Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog V Mar Apr May Jun Total CfD 0 0 0 28 28 TfD 0 0 1 4 5 MfD 0 0 0 0 0 FfD 0 0 1 9 10 RfD 0 0 0 42 42 AfD 0 0 0 8 8 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: {{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 June 23}} to the file page. 2 Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~ Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2025 June 23}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated. 3 Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}} Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2025 June 23}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion. State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include: Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2. Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926. Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3. Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}. Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here: Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright. Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin. NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements. Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page. Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise. These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

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

June 13

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

File:Sync 4 on a 2025 F-150 Lariat PowerBoost.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by McChizzle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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)

• 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)

• Keep - a Commons deletion request is not a valid rationale for deleting a file from en-wp. I don't know if the Android Auto display falls under copyright, but even if it does, the solution would be to change the licensing and add a fair-use rationale, not delete the image. Countless other software articles include low-resolution screenshots; this photo would be no different. --Sable232 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Max Ernst making Lissajous Figures 1942.jpg

File:Max Ernst making Lissajous Figures 1942.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chiswick Chap (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

File:René Magritte The Human Condition.jpg

File:René Magritte The Human Condition.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mosfet007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

June 12

File:GOP Logo1.svg

File:GOP Logo1.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hydrox (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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)

• Convert to free license, the elephant is {{PD-US-1978-89}} (see c:Category:Republican Party elephant mascot) and the text is {{PD-textlogo}}. ✗plicit 23:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Transfer to Commons I suspected that the elephant may be fall under {{PD-US-no notice}} instead of {{PD-US-1978-89}} (presumably this logo was made in 1960s at earliest), aside from just "GOP" text (which is surely {{PD-textlogo}}. Feel free to transfer the file to Commons 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

June 11

File:2025 BCL Asia.jpg

File:2025 BCL Asia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 安狄 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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)

June 7

File:David M. Heyman.jpg

File:David M. Heyman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salscipnlia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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)

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

June 6

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)

• Move to Commons per nom ApexParagon (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem right. The author died in 1946. This drawing was still copyrighted in Canada in 1996; it didn't lose its copyright protection until 1947 1997 (the rule is the year of the creator's death + 50, not just 50 years). {{PD-URAA}} requires it to be PD by 1996. The current licensing appears to be correct. ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  "1947" or 1997? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Whoops, that's what I get for rewriting my comment several times. Fixed, thanks! ✗plicit 00:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Google books screenshot.png

File:Google books screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TrebleSeven (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

• Where does the quote by Patrick Stewart come from? ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Is it still a derivative work if the text is so small you can't actually read the quote? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

June 5

File:Astoria 1911.webp

File:Astoria 1911.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Orwell'sElephant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

• Keep See above.

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

May 27

File:Joseph D. Ward.png

File:Joseph D. Ward.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmcewenjr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

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 16

File:Iron Man (circa 2018).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: keep. ✗plicit 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image's role of illustrating Iron Man can be achieved with c:File:DSC09902 - Tony Start and Ironman (37081230641).jpg on Commons; thus, it fails WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: This article is clearly about the character in comic books, and as such, a main image of the subject should be used, and comics articles typically are allowed at least one non-free file in the infobox alone. The image suggested in question is a wax statue from the Movieland Wax Museum of the Stars (Ontario), so it is far from an accurate depiction of the comics character and closely resembles a recreation of one of the film character's suits instead. A better place for the Commons file would be at Iron Man's armor or Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe), not unilaterally replacing the main comics image. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Iron Man, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/United States comics work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group. Reason: Relevant talk pages for this subject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: The article is about the comic book character. Ergo, the infobox image should depict Iron Man as he appears in the comics. Unless Marvel decided to release a drawing of the character that's in the public domain - highly doubtful - a copyrighted image has to be used. Anything else, like a wax sculpture, is simply not accurate to the character as he is in the comics. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. An image of a wax statue does not accurately represent a comic book character enough to justify the removal of a comic book image. It is not just about the character's design and overall look, but also about how the character looks in the primary medium (with the art style and such). When I am looking up an article on a comic book character, I would expect to see an image of them from an actual comic book. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose flawed nomination. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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:Beatification of Edmund Rice Banner.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Beatification of Edmund Rice Banner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Br.jasoncfc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Description says this file is published "October 6, 1996" so it most likely is still copyrighted ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• comment no, the description says it was taken from something that happened on October 6, 1996. I strongly suspect the original significantly predates that. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  It says "Banner from the October 6, 1996 Beatification," which clearly implies this is a posthumous beatific portrait.

  This BBC article also says the artwork is copyrighted, but it doesn't say who exactly. Going off its list of credits, it appears to be "Edmund Rice Primary School." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Rice was beatified in 1996, meaning that the portrait must have been made on or after that date. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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:Dance Again music video Jennifer Lopez Casper Smart.png

File:Dance Again music video Jennifer Lopez Casper Smart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is the second image from the same music video used in the article, and its necessity for understanding the text is not clearly explained. It should be deleted as it does not comply with WP:NFCC#8. Sricsi (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I added this screenshot when I nominated one of previous screenshots for discussion. Nonetheless, no objections to deleting/omitting this image when no one else objects. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Turabian A Manual for Writers Ninth Edition.jpg

File:Turabian A Manual for Writers Ninth Edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brieftypo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Simple text and color combinations should not be above TOO US. JayCubby 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep/PD I concur with nom. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lodestone games logo.png

File:Lodestone games logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sdh01 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, possibly non-notable games. The main article was redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodestone Games. 216.247.95.184 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete It was a company that folded. Non-notable...so is the logo Buffs (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:NBC Red Network.png

File:NBC Red Network.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nathan Obral (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This logo was created in 1926 (1927 for NBC Blue Network). When we considered the copyright term of these logos, both files are considered copyright-expired, and they may not registered the copyright of these logos at all. So, please delete them from Wikipedia and place the similar file at Wikimedia Commons instead. This discussion affects the fellow file below.

File:NBC Blue Network.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nathan Obral (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 103.111.102.118 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep both Both are clearly out of copyright/PD. I see no reason to remove them. If anything, they should be moved to commons. Buffs (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Kept both but transfer to Commons Both logos are no longer protected by copyright, assuming that they register the copyright of the logo 99 years ago. We could put both files at Commons as PD-US-Expired instead. 2404:8000:1037:587:48C2:8F7:4225:ACE4 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  If that is the consensus, given I uploaded the files (a long time ago) I can export them both to Commons. :) Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent nominations

June 17

File:CurseofPeladon IceLord.jpg

File:CurseofPeladon IceLord.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Comic master (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Purely decorative within the article, serving no identification purpose within its context. Should be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete concur with nom. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pataudi trophy.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: speedy keep. The nominator withdrew and no one in the discussion has supported anything other than keeping. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 02:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pataudi trophy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gihan Jayaweera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Former trophy, and not the trophy of the article Tendulkar–Anderson Trophy (as the article has been renamed for the new trophy that will unveiled soon), and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Only appropriate non-free trophy image would be the new Tendulkar–Anderson Trophy once released (sources confirm it will be a new trophy: [1], [2])- until that time, no non-free trophy image meets all the NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep for now. I see no reason to remove it as it is the current trophy. Buffs (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• No it isn't- it's the former trophy that's about to be replaced. And it is not the subject of the article anymore, and so no longer meets all of the WP:NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's still the subject of the article. The silverware is not the trophy ("The map is not the territory"). The trophy, as an immaterial sports institution, the award, transcends any of its material instantiations (could be literally any physical object), and the change of name does not change its essence or sever its continuity either. We just need to caption the image "The old silverware, while the trophy was named Pataudi Trophy". That is how the article is currently written as well. —Alalch E. 16:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  "About to be replaced" is the key phrase...it hasn't yet been replaced. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even when the silverware gets replaced, it's still going to be the same article subject. —Alalch E. 16:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's two different trophies. However, the fact that they're being treated as 2 distinct trophies with 2 separate articles means it is now sensible to keep at the newly renamed Pataudi Trophy article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Withdraw I would like to withdraw this FFD. When I nominated this, there was one article about both the Pataudi Trophy and Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy, named 'Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy'- and so this deletion request was valid. However, as the articles have been split, it is acceptable and correct to have this image on the article about the legacy Pataudi Trophy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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:Sssniperwolf Instagram story.jpg

File:Sssniperwolf Instagram story.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 1timeuse75 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free use image not used in any article. —Alalch E. 16:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete While it's not used, it had a place in an article until ~14 hours prior to this submission. BUT it can be also replaced with text and fails NFCC. I find it unseemly to remove a file/image from an article and then nominate it for deletion without mentioning it was just removed earlier todayq. Buffs (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't remove it and am not obligated to study the article history. I took a brief look at article history and found nothing odd. There's nothing "unseemly" in my nomination. —Alalch E. 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I find that to be a little disingenuous. Just 3 minutes before this nomination, you undid several changes and were clearly looking at the article history based on your edit summary. Now, I never claimed you were the one who removed it, but to claim you had no idea where it originated or where it's history was seems to be quite a stretch. Buffs (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  You said: ... without mentioning it was just removed earlier today. It isn't about my knowing where it originated or where it's history was, it's about my knowing the moment when it was removed from the article. It's an article I had edited before and have been returning to sporadically. I knew that the image used to be in it and saw that it is gone. I opened some random old revision from a list of 500 revisions expecting the file's name to be in it, and it was; I copied it and opened the file, took a look at it, saw that it's a non-free image, thought for a second whether to add it back, decided not to, and nominated it for deletion. During this, I had no idea that the file had been removed so recently. I was never searching for the revision in which the file was removed. So no: Nothing unseemly, not a stretch, nothing disingenuous. —Alalch E. 09:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Buffs 1timeuse75 (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with just the text written out in a quote, and also fails WP:NFCC#8 as having an image of the post does not significantly improve the article (again, because the text written as a quote in the article is just as good). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

June 18

File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.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: Deleted as a result of the parallel Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 11#File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.jpg * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Matpat at Washington D. C. 2025.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bukkarooo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a photo of a living person where other photos exist. Fair use is not permitted. GMG^talk 12:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Nom is correct Buffs (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete free image from the same event exists in article Traumnovelle (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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:University at Buffalo logo.svg

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⚡ 19:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:University at Buffalo logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

This is an old trademarked image that was inappropriately uploaded as a very high resolution svg format, which makes it inappropriately available for use in unapproved commercial products. Hjarvis (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

File:Daily Mirror, 22 March 1968.jpg

File:Daily Mirror, 22 March 1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Isochrone (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is off too low quality for anything other than the headline itself to be legible, and the headline does not demonstrate that 'Many newspapers reacted with hostility to the speech'; selective quoting would do a fine job of demonstrating this as opposed to non-free media. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Which is why the caption continues on to say and the ensuing row was covered for many days, as here in the Daily Mirror. The image supports newspaper reaction sections, and readers would expect an image in a section with very heavy analysis of press coverage.

Granted, the Daily Mirror is not mentioned in the section; the front page of The Times would perhaps make more sense. – Isochrone (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

And why is an image needed to convey that? A reliably sourced sentence can do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

June 19

File:Rosa Parks Portrait, 1955.jpg

File:Rosa Parks Portrait, 1955.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spookyaki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Textbook fail of NFCC1: many free alternatives exist JayCubby 02:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Figured this would happen, and I may be in the wrong here, but I do not believe that there are and free alternatives that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As I say in the non-free use rationale, there is considerable educational value in a clear photo of Rosa Parks as she was during the boycott and when she refused to move. The only other photo on Commons that even comes close to doing this is this one, which lacks many of the important qualities that make the current photo irreplaceable (Dr. King in the background, clear view of Parks's face, clear context; since the fingerprinting photo could be misconstrued as having been taken when she was initially arrested). These qualities are important because there are numerous misconceptions about Parks's age when she refused to move and the spontaneity of her actions, which are frequently decontextualized as being outside of the broader civil rights movement. However, and I do not mean this as a slight towards anyone (I recognize that attempts to remove the image are made in good faith and may be best from a legal perspective), I am growing increasingly demoralized by this conflict over the image and do not really have any more constructive comments to add to the conversation. I do think that the encyclopedia will be worse if we delete this image, but if it has to be deleted, then so be it.

Also pinging @Randy Kryn, who I know has an interest in the images on this article and in this image in particular. Spookyaki (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Spookyaki, there is no available equivalent to the historic juxtaposition present in the image. Rosa Parks is known for her action within the context of the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. The photo is a historical descriptor of the main two event participants: Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Her joy in what she is involved in in real time is evident in the photograph (a way of emoting "finally!" in a smile). The importance of the photo in tying together a life and its influence presents its own visual argument that it belongs exactly where it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete it appears that the photo is in the public domain and is on commons as File:Rosaparks.jpg. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  It is most likely not, unfortunately. Check the deletion discussion on that image. Spookyaki (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  My rationale simply changes. According to the archives, the image is indeed copyrighted. I question that assessment, but I have nothing to offer in contradiction. As it is copyrighted, We need a FUR in order to keep it and the fact that King is in the photo too does not make it particularly unique. I'll grant you it's interesting and historic, but it's still copyrighted and other photos suffice for purposes of identification. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• keep per ratinale given in the foto file Djflem (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NFCC1. The point of a lead image is to allow for visual identification of the subject, and there are plenty of images at Commons which let us see what she looked like. Note that the existence of a "better" image under non-free terms is not sufficient to enable the use of NFCC1 images; we frequently use somewhat ugly images of BLPs because the high-quality images are non-free. And if it's good enough for BLPs—which are held to a higher standard—it is good enough for non-BLPs. The various WP:ILIKEIT arguments above are unpersuasive. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Stéphane Trano, Mitterrand Une Affaire d'Amitié.jpg

File:Stéphane Trano, Mitterrand Une Affaire d'Amitié.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Librairiefrancaise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not the main subject of discussion. Roast (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fails NFCC + nom. Buffs (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Delhi) design.jpg

File:Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Delhi) design.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rishabsingh.nitt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Free images of the stadium post renovation will show all of the features in this image, so also fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Concur w/ nom. This isn't necessary and fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:N.F.-Board logo.svg

File:N.F.-Board logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kxeon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete I see no reason the .png file shouldn't be used in lieu of a lower res .svg Buffs (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's a vectorisation of a image that is, in most circumstances only available in PNG/JPG form, and of really low resolution. I ended up getting caught up in other things so I couldn't respond until 23:00; but if need be, this SVG could be edited to basically copy the PNG that Kit uploaded, and could, possibly, inherently be called a superior version to the PNG version of which Kit had uploaded. wikipedia-kxeon  mailbox 03:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  The point is that this is a derivative work. It cannot obtain new copyright without substantial changes. It is not labeled correctly. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The article is using 2 non-free images, and thus violating WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. Either File:N.F.-Board logo.svg or File:NF-Board.png (the non-free version on en.Wikipedia) must therefore be removed and deleted to comply with NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Based on this upload, it appears the images are mislabeled and are not non-free. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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

June 20

File:Limited Edition Cover Beyonce.png

File:Limited Edition Cover Beyonce.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hstoops (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not sure if this file qualifies WP:NFCC criterion 3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." There is already a standard cover used in the Infobox. Also per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover: An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. This cover is for certain editions and is not widely distributed, and what's more it's not subject to critical analysis to warrant inclusion. Ippantekina (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's comments. Buffs (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

June 21

File:Rahim thamby chik.jpg

File:Rahim thamby chik.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Riccckyyy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rahim thamby chik.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

June 22

File:English whisky GI (front page).jpeg

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: speedy keep withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:English whisky GI (front page).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChefBear01 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that this image has been released under the OGL; the link provided is only a copy of the OGL. See the source, which contains no indication of licensing information. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but this seems non-free. It certainly is not CC BY-SA 4.0, as claimed. Delete as a copyvio. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page on the English whisky GI it says that all content is released under Crown Copyright unless stated otherwise, please see the link below.ChefBear01 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names/english-whisky-slash-english-whiskey

“All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated”ChefBear01 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: Thank you for including the original source; I now support relicensing to OGL v3 (the current tag says OGL v1.0) and moving to Commons so others can make use of the image. Happy to withdraw with that outcome. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster thank you I am glad this could easily and quickly be resolved. ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

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:Astran.JPG

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

The CC BY-SA 4.0/GFDL attribution requirements of the article in the image cannot be met because the article was deleted, and there don't seem to be any surviving archives of the its history log – the Wayback Machine has an archive of the article here that seems to match the revision shown in the image, but there doesn't seem to be a corresponding archive of its page history.

The image was originally being used with a non-free media use rationale before someone removed it (probably in error), but I don't think the image meets WP:NFCC; the image's original use rationale said it was to give a concrete example in Reliability of Wikipedia, and that it wasn't replaceable because the depicted article was deleted, but this could easily be replaced with something from WP:HOAXLIST with a surviving history log. {{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 18:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Prof-Dr-Ram Chander Sihag.pdf

File:Prof-Dr-Ram Chander Sihag.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jvardhan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No license; unused; wrong file format; I have no idea who on Earth this is supposed to depict. Duckmather (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Image of Adil Mukhi.jpg

File:Image of Adil Mukhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adilm0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused personal file. Out of scope. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

License has been updated Adilm0 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dr. Interested Picture.png

File:Dr. Interested Picture.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adilm0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused personal file. Out of scope. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

License has been updated Adilm0 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

June 23

File:Terranova-killed Battaglia.jpg

File:Terranova-killed Battaglia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonCalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

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

File:Naama Levy being taken hostage by Hamas (image 2).jpg

File:Naama Levy being taken hostage by Hamas (image 2).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Mountain of Eden (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Reason: Per BLP, NPOV, CTOP and NOTNEWS. The image was uploaded twice by Loksmythe (a sock of Plot Spoiler) and then by The Mountain of Eden, who was TBAN.
The article had enough sources, which showed Levy when she was kidnapped. Therefore, the image was not needed, and this image was much better.
Today a letter from Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif to Hassan Nasrallah and Saeed Izadi was revealed, and this FfD was a part of the agenda of its letter. Wikipedia is not FREESPEECH. _Dgw|Talk 10:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The image is the only image of her kidnapping in the article. Your reasoning seems unclear, at least to me. What does the report in walla have to do with anything that Wikipedia editors decide based on our policies and guidelines? By the way, I don't know whether it is relevant to you, but the Loksmythe, Plot Spoiler, The Mountain of Eden accounts are what people like to label 'pro-Israel' accounts, so the 'and this FfD was a part of the agenda of its letter' is a little confusing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The image was created by Hamas, not by Loksmythe and The Mountain of Eden. _Dgw|Talk 10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is completely obvious. It was recorded by Palestinian militants, and it was added by a 'pro-Israel' editor. So what? Why am I supposed to care? Pointing to a policy would be helpful for people. The IDF are involved in acts of mass violence against civilians. Are we going to remove images created by the IDF? Why would we do that? Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

WAX. _Dgw|Talk 11:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to the picture. This photo (and some others), was probably the reason Levy's capture became individually notable and gave rise to many articles throughout the world (and the WP article?). Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Footer

Today is June 23 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 23 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===June 23===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.