Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

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

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	58	42	100
TfD	13	1	14
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	2	10	12
RfD	0	47	47
AfD	0	92	92

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 15}}` 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 15}}` 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 15}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

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

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

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

June 7

File:KRBK logo 2022.webp

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Delete The non-free use rationale says it's to show the building before its renovation in the 1990s, but there isn't much discussion of that in the article. There also isn't enough of a difference between this image and File:ColumbusWisconsinHighSchool.jpg that it meets WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

[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]

File:Net 25 Logo 2023.webp

[edit]

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

[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]

File:LiteSpeed Web Server Logo.png

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

File:Ninette de Valois.jpg

Identical to Commons one which restored recently per PD-UK-unknown+PD-US-expired, cf. c:COM:DRV#Ninette de Valois.jpg. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

June 9

File:Rick and Morty season 8.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: keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source is listed as fandom.com, taken from another Wiki fan-based website. No actual source provided outside of this. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – looks like the source has been updated to a more reliable website, but if that's still insufficient, the poster is available through Warner Bros. Discovery's website here (direct link). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I'll revoke this FFD. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:16, 10 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:Mic the Microphone OC.png

Not fandom's own work so they can't license it as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file was uploaded. No need to be left as non-free file. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:47, 9 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:Tokio Hotel - Love Who Loves You Back preview.ogg

The article does not explain why the audio sample is relevant to understanding the content. Its inclusion should have been justified with a description of what can be heard in the sample, supported by appropriate citations. I believe the file should be deleted as it violates WP:NFCC#8. Sricsi (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

File:Gestcrate01.jpg

File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_17#File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg that files are deleted via a PROD. But because of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_10#File:Gestcrate01.jpg a PROD is not allowed so I made this instead.

Older discussions about deleting similar files can be seen at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_17#File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_May_21#File:Zochrot_at_the_former_Lydda_ghetto.JPG.

SlimVirgin explained in 2008 that the reason for the KeepLocal on many files is because some topics like animal rights are sensitive and files may be deleted on Commons. The file has been on Commons for more than 15 years now so I do not think there will be a problem on Commons. MGA73 (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

File:DRossJackson5.jpg

Cover art of 2001 reissue unneeded and may exceed the "minimal number of items". There's already cover art of the original release. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found out that it's a reissue of the album and ABC packed in one (discogs). --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025 BCL Asia.jpg

The 2025 season of BCL Asia itself does not seem to appear to use a separate logo which would fall under No. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. It is more accurately the Facebook page banner of BCL Asia meant to be displayed for the duration of the season. The file also unnecessarily include non-free logos of the participating clubs Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.jpg

Free images of the subject exist on Commons. No valid non-free rationale for this image. GMG ^talk 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Fair use cannot be claimed, as perfectly-usable free images exist of Patrick. Additionally, the claims made by the uploader on the image page are unfit and do not show that this image is "fair use". Strugglehouse (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal-lucy2009.jpg

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crystal-lucy2009.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any evidence of the free license claimed above? A similar icon was previously deleted as a result of c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sound Transit icons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not necessary to understand subject. If it is actually not copyright it can be uploaded to Commons, although I am under the impression copyright status is automatic under current US law and does not require registration. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A new version has been uploaded with a proper background for display outside of the infobox, Wcam. Sounder Bruce 01:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GOP Logo1.svg

I’m not exactly sure if this is above the threshold of originality, so I’m putting it here. Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 08:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025 Ballymena riot.jpg

No rationale given for NFCC#1 nor NFCC#2. The incident is still on-going and thus free media could be created. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:George-Perry.jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:George-Perry.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Ferentz.JPG

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Ferentz.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:UllaAkselsonPic.jpg

It was uploaded to illustrate the article about Swedish actresse Ulla Akselson, but the source made a big mistake: it depicts Inger Taube, from Bo Widerberg's 1963 film Barnvagnen, where she played alongside Ulla Akselson. See Imdb photos for that movie (including this one depicting Ulla Akselson). Since the name of the file is incorrect and since there's no article about Inger Taube, we don't need that photograph. TwøWiñgš Talk to me 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

File:Sync 4 on a 2025 F-150 Lariat PowerBoost.jpg

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ford F-150 (fourteenth generation) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre You will need to educate me on how my pictures of my new truck's Sync 4—that I put into a particular operating mode—(for the Ford Sync article—is some how a violation. There are other photographs on Commons and Wikipedia of vehicle interiors, dashboards, and instrument clusters (here are some examples: 1, 2, 3). I struggle to understand why this is so different that it is a violation and that I cannot share my one photographs of it as I am using my truck for day-to-day tasks. --McChizzle (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/add FUR (if needed) I see no component of this that would be remotely copyrightable. Literally everything there is generic clipart and lacks originality. The maps are identical to maps that are long out of date. At a bare minimum, even if it's copyrighted, a single image of the operating screen isn't inappropriate for the article about the software. Buffs (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Ernst making Lissajous Figures 1942.jpg

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

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]

File:Cowboy X - Hot Press July 2006.jpg

Unused non-free images, uploaded to Wikipedia in a misguided attempt at "referencing" a draft. These were all uploaded by the same user to "support Wikipedia notability" in Draft:Cowboy X, but they're being textlinked to in footnotes rather than being embedded in the article as images, and uploading newspaper clippings to Wikipedia as files is not how you add referencing to articles. A reference citation can offlink to the article's presence on the newspaper's website if one is available, or it can be a text-only "author, title of article, name of newspaper, date" if a web copy isn't available, but we can't and don't use our servers to host a clipping of a copyrighted source, and "referencing" for articles is not a legitimate fair-use rationale for copyrighted content. You add referencing to articles by citing the source, not by uploading a full-on copy of it to filespace. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

June 15

Today is June 15 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 15 – (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 15===" 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 8

Recent nominations

June 9

June 10

June 11

June 12

June 13

June 14

June 15

Footer