Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

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

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	21	21
TfD	1	8	9
MfD	0	4	4
FfD	1	12	13
RfD	0	41	41
AfD	0	5	5

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 July 5}}` 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 July 5}}` 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 July 5}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

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

June 26

File:Rina Sawayama - Hold the Girl (1st Anniversary Edition).jpeg

[edit] This is a duplicate of File:Rina Sawayama - Hold the Girl (song).png. For the first anniversary of the album, Rina replaced the original Hold the Girl artwork on streaming platforms with that of the title track, which had been released as a single prior to the album. It is important that this artwork be on the album's article because it has been the primary digital artwork since 2023. Considering that the file is non-free, it seems inappropriate in my opinion to have two versions of it on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is my understanding that PNG files are preferred for album covers. Though it is not required, the fact is that a PNG version is available in this specific case. I am aware that duplicates are typically not within the scope of this page, but the reason I am bringing the situation here is because I tried to change the artwork on the Hold the Girl article from Hold the Girl (1st Anniversary Edition).jpeg to Hold the Girl (song).png. I figured it would simply allow the former to expire after some time due to not being used in an article, but it was reverted by a bot due to "lack of rationale for non-free file". Assuming that Hold the Girl (1st Anniversary Edition).jpeg is deleted for duplicate reasons, what would be the correct way to make the bot understand that Hold the Girl (song).png can also be used for the article about the album? Thank you. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 21:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not add File:Rina Sawayama - Hold the Girl (song).png to the album article. Per WP:NFC#UUI#6, if a non-free image is already present in another article, simply link to it. A caption can be added to the song article and explain this the single cover was later used as the album cover. ✗plicit 00:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times front page, 24 September 2012.jpeg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 15: An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the Wikipedia article in textual form, with a citation to the newspaper article. Absolutiva 23:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kimberly Potter jail booking photo December 23 2021.jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 1: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, it does not affect life sentence for mugshots. Absolutiva 23:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - she's already out of prison. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derek Chauvin mugshot April 2021.webp

[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 1: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, it does not affect life sentence for mugshots. Absolutiva 23:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the last time I tried to FfD this. If someone has a life sentence it is reasonable to expect we cannot get a free image in their lifetime - Chauvin will mostly likely get out while he is alive. He is not a lifer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

File:Terranova-killed Battaglia.jpg

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Letizia Battaglia Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least until Commons is resovled. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

File:N.F.-Board logo.svg

[edit]

I just found that File:Logo N.F.-Board.png exists on Wikicommons, uploaded by Jean Luc-Kit himself in 2020. So that means if we use that instead of this SVG version, we know there's not a copyright violation here. However, whether or not this complies with WP:NFCC§1:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

may be uncertain, and may need to be discussed. The reason that is so, is because of WP:NFC§Multiple restrictions:

For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder. If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity.

So should it be deleted in accordance with this, to avoid any uncertainty; or should it acquire the copyright of the version uploaded by Kit, and continue to be used here? wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason the .png file shouldn't be used in lieu of a lower res .svg Buffs (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vectorisation of a image that is, in most circumstances only available in PNG/JPG form, and of really low resolution. I ended up getting caught up in other things so I couldn't respond until 23:00; but if need be, this SVG could be edited to basically copy the PNG that Kit uploaded, and could, possibly, inherently be called a superior version to the PNG version of which Kit had uploaded. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 03:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is a derivative work. It cannot obtain new copyright without substantial changes. It is not labeled correctly. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using 2 non-free images, and thus violating WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. Either File:N.F.-Board logo.svg or File:NF-Board.png (the non-free version on en.Wikipedia) must therefore be removed and deleted to comply with NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this upload, it appears the images are mislabeled and are not non-free. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed the N.F.-Board to ask about the copyright status on Wikicommons. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

File:Max Ernst making Lissajous Figures 1942.jpg

[edit]

This image is used to illustrate a single sentence in Mathematics and art about Max Ernst making Lissajous curves. Lissajous curves can easily be explained with free media, and the fact that Max Ernst made them is readily understood without the use of non-free media. hinnk (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to find scattered illustrations relevant to mathematics and art from freely licensed sources (that is, artworks whose copyright was released by the artist under a free license), but I think it's more or less impossible to accurately depict the past century of the history of the topic (which is quite frankly most of the directly relevant art that has ever been made, including many whole genres of artworks) using only free images. The use of low-resolution non-free images seems very obviously to qualify as fair use under US copyright law. Whether they qualify for use in this particular article under Wikipedia policy is a matter somewhat unrelated to copyright law though; personally I hope they can be kept, because I don't think they are reasonably replaceable for this article, except by other non-free images.

As regards this specific image, no, some other image of a Lissajous curve is not an adequate replacement, and does not successfully illustrate the point being made in the article. Yes, this image is substantially helpful for readers. I don't think the artist (either Ernst or the unknown photographer) is going to suffer any harm whatsoever from having their work used in low resolution as part of a scholarly survey 80+ years later. YMMV.

(Aside: even other images which are currently tagged as freely licensed are not necessarily free from copyright, e.g. File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg claims to be CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 and the file description page indicates that the photographer has released copyright of the photograph per se for its use on Wikipedia. But there is no evidence that the sculptor was ever consulted, and she retains copyright of the sculpture which also affects derivative works such as this photograph. The image should probably be removed from Commons and uploaded to Wikipedia at low resolution and tagged as fair use in a few specific articles.)

(Aside #2: the same problem affects other art articles. As an example Abstract expressionism is exclusively illustrated by fair use images of paintings and supposedly "freely licensed" images of copyrighted sculptures which should probably also be tagged as fair use. We might be able to find a few actually free images of the topic, but I don't think it's possible to neutrally and meaningfully illustrate an article about a topic like abstract expressionism without relying predominantly on fair use images. This is probably a discussion that should be had somewhere other than an obscure page like Files for discussion. If you want to apply this kind of standard consistently, I recommend you make an RFC at the village pump asking to remove fair use images from all high-level survey articles about art topics, or the like.)

–jacobolus (t) 04:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more or less impossible to accurately depict the past century of the history of the topic…using only free images. You say this repeatedly, but you're rebutting a point nobody made. The standard I cited is WP:NFCC#8. If readers can't make it through (literally) one sentence about Ernst without an image showing it, then something's gone wrong.

You also seem to be getting off topic a lot. You're more than welcome to open discussions on the copyright status of File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg, image use in the Abstract expressionism article, or your proposed RFC at an appropriate venue, but please avoid derailing the conversation and stay on topic here. hinnk (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point, which is that this nomination doesn't seem consistent with prevailing use of fair use images in practice across the entire set of high-level art articles (as compared to articles about specific works or artists); in such articles images should usually sit alongside relatively brief specific discussion, as detailed analysis or criticism of each specific image would violate WP:WEIGHT and derail the article's narrative flow. I don't quite understand why you are singling out this particular article / these particular images, but if you want to change those widespread practices I don't think this is a good venue for such a conversation, since not very many Wikipedians are likely to participate here. I think you should instead open up a discussion somewhere such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts or even the village pump. If you don't want to change those widespread practices, then maybe you can explain what you think is special about the Mathematics and art article, different from other high-level art articles, as a reason to disallow the use of fair use images. –jacobolus (t) 08:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the use of the file in Mathematics and art is fully compliant with the Non-Free usage criteria, and the image is important in showing the close connection of mathematics and the practice of modern art, through the work of a major 20th century artist, Max Ernst.

The claim by nom that "Lissajous curves can easily be explained" with other media is disingenuous, as such media would not make the article's point that Ernst treated the figures as his art, created the figures mechanically, and went so far as to have that creation photographed, in this very image. Those points could in no way be made with other media, and would be far weaker if made solely in text, because an image – whether photograph or painting – has a power and immediacy that text, no matter how finely crafted, wholly lacks. In short, the image is itself important in the history of mathematics and art. I have extended the article, which already references the image in text and caption with reliable sources, to demonstrate the importance of the image and the technique. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:René Magritte The Human Condition.jpg

[edit]

Removal from Mathematics and art was contested, use in The Human Condition (Magritte) isn't disputed. This image is used to illustrate a two-sentence passage in the Mathematics and art article which briefly describes La condition humaine but doesn't go into the type of analysis or commentary that would meet WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that including some illustrative examples of 20th century art very clearly meets the burden of "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". We could replace this specific image by a different one, but the plausible candidates are also non-free images. I don't think this article can be adequately illustrated if we limit ourselves to freely licensed images. This is a little abstract though. hinnk, if you could go locate a number of relevant freely licensed images it would be possible to have a more useful concrete discussion about whether a version of the article with fewer fair-use images and more freely licensed images successfully made the same point as the current version. –jacobolus (t) 04:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting off-topic again. Discussion of replaceability isn't relevant (that's WP:NFCC#1). Fortunately, the article already has over 60 free images already, including 20th- and 21st-century works.

I don't think this article can be adequately illustrated if we limit ourselves to freely licensed images. Again, you're rebutting a point nobody has made. Only two images covered briefly in the text have been nominated. A passing mention without analysis or commentary doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You only nominated 2 images, presumably as a first nibble, but essentially the same criticism also applies to File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg, File:Hartmut Skerbisch.jpg, File:Objet mathematique by Man Ray.jpg, File:Print Gallery by M. C. Escher.jpg, and probably File:Icosahedron-spinoza.jpg (though it's not clear who the sculptor is). (And as I mentioned in your other nomination, the same criticism also applies to essentially every image currently used in the article Abstract expressionism, as well as a wide range of similar high-level overview articles about art from the past century.)

I think this article is already quite non-neutral insofar as it doesn't talk more about important copyrighted 20th century works; presumably that is at least somewhat influenced by the desire to showcase freely available images instead (in my opinion there are an over-abundance older out-of-copyright images some of which are a bit redundant and don't sufficiently justify their presence, and also an over-emphasis on relatively unimportant examples by unknown recent artists that happen to be freely licensed). I think it would be harmful to readers to remove the existing non-free images insofar as it would further skew the article away from neutral presentation of the topic. –jacobolus (t) 07:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The work by Magritte is specifically and substantially discussed in the text of Mathematics and art, and reliably cited there. It forms an essential part of the discussion of the use of a semiotic joke in Magritte's modern art. The discussion would be obscure in the extreme without the presence of the image of the artwork itself, as the semiotic joke is visual not textual, and we cannot assume that readers will arrive knowing what a visual semiotic joke is: the matter only becomes clear (and visually entertaining) with the image. Any attempt to explain such a thing without the use of an image is going to be weak and confusing to many readers; I pride myself on the clarity and quality of my text, but words are simply not a sufficient medium to convey the impact of art – if they were, artists could write rather than paint, as the paint would be wholly redundant. I note the discussion above in this thread; while it may be that other artworks could illustrate other points, this discussion of Magritte's pioneering work on logical paradoxes in art certainly could not. The assertion that the discussion in this article is "a passing mention" is both absurd and disingenuous, as the coverage is substantial and vital to the topic of the section. I have taken the opportunity to extend the discussion, with cited comparisons to earlier art and theory, as well as a brief quotation to indicate the work's significance in Illustrating mathematics. Scholars are in no doubt whatsoever about this famous painting's importance in the domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap, who has done much work within the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

File:David M. Heyman.jpg

[edit]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending Commons discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg is kept. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png

[edit]

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This file was marked as fair use with URAA restored copyright. But because this image was published in 1929 and URAA copyright expired, that means that it’s now in US PD and can be moved to Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons per nom ApexParagon (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem right. The author died in 1946. This drawing was still copyrighted in Canada in 1996; it didn't lose its copyright protection until ~~1947~~ 1997 (the rule is the year of the creator's death + 50, not just 50 years). {{PD-URAA}} requires it to be PD by 1996. The current licensing appears to be correct. ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"1947" or 1997? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that's what I get for rewriting my comment several times. Fixed, thanks! ✗plicit 00:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In file there is date of publication 1929, which means copyright expired. 2A00:F41:2C25:2FD9:F4D7:D975:F618:470F (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google books screenshot.png

[edit]

The text is PD, descriptions are ineligible, and the icons are simple. Not sure this is above TOO Jay Cubby 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the quote by Patrick Stewart come from? ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still a derivative work if the text is so small you can't actually read the quote? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

File:Astoria 1911.webp

[edit]

There is no evidence as to when this file was initially published. If it was first published in 1989, then it's not PD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not first published in 1989. That’s the date of the book where I found it. The photo is dated 1911. It is a picture of a houseboat called Astoria built on the River Thames near Tagg’s Island for theatre impresario Fred Karno. The photo is 114 years old. Orwell'sElephant (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in the US is based on the date of publication, not the age of the photograph. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is published in 1911 of an event that took place in 1911. Orwell'sElephant (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that it was published in 1911? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the source information on the page to clarify. The photo comes from a local history archive and is one of many such archival photos included in Baker's 1989 book. The book verifies the photo's date and subject matter. The book itself is a historical survey of part of the Thames River. FWIW Baker was born 8 years after the photo was taken. The photo is of a documented event that occurred in 1911 (i.e. the construction of the boat shown), which is documented in context in Baker's book (among other events which took place on the Thames at that time). Orwell'sElephant (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1911 is when the work was created. Under copyright law, publication is different than creation. All we have is that this is a photograph by an anonymous author that was first published in 1989 in England. Unless you can show a different publication date, per the Hirtle chart, it is not PD in the US until 31 December 2047. That said, you can add a fair use template to the image if you can show that it qualifies under WP:NFCC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the reference to the 1989 book, as I think it confuses rather than enlightens the issue (to reiterate: it was included as citation to date the photo and attest to its description). The photo dates to 1911. If the original survives to the present it is likely found in the archive of one of the Surrey or Richmond borough local libraries referenced by Baker in the acknowledgments to his book. It is also reproduced elsewhere: e.g. Slashgear magazine), which can make no greater claim to copyright than Baker can. I will make enquiries of the local library system in due course but for now the providence of the image remains unknown, so I have marked it as such. Does someone eventually adjudicate this? Orwell'sElephant (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See above.

Orwell'sElephant (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

File:Joseph D. Ward.png

[edit]

Massachusetts government works are public domain, so it may be safe to treat this as PD. Jay Cubby 00:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

relabel as PD per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 31 May 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.

June 28

File:Alden Richards in Eat Bulaga (EB) Dubai 2019.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is copyrighted and was posted on the subjects (Alden Richards) social media account. Unless the uploader can prove they took this photo or theyre part of the subjects team, it should be deleted.

Link to the original post where this image was first uploaded: [[1]]

Loibird90 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 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.

Recent nominations

June 29

File:Led Zeppelin Fool in the Rain.ogg

I'm doubtful that omitting this sample will affect the understanding of the rock song in question, despite being done by highly recognizable band. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vixar3.jpg

User was on Wikipedia for a few days in 2008. All of their other contributions have since been deleted as copyvios or promotion. File:Vixar2.jpg was deleted in 2012 as "no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license", so it seems likely the same is true here. The source being cited is a now-deleted copy of presumably the paper used in the article, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1511765, if anyone is able to check whether it CC-licenced its diagrams. Belbury (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The IEEE article doesn't have a free license and contains a clear "©2005 IEEE" notice. The image there is slightly different though, it's a black-and-white line drawing with a whale as the sound source. I can't find any indication that a version of this article or the images in it had a Creative Commons license. hinnk (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

File:File name.ext

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 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.

July 1

File:Martin Beck series.jpg

Just textual bookspines, could be considered PD. Jay Cubby 05:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gommeh 🎮 16:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dices (Selena Gomez & the Scene single - cover art).jpg

Cover art of Spanish release not proven contextually significant to the English version in question. Also, may be less distinctive to the other cover art already used. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

File:Tweed Run London 2013.jpg

"Feel free to use the image at will" is probably not legally sound enough to warrant us marking this in the public domain. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

File:Disabled People Against Cuts logo.jpg

I don't think this is under the US threshold of originality. It should be considered a non-free file. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure about it as well - based on my understanding, this one's borderline under US TOO and certainly above the British TOO. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnHymers.jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JohnHymers.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nintendo Music with text logo.png

Is this actually above Japan's threshold of originality? Tagged with "Do not move to Commons" with a "Deleted on Commons" tag that links to a non-existent page, not even any deletion logs. SergioFLS (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons Under the principles described in c:COM:TOO Japan, a musical note isn't going to be copyrightable since it's used a means of communication. hinnk (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Commons per hinnk. a musical note (specifically 8th note) is a common musical design that certainly isn't copyrighted by a single company like Nintendo. Additionally TOO in Japan is very high and comparable to the United States. There's example of musical note image avaliable at Commons, such as c:Category:SVG musical note icons and c:Category:SVG musical notation, no company copyright any musical notations. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

File:André Filipe Teixeira da Silva.jpg

WP:NFCC#1. The subject died today and there is no evidence that obtaining free options were attempted or that they could exist (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch At the time of his death, there was no image of the subject on Wikimedia Commons. reason why this was uploaded with the deceased licensing tag until an image is available on Commons. Afro 📢Talk! 05:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean one could not ever be found. Anyone who has been to a match where Silva played and taken a photograph of him could upload a freely licenced image of him. Thus, still fails WP:NFCC#1 as an image could be created- and no effort has been made for this. "Commons doesn't have an image" isn't sufficient. So I support delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 28#File:Juan izquierdo en cndef.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 11#File:Nelsy Cruz.png. hinnk (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFCC1 states "no free equivalent is available, or could be created", so if there's no free files of a deceased available on commons or locally, a fair use file of them can be uploaded until someone licenses the photos they took with a free license. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThompsonVenables.jpg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 1: Pictures of people still alive, would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, mugshots would not be used for limited sentencing (while living). Absolutiva 01:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not being used for any identification reasons, but as a unique historical photograph. The publication of their mugshots and the publication of their identities was a historic, specific event that is discussed in the article. Any new free photo would not satisfy the context, because they would no longer be children, so it would not capture what this is used for. It is not replacable. The entire notability of this case is about children murdering children. Seeing this specific notorious photo greatly improves one's understanding of what the public saw and felt. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Gaga - John Wayne.png

This is now the third time a user is uploading this image. As I've written before, this is not a "cover art for John Wayne", it's merely a screenshot from the video, used solely on one page of Lady Gaga's website, exactly because the song does not have a cover art. Should be deleted (once again...). Sricsi (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice of you to use "" to prevent this situation, and maybe you are violating WP:PERSONAL. Plus, her official website indicates it as a single, zero reason to be list as "song". Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which part of my remark was a "personal attack" per WP:PERSONAL? I am merely commenting on the uploaded image, which has been now uploaded/deleted several times, and is not a cover of an audio recording. Sricsi (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beyoncé - Video Phone (feat. Lady Gaga).png

This is not the official cover art for "Video Phone"—it's merely a screenshot from the music video, used only on a single page of Lady Gaga's website. Even if it were an actual single cover, it would still fail to meet WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination, plus, per WP:NFCC#8, its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Gaga - 911.png

The same image has already been uploaded before by another user. This is not a cover art for a single, it's merely a screenshot from the video, used solely on one page of Lady Gaga's website, exactly because the song does not have a cover art. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

File:Take On Me 1985 cover.png

The JPEG version (File:Take On Me cover.jpg) was deleted per FFD discussion. As I see, the PNG version was uploaded, but I'm unconvinced that it is needed and proven compliant with NFCC, especially #8 and #3a. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover-tv-live-big.jpg

Exceeds number of allowed non-free items and/or lacks contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is July 5 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 5 – (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 "===July 5===" 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

Discussions approaching conclusion

June 28

Recent nominations

June 29

June 30

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

Footer