Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	59	59
TfD	1	21	22
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	0	3	3
RfD	0	18	18
AfD	0	11	11

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 June 8}}` 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 June 8}}` 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 June 8}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

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

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

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]

May 12

File:GMA Pinoy TV logo.png

[edit]

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

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

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

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

May 7

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Anyone feels like writing a fair use rationale? Otherwise this will have to be closed as delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:09, 2 June 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 1

File:Dream SMP cast.png

Restore the October 3, 2022 version of the file, make sure the size is 800×960, with the blur being removed

(see User talk:Владлен Манилов and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 71 for more info)

BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (t • c) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recall doing my best to make the image at an acceptable resolution without wrecking it. It's all pixel art, so scaling it down crunches it. SWinxy (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is looks sufficient to me. Buffs (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the file on October 3, 2022 (which the file's size 800×960 pixels, with this version is currently hidden) is MUCH better than the August 27, 2024 version (which the file's size 800×960 pixels, but a bit blurry because of the file's size reduction last October 4, 2022) because you can see the skins more clearly. But on October 3, 2022, why did the Russian user Vladlen Vadimovich Manilov added the {{Non-free reduce}} template on the file with the {{Non-free no reduce}} template, which CRUNCHED the image size on the following day?

(See the talk page of this Russian-sounding user) BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:When Emma Falls in Love by Taylor Swift – lyric video title card.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title cards of music videos are non-standard practice for use in infobox. What's more, some songs don't need a visual identifier anyway... fails WP:NFCC criteria 3 and 8. (Note: a similar discussion can be found here). Ippantekina (talk) 05:59, 1 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.

File:Minecraft Java and Bedrock poster.jpg

Completely redundant to the "Minecraft 2024 cover art.png" image in terms of being an exact replica of cover art that is already in the article. It provides no context that the other image doesn't do in a better way. Furthermore, there is no reason provided as to how this image is needed in comparison to the other image, and no rationale is given as to how this image meets WP:NFCC. The fair use rationale isn't even complete (for example, there was straight up nothing in the "Respect for commercial opportunities" spot based on this revision). λ NegativeMP1 17:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

June 2

File:TroyeSivanBloomAltCover.jpg

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not notable alternative artwork used only in a Japanese edition of the album. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 03:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, delete the other one Buffs (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:London and Continental Railways (logo).png

Replaced by file uploaded to Commons. Cloudbound (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete noncontroversial. Buffs (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Audiogram logo.png

Unused logo, superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete noncontroversial. Buffs (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linkin Park - From Zero (deluxe).png

Fails to meet WP:NFCC 3a and 8. A deluxe edition artwork that does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". CatchMe (talk · contribs) 13:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Buffs (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Providing the context of the article in question, From Zero has been promoted in different ways, including a deluxe edition to which two singles were specificially used to promote it, instead of just the album in question. This addition helps to provide WP:CONTEXT of what else is being promoted. Where else would it go? A seperate article? How else do you explain the context of two singles being used to promote the deluxe edition of the album? Also, I've recently edited The Tortured Poets Department which has been nominated as a good article. That helps give readers an understanding that there are two versions of that album. What's so different about this? Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination as a GA of a different article isn't evidence that this choice is good. Each article/image should be discussed within its own justification. WP:NFC outlines the requirements for use of copyrighted materials. Within articles about albums and singles, they normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted. If more than one such image is desired (differing designs in different countries, a deluxe cover that is substantively different, etc), then the article must generally contain at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed album covers. This content must reflect significant, third-party commentary about each cover's appearance. "Substantial" usually means something like at least 20 words per album cover and that the content is more than a simple description of the album's appearance (e.g., "In 2010, the lead singer said the all-blue color scheme is meant to evoke feelings of 'both literal and figurative coolness' and clearly evokes that with it's soaring chorus...", not "The cover shows a blue guitar on a blue background"). More than one cover that is not substantially different is generally prohibited. Buffs (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toyota Sienna (XL30) IMG 3635.jpg

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 ⚡ 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image has the license plate visible in the foreground, and license plates are linked to personal information. We have other images of the third generation Sienna that have the plate blurred out. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 15:58, 2 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.

June 3

File:Zhou Jiangyong pic.jpg

Reopen discussion due to last year's FFD's "no consensus" result. It does not meet WP:NFCI#10 probably. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 09:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the photo is currently under legal custody of China. So, it would not be possible to get freely licensed image of the subject by contacting his close ones. Hence, it should satisfy non-free file criteria. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reason you given is inappropriate. This is a ridiculous and weird reason. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 14:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is placed under indefinite imprisonment, then it is next-to-impossible for a member of the general public to make a free photo of them. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with @Hinnk:'s assertions at the last one. The rationale given directly addresses why this image of a living person would not be replaceable, and the nomination/renomination hasn't addressed that point at all other than to describe it as "inappropriate", "ridiculous", and "weird". Please address the substance of the argument. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JanetMcIntyre1989.jpg

No evidence that the YouTube uploader holds the copyright to this vintage video. Probable license laundering. ✗plicit 11:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is license laundering. The YouTube video gives thanks and credit to the copyright holder(s). The uploader clearly is not the copyright holder and cannot make such a release, so the license should reflect its actual copyright status. Since it is a copyrighted image of a living person who we can photograph, it is replaceable with a free image and should be deleted. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand now looking at it that it might not be the right license. Welcome to remove @Explicit on your end. Thank you for bringing this to my attention :) ArleneHerman (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paquette cartoon 20060124.jpg

The image does not support critical discussion, only to illustrate the existence of the cartoon. It can be depicted in words but said words aren't sourced. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the nom. It's being used to illustrate the ubiquitous nature of the song. However, it is still unnecessarily gratuitous and fails WP:NFCC & needs to go. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

File:Lady Gaga - John Wayne single cover.png

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. Sricsi (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're going to request the removal of an image, removing it from its context makes it a little harder to find where it was intended to be placed. I concur that it shouldn't be there based on what you stated plus it is already loaded with many images and further images do not meet NFCC. Likewise, I don't find this image to be beneficial to WP as it doesn't illustrate something that's not already in text. Buffs (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SeaTac Airport Station Pictogram.svg

White logo against transparent background which does not show. Wcam (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The logo for a train station/line isn't necessary. Fails WP:NFCC. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its significance as both an icon and part of the public art collection (as described in the article). It was originally displayed in the infobox, hence the white color, but should now be updated to properly display in the body. Sounder Bruce 20:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from local use Well, isn't really necessary to place Logos of train station. Additionally, they didn't register SeaTac Pictogram logo to US Copyright Office, therefore fair use claim is questionnable. If someone wants to update the color of the logo, it should be done at Commons instead. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

File:Nz national party coromandel1999 postcard back.gif

Not discussed in article and unnecessary. An image is not required to explain that he has been criticised for vandalism, sabotage, opposition to prisons etc. BLP concerns too admittedly given these are contentious claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything here that can't be represented in text. I find the BLP concerns overwrought though. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astoria 1911.webp

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]

June 6

File:Carcross Desert Sign.JPG

This is an image of a sign with significant text. Although the image is under a free license, the text of the sign is not. De minimis does not apply as the main subject of the photo is the sign. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sign has been in place for >50 years and ~~is, in effect,~~ a government publication of ~~Canada and/or~~ its provinces (edit: add. It was published by Yukon, see lower right corner). As such, it's PD; mark accordingly. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the 50 years from? -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that amount of text 'significant', as it's a basic description of text. Jay Cubby 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

File:Net 25 Logo 2023.webp

Relicense to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}. Under US law, this is not copyrightable as not a creative logo. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Kalinga Partylist.png for similar reason (English Wikipedia is not bound to comply with restrictive and not Wikimedia-friendly PH copyright law). The deleted high-resolution file must be restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google books screenshot.png

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]

File:LiteSpeed Web Server Logo.png

The logo is not detailed enough to be above TOO. See the official SVG version for a clearer image Jay Cubby 23:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love is in the Air 1992 by JPY.jpg

A month back, uploader mistook caption notice as a PROD tag and attempted removal of the caption (diff) just because the cover art is the notable / official artwork from the 1992 re-release. The file was then de-PRODded by another editor just because it's still "used". I appreciate identifying the specific (re-)release, but I'm unconvinced that this cover art is necessary and contextually significant to the song in question.

Indeed, the song is a mid-1970s disco hit by an Aussie singer. Well, the 1992 remix of the old classic was also a hit in several nations, like major ones in Oceania. Nonetheless, besides (merely?) identifying the release, I can't help wonder why deleting this cover art would impact the understanding of the original version... and the remix itself. Just by reading the whole article, readers would already understand the hit disco song and its remix version used in a film, right? George Ho (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The remix over 2 decades later made the top ten in 3 major western countries. It's notable enough on its own to have an article by itself which would make an image like this appropriate. Putting them together makes sense too. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amen break notation (local copy).svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments have almost entirely focused on the copyright status, and the file's restoration at Commons was not done. Can we address its use a non-free file and whether if satsifies WP:NFCC? It lacks a fair use rationale and will qualify for WP:CSD#F6 if unaddressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

File:KRBK logo 2022.webp

Speedy delete: SVG version now at Commons Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columbushighschoolcirca1958.jpg

Non-free use claimed, but the article subject already has a free image depicting it, so the free use is invalid JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:David M. Heyman.jpg

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]

June 8

File:พ่อเจ้า.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ภาพบริเวณวัดสุคันธศีลาราม.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:President-sailom26.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:PromPhimanHotel SSK.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:PhunChitnarong(sep2016).JPEG

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piyabut lopburi.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porton2.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portong.jpg

Source file deleted. Low-res, varying sizes, multiple cameras, unlikely to be own work as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MicTheMicrophone OC.jpg

There is no indication that the uploader (uploaded Oct. 2014) of the image to the wiki [Noname219 https://ffr.fandom.com/wiki/Mic_The_Microphone?diff=prev&oldid=17571] is the original artist. I found an earlier instance of this same image uploaded to Last.fm uploaded Jan. 2012. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheila in 2010.jpg

Unused file from a deleted page. — doclys (❀) 09:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is June 8 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 8 – (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 "===June 8===" 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 1

Recent nominations

June 2

June 3

June 4

June 5

June 6

June 7

June 8

Footer