under the type of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. A non-free photo of the statue would add another degree on non-freeness to the image and would fail WP:FREER since pretty much anyone could take their own photo of the statue and release it under an acceptable free license. So, if the consensus is that it's OK to assume in good faith that uploader and copyirght holder of the photo are one and the same, then adding a non-free license and non-free use rationale for the statue is fine. The EXIF data for the photo, however, is garbled and everything other than "Picasa" and "2.2" is unreadable (at least to me); so, asking for WP:CONSENT and VRT verification might be worth consideration. Finally, coverting the file's licensing to non-free wouldn't affect its use in the stand-alone article about the statue itself; however, the file would need to be removed from List of monuments to African Americans because there's no way to justify that use per WP:NFLISTS among other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ What Marchjuly said. Buffs (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oishi logo.png

[edit]

Technically not a request to delete, but a request to review the unfree status of the file. From the logic of Template_talk:Freedom_of_panorama_(US_only)#RFC:_Does_US_FoP_apply_to_foreign_works? (2012 discussion concerning copyrighted buildings from countries without commercial panorama exception like the Philippines), US law only matters on enwiki and enwiki has no obligation to comply Philippine laws, which do not recognize the high bar of the threshold of originality. Since the US has a very high bar of threshold of originality, the Oishi logo is eligible for {{PD-textlogo-USonly}} and this can be relicensed to commercial licensing tag {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}, so that it can be used in many more articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to PD Text The simple shading here is not sufficient. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalinga Partylist.png

[edit]

Discussion to relicense to commercial, free licensing tag ({{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}), same case as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Oishi logo.png. In the eyes of lenient US copyright law for threshold of originality (not the restrictive Philippine TOO rule), this is not eligible for copyright as a simple logo. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense per nom. Simple text and a heart outline doesn't meet the threshold of originality in the U.S. hinnk (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense spot on nom. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs sorry, but this needs an admin's intervention. There is no use to relicense if the original larger resolution file is under a deleted state. Relicensing debates do not fall under simple undeletion requests that warrant simple requests on WP:UNDEL. Admin interventions are required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that relicensing is not that difficult to fix. If you feel my edit was in error, feel free to revert. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing licensing alone does not help; for sure the deleted larger version must also be undeleted, which can only be done through admin intervention. Relicensing alone does not fix things. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

File:Poison Help.svg

[edit]

The commercial containing the graphic is PD-no notice, so this should be PD if that is. Jay Cubby 02:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mark as PD Buffs (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Validated Gluten-Free Safe Spots logo.png

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, not needed to "identify the brand Gluten Intolerance Group", as another already fair use image is used for that purpose, specifically File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. The design is below the threshold of originality in the United States (stylized "G" with shape and text are just like Best Western's "W" crown, shape and text). Tag with commons:Template:Trademarked and commons:Template:PD-textlogo. I forgot to sign my edit, which was dated as follows. TheFeds 03:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
!vote here added by User:TheFeds. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons Concur with TheFeds. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gluten-Free Certification Organization mark.png

[edit]

Also fails WP:NFCC#8. It's not needed to "identify the brand Gluten Intolerance Group", as another already fair use image is used for that purpose (File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg). JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had particularly wanted this image on the page since it appears on many thousands of products globally and would be the most recognizable logo, significantly more-so even than the logo for the parent organization. I'm very unfamiliar with image use policy here, so is there any recourse for keeping this? Could it make sense to keep only this image and remove the parent company logo? That seems like it might fit the goal of using one image to identify the organization, even if it technically represents only a smaller (but more well-known) part of the greater organization. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is recommended to use as few non-free images as possible in an article. This can definitely be kept if its the most recognizable one. In any case, I would be in support of that. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. The design is below the threshold of originality in the United States (stylized "c" and "g" with border and text are just like Best Western's "W" crown, border and text). Tag with commons:Template:Trademarked and commons:Template:PD-textlogo. TheFeds 03:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from en-wiki and move to Wikimedia Commons I agree with TheFed that this logo, along with File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg, are below threshold of originality in the United States (the bar of threshold here is pretty high, which in effect exclude gradient effects from the copyright). In case of File:Gluten-Free Certification Organization mark.png, stylized fonts may be copyrighted in the countries where threshold of originality is very low like the UK, but because it was created in the US, TOO-UK rules cannot be apply. If both files already had free-equivalent SVG files at Commons (which isn't available yet), we could delete both PNG and JPG files. 2404:8000:1037:469:C0B0:45BD:488C:9C5A (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons same as above. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

File:Alentejo Tinto's Law screenshot.png

[edit]

Screenshot of copyrighted video game Alentejo: Tinto's Law. Currently tagged as CC-BY-SA, but missing evidence for permission. Could maybe be used under fair use, but maybe with lower resolution? ChrisiPK (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work of a wood carving by Swedish woodcarver Lars Trygg (1929–1999). Per c:COM:SWEDEN, "copyright expires at the end of the 70th year after the author's death". This work will not enter the public domain until 2070 ✗plicit 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to Fair Use. Having both an example and the detail of the art he was known for makes sense. It appears to be the only image in the article and meets NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could do with only #1, but I guess it depends how important the detail is. Jay Cubby 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the image is being used in the infobox in the article about the artwork itself, the use of a non-free media file of the piece must be accompanied by sourced critical commentary. ✗plicit 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 sources are given at the bottom and all reference this type of work. It is the minimum necessary to show an artistic technique (detail and the overall effect)...it's the same subject, so no additional infringement attaches. Buffs (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus to keep one of the images and give it an appropriate non-free license?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amen break notation (local copy).svg

[edit]

This file has two problems. It is {{C-uploaded}} but it should have been F8 speedied as soon as they are off the Main Page. Most importantly, it was deleted from Commons as being copyrighted and we have no non-free use rationale:

File:Amen break notation.svg
This file was initially tagged by MIDI as fair use and the most recent rationale was: Transcription of a copyrighted composition. Propose re-upload to appropriate projects with (for example) Wikipedia:Template:Non-free sheet music Quick1984 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

209.227.161.66 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't remember any of the details of why I uploaded this, but I don't have any objections to it being deleted. RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure on this, but might it be short enough to be deemed uncopyrightable? Then again, the Commons version was deleted. Jay Cubby 14:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll be blunt, this isn't copyrighted. It's too simple (in musical terms). Just 4 measures. Likewise, it has been sampled and uncontested. Its copyright was not asserted prior to 1989 despite its use in other music. [1]. This is PD and credit should certainly go to the author. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: what do you think about this? Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Bedivere. I'm not a musician @Ikan Kekek: but even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough. The article notes that the author of the song could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations. And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song. Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough I agree, but this is little more than a simple (repeated) drum line that has been used in countless samples without attribution. Given that this small drum line segment wasn't copyrighted at the time in 1969, it wouldn't attain its own copyright by itself any more than the color black could be copyrighted from Black Square.

And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song Indeed he is the copyright holder for the song. I do not see any viable reference that says he owns the copyright to the break. Just because he "could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations" doesn't mean he had any case in the first place. It can also mean that even if it were copyrighted, there would be no legal recourse. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work. You are also correct that it is possible that courts would have ruled against him. It will be interesting to see what the copyright experts at Commons say about this. (I am largely going to sit out on the discussion on Commons). Abzeronow (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either this is PD, in which case the Commons version should be undeleted (which I've requested at c:COM:UDR) and the local version speedied as F8, or it's not and the local version should be deleted as a copyvio. There's no cause for a local copy to exist, either way, so we need not decide which is the case here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the Commons discussion was closed as "not done" and archived to c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-04 § File:Amen break notation.svg. It should be locally kept as {{non-free sheet music}} (or possibly PD, which is not absolutely excluded by Commons's decision, but I think they were correct in this case). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file was never tagged with this discussion. Note that the file has been nominated for WP:F7.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case I wasn't clear before, this is only 4 measures (mostly a repetitive 2). The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work. The fact that it's been used unopposed lends credence to the fact that even its creators do not feel it's copyrighted. This is no different from quoting part of a phrase from a book. The whole work is copyrightable, not an individual phrase. Examples of things that are famous and portions of larger works, but are not copyrightable in and of themselves: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times", "Call me Ishmael", "To be or not to be, that is the question", etc. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

File:Shenzhen Metro Corporation logo full.svg

[edit]

Wcam claimed that the original source of this file is not in SVG format. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 00:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinsyuan That link doesn't work. Sounds correct though, the current version from Sparktour gives a PNG from the Internet Archive as a source, and the previous version from ASDFGH appears to come from this version of the site which also uses a PNG. hinnk (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified by Wcam, who manages the appropriate use of files. When it comes to SVG, I'd like to download the SVG file (from enwiki or other site) and upload to zhwiki. Orz I am not good at managing or adjusting the SVG files. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 23:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that message from @Wcam? hinnk (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk: zh:User_talk:Sinsyuan#c-Wcam-20250503184200-File:Shenzhen_Metro_Corporation_logo_full.svg的來源問題 Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 00:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now I see, this came up after you'd copied it over to zhwiki. Yeah, we need source information for the vectorization, sorry you ran into that. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Estonian Ministry of Regional Affairs.png

[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Estonian Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 11:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons description has a licensing tag and nothing else. I'd suggest we keep the PNG version until we have source info for the SVG, including who did the vectorization. hinnk (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk: The vectorization appears to come from the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture website (direct link), seemingly cropped to omit the ribbon. ✗plicit 00:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

File:Star Distribution logo.svg

[edit]

Violation of WP:NFCC, because GachaDog disguised the image which supposed to be in PD as "fair use", however the similar logo such as File:Star Channels 2024.svg is available at Commons, and therefore it's simple logo after all. So, this image needs to removed from English Wikipedia and move the same file to Wikimedia Commons, and the user who upload the file needs to be warned regarding the behavior. Thanks. 2404:8000:1037:15F:A56B:968E:1C04:B235 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying image looks like it's {{PD-USonly}}. Text with a relatively simple shape and coloring is not original enough for copyright protection in the U.S., but c:COM:ARGENTINA suggests that Argentina (where Star Distribution appears to be based) has a much lower legal threshold. However, this SVG doesn't appear to have come from the copyright holder of the logo, so based on WP:FREER we should delete and replace with a PNG version or a freely licensed, user-created SVG. hinnk (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this SVG doesn't appear to have come from the copyright holder of the logo, so based on WP:FREER we should delete and replace with a PNG version or a freely licensed, user-created SVG. What? The image source is irrelevant as long as it is accurately depicted. Why would we delete something that is PD? What would be the difference between this and "a freely licensed, user-created SVG"? Buffs (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons Seems that this logo was created in the country that Threshold of originality is high (US), so i suggest this logo to be move to commons and placed correct license there. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

File:Kinks-1965-Portsmouth.png

[edit]

The uploader's justification states that the image would be used for critical commentary on the event or poster in question and not solely for illustration, but no commentary was added. The work was therefore only added for illustration and is not fair use. Tkbrett (✉) 11:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NFC##cite_note-3, a single non-free concert tour poster used in the infobox an article about the concert tour itself implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the [poster] conveys. ✗plicit 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NFC rules you cite state that this is only true if there is "critical commentary", which the Template:Non-free poster says as well. There is no critical commentary present. Tkbrett (✉) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated above, the poster is being used in the infobox in the article about the concert tour itself. This is why articles about albums, songs, television, films, concert tours, etc., are allowed to use a single non-free media file—they implicitly satisfy policy, and do not require actual sourced critical commentary in every conceivable case. The footnote I presented above links to three separate RFCs that cemented that practice. Additional non-free files require sourced critical commentary, but this file is the primary and only one used. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Non-free poster explicitly says that the image should "provide critical commentary on the [event] in question or of the poster itself", and should not be used "solely for illustration". That is entirely different from something like Template:Non-free album cover, which does allow for illustration.

Also, the link in your original comment points to the WP:NFC page as a whole and not to any specific note with RFCs. Tkbrett (✉) 15:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

File:Screenshot 2025-04-18 182807.png

[edit]

May not be completely a work of the US government since we don't know where the photograph Trump is holding is from, though I've heard it's just from a Twitter/X user. There still might be a fair use rationale for keeping it, though it doesn't seem crucial for the article it's included in. If we do keep it the file name should probably be changed at least. ^Falling_Gravity 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename While we don't know the specificity of the source of the photo in the photo, it is unquestionably relevant to the issue at hand which is shaping up to be a defining component of his Presidency. At a bare minimum a FUR can be added. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a bare minimum a FUR is warranted. Buffs (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's de minimis. Bremps... 17:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think de minimis applies since the whole point of the Trump photo is to showcase the other photo. ^Falling_Gravity 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not conversant in the image use policy and won't leave a !vote, but wanted to note the relevance that Buffs appealed to has shot up in recent days, with the President's official stance now being that the image is unaltered, and that he could bring Abrego Garcia back, but he won't, due to misinformation such as this. I don't think what's in this image could be satisfactorily covered by text alone. --Kiz o r 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-tag as non-free if necessary; image tells a thousand words in this case and is not replaceable. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

File:Portrait of Mabel Allington Royds by Ernest Lumsden.jpg

[edit]

File:Portrait of Mabel Allington Royds by Ernest Lumsden.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File marked as URAA-restored, but this painting was published in 1911, what makes it PD in US as well. Michalg95 (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikiacc's comment on the licensing explicitly says that "Public domain status in the US depends on the date of publication, not creation". The 1911 date appears to refer to when the painting was created, so unless there's some indication it was published by 1929, the licensing should remain as is. hinnk (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/mark as PD The source of this image indicates the painting was first published in 1911. Even if it were not, copyright extends to death + 70 years. As the author died in 1948, this entered the public domain in 2018. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem correct. Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks is very clear about this: "Because an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographs, casts of statues, and so on) were first published…For most artworks, a year is usually given, but this is normally the year the work was made, not the year it was published."

If this work was first published between 1930 and 1977, the copyright term ends 95 years after publication, and if it was first published between 1978 and 2002, the copyright term ends in 2047. The source doesn't give any indication that reproductions of the artwork were made in 1911, so we don't have enough information to treat this as {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} at this time. hinnk (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source itself says 1911. If you have evidence otherwise, then please present it. "I think that might be the date it was made and no one ever saw it until it was published later [date not given]". Otherwise, it's clearly PD. You also left out "In the case that an artwork created before 1978 is not published until 2003 or later, it comes into the public domain 70 years after the author's death. However, if it is first published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), it will still be copyrighted in the US until the end of 2047." This is pretty clearly the former, not the latter. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't leave out the post-2003 case. That's what {{PD-US-unpublished}} is, and the fact that we have poor information about the publication history was why I recommended against its use. I don't see how we get from "a year is usually given, but this is normally…not the year it was published" to a year in a caption in a WP:BLOGGER article being indicative of publication, and I wouldn't expect this to meet c:COM:PCP. hinnk (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we don't have enough information to treat this as PD-US-expired or PD-US-unpublished at this time note that {{PD-US-unpublished}} states it's PD if "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1955..." You can't simultaneously say it was unpublished AND that it was published. We should find out the answer, not just say "it might fall into this category." There's ample evidence the author/her heirs haven't filed for any copyright protections. We cannot base this on "well, there might have been other publications so it could be copyrighted." We have to base this on known facts. If you have evidence, I'll change my !vote in a heartbeat, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Tineye, for example, shows no prior publications online. Likewise, the statement If this work was first published between 1930 and 1977... assumes it was properly copyrighted AND that copyright was maintained. There is no evidence of this. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're again either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I've said. I agree that the portrait has been published. The existence of the Blogspot article is proof of that. What we don't know is the date of first publication. We've narrowed it to a 104-year window, and 73 of those would mean an active U.S. copyright. {{PD-US-expired}} needs evidence that reproduction of the painting happened, which WP:PD says we can't ascertain from the caption alone. We know the painting was published in 2015, but for {{PD-US-unpublished}} to apply we'd need to know it hadn't been published before the date set by the Copyright Term Extension Act. We don't. We don't know who owns it. We don't know anyone who's ever owned it. We should find out the answer, not just say "it might fall into this category." We have to base this on known facts. I'm in total agreement here. And until we find out, we don't guess a license. The precautionary principle directs us to resolve uncertainty by assuming non-free status.

Everything about filing for copyright protection is a non sequitur. British authors didn't need to file there. That's the point of URAA restoration. That's why the Hirtle chart lists the same copyright terms (under "Works Published Abroad Before 1978"/"Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978") for works that were published with or without compliance. Again, we'd need evidence that one of the PD-US licenses applies. Arguments that the author/[his] heirs haven't filed for any copyright protections go against Commons' aims. hinnk (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding my statements. Ok, it's been published elsewhere. You contend that, because we don't know where else it's been published, we must therefore assume it might be copyrighted. The problem is that you cannot prove that negative. We can prove when it was published, but we cannot prove when it wasn't. We CAN prove it was not registered for a copyright because such copyright wasn't registered in the US or elsewhere, near as I can tell. Likewise we have the date of death of the author. For THAT reason, in combination with copyright requirements (like registering the copyright and time since the death of the author in the US) it is in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can prove when it was published, but we cannot prove when it wasn't. I mean, whichever way you slice it, we haven't done it. That's the trouble working with images with insufficient source information.

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out where it came from, and it looks like the blog got the image from this version, available on Pinterest, and cropped it. Note the identical tilt, the shadows around the edge of the frame, and the frame itself at the bottom right. The pin mentions the Aberdeen Art Gallery, which does hold some of Lumsden's works. Unfortunately, none of the works listed are from 1911 and none of the titles seem to match.

Looking at the acquisition data, their works came mostly from private collections and were acquired between 1917 and 1988. So if it's part of their collection, the most likely U.S. statuses would be {{PD-US-expired-abroad|pdsource=yes}} or {{PD-URAA}} and we probably wouldn't be looking at {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Also, they've got a neat open access program for releasing CC0 images of some of their collection. Seems like the best chance at getting actual provenance info on this painting would be to reach out to them and see what they say. hinnk (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons Unless we have specific evidence that this painting was completely private past 1929, the current evidence would suggest that this is public domain in the US and the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 12 April 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.

May 16

File:Manga 4-koma Palette Cover Azur Lane Bisoku Zenshin!.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free manga cover being used in Azur Lane which is an article about a video game (not a manga). Wcam (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

May 17

File:K53gf.jpg

Delete: Poor quality; looks like stained glass. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + I'm not sure this actually is the same listed station. Even if they were, this is not their current logo and the previous logos are non-notable. Also unencyclopedic. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loveinthisclubitunes.jpg

To adhere to the "minimal number of items" criterion (#3a), preferably, the other image (used as the alternative cover), which has been used by retail non-US releases (discogs), should be the lead image. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur w nom. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heydaddycaps.jpg

Screen captures from the music video don't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. However, it should be a single image, not two. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, no, it's not all right to "treat [my] vote as 'undecided' if [I'm] unsure which one". I've stated my opinion on the subject and it stands as-is and so does my !vote (we don't actually "vote" on Wikipedia; we work to build consensus. Dismissing/downgrading my statement in this manner as somehow lesser than yours is inherently arrogant and condescending). I don't need to watch the whole music video in order to offer an opinion on whether a frame of it is appropriate within this context and neither should anyone else. I also recognize that my opinion is not the only one and am willing to be convinced otherwise, not have demands tossed at me. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing/downgrading my statement in this manner as somehow lesser than yours is inherently arrogant and condescending. I didn't mean to come across as what you've described (hopefully inaccurately?). I just was puzzled by your votes below and your favoring possibly random screenshots, like this nomination. In this case, I honestly wasn't sure whether you favor either one of the singer's dances or the singer with a woman. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which one. Buffs (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lilfreakvid.jpg

Two-screenshot collage from the music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. (Free image of featured artist should compensate, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. However, it should be a single image, not two. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theregoesmybabyvideo.jpg

Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. I think a better clip could be chosen than this one though...pick one and replace, not add. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love.PNG

Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of the singer and background dancers from far-distance) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LTN Family.png

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo after WP:REFUND. 124.104.160.21 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for this to be undeleted, what do you want to do with it? You said "Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. ". Listing it here seems inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett FYI, this is the same IP under the same range (124.104.0.0/16) that has history of disruptive editing which I reported one of it (124.104.16.92) previously to AIV (diff) hence likely block evasion based on the same behaviour. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have now blocked this IP, as appears to just be causing work for others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons Although is unused, we can safely easy to transfer the file from local wikis to Commons one. 182.253.243.101 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lemme See.PNG

Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this ("risque") screenshot affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Numb shot.jpg

Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. Also, easy to summarize already. George Ho (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were you saying this just because you were copying and pasting your votes, the screenshot shows the singer with a woman lying down in a hospital, or why else? I have a hard time being convinced by your vote, honestly. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of a touching scene) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back, I'll add one more thing here re:Were you saying this just because you were copying and pasting your votes...: how rude. I wrote my response and, because it applied to more than one thing, I reused it. I shouldn't have to justify what I wrote as being sincere. I didn't question your sincerity about 6 video images from the same singer. I didn't say "Do you just hate Usher or are you just trying to flex power here to push others around?". The arrogance at attempting to minimize my !vote over yours is galling. WP:AGF dude. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The arrogance at attempting to minimize my !vote over yours is galling. I never meant to do what you described. I just have had a hard time taking your votes here seriously, but then again, my rationales are probably generic as well. Still, I didn't multi-nom here because I figured the screenshots are probably too different to discuss. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant to do what you described. I just have had a hard time taking your votes here seriously. Really? Let's start by just taking every comment "seriously". You may not have meant to do it, but you just did it again. Your continued patronizing remarks here are supercilious to the extreme. I'm going to stop replying at this point. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

File:Dive Scene.PNG

Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. Also, easy to summarize already. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:People Magazine cover.png

Intending to replace this magazine cover with this anniversary one, especially to adhere to NFCC. George Ho (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:UsherChainsVideo.png

Screenshot from music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destroy Lonely - If Looks Could Kill (Alternate Covers).png

I appreciate the collage of four different cover arts for physical edition(s). However, I'm concerned about excessive amount of items allowed in the album article, especially if the cover arts convey equivalent significant information, despite different layouts, backgrounds, and postures. The digital cover art is already used, so let's use it as the sole lead image then. George Ho (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ga nom, seconded // Chchcheckit (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Let it Whip by CDB.jpg

Despite notability of this version, cover art of this specific version possibly not contextually significant to the previously recorded song. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Girl With the Tricorne, 1922-23 by Henri Matisse.jpg

Unused and duplicated public domain file. However, this legitimate copy of the file still available on Commons at File:Vénitienne, par Henri Matisse.jpg, as of 2025. Absolutiva (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was uploaded first, and has a keep local tag. It also has exhibition information that I had found from the New York Times. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tagged as {{Keep local}}. hinnk (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newly released Bravia.jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Newly released Bravia.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Internet Archive's copy looks like jb-bbs.com was a sales site being held for domain flipping. Unlikely that they were posting images licensed under the GFDL. hinnk (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donda experience performance.jpg

This is being used in Donda 2 to illustrate the album's launch show. It's basically redundant to File:Donda 2 streaming album cover.jpg, since the promoter has just taken the album artwork and added some show details on top. The fact that there was a launch party is understood easily enough that this doesn't really meet NFCC#3a/8 hinnk (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kanye West - Gold Digger video sample.webm

Multiple issues with WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. The music video is pretty easily summarized without a 30-second excerpt of it. The visual style might, at most, need something like a single screenshot. The length of this clip on its own violates the 10% limit on samples, and combined with the other sample in the article, contains enough of the song that it's no longer minimal usage. hinnk (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

File:Domain .lu.svg

While the old logo is probably above TOO, this newer version might be below it in Luxembourg, meaning that this would be available for transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Of course, we should still keep the old logo here as it is too dissimilar from the new one and should be kept in its own right. House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 08:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikimedia Commons, seems no legal issues for threshold of originality. Absolutiva (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peanut the squirrel.png

There is no reason we can't use any of the gazillion other photos of the Eastern gray squirrel we have on Commons (see c:category:Eastern gray squirrel). Therefore, this photo is replaceable. Jay Cubby 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected. None of those squirrels are Peanut, therefore they would not convey the same information. It’s like if you replaced the photo of Harambe with a random free photo of a western lowland gorilla with a child. House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anohthterwikipedian, the photo of Harambe is to depict his killing and the events leading up to it more than his appearance. Jay Cubby 00:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And so does every single Eastern Gray squirrel look exactly like each other? No, which means that the photo of Peanut is the only photo that accurately portrays what exactly he looks like.

House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 01:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh my gosh, you can't just go around saying all squirrels look alike. hinnk (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

File:Kesha - Gag Order (2025 Reissue Cover).png

Artwork fails per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; its inclusion would not benefit readers of the article, and its coverage within published media has not been met, whereas the original artwork has been (as cited in Gag Order (album) article). livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As not only the album's name but also the cover was changed in most streaming flatforms, namely this situation can make readers confused, and will make more if we don't put altered cover on the infobox of article. Only describing with text doesn't make readers fully understand about the content. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agrees with you. 2804:29B8:5057:AF08:F455:E1E4:6E2D:C27C (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artist retroactively changing the artwork for the album merits inclusion because it might confuse readers to only see the old artwork. 2603:7000:6E3C:4A85:3471:4668:D41A:7D83 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that it violates WP:NFCC#3a ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"). I think describing the change in a footnote provides similar information to providing the actual image and sufficient context for readers. ~AnotherFriendlyHuman (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASB 90s logo.png

No longer the current logo of the bank, NFCC#8 is failed as it has been replaced with a simpler logo that doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg

Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. Jay Cubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. E_F⁵ 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. Jay Cubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the 2011 Joplin tornado article is valid) was that tornado photos almost always will qualify under NFF criteria as long as no free-to-use photos/videos exist. This consensus and admin confirmation came following a very huge and long RFC on the Commons, after the deprecation of a copyright template that was highly-used for tornado photographs. To me, the free-cam-video found by JayCubby would indeed mean Poplar Bluff's NFF does not pass the criteria. However, no evidence has been presented of Tylertown having free-use-videos/photos, so under WP:AGF & WP:ONUS, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.

To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t even visible in that video. E_F⁵ 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — E_F⁵ 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. Jay Cubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. E_F⁵ 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JayCubby Yes and no to your NFCC8 concern. NFC criteria is "most generous" (admin words) on English Wikipedia, for being more like a "low-bar" to pass. NFFs of tornadoes cannot just be for decoration. However, it is extraordinarily common (i.e. extremely rare if not) for RS to use a specific adjective with tornadoes. For example if you hear "large tornado". That does not really give a clear picture in the readers mind of what size the tornado is. An NFF of said tornado showing what "large" actually means passes NFCC8, since it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC8). That was why, generally speaking, tornado NFCs are allowed on Wikipedia; since adjectives are almost always associated with tornadoes (in a ton of reliable sources), and a photo of the tornado clears up what that adjective actually means. Random proof of that can even be seen during Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (happened days ago). One of the first news articles I found in a generic google search of "Kentwood" & "tornado" (one of the stronger tornadoes during the outbreak), I found WVUE-DT publishing an article literally titled "Large tornado tears through small town outside Kentwood; no injuries reported". Hopefully that better explains what the Commons consensus was on tornado photos. In reality, only free-to-use photos actually prevent a single (not multiple) NFC tornado photo from being used in an article/section on a tornado, given the fact adjectives are always used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. Jay Cubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. E_F⁵ 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. Jay Cubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Will do. To clarify on the NFCC8 thing, we use "similar" planes because they are the same model, correct? The paint job may be different, but the model is similar. Tornadoes don't come in "models" ("classifications" vary wildly, a wedge tornado can be anywhere from 0.5 to 2.6 miles wide) and I genuinely couldn't tell you two tornadoes that look exactly alike or are of the exact same width. Sure, the color of the tornado (paint job) may be the same, but no tornadoes are created equal. Saying "a tornado that looks kind of like the one that hit so-and-so" in an infobox is just doing a disservice to readers. That also doesn't account for the fact that we are already seriously lacking on free and recent tornado photos. E_F⁵ 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Weather Event Writer Buffs (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this would be delete per policy, but I do agree with the 'similar planes' argument outlined by EF5. I know long discussions have already been had on this per above, but from what EF5 argues I do think the policy should be changed. Cheers! Johnson524 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a low quality image does not improve my understanding of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kesha - Delusional (2025 single cover).png

Artwork fails per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; its inclusion would not benefit readers of the article, and its coverage within published media has not been met, unlike the original artwork File:Kesha - Delusional.png, which has coverage in media, due to its use of generative artificial intelligence. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More articles are coming out about the change. Keshaanimalcannibalwarrior (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cover art is being changed on every streaming platform and I think simply keeping both of the single artworks on the page could be good idea. Jack153901 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new cover art has more meaning than simply being an alternative cover, the article itself addresses it as a point of discussion. Not keeping the new artwork would decrease the understanding of the topic, in my opinion. Also, if we were to keep only one of the artworks, I would vote for the new one rather than the original one. — Artmanha (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the relatively rare incidents where the two covers are the subject of significant commentary which is both reflected in the article and continues to be a subject of discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Tigre - Deceptacon (sample 2).ogg

These files are used at Le Tigre#Deceptacon copyright lawsuit to explain a copyright lawsuit around the band Le Tigre. However this does not meet WP:NFCC8 (contextual significance). This media might be significant if the article topic were the lawsuit itself, but are not particularly significant to the topic of the band itself - the lawsuit is just one small piece of their history Consigned (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both In this instance, the text alone makes this situation clear for a relatively minor disagreement. NFC is unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

File:Sarah T Hughes Portrait.jpg

Probably replaceable. We have File:LBJ-Hughes.jpg, which is a decent substitute. Jay Cubby 00:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would normally !vote "delete" for this kind of thing, but given the supposed date the photo was taken (February 1972), there's a possibility that this file doesn't need to be non-free and can rather be treated as {{PD-US-no notice}}. The source URL attributes the file to the State Bar of Texas, and it looks the photo might originally come from here. There's also a signed version of the photo found here, which could be another indication that the photo was "published" without a copyright notice. Moreover, given Hughes was born in 1896 and began her career circa 1920, there's also probably a really good chance that there are other photos of her (like this one from 1949 or this one from 1956 (note the back of the 1956 photo)) that are "PD-US-no notice", {{PD-US-not renewed}} or maybe even {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}, the latter particularly given she was the federal judge who gave Lyndon Johnson the oath of office on a plane en route to Washington DC after JKF was assassinated and there are several photos of her online with JFK and LBJ. Anyway, the non-free use in List of Goucher College people fails WP:FREER and WP:NFLISTS, and the file should be removed from that article even it's kept as non-free for use Sarah T. Hughes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep/relicense to PD I see no evidence provided that this is NOT a free photo in the first place. For a photo of that era, we need to see that it IS copyrighted, not that we should prove it's not. I can find nothing in the copyright archives to indicate that this image was ever copyrighted in the first place; as such it is PD, not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmed al-Sharaa (revolutionary, politician, born 1982).jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this non-free photo is not itself the subject of sourced commentary, and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic - Fall of Damascus (2024) (the event) or Ahmed al-Sharaa (the person). It is used in decorative manners that do not convey information of contextual significance. Wcam (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the use in both articles are purely decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wcam Kaliper1 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg

This photo is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The lack of a photo in the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Simply claiming it is an historical photo does not mean it meets WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Following very long discussions at the Wikimedia Commons, there was a clear determination that tornadic photographs did pass all NFC criteria. The opening to the tornado’s section is “This large, devastating, and long-tracked tornado caused major destruction to Somerset and London… (emphasis mine). What does “large” actually mean? This photograph is describing what “large” looks like, and therefore, does indeed increase the reader’s understanding of the topic. @Rlandmann: (Wikipedia administrator) agreed that this logic was sound for NFC criteria, which is why dozens tornado photographs have been uploaded as NFCs, including ones deleted from the Commons, such as File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg and File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png. The bar for tornadic photographs was determined to be the description which is used by media outlets, since descriptive words like “large”, “small”, ect… do not clearly explain to the reader what the tornado looked like. This topic was discussed discussed extensively through RFCs and numerous deletion requests in 2024. So yeah, keep. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) - General concensus on Commons and here is that non-free images of tornadoes always satisfy NFCC guidelines. See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. ^EF⁵ 14:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What happens on Commons well sort stays on Commons in that it's not really relevant to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects; applications of Wikipedia policy need to be discussed/determined here on Wikipedia just as applications of Commons policy needs to be discussed/assessed over on Commons. Similarly, a local consensus discussing a the use of a particular image in a particular article on its corresponding article talk shouldn't be equated to a community-wide consensus; if someone is seeking wider clarification or a general consensus regarding non-free tornado images, it should be done at WT:NFCC, or in at least a discussion that involves more that would looks to be only three users. In addition, linking to a category page showing a bunch of non-free photos just means such photos have been uploaded; it doesn't mean their uses are WP:NFCC compliant any more than the fact some of the photos had been previously deleted means from Commons means they're NFCC compliant. I randomly clicked on File:Photo of the 2022 Winterset tornado.png, one of the files on that category page; the file has non-free use rationale's for two uses (which isn't prohbitted by current policy), but clicking on one of the articles it's supposed to being used in shows File:Winterset Tornado Wedge.jpeg (another non-free image of the apparently the same tornado) being used there instead: two non-free images of the same tornado aren't really necessary per WP:NFCC#3. So, claiming non-free images of tornados always satisfy NFCC guidelines is really an oversimplification of this and could indicate a misunderstanding of NFCC policy and how it's applied: non-free use is never condsidered to be automatic, and each use of non-free content needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
This discussion is about (or should be about) this particular photo and how its being used. As the nominator points out, simply saying something is an historic photo doesn't make it one per WP:ITSHISTORIC. The file's description states the creator of the video where this screenshot was taken has given "free permission" to use it to some media outlets under certain conditions; perhaps the creator would then give their WP:CONSENT for this particular screenshot to be used. The tornado also happened last week, which means there could be other images of it eventually showing up, one of which might possibly be already free or have the potential to become free. More images appearing, even non-free ones, and being used in various media reports, really weakens (in my opinion) any claim that this particular one is historic and should be the one Wikipedia uses. So, it would be helpful to assessing this particular file's non-free use if more clarification could be provided as to why using it is more justified than using any other photo for examples, the photo itself is the subjecr of sourced critical commentary or its the representative photo used by most media outlets (even now) in discussing the event. More clarification would be also appreciated as to how this photo can't be replaced by a free equivalent photo of the same tornado capable for serving the same encyclopecic purpose or even why textual description is in and of itself insufficient. Many Wikipedia readers probably have seen an image of a tornado, and most probably can understand what words "large" and "devestating" ("long-tracked" seems to be tornado-specific but not sure) mean. How does seeing this photo significantly improve the reader's undestanding of such context to the point that omitting the photo would be detrimental to that understanding? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To point out, tornadic NFC photos have general acceptance. Several have passed GANs and are in use on several GA-level articles (examples of tornado NFC on GAs include 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, Greensburg tornado (also in a GA topic...also a level 5 vital article), 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado, 2024 Sulphur tornado). So, there is a decent precedent and already a general consensus that tornado photos do pass NFC criteria.
Marchjuly you started by saying what is on the Commons, stays on the Commons. Well, that is why I pinged an English Wikipedia administrator (not a Commons administrator) who participated in this discussion on the Commons, where it was determined that tornado photo did qualify for an NFC on English Wikipedia. That is why it exists now as an NFC (File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg). Since that discussion occurred on the Commons, should we just disregard it entirely, despite the discussion being heavily about English Wikipedia's NFC policy, including an EN-Wikipedia administrator? Personally, I say that discussion is valuable for this discussion. In short, this is not as simple as "do we delete or not". This new deletion discussion is reopening what was closed and decided last year. If this photo does indeed not meet NFC criteria, then we need to have a larger RFC to actually determine what tornado photos meet NFC criteria vs not. The current consensus, even including an administrator in agreement, was that tornado photos almost certainly do qualify for NFC criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons and (English) Wikipedia are sister projects, but they're still separate projects with their own respective policies, guidelines, and communities: so, while there is some overlapping in certain areas (particularly when it comes to some free image licensing matters), there are also some important differences. Commons is more considered about the copyright status and c:COM:SCOPE of the files it hosts; Wikipedia is also concerned about such things, but it's also concerned about the encyclopedic use of the files it hosts. Things posted on Commons aren't necessarily totally irrelevant to what's being discussed on Wikipedia, but decisions related to files hosted locally on Wikipedia need to be made locally on Wikipedia; when it comes to non-free files, this means decisions need to be made in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In a similar, manner English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't apply the various other non-English Wikipedia. Some of those Wikipedias allow non-free content to be used while others don't; for those that do, the use of such content needs to be done it accordance with the policies/guidelines established by those projects.
For reference, the user who nominated this file for discussion is also a Wikipedia administrator; moreover, they're a user who has done lots of work in the files namespace (including issues related to non-free content) that predates their even becoming an administrator. Their being an administrator doesn't, however, give their assessment any more weight than someone who's not an administrator; so, what matters more to this discussion isn't whether someone is an administrator per se, but whether the argument they're making is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
As pointed out in WP:ITSFA, non-free use isn't automatically OK just because the file in question is being used in a GA or FA article. For sure, images used in GA or FA reveiws may end up being discussed, but more often than not these discussion are rather cursory and apply to how a particular image might be being used in a particular way in a particular article. Such reviews don't equate to be a community-wide consensus that all such image use is OK or has "general acceptance". Just for reference, you state 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado (a GA) as being an example of a non-free image of a tornado being "generally accepted", but there doesn't seem to be a single mention of any non-free files or how they're being used in Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado#GA Review. When the same article, however, underwent a FA review about a month later, one of the reviewers stated they had significant concerns about the use of non-free content in the article and specifically mentioned that an article passing a GA review doesn't make any non-free files used in it policy compliant. In an attempt to address this reviewer's concerns, you removed the non-free image in question (which was File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png), but you then added another one (File:The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.jpeg) to take its place after the FA review failed because "Commons determined NFF of tornados is ok", even though Commons has nothing to do with non-free content assessment that extends beyond c:COM:FAIR. FWIW, I'm just pointing this out as an example of why GA/FA reviews shouldn't, in general, be considered a way to establish any type of "general consensus" for this type of non-free use.
If you're looking to start a broader discussion about this type of non-free use, the probably the best place to do so would be at WT:NFCC (the talk page corresponding to relevant policy page). Whether a RFC would be productive is unclear: an RFC that asks "Should all non-free images of tornados be considered to meet the NFCCP" would certainly fail, but perhaps there is another question that could be asked. RFCs tend to work best when the question being asked is pretty straight forward (i.e., there are clear "yes" or "no" answers); they don't seem to work very well and can easily get bogged down when there is lots of gray involved. Since relevant policy requires non-free use be assessed on a per use basis, it might be hard for such a thing to get resolved via a RFC, unless it's about a particular use of a particular file. Such a thing, however, is exactly what this FFD is designed to do.
Generally, a single use of non-free content is considered already quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, and most of the time a non-free image of an "event" seems to have really been only considered appropriate per WP:NFCC#8, assuming all of the remaining NFCCP are met, when used for primary identification purposes at the top or or in the main infobox of a stand-alone articles about said event; using such an image in other articles or other ways, where the event might be mentioned, tends to be much harder to justify not only per NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. So, those are the things this discussion is going to attempt to resolve.
Finally, if you want to let others know about this discussion you may do so per WP:APPNOTE. In addition to relevant WikiProjects (which you've already notified), I suggest adding {{Please see}} templates to WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC. Before careful, though, about pinging/notifying individual users unless you're going to make an effort to notify users who might fall on both sides of the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted a lot (perhaps too much) in this discussion, but I'm going to add some comments on the other GA articles you cited above. 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was upgraded to GA status in September 2013, but the non-free image being used in the article's infobox was uploaded in November 2024; in other words, the file wasn't used in the version of the article that underwent the GA review. The current infobox image for Greensburg tornado was also added after the article was upgraded to GA status; in this case, its seems to be a replacement for the the non-free File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado.jpg and its replacement File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado 02.jpg. (The current infobox image was, for what it's worth, actually uploaded to Commons as File:Greensburg tornado on the highway.jpg, nominated for deletion by its uploader, who then re-uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free.) The GA review doesn't really have much of an in-depth discussion of the non-free use of images in the article and it involved just two people. Something similar could be said about the GA Reviews Talk:2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado/GA1 and Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado/GA1, both nominated by the same user and reviewed by the same user; neither of these reviews involved anything more that a cursory discussion of the use of non-free content in the corresponding articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because as stated above, general consensus is that NFFs of tornadoes are generally acceptable. And please ping me when you mention me; makes it seem like you are talking about me behind my back. ^EF⁵ 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other good examples just from me are 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2011 Cordova-Blountsville tornado 2011 Ringgold-Apison tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado, 2023 Selma tornado, among others. And them being nominated by me doesn’t change the fact that these are all GAs. ^EF⁵ 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a general consensus established about any such thing. Two or three editors discussing this type of thing on Commons or an article talk page doesn't equate to being a general community-wide consensus at all. Several editors discussing this at WT:NFCC, on the other hand, could lead to something approaching such a consensus. As for the additional examples your citing, once again, a non-free image being used in an FA/GA doesn't mean is the use is policy compliant as explained in WP:ITSFA: a detailed assessment of the file's non-free use in such a review could help explain why its use is considered justifiable, but GA/FA reviews are usually more focused on prose than image use, and non-free content is pretty much never discussed in much detail if it's discussed at all. The GA reviews for two of the articles ("Cullman-Arab" and "Ringgold-Apison") were cursory at best and the GA review for the "Robinson-Sullivan" article doesn't seemed to have discussed non-free use at all.
The first example 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado isn't currently using any non-free images. The non-free one apparently used at the time of its nomination was subsequently replaced by a free equivalent image within a month of the GA review, which indicates (at least to me) that the justification for non-free use was pretty weak per WP:FREER to begin with and probably should've been discussed more in the GA review of the article. The same thing could be said with respect to 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado; the non-free was that was used in that case was replaced by a free equivalent a few days after GA review was completed, which once again indicates the justification to use it was pretty weak. As for the remaining three examples, the use of non-free images in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the individual tornadoes themselves could possibly be OK, but they're not really historic images per se; so, their licensing probably should be tweaked to something like {{Non-free fair use}}. Moreover, the uses of the two of those three images in subsections of the other articles 2011 Super Outbreak and Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 is pretty questionable per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, and items 5 and 6 of WP:NFC#UUI; there's really no need to use any non-free images in subsections of more general articles, particularly when the subsections have WP:HATNOTES linking to individual stand-alone articles and most of the content just basically summarizes what's written in the stand-alone articles.
Finally, the Somerset-London tornado non-free image which started this FFD has also subsequently been replaced by a free equivalent, which means it's now fails WP:NFCC#7 and is orpaned non-free use subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. The fact that it was being used in a subsection of a more general article about a several tornados occuring over the same period already brought its non-free use into question, but being replaced by a free equivalent (at least what someone perceives to be a free equivalent) less thana day after it was uploaded means any justification for using it was really weak to begin with per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On your Cullman point:
See the talk page, it was established that a NFF was allowed in the first place. It was removed because a relatively unknown CCTV video resurfaced online, meaning the NFF failed WP:NFCC#1 after the piece was found. Nobody in good-faith knew the video existed.

Same thing with the Ringgold tornado, except there was no talk page discssion.
On your outbreak page point:
At Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023, NFFs are treated the same as they would given the tornado that is the subject of an image doesn't have a page. Same with 2011 Super Outbreak. I'm not sure how that fails NFCC1, nor NFCC3. UUI5&6 says nothing about subsections and instead talks about "wars" and "images with their own articles", which is irrelevant in this context.

Now that CCTV of the London tornado has been found, speedy delete, but the big point is that people don't know which tornadoes have CCTV videos of them and which don't, which satisfies the "no free equivalent is available" at the time of upload. CCTV can take years to surface online (did they ever release that September 11, 2001 gas station video near the Pentagon?) so it's physically impossible to guess if or when CCTV video of a tornado will be found. — ^EF⁵ 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Having looked at thousands of photos of these things over the last 9-10 months, my position is that the distinctive appearance of many (most?) tornadoes does bring them (barely) over the edge of detracting from a reader's understanding of a topic if it were not illustrated.
This is especially true of tornadoes that were not widely photographed and which, consequently, the same photo or photos become highly recognisable as the tornado in question.
As I pointed out previously to a couple of the folks participating in this thread, the case for keeping these images would be considerably strengthened if there were features of the tornado visible in the photo that were commented on or pointed out in the text. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the points you make could be reasonable justification in terms of WP:NFC#CS for using a non-free image; however, I think any text content about a tornado's features should, in principle, be reliably sourced per WP:NOR, and any contextual connection between such content and a non-free image should be strongly sourced. If, for example, a single representative photo is being used by all major media outlets in their coverage of a tornado or perhaps is the only known photo of a tornado, then that too would strengthen the case for non-free use; however, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of images for most major weather events these days given that so many people have the means to rather easily take photos and so many seem to be willing to do so even a great risk; so, singling out one non-free over another also seems OR-ish (at least to me) absent any kind of sourced commentary about the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble with your take here; we're in broad agreement, and my keep is marginal. To clarify my position slightly, though: I'm not suggesting that contributors add their own OR-ish take on what's interesting or significant in the image, but that the NFC case is strengthened if the image captures features of the event that are already noted in the RS that the article is built from (in general; not the case here). An RS that comments on the specific image itself would be the gold standard here, but that's exceedingly rare and well beyond what's actually required by NFC policy, IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zochrot at the former Lydda ghetto.JPG

File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_17#File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg that files are deleted via a PROD. But because of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_5#File:Zochrot_at_the_former_Lydda_ghetto.JPG script will not allow a PROD so I made this instead. MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allowances are made per WP:F8 as a courtesy for users who want to tag their own images with {{Keep local}} for whatever reason (e.g., some image providers have had bad experiences with Commons), and there's not a pressing need to stop doing so even if the uploader is deceased given the licensing is VRT verified. In addition, the file was moved to Commons by someone other than the uploader back in April 2021, which appears to be roughly when the uploader was dealing with the illness that ultimately was the cause of her death. Even though the uploader's deceased, it seems like it would be a good idea to add a notification of this dscussion to their user talk page; some of those watching the page who were good friends with the uploader might be able to speak to the possible reasons why the uploader tagged this file as "Keep local". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

File:Spin Master logo.png

There seems be be confusion with licensing i noticed that this file has both a non free fair use rationale and a ineligible for copyright template not sure what one is accurate for this file Is la🏳️‍⚧ 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons I believe threshold of originality rules in Canada is roughly similar to the United States. If this file deemed ineligible for copyright and below threshold of originality in Canada, the same thing apply for the US as well, and vice versa. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

File:Sonic Crackers and Knuckles Chaotix comparison.png

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 15#File:Sonic Crackers shot.png, the top screenshot fails WP:NFCC#4 because it comes from a leaked development ROM that is not known to ever seen an official release (see WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). (Does WP:G4 apply here?) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was published by UGO Networks so meets previous publication criterion. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Said screenshot still originates from the leaked ROM. Compare Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 12#File:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg for another example of a file that has been printed outside of Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard "Rick" Rendon.png

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palmcalc41.png

Simple button design, PD-ineligible layout, and non-creative design, therefore the whole thing should be PD. Jay Cubby 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is May 23 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 23 – (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 "===May 23===" 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

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

File:Bert sesamestreet.jpg and File:Ernie sesamestreet.jpg

Discussions approaching conclusion

May 16

Recent nominations

May 17

May 18

May 19

May 20

May 21

May 22

May 23

Footer