Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

Shortcut WP:FFDWP:FFD

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

XFD backlog v t e V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total CfD 0 1 63 0 64 TfD 0 1 25 0 26 MfD 0 0 2 0 2 FfD 0 1 19 0 20 RfD 0 0 58 0 58 AfD 0 0 20 0 20 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 [edit] 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: {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons {{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. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}. 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}}. 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 October 6}} 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 October 6}} 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 October 6}} 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.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
Today All (sorted) Closing Log
Templates
Today All Closing Holding Log Instructions
Files
Today All Closing Log
Categories
Today All category Closing Log Speedy Working manual
Redirects
Today All Closing Log
Miscellany
Today All Closing Log
Speedy deletion
Candidates
Proposed deletion
All (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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.

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

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.

[edit]

File:Monday Monday picture sleeve.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tkbrett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sleeve of West German single totally similar to the parent album's cover art, If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears. Unconvinced that it contextually signifies the song Monday, Monday. A portion of the American single release (ebay) is definitely free to use and distribute and doesn't have to comply with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Template:Non-free album cover applies to single picture sleeves just as well as it does to album covers, book covers, movie posters, and so on. The nominator has not indicated why a single picture sleeve would be any different. This issue was raised years ago. Tkbrett (✉) 13:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The same argument you've made didn't prevent other images from being deleted, did it? Neither the template nor {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} currently addresses a cover art's compliance with NFCC. I'm not re-discussing front covers generally (i.e. the issue raised in another) but rather specifically this specific cover.

  In this case, one of the songs by the Mamas and the Papas, an American band, was a hit in not just North America but also the UK and some other Commonwealth nations... and Italy. The West German sleeve is used because you assumed readers wouldn't understand the song without the cover art, right? Nevertheless, the American release, like many other vinyl singles in the pre-CD or pre-digital era, didn't use a picture sleeve initially. Record labels, like Dunhill Records, must chosen generic sleeves probably to cut costs, leaving customers into using vinyl side labels to identify songs they sought for. The American market has been one of largest music markets, hasn't it? George Ho (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:2007 NFL International Series.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalel2007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Former logo for a specific season (2007), which doesn't significantly enhance the article- so fails WP:NFCC#8. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free images in an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Former ARG Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. There is no mention of this particular logo in the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: below TOO US (not TOO Australia) - the silhouette of a kangaroo isn't original enough. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain the kangaroo is also above the ToO in the United States. You can't exactly describe it in terms of simple geometric shapes. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Detroit Red Wings logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tkgd2007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We have to verify the copyright status of this logo, as it was published in 1947. If the copyright has expired, it is in the public domain and it can be exported to Commons.

• If the logo did not have a copyright tag in 1947, then it's {{PD-US-no notice}}.
• If the logo's copyright was not renewed, then it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

If either of the above conditions are met, this logo will be tagged with the corresponding PD-US tag and be eligible to be moved to Commons. Otherwise, it will remain here as fair use for now. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Coat of arms of William Broughton (bishop).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bahnfrend (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Licensing information is also incorrect, as the image is not used "as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the person in question". The design of this particular emblazon also seems to me to fall above the TOO. See Talk:William Grant Broughton#Coat of arms and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Coat of arms on William Grant Broughton for relevant prior discussions. MCE89 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The post above is not a genuine initiation of a discussion, but, rather, is a feeble excuse for the poster to troll my talk page for no less than the third time about an image I uploaded some time ago, as part of a batch of images of personal coats of arms of former Anglican Bishops and Archbishops of Sydney that had been published online by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.

The image is in fact an entirely unremarkable personal coat of arms of a long deceased bishop. Such personal coats of arms are very common, and an uncontroversial item to include in the infobox in a bio of a bishop who had or has such a personal coat of arms. For example, the infobox in the bio of Pope Leo XIV includes such a coat of arms, as does the infobox in the bio of his predecessor, Pope Francis.

The image does not fail WP:NFCC#1 on the basis that Wikimedia Commons includes a photo of a stained glass window that includes a very different representation of the personal coat of arms – such stained glass windows and/or photographs are not substitutes for this type of representation of a coat of arms. The image similarly does not fail WP:NFCC#8 – it is included in the bio article as, and only as, the "coat_of_arms" parameter in the Infobox Christian leader in the bio article – the fact that such a parameter exists, and is commonly filled, in that infobox indicates a clear consensus amongst editors that the inclusion of such a coat of arms in the infobox of bios about Christian leaders "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

If the poster does not agree with that consensus, then the proper step for the poster to take would be to propose that that parameter be removed from the infobox template, rather than repeatedly to troll the editor who uploaded this particular image.

As for whether the image is properly licensed – it in fact does not need to be, and is not, licensed, as it is (a) public domain (on the basis that it is no more than a graphic representation of a written description that is uncopyrightable), or (b) is out of copyright because its creator must be long deceased, or (c) can be, and is, displayed as fair use, like every other coat of arms included in such infoboxes.

The poster should immediately cease trolling me and posting nonsense about the image. Otherwise, I will ask that the poster be blocked from editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: @Bahnfrend: your allegations against MCE89 are unfounded at best - s/he has raised valid points. An image of coat of arms is not necessary for visual identification of the subject, and even if it was, a public domain alternative is possible to create per WP:FREER. Your idea that a graphic representation of a written description that is uncopyrightable is more absurd - if you think about it every painting/work of art can be expressed in a written description. The infobox parameter exists such that one can create the coat of arms themselves, per c:Template:Coa blazon, not copy the work of others.

As for the TOO question, this is more complex. IMO it is above TOO and not PD - the crown at the top is a complex decorative element. Even so, simple arrangement can get you copyright protection a lot of the time, for example see these No-Soliciting signs. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: Your post demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of heraldry in general, and ecclesiastical heraldry in particular. The points it makes are even less valid than those of the troller. As the article on ecclesiastical heraldry confirms, "... ecclesiastical heraldry evolved as a system for identifying people and dioceses. It is most formalized within the Catholic Church, where most bishops, including the Pope, have a personal coat of arms. Clergy in Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches follow similar customs, as do institutions such as schools and dioceses." That's why there's a consensus that if a bishop has/had a personal coat of arms, it is appropriate to include an image of it in the infobox of the bishop's bio article. There is no similarity between such personal coats of arms and "every painting/work of art" as you claim. Rather, in heraldry a personal coat of arms is as described in a written statement, which can then be used to create a visual representation. By contrast, original paintings/works of art are, in general, visual images only; they are not created as a visual depiction of a written statement. As for whether this particular coat of arms is "above TOO" as you also claim - the shield is nothing more than stars, stripes and a simple Savoy-style cross. It does not include any image of an animal, mythical creature, building, ship, etc, and there's nothing original about it at all. As for the object surmounting the shield, it's a mitre, not a crown, and thus a standard surmount for a bishop's coat of arms. Further, there is nothing original about the particular mitre depicted in this image - it even looks like a simple drawing of an actual, physical, standard-form mitre, rather than a stylized artistic rendering of one. If ever there were an example of a visual representation of a personal coat of arms that is not "above TOO", then this one is it. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahnfrend: Let's split this up for clarity (please use bullet points/paragraphs next time):

• Whilst institutions may identify the person by the COA, this does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The bar is pretty high: for instance, you would only find non-free images for deceased people.
• More importantly, this definitely does not meet WP:NFCC#1. Again, just because something is created by a description does not mean it is below TOO. There is artistic merit in decisions in how to arrange elements, as well as the exact proportions to draw those elements. This also violates WP:FREER
• This is very clearly above TOO as well. Again, as repeated above, simple arrangement can get you a long way in terms of copyright.

I think the PCP clearly applies here as well. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also please stop calling MCE89 a troller, I have seen no evidence to back this up. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:67 kid meme.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhooshBazooka (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC 1, as its subject is a living person Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there to describe the meme, not necessarily the person. WhooshBazooka (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But a free use image where the 6-7 kid is doing his thing can be created and easily replace this one, which is what matters for NFCC 1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there to have a visual guide to what the article was talking about, which was the moment in the AAU video. WhooshBazooka (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These hypothetical free images are unlikely to have any higher merit than the image that is actually discussed in the article Thegoofhere (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 1 only requires that we can replace the image with something free, not that it needs to be higher quality. If we get a free image of the 6-7 kid doing the face or whatever, it will still adequately convey what the article is talking about. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image should be kept since there isn’t any free version that could represent the 6-7 kid and the section where this image is located specifically mentions the 6-7 kid, so why wouldn’t he be used? WhatADrag07 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 1 is about whether a free replacement could be created, not whether one exists. Is 6-7 kid alive? Yes. Is he a public figure? Seemingly yes. Therefore, we can replace this image, failing NFCC 1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't necessarily why I put the image there. I did it to display the specific incident that the article discussed. I didn't necessarily do it to display the person, if you know what I mean. WhooshBazooka (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ This comment was a reply to WhatADrag07 WhooshBazooka (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Based5290: remember, the subject is the 6-7 meme, not the kid. A free replacement of the kid wouldn't show the meme itself, therefore, per Template:Non-free historic image it would be classified as a unique historic image. The image is contextually significant as it is where the hand gesture came from so NFCC 8 is met.

I would like to add, however the image should probably be replaced with one that shows the hand gesture as that would provide more context to the reader. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it could be claimed a non-free historic image, unless he's missing/dead, it can always be replaced with free media in the future. This image might not be needed anyway. ^Wiinter_U 23:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – sure it's from a relevant video, but he isn't doing anything special in this image, so I think the same purpose can be served by a hypothetical free replacement. charlotte ^👸♥ 17:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe the hand gesture one would be more useful. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A free image can be found or created, so this image fails NFCC 1. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:National Book Awards digital medallions.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moonrivers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We received a WP:VRT email at ticket:2025091510007536 requesting that we delete this file to preserve commercial opportunities (see WP:NFCC2). I am inclined to believe that a non-profit is not making this up, so on that basis alone I am a delete !vote. I also question whether this meets WP:NFCC8—the medallions are never mentioned in the prose of National Book Award, so I am unsure how these images can significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we sure this isn't below US TOO? If it's not, delete per NFCC8. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good point about TOO. I am not sure, but I would be inclined to delete regardless as I don't see how the medallion images are helpful to the article. (If they are not being discussed in what I would call a fairly high-quality article, are they relevant/WP:DUE? I'd say no.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might just be a move to Commons, then. I'll wait to see if someone else comments about TOO. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MTC, this is very clearly below TOO. (I'll add notes to the VRT ticket where appropriate). —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Sharon ageila.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiki1609 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doubts of this being a work of the US Federal Government were raised on the file's talk page 17 years ago, but were never addressed. This NPR article shows an uncropped and unwashed out version of this photograph credited to David Rubinger for Getty Images. If this attribution is correct, then there is no evidence of a free license. ✗plicit 00:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Amelia Simmons.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darwin Naz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It appears that this image is falsely labelled as Amelia Simmons. An identical image appears in the book "Two Centuries of Costume in America", and is labelled as Lady Catharina Howard, 1640. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alternatively, rename and move to commons for being public domain. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Blythe doll-en.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siawase (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC #1. Images under a non-free license although there are a bunch of similar files (via OTRS permission) on Commons (category). After the images were removed, the uploader insisted on placing them again. Fma12 (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now)  I will change my vote if the DR discussion I made just now results in "kept". --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Blythe Loves The Littlest Pet Shop dolls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siawase (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same as above Fma12 (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images of toys are derivative works and rights are held by the rights holder to the toy, not just the photographer, see [1]. So images of toys need a free use rationale. Siawase (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. The discusión is about the two non free imagen uploaded by you that fail nfcc#1. Why should they be placed instead of any of the free use similar images available? Fma12 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the images on commons of toys are not actually free and should be/will be deleted from commons. Siawase (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, but if there are free images available on commons, what is your need to add those non free photos? Could You explain that, considering that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" according to WP:NFCC? Fma12 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know the images of toys on commons are not free but you keep calling them free? Sorry, but I don't follow. Siawase (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commons hosts free images of toys (with permission licenses). Just make a search yourself. Fma12 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they have permission from the photographer, not the rights holder of the toys themselves, that's the problem with derivative works. If you look at the history of Blythe (doll) you can see that the images of Blythe dolls on commons have been deleted several times before:[2] Siawase (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant since this discusión started: why do You insist on uploading non-free images of the dolls when there are similar free-use images on Commons? Anda You haven't answered that question yet. The NFCC images are absolutely unnecesary in this case Fma12 (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images that were deleted were images of Blythe dolls on commons that you keep calling free, but that are in fact not free because they are derivative. The images I have uploaded here on en wiki with a free use rationale were not deleted because they are within policy. Siawase (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an image has a license of free use (OTRS permission in this case) then it has no restriction of use. The copyrighted images You uploaded are unnecesary per nfcc#1. And they should be removed. All toys are derivative works (I never said the contrary) but several have a propper license that allows their use un any project with no need of a fair use tag. That's why I opened this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons have permission from the photographer, who does not have the rights to give away for the underlying work it was derived from. Siawase (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. As I have left my point of view clear enough, from now on I'll let an admin decide. Fma12 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now)  I will change my vote if the DR discussion I made just now results in "kept". --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Dark Side of the Moon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per FFD discussion on the JPEG version (File:The Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg), the PNG version should not require a non-free rationale but rather should have previous revisions undeleted. The closing admin of that previous discussion thought otherwise (discussion). Didn't feel like re-nominating the PNG version... the third time. Before the JPEG version was taken to FFD, the previous FFD discussions ended with "no consensus", defaulting to "non-free". George Ho (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Nehru tryst with destiny speech.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ganeshk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May be PD-India unless URAA shenanigans contradicts that. JayCubby 02:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No URAA shenanigans; clearly PD-India-photo-1958. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be PD, author died in '54 JayCubby 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no visible copyright indication, and the author died over 70 years ago, it will be public domain. ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as it was published between 1930 and 1977* ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mess of publication, however. JayCubby 17:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Falling Soldier was first published in the September 23, 1936, issue of the French magazine Vu (below), where it was reproduced with another, similar picture on the same page" FYI —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like quite a historical image, we should check US renewal records first. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: I could find books containing the photograph, but haven't figured out how to work the pre-1979 card catalog yet. JayCubby 01:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: it's at [3]; just look at the years 1936+22, 1936+23 and 1936+24. I might do this later. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix, were you able to find whether the copyright was renewed after publication? JayCubby 22:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the years above, and it wasn't. In the future though please remember the burden of proof is on you if you want to transfer to Commons. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Online Neo-Nazis in Roblox holding Nazi flags.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheSwagger13 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am having trouble seeing why text wouldn't be sufficient for this. The article already says "According to a 2022 report by The Weekend Australian, "dozens" of forums exist to show Roblox players how to make Nazi-inspired content without being banned, such as rearranging the colors of the Nazi flag and altering the Swastika", and it does not take much imagination to put a swastika in a blocky environment. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good point, but I only uploaded the image due to how insanely realistic it looked. Usually, it is extremely hard to bypass a Nazi flag on Roblox (let alone an entire accessory), but the image is an example on how realistic online Nazism can get, TheSwagger13 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insanely realistic? It's not really hard to make a swastika. Thegoofhere (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:John Neville Keynes portrait by Gerald Kelly 1926.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Howardcorn33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to https://artuk.org/visit/venues/the-old-schools-university-of-cambridge-7182 , the Old Schools gallery are not open to the public, so its doubtful if this painting could be considered to have been "published" in 1926, thus not making it public domain in the US. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Lockheed-logo Winnie-Mae.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logawi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly below TOO JayCubby 15:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not below TOO PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, the logo was made in 1926 per [4], so PD-US-expired applies. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial keep if this was from 1926. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

Plain & unoriginal text JayCubby 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Export to the Commons: Attach the {{PD-text}} template and export it into the Commons instead. By the way, you need to request undeleting revisions that were deleted by admins in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before exporting to the Commons. Saimmx (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense (I see Saimmx has already donse so). -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason it is on en Wikipedia is that it would be a copyvio on Commons (and has already been rejected there for that reason). The version on here is a limited size, for use only on the Tannenberg (typeface) article under the fair use exemption. More info to follow when I find it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See discussion on Commons Help (a diff, but should be enough). FWIW, it is for exactly the same reason that pretty much the same file is on de.wikipedia. and not on Commons --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Metro Observatorio pictogram.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cocu15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this file "original enough" to label it as copyrighted? Note that the Mexico City Metro logos are registered at the Mexican copyright institution. However, three logos are at Commons as simple shapes: the Olympic rings, the Red Cross logo, and a crescent moon. The most relevant entry in the Mexican law indicates that copyrights shall not apply to: "Letters, digits or isolated colors, unless their stylization is such that they become original drawings".

I'm asking because there are files at Commons using the pictogram. Should we keep it as it is, tag it as {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}, or move it directly to Commons? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If the copyright was registered in Mexico, then it can't be moved to Commons as it is non-free in its home country. A combination of simple shapes can cross the threshold of originality in the United States, though I'm not sure that's the case here. {{PD-textlogo-USonly}} might be the way to go. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I feel as if this is under the threshold for originality for the United States, though I am unsure about its origin country of Finland. Also, its used twice in the same article and I am unsure of what usage to keep. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the usages of the image has been removed, so that part of the discussion is no longer a concern. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about moving to commons, but it shouldn't be used in both the infobox and article. WP:VG suggests only having package art or similar things for the infobox, not screenshots of photos of the game, so I've removed it from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retag as PD-US. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

File:Sabrina Carpenter – Man's Best Friend (alternate album cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LeftRightRightLeft (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCCP#3a and #8. There are 5 different covers for this album, only the standard version is necessary. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the image is needed to support the article text which explicitly discusses this particular version, cited to three sources. It is certainly unusual to have multiple artworks, but this was brought about by the response to the controversial first version, and the subsequent versions also attracted critical attention, so the reader needs to have this image to understand the nature of the critical comments and make their own mind up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with @Chiswick Chap. Jwilli39 (talk) ⚡ 18:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gwen Raverat self portrait 1910.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Portrait made in 1910, if published before 1930, US copyright expired. Michalg95 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing this file to be deleted and moved to Commons? That will not be possible because Raverat was British and died in 1957, and in the UK the copyright law is Life + 70, so the artwork would only enter the public domain there in 2028.

Second, evidence must be provided that the painting was even put on display before 1930. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craig Ab Rd 2 Nov 2008 v.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gristede (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Craig Ab Rd 2 Nov 2008 v.jpg. ✗plicit 00:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rest of World logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nycmstar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

deleted revision prevents moving to Commons Arlo James Barnes 02:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, superseded by File:PostcardStamfordCTShippanPointFJMarionResidence1920.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 06:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Barrotta. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/transfer to Commons to use in Nick Barrotta (Q104098930), famous actor, no earlier result on reverse image search  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tusalava (1929).webm (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hinnk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I believe that this work's copyright would have been restored by the URAA as it was copyright in New Zealand in 1996 Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was published in the UK, not New Zealand but UK is life+70 for films so the work would have had copyright restored in 1996 still. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. copyrights for works published before 1930 have expired, regardless of whether they had previously expired and been restored under the URAA. hinnk (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you are correct. My mistake. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing/Closing, but if I've done it improperly feel free to revert/close properly. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aphex Twin sig.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This signature cannot be considered public domain as it is extremely stylized. The original license said, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain in the United States because it consists entirely of typefaces, individual words, handwriting, slogans, simple geometric shapes, etc." This is wrong, because it is not simply an example of handwriting. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The United States has a very high threshold of originality for signatures. See c:COM:SIG US. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to bring any value to the article, or discussion thereof, and neither is it Richard D James signature which would probably have some notability to it. Does not appear to meet rationale for uploading locally either as a non-free image. 77.86.103.78 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are very frequent inclusions for celebrity biographies. This was removed from dozens of pages when it was deleted from Commons. The image is currently in use on English Wikipedia. Even if consensus turns against that, consensus can change (which seems likely given general trends towards signature inclusion) and maintaining this image locally seems warranted in either case. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its perfectly fine hosted on Aphextwin.nu as it is, it doesnt need to be here too, and adds zero to the article. 77.86.103.78 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Payday Publishing logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Minorax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo is made of text and a simple shape. It is definitely below the threshold of originality in the U.S. (which is where Payday Music Publishing is based in), and thus must be in the public domain. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:NFL international games logos.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corkythehornetfan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Former logos that do not significantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland Creek, Nashville, Tennessee Watershed showing cities Belle Meade and Forest Hills.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eagledj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No justification for why the work of this local government (not the federal government) should be public domain. No indication of the source of the satellite image. GMG^talk 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saskatoon Accelerators Gold black.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. The parent article has no mention of this logo besides the caption. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libs of TikTok logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elli (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I fail to see how this is a derivative of the TikTok logo. Apart from taking the colors and the name (which I highly doubt are copyrightable), no other element of the TikTok logo is taken. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mark Wahlberg Calvin Klein.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TotalDramaWayne (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC, no. 8 criterion. There are already plenty of freely-distributed photos of the subject in Commons. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mocha dick 1932 cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carl savich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mocha dick 1932 cover.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is October 6 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 October 6 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===October 6===" 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.