Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total CfD 0 0 1 11 12 TfD 0 0 0 7 7 MfD 0 0 4 2 6 FfD 0 0 11 9 20 RfD 0 0 37 14 51 AfD 0 0 0 0 0 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=2024 December 13}} 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=2024 December 13}} 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=2024 December 13}} 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 1931, not 1925. 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:

December 5

File:Bosnian Cultural Center.jpg

File:Bosnian Cultural Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PeppermintSA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims that this is his own photo. However, this photo was online long before it appeared on WP [1]. The image should be removed as a copyvio that violates point 1 WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Unsure Did you try get in touch with the uploader and ask them for proof it is their file? They claimed to have taken if far before that website. I don't know to delete it as the link is for Sarajevo Photography Festival, and they may have just been apart of it. I suggest getting in touch with them via talk page. This0k (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

December 4

File:Agnes Taubert.jpg

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

Was originally F7 tagged because the source is Alamy. However, I think it's really likely that the Alamy photo is just a reproduction of a 2d work that's probably in the public domain by now, but can't track down its ultimate source. If someone with more sleuthing ability than me can pin this to the timeline, we might be able to keep it/export it to Commons. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: A crop of the same image can be found used here, but the work in question was published in 2023, which means it's still possible the image came from Alamy/FALKENSTEINFOTO. The same publication can be found here and the image can also be found being used at the very beginning of this this YouTube video. While I understand the concerns about c:COM:License laundering/copyfraud and don't have a problem per se with the image being further discussed here, I did try a reverse image search before tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 and only found the links mentioned above. Unless it can be clearly shown that this was previously published prior to it being uploaded to Alamy in December 2015, I don't think moving it to Commons would be a good idea because it could end up being deleted per c:COM:PCP. Even if this were to be treated as an anonymous work, it would still be eligible for copyright protection for copyright protection for the lesser of 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication if Alamy is considered to be the first publication of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

December 3

File:Robin Roberts plaque.jpg

File:Robin Roberts plaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Killervogel5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robin Roberts baseball plaque.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep The entire reason it was moved to Wikipedia was because it is derivative work according to the US copyright system. It will most likely be deleted at Commons. It also is doing it's job at the Robin Roberts article and doesn't seem to fail any NFCC or in this case Criteria for Wikipedia. This0k (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless a convincing rationale for non-free use on one or more pages is made. US copyright law is just as binding on the English Wikipedia as it is on Commons. The main differences are that non-free content is allowed under the narrow circumstances of NFCC and with an appropriate rationale for each page, and that non-US works that are free in the US but not in their source country can be kept here although they would be deleted at Commons. If the file turns out to be kept at Commons, then we can delete here anyway as a duplicate. Felix QW (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete If it's free, the Commons file will stay. If its not, NFCC is not met as we have free images of Roberts already, and there's no critical commentary of the plaque itself that warrants its use.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Rogo di Primavalle.png

File:Rogo di Primavalle.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FarSouthNavy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As long as there is no information about the publication of this image before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice, it cannot be considered free in the United States. — Ирука¹³ 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep It is before that date. This0k (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2

File:The Gayooms in 1970.jpg

File:The Gayooms in 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MAL MALDIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unknown date of publication, impossible to count 50 years. +WP:URAA — Ирука¹³ 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Infact it is very much possible that the picture is taken in 1970, and that's 54 years ago. That's because of the twins pictured (Dunya and Yumna born March 1970) are likely not even 1 years old when the picture was taken. From 2024, 50 years is 1974. If that is so and if the picture was taken in 1974 or after, the twins would be over 4 years old. I don't think any 4 year olds looks like 6-8 month old babies. Also a other fact that if it was taken in 1971, it's possible that there would be Gayoom's son in the picture, who was born in 1971. So it is very much possible to say the picture was taken in 1970. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

MAL MALDIVE, you're correct that the image can be obviously dated by the age of the people in it, but that's not what we're concerned with. What's important is the date of the first publication of that image. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it has been published in 1970, it would have been copyrighted in the Maldives in 1996 and is therefore still copyrighted in the United States due to restoration by the URAA. Therefore if this does not turn out to have been first published in the US and without a copyright notice, I don't see how this photo can be kept. Felix QW (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Simpsonsride1.jpg

File:Simpsonsride1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jroktwp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image contains copyrighted characters. It is not free. Given the metadata, it should be deleted; and a replacement taken from Commons. — Ирука¹³ 20:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

File:JFKRocket.JPG

File:JFKRocket.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JRC1285 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does Freedom of Panorama apply here? I asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions at the section, "Is this a sculpture or a rocket on a stand?" Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Batman superman.PNG

File:Batman superman.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Batman tas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

• Criterion 9, because the file is used in non-article pages, including disambiguation pages, and non-article namespaces either other than or in addition to articles and article namespaces. — Ирука¹³ 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Strong Keep: It is being used in a WP:Set index article of these two characters as a visual means and provides the contextual significance of the subjects. It is not an actual DAB page, as explained at WP:SETNOTDAB, and that ought to fall in line with the exceptions of the criteria. I see no reason to warrant a deletion. It was also just re-uploaded with a higher-quality version before the nom erroneously removed it from the SIA Batman and Superman where it is most relevant, which the nom did not really provide any proper explanation for in their odd edit summary. This nomination is over a misunderstanding of a technicality and lacks sufficient rationale or merit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, technically, you're correct. That image being in this article doesn't violate any rules that I know of.

..I brought the community's attention to a situation that I think violates NFCC - "my job here is done". — Ирука¹³ 01:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If it needs to be explicitly stated that SIAs are an exception because they are not DABs (which it seems is necessary), then that is something that ought to be handled at the Criterion page, not by trying to make an example out of one lone file. Since this file does not violate any rules, there is no reason it ought to be deleted or discussed in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Trailblazer101's rationale, the reader's understanding of the subjects is increased from the file's existence, and also, set index considerations hold true. BarntToust 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep It's the main topic and lead image of the article of course it has significant importance. This0k (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука¹³ 16:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously? It provides a significant understanding by showcasing who both of these characters are directly in the SIA without having our readers go to another article to figure that out. There is nothing wrong with how this image is being used in this SIA. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

December 1

File:Savoia-Marchetti S.66 take off.jpg

File:Savoia-Marchetti S.66 take off.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EH101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication date, no way to confirm PD-US. — Ирука¹³ 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a print, it was very likely published before 1978. Abzeronow (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

November 28

File:Backboard shattering.jpeg

File:Backboard shattering.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Left guide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural filing to seek wider community input to settle disagreement over the validity of speedy deletion.

• Keep: Both myself and an administrator who is knowledgeable, experienced, and familiar with the basketball topic area have explained on the file talk page why this image and its usage thereof satisfies the WP:NFCC#1 fair use criteria. Left guide (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Please tell us how you searched for the image for this article? — Ирука¹³ 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  By searching "backboard shattering" on Flickr. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  So you haven't searched in other search engines that can search for images with a free license? — Ирука¹³ 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  This could also be straightforward if someone can identify an actual suitable free equivalent. —Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Background The prior speedy deletion–related discussion is at File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg § Tag—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Not an expert and barely know much about Basketball but if it's a rare occurrence and no free equivalent can be found then it should be kept. If the person who proposed this deletion or another person wants to find a picture of this that is free to use then they should do so and then replace the file but if it can't be replaced then that sort of speaks for itself.

This0k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was obvious... but I have to repeat what was said on the file's discussion page:
Anyone can buy their own object at any time and smash it with a rock wrapped in a basket-ball.
Anyone can order a less durable object and smash it with a regular ball.
Anyone can install a camera aimed at filming an ordinary shield – sooner or later it will be smashed.
There are thousands of such shields in the world, thousands of reporters with thousands of cameras watch the games.
Anyone can order or draw a highly realistic photo- or 3D image themselves.
All of the above will carry equal encyclopedic information content.
Here, there was not even an attempt at a more advanced search, there was no attempt to negotiate with photographers to change their license, there was no attempt to find or create an image using our Wikipedia community.
This photo does not correspond at all to the spirit or letter of WP:NFCC.
This is not an eruption of Vesuvius, not a dead person, or a person sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum-security prison. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There was never a response to my CSD post at File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg, so I'll repeat it here:

I think backboards are more or less shatterproof now, so I believe it requires skilled demolition techniques to recreate. As for 3D/AI images, I said "I'm not aware" of their use on WP, so feel free to provide past examples of NFCC being denied on those grounds (It just seems we'd rarely need NFCC then if we're content with "fake" image replacement).

—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It is also clearly important to the article regardless so should be kept if no free equivalent is found. This0k (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The image currently placed also showcases what the topic of the article is very well and putting a 3D image would just look terrible. This0k (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, there was not even an attempt at a more advanced search: How did you determine that? At the file's NFCC#1 rationale, it says:

No similar free images could be found

It'd be a different case if the field was empty.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

And of course, anyone can buy the rights to one of these photos and relicense it as free. — Ирука¹³ 10:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Until that happens, none of the 10 points at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is being violated. —Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Point one was violated when the image was loaded. — Ирука¹³ 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree that a fake AI image is an "equivalent" or that purchasing an image and releasing it is "free". Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Only you here speak without evidence about "fakes" and "artificial intelligence". I gave examples of the opposite. Examples that are widely used.

Sure. To take a free-licensed photo, you need to buy a camera. — Ирука¹³ 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. With respect to WP:NFCC#1, I will emphasize that [n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Simply put, it is possible to shatter a backboard still, and it is possible to photograph someone shattering a backboard. This clearly fails NFCC#1 and the analysis ends there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if an existing free image cannot be found (I don't get the impression a thorough search for one has been done – one unsuccessful basic search of Flickr certainly is not enough to claim a free image does not exist), it's certainly still possible to create a free image to illustrate the topic (an animation would suffice), so this fails NFCC#1. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep an NBA backboard hasn't been broken since 1993 though I suppose it could still happen elsewhere. There are some images of broken glass on Commons but I don't think any of that will work here. I'm not sure throwing a rock at a pane of glass would have the same visual affect of a shattering backboard; backboards are broken by dunks, not by the ball hitting the backboard. So to replace this image, we would have to buy a non-NBA basketball hoop with glass and find someone who can dunk strong enough to shatter the backboard. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Only NBA backboards will do, others won't? School ones have no encyclopedic significance anymore?

Wouldn't a drawing be suitable either? Why do we still illustrate articles with drawings?

And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it. For free. — Ирука¹³ 19:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it: Whether or not this file qualifies, you either do not understand the premise of NFCC, or are just trolling, as you are already blocked on Commons for "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense".[2] Which one is it? —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I like how you ignored the previous two lines.

Should I consider this question as WP:CIVIL?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iruka13 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Additional comment All of this appears to be moot anyway. The licensing for the photo says "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" if you give credit and don't use it for a commercial purpose. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Guidelines requires that it also be released for non-commercial use. —Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's referring to free Commons files, not non-free ones that are local to enwiki. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  And the above licensing does indeed say "NonCommercial" use. I don't see where we'd be violating any of the licensing by having this file on enwiki. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ack, I meant it needs to be available for commercial reuse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in file deletion discussions § "You go first" reads:

  Whether or not there might exist a free image that could serve the same purpose as the image under discussion, the only issue at hand is whether the non-free image under discussion satisfies all ten criteria at WP:NFCC
  ...
  It is generally not helpful to achieving consensus to tell another editor what they should have done. Doing so tends to escalate tension, instead of finding a solution.

  An NFCC #1 rationale was provided on the template, yet there's innuendo on what the uploader may or may not have done as far as their search. All the while, there's been no other free, real-life image identified.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Such an image can be created.

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

— Ирука¹³ 07:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The uploader stated clearly that their effort was "searching "backboard shattering" on Flickr." That is nowhere near good enough to support the claim that a free image does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The original question they were responding to was Please tell us how you searched for the image for this article? The question was not list everywhere they looked. —Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If they had done more, they would have said so when asked specifically for clarification. In any case, the apparent lack of an adequate search for a non-free image (to support a claim that one does not exist) is only half of the story; given an original animation could be created that would suffice for encyclopedic illustration purposes, there can be no justification for using a non-free image. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If they had done more, they would have said so when asked specifically for clarification.: I'd say AGF on their response, instead of assuming there's some nefarious deception or withholding of information. I don't have a stake in this image, nor am I an FFD regular, but am bothered by many bad rationales here and in the original CSD. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No-one here appears to be "assuming there's some nefarious deception or withholding of information". Anyway, we should assume they did what they said they did, rather than speculating (or wishing) that they may have done something else. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, we should assume they did what they said they did, rather than speculating (or wishing) that they may have done something else: Likewise, stop with the "speculating (or wishing)" of what they did not do. If someone says they're dating their best friend's ex, it doesn't also mean that they never dated anyone else.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll just stick to the information we have been given, which doesn't involve pretending something else was done. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: we're really splitting hairs here on "could be created"... almost any image could be created, and the evidence seems to be that this image could not be reasonably recreated. There's a difference between the thing shattering during a game (real) and someone just throwing a rock at it (fake). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So in this photo you can see that the glass was broken by a dunk, not a rock? — Ирука¹³ 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Look, pretty much any scene or logo or image could be recreated if you try hard enough. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And throwing a rock at it would not illustrate a slam dunk with sufficient force to shatter the tempered glass of the backboard, often causing the hoop to break off as well. The image showing part of the game does. You can't just fake images. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 16:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

yes i can

and yes i do

all the time — Ирука¹³ 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

oh almost forgot — Ирука¹³ 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The guideline WP:NFCI reads (emphasis added):

  Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

  —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hey so I was able to find (I guess) photos of a broken hoop or backboard that I'd recommend uploading to Commons and using if you decide. As I don't think this will get any consensus in the slightest but it's you to you. These are them 1 and 2 Both are under cc 2.0 generic, a license allowed on WP. I think that (clearly) the first picture is better and should be used but it's up to you unless these don't represent the topic which I think they do. There's also this one [3]. The issue is I don't really see how this conveys what is being said in the article, the backboard is broken but not as badly as when a backboard shatters This0k (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those look like damage from either vandalism or deterioration, not from the force of a person dunking a ball, which is the context of the article subject. —Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I decided here, in case the discussion is closed by , to buy the rights to the photo. But before that, search properly. And these splits turn out to be a fairly common thing, and not as the commentator above says. Unless, of course, we absolutely must use photos/videos from an NBA game. — Ирука¹³ 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I decided here, in case the discussion is closed by , to buy the rights to the photo: Feel free to provide the Commons link when it is uploaded it and have VRT verify the new license. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Not only do I have to illustrate this article with an NBA photo, but I also have to upload it to Commons? Are there any other criteria of encyclopedicity I should be aware of? — Ирука¹³ 14:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Then please check another edit of mine: I replaced a real image in one article with a fake image from a program - perhaps I shouldn't have done that? — Ирука¹³ 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not what we mean by fake image.

An illustration or a model of something is one thing. What you're proposing is taking a photograph that stages an event that didn't actually happen. That's like looking at say, a non-free image of an assassination attempt, saying, "nope, we could replace this with a free content image" and getting a bunch of your friends to act out the attempt with wigs and a fake gun. It doesn't actually illustrate the event, as is also, well, absurd. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Not only do I have to illustrate this article with an NBA photo, but I also have to upload it to Commons?: I'm really confused why you claimed that you were buying the rights then. And it seems you've now been blocked for "Disruptive editing".—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to buy it when this upload meets all of the photo's licensing requirements. The licensing for the photo says "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" if you give credit and don't use it for a commercial purpose.", which is exactly what is happening here unless Wikipedia turned commercial and I didn't notice. Obviously we can't upload it to Commons, but I don't understand how having a non-free version of this is hurting anything when we are using the photo exactly as the author intended. Obviously, if someone finds a fully-free image they can upload it to Commons and this one should be deleted but in the meantime, this photo meets all of the author's licensing requirements and it's at least "debatable" fair use for Wikipedia so I think you're blowing this out of proportion. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: NBA The Flickr source for the FFD image says it's from a Rochester Razorsharks game, which is not an NBA team. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – I seriously feel like people gloss way too easily over the word "reasonably". If an image can reasonably be replaced. 1) This image is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA, which to my understanding isn't even problematic on Wikipedia (but it would be on Commons). As I think WikiOriginal-9 correctly points out, this renders this discussion 100% moot and something that should be closed on the basis of an airtight, indisputable fact. 2) As someone who's spent a ton of time digging free images of king crabs out of obscure corners of the Internet, it seems deeply unlikely that there's a reasonably obtainable CC BY-SA or less restrictive image out there (assuming that even mattered; see point 1) given no experienced editor here has found one yet. 3) Telling a free volunteer to "just go buy a license, bro" when this already fails none of the non-free usage criteria is asinine. 4) It would be absolutely absurd to insist that somebody could reasonably recreate this. It's categorically dangerous because of the falling glass and the chance of losing your grip and falling to the ground; not everyone can even physically do that; you need to have an expensive backboard that you're willing to destroy and good lighting to do so in (so you're preferably indoors); and you need to set it up in such a way and get lucky enough that you get a clear shot the moment it happens. Lastly, but not strictly relevant, the fact that this image portrays this happening in a professional context synergizes with the prose about how there are professional rules surrounding this stunt/accident. There just isn't a reasonable path to replacing this with a WP:FREER image, and more importantly, per point 1, I don't even think that would be of any concern on Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

November 27

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael Bednarek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

{{FoP-USonly}} can only be used for architecture, but this is a sculpture. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've replaced {{FoP-USonly}} with NFURs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Michael Bednarek: Converting the file's licensing to non-free and adding non-free use rationale might take care of the FOP issue cited above by Stefan2, but it creates different issues that now need to be sorted out. A non-free image of this sculpture would certainly be justifiable in a stand-alone article about the work itself if such an article existed; however, since there's no such article, the next best option is perhaps in the article about the artist who created it as an example of their creative work. So, the file's non-free use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir is probably OK as an example of her work. The other uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall) are not so clear and just adding a non-free use rationale for them doesn't make their uses valid. Erling Blöndal Bengtsson died in 2013, which means a non-free image of him can possibly be used; however, there are probably much better ones to chose from that this particular image, and there might even be a free or public domain image of him that could be used instead. The other use in the article about the Harp concert hall doesn't, at least in my opinion, meet WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS or even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since a link from that article to the article about Pálsdóttir seem fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Either keep in only Erling Blöndal Bengtsson or delete. Possibly, a photo of Bengtsson himself would be nice, but I think a sculptor of him is also nice. I don't see enough critical commentary to justify usages in other articles; the whole image itself (of the sculpture) not contextually significant to the sculptor or the hall that holds the sculpture there. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC); struck, 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the use in the article about Ólöf Pálsdóttir could be justified as an example of her work, assuming there are no freely licensed of public domain images of her work that can't be found to use instead; however, I disagree that this would be OK to use in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson, and it would be much preferable to use a non-free photo of him instead if a freely licensed or public domain image can't be found. The sculpture is nice perhaps, but nice is an insufficient justification for the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Uncertain about Ólöf Pálsdóttir: she's already a sculptor when you identify her. Is being a "sculptor" insufficient to readers? Sure, a photo of her work can help readers understand her skills as a sculptor, but the main issue is whether the biographical article about her really needs the photo and whether readers can already understand her without an image of her work like this. Well, I've seen other cases where a photo of a work is placed in an article about an artist or a sculptor or a painter or... Well, this doesn't mean this is no exception, right? Meanwhile, maybe the Bengtsson article doesn't need the sculptor image after all? I can't find ways to counter your argument, so... well, I struck out my suggestion then. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Icelandic copyright law treats buildings and outdoor sculptures the same. Both can have a picture if said picture is not used for commercial purposes. If the template does not fit because of US laws then it just needs an Iceland specific template (come to think of it the French have the same basic copyright rule, maybe join them in one template?). The template is not a valid deletion reason. Snævar (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, the image was deleted in Commons as lacking FOP in Iceland, i.e. FOP not given to buildings and artworks, unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wikimedia Commons really just deletes FOP Icelandic and French photos because they are not allowed to keep no-commercial photos, due to foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy. They even admit to it on their own pages at c:COM:FOP Iceland. Snævar (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there's an Icelandic Wikipedia and this file is uploaded locally there, then perhaps an Icelandic specific template could be made to work. However, since the servers for English Wikipedia are located in the US, English Wikipedia goes by US copyright law. This means c:COM:FOP US matters here and there's no freedom of panorama for 3D works publicly displayed in the US. So, the sculpture imagery needs to be treated as non-free for any photo of it to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, it is a non-free photo. I guess what I am saying is that "Template:Non-free 3D art" is sufficent for the image. It's use is allowed per US laws in article 107 (fair use doctrine). Then due to the Berne Convention and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy the local laws matter too - which in this case is Iceland. In Iceland, the use is allowed as an non-free photo based on article 16 of the Icelandic copyright act - it says that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes (c:COM:FOP Iceland) and article 14, which is similar but more restrictive than article 107 in the US, allows use for criticism purposes. Snævar (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  All non-free content needs to meet Wikipedia' non-free content use policy. Non-free content needs to have an acceptable non-free copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation. Changing the file's license to {{Non-free 3D art}} is fine for the copyright license part, but adding a non-free copyright license in and of itself doesn't make a file automatically policy compliant. The non-free use rationale part of equation also needs to be valid as explained in WP:NFCCE, and "valid" in this content means the use meets all ten of the criteria listed here. I think that could be possible for the file's use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir, but not really possible for the uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall). So, none of the discussion related to the non-free use of the file has really anything to do with Iceland's FOP. What matters is whether the consensus established here is that there's at least one way to currently use the file in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If there is, the file can be kept; if there isn't the file will end up deleted per WP:NFCC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC#10c requires that the FUR must be relevant to the use, but none of the FURs seem relevant to the use of the picture.

The use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir looks fine. Usually we allow a small number of non-free pictures of works by an artist or sculptor if no free pictures exist.

I don't think that the picture is needed in Harpa (concert hall).

Erling Blöndal Bengtsson is dead. If no free pictures exist, we often allow a non-free picture. However, are we certain that there is no free picture? He lived for a long time in Denmark, and there is {{PD-Denmark50}} which provides a short copyright term for many photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A Danish photo may still be copyrightable outside Denmark, even when fifty years passed after author's lifetime, if the photo was still copyrighted in 1996. George Ho (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

In Denmark, the copyright to a photo expires 50 years after it was taken (not 50 years after the death of the photographer), or 25 years after it was taken if taken before 1970. Photos taken before 1970 and first published in Denmark are ineligible for URAA restoration, but may have a subsisting copyright. Presumably, most pre-1970 Danish photos are in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Shoot! I didn't read further! —George Ho (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

November 25

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheInfoGiver827 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free: I think the original (04:12, 13 October 2024) upload does not meet the threshold of originality and should be restored and marked as such. The text on the webpage was very brief (see "words and short phrases" at :c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States § Threshold of originality) and the logos are already on Commons. A complicating issue is that the original file was repeatedly overwritten by more complex files, which may actually meet the threshold of originality. These overwrites should not have happened, as the original state of the webpage was the intent of the screenshot (described in the filename). I think the original upload should be restored and marked as free. This discussion was moved from deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 21 § File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png, pinging Aafi, Cryptic, Alalch E., Robert McClenon, Stifle, Jclemens, Hobit as involved in previous discussion). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous responses at this file's entry at deletion review
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The text on the image is well above the threshold to be copyrightable. So is the portico logo in the upper left. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) The logo is on the Commons as a text logo: c:File:Internet Archive logo and wordmark.svg. I agree about the text. —Alalch E. 01:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC) I agree that the text on the image as it is in the most recent file is fairly long and copyrightable; however, I'm specifically requesting restoration of the first upload, which was a much simpler webpage that does not qualify for copyright. All four of the component logos are also text logos and on Commons already. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Cryptic. Restore as WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. The original 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was erroneously uploaded as a non-free work when it is in fact not copyrightable, and then it was replaced by successively more copyrightable files, as the outage notice was made progressively longer. The original notice is historically the most important, serves best as illustration, and the file should never have been "updated", which was an obvious editorial error caused by editors believing that Wikipedia should be "synchronized" with another website to deliver the latest notice from that website (???), when the image only serves to illustrate the historical event.—Alalch E. 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Question - There isn't any record of a deletion discussion or a deletion log. Is this a request to undelete a larger, higher-quality file? Also, if the purpose is to move the higher-quality image to Commons, is English Wikipedia Deletion Review even the right forum to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) The revision with the full resolution 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was revision deleted subject to WP:F5: {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only. This was done correctly. —Alalch E. 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC) No action. The image is clearly above the threshold of originality. Deletion of larger resolution versions was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Can you clarify what you think passes the threshold of originality? The webpage text is extremely simple and I can't imagine a court even considering a claim to copyright over a standard "we apologize for the inconvenience" message. The text logos are already on Commons, so I feel like the community there has already made a determination that they are not copyrightable. As it is the low-resolution image is not useful for its intended purpose as it is too low-resolution to read the text. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Send to FfD as there is a reasonably articulated challenge to the speedy F5 deletion of the requested revision, which may or may not have the same copyright issues as later version(s). Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC) Send to FfD per Jclemens. It does appear to be above the threshold of originality, but I'm not expert and worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

• Delete. Logo and composition of text are above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why else besides non-free logo and composition? And which of the logos are non-free, and how is the composition non-free? The Internet Archive logo is already in Commons. Also, the composition itself is too factual and unoriginal enough for copyright. George Ho (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Restore to the state as of 13 October 2024 and move to Commons per nom. The logos are text logos and the text included in the original upload (shorter than the progressively longer text in later files) is not copyrightable. We could make this screenshot from the Wayback Machine right now and upload it to Commons, and it would not be deleted from the Commons. But moving is nicer because it's an original historical image.—Alalch E. 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Commons (some revisions only)  hard to fully judge without seeing other revisions. Nonetheless, as I see, the file itself contains logos and text unoriginal enough for copyright. Nothing artistic or creativity is used in text enough for copyright. The text work isn't a literary work either. Can't help wonder why the the file is perceived as non-free in the first place. —George Ho (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Original uploader are probably unsure which license to use when uploading the photo. Nonetheless, from my perspective, the original file should be restored due to the file name. Because the uploader, put dates on the file which is "13th October". The restoration of the image and move it to Commons allows the image to also be used on Wayback Machine article. 2606:1A40:1035:0:211C:5C8:490F:E2BD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep in song article because there is so much sourced, critical commentary in both the Recording and Background and composition sections that justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note/suggestion - If it was to be kept, it should be taken out the infobox and an appropriate caption listed which explains or uses a quote from critical commentary which relates to the portion of the song used. Additionally, the sample page needs a better description that n/a against the WP:NFCC criteria.

>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

November 24

File:Allensworth10.jpg

File:Allensworth10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

On the one hand, the image has an unknown publication date; and the creation date is the 1910s. On the other hand, this photo is part of the work of the Californian government, which is PD... — Ирука¹³ 17:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't have significant doubt that the image is in the public domain; in either case, as broken down by the nom, this was either {{PD-US}} by virtue of being old, or {{PD-CAGov}} . — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

November 23

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Antonbabich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The complex logo (?) is loaded over the simple one without changing the license. Not to mention that in the source it is now .svg. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Revert file, revision delete, and re-upload as File:Chambéry Airport logo new.png. This file is presently used in Chambéry Airport, where it is appropriate as a logomark. However, we should not be overwriting older public domain files with new free files, as this can create unnecessary revision deletions and confuse people looking at old revisions. If we keep the histories separate (such as by the method I've suggested or by a straightforward histsplit, we could allow for the use of both the old logo and the new logo in an encyclopedic way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

November 20

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The C of E (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946" — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep As per the template which clearly says it is PD if: "It is a collective, audiovisual or photographic work, and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)". The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

PD where? — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the second bulletpoint in the tag. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Convert to fair use (or delete if not NFCC-compliant) – Under assumption that simultaneous publication (i.e. thirty-day window) isn't yet proven, totally not free in the US per URAA as the photo was still copyrighted in Zimbabwe—a member of the WTO since 1995—in 1996. Should be free to transfer to Commons on 31 December 2044, ninety-five years after first publication. If converted to fair use, the image should meet all NFCC. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think fair use conversion would be a fair decision to do @George Ho: and I'd back that. I suspect I may have got my maths wrong when I uploaded. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

November 19

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phibetawiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep – I think it's under the threshold of originality for maps, making it public-domain. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geniu~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep CC licenced, please move to Commons.Techie3 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jax MN (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

November 17

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rublamb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука¹³ 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. The use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo which has not been found elsewhere for this defunct group. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The text in the article is barely enough to use {{External media}}. Once again - what prevents you (not you specifically, but any person) from taking your own photo of this object? And again, why, despite MOS:LEAD / MOS:LEADIMAGE / MOS:SECTIONLOC, is the image placed in the infobox, and not in the section in which it is described?

Are you sure you tried? — Ирука¹³ 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason the link you provided for the org is from 2013 is that the Order went defunct in 2014. There is no longer a national office to call for a photo. But I think you are missing the point. The photo was taken by a federal employee in their capacity at the federal institution (the national museum). Copyright is, therefore, not an issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason.

The community is 100 years old. All of its members and their families are dead. All - all! - of the merchandise is destroyed or in Fort Knox. Am I right in understanding why you can't take a photo of it? — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I can't take a photo because I don't live in the country where the organization existed. But I don't have to because the photo is in public domain as a federal government product. Rublamb (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Canadian federal employee? In Canada? — Ирука¹³ 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Canada has a federal government. Although works released by the federal government fall under Crown Copyright, "recent changes allow non-commercial use of Federal Government Works without permission". More info can be found at this summary by Dalhousie University, a public university in Canada. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's point of view, these are still not free images. — Ирука¹³ 09:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am typically very cautious about copyright, having received training in this field as part of an MLIS. Per a recent discussion in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, it was confirmed that photographs taken by a federal employee in their capacity of work for the federal agency are allowable in Wikipedia, depending on the laws of each country. Although Canadian laws differ from those in the US, this usage falls under fair use without written authorization because Wikipedia is not commercial. If the same photo were from a US national museum, I would added it through WikiCommons but went the fair use route for this image because Canadian law limits usage to non-commercial, which is not consistent with WikiCommons policies. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you even mention it then? What about "the photo is in public domain as a federal government product"? — Ирука¹³ 23:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Iruka13, would it mollify your concern here if we shift the usage to serve as the primary image in the infobox, to identify the group? These are now images that can be used in body text, which are discussed at some degree. We would prefer to include both a crest and a pin image, but haven't been able to find a crest in this case. The pin image is our fallback. Jax MN (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You will not use non-free images anywhere, violating 2 licenses, if it is possible to violate only one or not violate at all. — Ирука¹³ 07:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You are incorrectly evaluating this photo using the standards of WP:NONFREE. Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia. However, it cannot be added to WikiCommons because it cannot be used for commercial uses without permission. Photos added to WikiCommons must be useable by anyone, with no restrictions. It may be uncommon to find a photo that falls under free content that does not meet the guidelines for WikiCommons but it does happen. This is one of those images--it does not need to meet WP:NONFREE because it is a free image. Rublamb (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia.

Where did you get this information? — Ирука¹³ 09:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What info? Canadaian copyrights or Wikipedia policy? Rublamb (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

free license template that you are ready to put on this file — Ирука¹³ 17:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: For the rationale stated by Rublamb. Responding to Iruka13's (Ирука's) point, I hope that someone visiting the museum would indeed take a clearer picture, but for now, this image will suffice. As to placement, the F&S Project prefers to use a society's crest as the organizational identifier in the top left infobox, but when this is unavailable or of significantly (~too) low resolution, we opt for images of the society's pin or key. If both are available, we then place the pin or key image against the parameter | member badge = [badge].PNG, also in the infobox, or as a thumbnail graphic in the Symbols section of the body text. Both items help identify the society and its members, and in all cases we opt for PD images where we can, or reduced-size fair use images which do not affect commercial viability. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The participant confirmed that it is possible to take a free photo. — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (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.

December 6

File:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg

File:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample's contextual significance to the whole parent album and the TV programme questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Upon skimming through both articles, I don't see sourced commentary on this song in particular. An article about the song itself that also has sourced commentary might better make the case for keeping the clip, but none exists at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep at The Computer Programme, the entire category there is focused primarily on this sample. Delete it at Computer World however. This0k (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cult - She Sells Sanctuary excerpt.ogg

File:Cult - She Sells Sanctuary excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the whole parent album, whole song, and whole band questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance George Ho (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Within She Sells Sanctuary, there is a sourced commentary regarding the song from John Leland at Spin, which talks about the specific instrumentality (the drums driving the song, and the guitar being the key sound, etc.). I also do think that having the audio there substantially increases readers' understanding of the song, as it's kinda impossible to impart to readers knowledge on how the song sounds using words alone in the way that having a short audio clip does. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg

File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moheen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image has its own article - Tongue and lips logo - and should be removed from all others (WP:NFC#UUI:6). — Ирука¹³ 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Paul Rosenberg, with Odalisque in a Yellow Robe, 1937, by Henri Matisse.jpg

File:Paul Rosenberg, with Odalisque in a Yellow Robe, 1937, by Henri Matisse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coldcreation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the image was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. It needs to be returned to its non-free state. — Ирука¹³ 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert back to fair use Is the evidence not the fact he died in the 50's, and that's him in the photo so unless somehow it was taken after 1977(which is unlikely) then it's not public domain but I highly doubt it was. There of course is the probability it wasn't published in the US but once again, that's highly unlikely.

Edit: Okay so it's definitely not been published in the public domain in the US. This0k (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Jeb Stuart Magruder - NARA - 194667.jpg

File:Portrait of Jeb Stuart Magruder - NARA - 194667.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cybrchef (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file name corresponds to a different image, housed in the National Archives: see File:Portrait of Jeb Magruder - NARA - 194667.tif. The original source and authorship of this image is unclear and dubious: versions of it appear uncredited for instance at https://www.hullfuneralservice.com/obituary/Jeb-Magruder and https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/gazette/name/jeb-magruder-obituary?id=17145210. If Cybrchef (talk · contribs) is in fact the creator and/or legal copyright holder of this photograph, then credible evidence of permission should be forwarded to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) --Animalparty! (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think the licensing should be changed to fair use. The person in question is deceased so keeping the photo under a wrong license has no point.

This0k (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair use does not apply per WP:NFCC, because there are free equivalent photographs with credible public domain rationale at Commons:Category:Jeb Stuart Magruder. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that but it is not an accurate photo of what he looked like before he died. In that case I think fair use image would be better than a poor quality public domain image so I'm saying rever to fair use and keep. This0k (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Legoland Discovery Display of Kauffman Stadium.jpg

File:Legoland Discovery Display of Kauffman Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paulmcdonald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Initially I marked this image for deletion as WP:NFCC:8. However, then I remembered that there are many free images of construction sets. And indeed, the image is just a building, which, according to c:COM:TOYS, is acceptable (and individual figures would pass for c:COM:DEMINIMIS (however, while searching, I even came across a good image of Lego-Harry-Potter, so I don't even know)). On the third hand, this composition was created by a third party and can be considered a "sculpture" - from the "for use" category back to the "for viewing" category..? — Ирука¹³ 22:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – De minimis doesn't apply, unfortunately. The image is highly focused on the Lego construction of a baseball field/stadium, and I've yet to see the image treating such construction as trivial or something to pass by. The c:COM:TOYS is subjective at best; somehow, it doesn't explicitly address construction of Lego bricks. Rather it uses toy figures as examples, like toy airplanes. Well, plenty of photos displaying construction of Lego bricks and pieces have been deleted at Commons. As you stated, the image fails to be contextually significant to the entertainment center, meaning the omission of this file wouldn't affect such understanding in any way. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:KNSB IowaPublicRadio logo.png

File:KNSB IowaPublicRadio logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rudy2alan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this actually non-free? (If so, it would have to be removed and deleted as we generally don't allow decorative non-free former logos.) It appears to be the same basic logo as File:WOI IowaPublicRadio logo.png, which is on Commons and is asserted to be below the threshold of originality (or else it wouldn't be on Commons at all!). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:F5. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It's the same logo. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 08:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Question Is it below the threshold because it so then Delete This0k (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent nominations

December 7

File:(Free Wikipedia upload version)-Ambulance at scene of the Countdown Massacre, Dunedin, May 2021.png

File:(Free Wikipedia upload version)-Ambulance at scene of the Countdown Massacre, Dunedin, May 2021.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aubernas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC8 & WP:NFCC1. Building still exists for a CC file to be produced. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 07:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, this isn't the "scene" of incident but instead the exterior of where the attack took place. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 07:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Elgar Heath.jpg

File:Elgar Heath.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim riley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In the article for which the image was originally intended - and which has not been used for over 10 years - the event depicted in it is mentioned in one short sentence (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)). Also, illustrating anything other than covers with covers is not recommended WP:NFC#UUI.

In the second article, it performs the function of WP:LEADIMAGE, although it is mentioned.. in references! (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)) — Ирука¹³ 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

In the second article, this image, previously used on an album cover, illustrates a particularly appropriate 1971 performance of the subject overture, the focus of which is London, because Edward Heath is a public figure who served as a Member of Parliament from Greater London, shown here conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. I have not seen another photo that would more helpfully illustrate the article. The image satisfies all the other criteria, and as to criterion #1, No free content has been found that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says none of this. — Ирука¹³ 23:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep in second article Cockaigne (In London Town), it illustrates exactly what is pictured and what the entire article is about. He is conducting the LSO in Cockaigne.

This0k (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:TEDxBirgunj2016.jpeg

File:TEDxBirgunj2016.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hell walker guy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to TEDxBirgunj. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

File:FlightGear Flight Sim Bo 105 over Sint Marteen.png

File:FlightGear Flight Sim Bo 105 over Sint Marteen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 14gadkagdkhak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is sourced to wiki.flightgear.org where it is listed as cc-by-sa-4.0. However, wiki.flightgear.org sources the file to the website imgur.com (http://i.imgur.com/ve0u4He.png), where there is no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep I am 1000% positive those files were uploaded by the person in question article wiki.flight.gear.org. They uploaded many more from the same station. It is very common to upload your own files to imgur and if you click on the file you can tell it is a hidden file meaning they uploaded it as only the creators themselves have access to files or uploads that are hidden and share the link to others to give them access to it. Considering their profile it's highly likely their image. Personally I recommend going to the User who is still kind of active as they posted in October for evidence of the permission.

This0k (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

2024–25 Ligue 2 logos

File:Stade Lavallois logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Minorax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Problematic logo, only includes text and geometric forms, same problem with :

File:FC Annecy logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RickyDean76 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:En Avant Guingamp logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iojhug (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep They aren't problematic. This0k (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why do you think that the logos are problematic? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I said this because the logo only contains text, colour or geometric forms that are ineligible for copyright in the US, but I can get wrong. Otherwise, Paris FC, SC Bastia or SM Caen logos have the correct license. So, IMO, Annecy, Laval and Guingamp logos are ineligible for copyright. Thanks for informing me. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't make the logos problematic.

  For simple shapes, see this document. The first page contains two versions of the Car Credit City logo. The first one was found by the United States Copyright Office to be PD-textlogo, while the second one was found to be copyrighted. These logos may be of similar complexity as the copyrighted Car Credit City logo, so they are maybe not PD-textlogo in the US. There are no examples of logos at c:COM:TOO France, so it is unclear if they are copyrighted in France or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh okay, thank you for informing me, I will be serious next time. But for now, I let the others decide. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Clàudia Pina Medina audio.mp3

File:Clàudia Pina Medina audio.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingsif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Google Translate says that the site content has a {{CC-BY-ND}} license. — Ирука¹³ 17:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• No it very clearly doesn't. If you refer to the avis legal handily already linked at the file page, it says reuse is permitted for free and without permission as long as the reuse does not change the meaning or suggest it is officially endorsed by the parliament, and as long as there is attribution. That's attribution-only, and the same legal text that was used to create the Catalan government attribution template (Template:attribution-gencat on Commons). Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

1. que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit.

"1. that its meaning is not altered or distorted."

No? — Ирука¹³ 23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

meaning is the operative word. Again, this is the exact same legal text used in the longstanding Commons license specific to this organisation. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume that Google Translate is lying (which for some reason you didn't refute(or maybe my English didn't let me understand it)). Let's assume that the texts are identical (one has "CC0", the other doesn't). Only the sites are different. The Commons template is not applicable in this case. — Ирука¹³ 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You seem to acknowledge the legal text in both cases is the same but then suggest that it doesn’t apply? Just because you apparently don’t know the difference between changing something’s content and changing its meaning and now don’t want to drop it. If you’re admitting that you understand neither Catalan or English, I also don’t know why you’re so boldly insistent that your interpretation is correct when, once again, Wikimedia Commons has a whole thing for works created by the Catalan government. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please translate this sentence into English: "que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit". — Ирука¹³ 17:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"That does not alter or distort the meaning." Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But let's be clear, the translation is not the issue. Your ability to interpret it is, as I already highlighted that the important part is meaning and you just ignored me. The text doesn't refer to altering the content (ND) at all. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

True.

I didn't read until the words Creative Commons. That's also true. I wouldn't even bring it up for discussion.

But what the person below said is true also. — Ирука¹³ 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If the problem is that the legal text doesn't specify an English Wikipedia-approved CC tag, then the real problem is that English Wikipedia doesn't have the Catalan government Commons license. And the solution is that the file should be moved to Commons so that it can be properly license tagged there.

The Catalan government has always been descriptive, not prescriptive, of its CC licenses with the Commons agreement being "CC0 with attribution" (something that isn't in the regular licenses, hence Wikimedia Commons has a separate template). Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I have nothing against you moving this and similar files to Commons before the end of this discussion. Only there might be someone like me who will notice the difference in the site addresses and the difference in the text. And everything will repeat itself. — Ирука¹³ 08:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'd love to, but you can't move files that are at XfD. Close this so we can all get on.

And don't worry, it won't repeat, because (the number of times I've had to repeat this, how on earth are you still claiming otherwise) there aren't any differences in the legal text and the applicable template. I.e. there's no file problem that others would look for, you have been inventing problems. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes.

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. WP:FFD#Instructions for discussion participation — Ирука¹³ 00:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but if it's possible to download an mp3 from English Wikipedia, my browser doesn't want to show me how. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• It says Aquestes limitacions es poden establir mitjançant l’ús de llicències Creative Commons. I assume that this means that the file is available under a Creative Commons licence, although it doesn't say which one. As most Creative Commons licences require you to refer to the licence in one way or another, it is not possible to use files under Creative Commons licences if the licence type and version number are unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Template:attribution-gencat on Commons would apply, given the publisher and having (for the final time) the same legal text as was used for that long before me. There was an mp3 issue on Commons at the time I uploaded it, or it would've gone there. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Regardless it serves it's purpose and is only 5 seconds long. This0k (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 8

File:WKVAWiki.png

File:WKVAWiki.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tbone903 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I suspect this logo for radio station WKVA is not a CC-licensed "own work", despite what is claimed by the uploader. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Move to fair use. This image can be used on the article as it doesn't fail any NFCC's and is primary topic but I feel as though the rationale should be changed to fair use so if you agree then please let me know because I would do it. This0k

Update.

I moved the file to fair use. My apologies if you think I should have waited for consensus but that user is inactive and the logo being used under cc.4.0 is a HUGE violation of the fair use policy. I think we can close this discussion now. I also do think it should continue to be used on WKVA despite being fair use as it is minimal usage and also the main subject.(talk) 14:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Soviet Colonel M. P. Seryugin and subordinate officers at Gostishchevo, July 13 1943.jpg

File:Soviet Colonel M. P. Seryugin and subordinate officers at Gostishchevo, July 13 1943.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука¹³ 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Macchi C.202 rear view.png

File:Macchi C.202 rear view.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EH101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that photo was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука¹³ 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence to suggest that the image was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:The voice of Ryan Wesley Routh, the alleged attempted assassin of Donald Trump, 2022.ogg

File:The voice of Ryan Wesley Routh, the alleged attempted assassin of Donald Trump, 2022.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CMBGAMER 2018 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used as part of the infobox for someone with criminal charges. This sample was discussed at WT:NFC one month ago in regards to being "irreplaceable" and contextually significant to the article subject. Its clip length is also discussed. One voiced that this sample overall may fail to comply with NFCC. The most concerning would be the sample's irreplaceability and contextual significance. The clip length would be easily remedied but to what extent? Hearing the sample from 2022, he's a journalist for Newsweek Romania reporting humility of Ukrainian soldiers during the War, and the content itself would be easily summarized into brief descriptions if the article would allow the text reiterating that. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

December 9

File:Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png

File:Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I do think it's important to illustrate the character's appearance in third party material, and this particularly drives that point, but I can get it across with other material (for example her in-game custcene introduction)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: If reliable sources do not talk about this particular image, delete it as WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL. — Ирука¹³ 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also NFCC#1 - couldn't a free equivalent be created? This is a fictional character, not a dead person, after all. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny, but also true. Fanart has the same dual license as a photo of a copyrighted 3D object. Only here there is a redrawing. Thus, WP:FREER (3D) is applicable: you can redraw under a free license of the artist and a non-free one - of the object. — Ирука¹³ 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Except when the fanart is drawn from a description: then a boy who doesn't look like Daniel Radcliffe, with glasses, a scar on his forehead and a cloak could be Harry Potter, but also be free. — Ирука¹³ 00:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Image has been removed from the article after some discussion with Ganesha811.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:FREER since the figure itself is under copyright, as well as MOS:OMIMG. "A potentially offensive image should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". I do not believe that the removal of this image would make the article less informative, so insisting on having it in the article under those grounds does not make sense, the figure was not even licensed by Nintendo so it's about as relevant as any other fanart of her. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – However, I disagree with Zxcvbnm's rationale. Kung Fu Man managed to, with reliable, independent sources, put together an entire section about how much this character is sexualized by fans both in commentary and in fan art, thus the image to my mind really has no issue passing MOS:OMIMG (OMIMG should be applied not as a binary offensive/inoffensive but in proportion to how much offense it's likely to cause, and in this case, a statuette of the bare back and partial butt of a naked woman is mildly offensive). There is no commentary on this specific artist or statuette, and thus, as anyone can be a "fan", there's literally nothing stopping someone from just creating NSFW fan art and saying "here you go" to Wikipedia – thus, it's easily substituted. Edit: I forgot to mention that I support the use of non-free material as long as it's only non-free with respect to Nintendo's copyright. With the collectibles maker, there are substitutes, but respect to Purah herself, there are no viable alternatives to Nintendo's copyrighted character, because that's the subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that the image is not necessary to illustrate just how Purah is sexualized by fans. The image of her character is already in the article; and she is by all respects a typical human, it's not tough to imagine. Having an image like that would set a precedent to put some kind of NSFW picture in every single article where a character is seen as sexy. Samus Aran is a good example of an article where 2 images of the character IS totally necessary, because she is normally in a fullbody armored suit and it is literally impossible to express how she might be sexy without showing her in the Zero Suit (though ironically considered one of the most unsexualized while wearing it). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Gardevoir-pornography.png

File:Gardevoir-pornography.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is sometimes depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's (copyrighted) fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Ganesha811: I feel in contrast to the Purah matter, this one does illustrate an important aspect of how people are sexualizing this character by imprinting human traits on the character, which is something also discussed on the article in question but also in some of the sources on the Pokemon and pornography article. I do think on those grounds there could be some basis to warrant an image illustrating that contrast between the actual design and what's here, though this particular image's usage is unsure of: I had originally sourced it from Destructoid, a gaming journalism website.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but we'll see what others think! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: If reliable sources do not talk about this particular image, delete it as WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL. — Ирука¹³ 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also NFCC#1 - couldn't a free equivalent be created? This is a fictional character, not a dead person, after all. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811:@Iruka13: It's a copyrighted character, the same reason we don't use fan art images in infoboxes, and fan art isn't able to be uploaded to Commons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep at Pokémon and pornography, that entire article is based on this type of thing so it makes sense for it to be used there. However delete it at the other article. This0k (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:FREER. If someone volunteered to draw Wikipedia a Gardevoir in a maid outfit then it could be less copyrighted than this artistic piece, despite the character still being under copyright. Furthermore, even a non-copyrighted, generic Pokemon-esque creature could suffice to demonstrate the subject of the article, an actual Pokemon does not have to be depicted at all, unlike a game or movie where not having an actual screenshot would not make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's no free equivalent of this though unless someone were to reach out to the artist and they'd probably say no so Strong keep This0k (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  It does not matter whether a free equivalent exists, only whether it is possible for someone - anyone - to make one and release it under a free license. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – As with before at the discussion for Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png, my problem isn't that this usage fails to be inoffensive enough for MOS:OMIMG; it falls totally in line with what the prose itself is talking about and does a great job at illustrating it (both at Pokémon and pornography and at Gardevoir). Moreover, my problem isn't with Nintendo's copyright, as there's literally no free substitute to the character (as it's the subject itself). The issue I take is that a fan artist created this, but there are minimal criteria to being a fan artist, and thus anyone could create extremely similar art on their own and provide it to Wikipedia, leaving only a (valid) non-free usage rationale for Nintendo's copyright. There's no specific discussion of this specific artist or image in the prose (or in any of the articles we cite), and thus this isn't non-substitutable enough to warrant non-free usage. I believe this also applies to File:Gardevoir-PocketIncoming.png. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Many Artists do not like Wikipedia, that's why they often put their licenses under Noderivatives when it could easily be put under Sharealike as they often want complete Fair Use. This0k (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure it's "not liking Wikipedia" or just not wanting to see their work messed with or taken by someone else? It's rare that an artist would release artwork under a totally free license, allowing it to be used in anyone else's creative work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Actually all the points are valid; when I was setting up the article I asked artists about their use in the article, and several that responded emphasized they did not want their work to be possibly associated with any negative connotation towards such media. The image used was done so with the assumption it was by the Destructoid author, but they just took someone's art without attribution. That was completely on me for not doing a prior reverse image search.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:National Park 181.jpg

File:National Park 181.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard79 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, edited with silliness. No encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Clarification – @Explicit: What's meant here by "edited with silliness"? I get the feeling this may be a language barrier. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Please see it side-by-side with the original file File:Nationals Park 181.jpg. In the nominated file, two players are removed from the field, another is seemingly replaced by a different player, and the letter "o" in the Geico banner is replaced by an unidentified character. It's an unencyclopedic edit. ✗plicit 00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Transfer – I agree that if it's no longer actively being used on Wikipedia (as it seems is the case here), then it should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GeniusTaker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is unclear why this image is needed in the article, even if it were free licensed (WP:NFCC# 8 & 3a). — Ирука¹³ 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Yeah, about that. Because I already posted that picture from partially-found or lost clip found on YouTube as video frame into the article of Filipino animation as free use or public domain. I believe none of them restoring that series Ang Panday and likely not having licenses for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – Filipino animation § 1986–1995: EDSA Clearly demonstrates why this is important and has no non-free substitute: Ang Panday (1986) was the first Filipino animated TV series. That represents a landmark in any animation industry, and this is showing the title card. I see nothing wrong with its importance here as an illustrative aid, and no non-free substitute is likely to exist under US law until 2086. This is a very minimal usage with what I would argue is high value in the article and zero substitutability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Urduja with a spear.jpg

File:Urduja with a spear.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GeniusTaker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image in the article is not subject to comments. It serves primarily as an illustrative function and has a parent article that has its own image that gives an idea of ​​the animation. WP:NFCC#8, 3a / WP:NFC#UUI / WP:NFG — Ирука¹³ 11:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Golden Lion size.jpg

File:Golden Lion size.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ramòn DeLa Porta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

previous discussion
Per WP:NFCC#1/3a / WP:FREER (3D) - file:Golden Lion (prize).jpg. — Ирука¹³ 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – file:Golden Lion (prize).jpg, cited by Iruka13 as an acceptable substitute, is extraordinarily washed-out and barely even shows that there's text whatsoever on the plaque. This is frankly an abysmal representation of the item in question. The previous 2020 discussion got this correct; the WP:FREER photo is too poor of a source to be considered a near enough equivalent: the color is way off, but more importantly, with better-than-20/20 eyesight, I can just barely make out by zooming in that the plaque even contains text – one of the two integral components of the statue, the other being the lion itself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Keep per above nom. This0k (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:1960s-Peanuts-Magic-Slate-Paper-Saver.webp

File:1960s-Peanuts-Magic-Slate-Paper-Saver.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bruce1ee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

For a person who does not understand what is in front of him, this image does not clarify anything. Especially in the resolution of a non-free image. And, moreover, there would have been more than enough of different covers over 70 years, and, therefore, the image performs the identification function poorly. I suggest deleting this image and replacing it with any free one. WP:NFCC#8 &1 — Ирука¹³ 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. For a person who does not understand what is in front of him, this image does not clarify anything. I don't understand why it doesn't clarify anything. The picture is used in Magic Slate and IMO illustrates very clearly what a magic slate looks like. It also illustrates how magic slate frames were often decorated with pictures of comic book characters, as discussed in the article. A non-free image is used because no free images of magic slates have been found. I requested a free image on the article's talk page in April 2023. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A free image of this item can be created. It's not a dead person. — Ирука¹³ 15:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Are you aware that magic slates are actually no longer being made? Yes there are some companies out there making things similar but not identical. Regardless there is a chance there's a free file somewhere so I will look and come back to this, but they are in fact considered to be vintage.

Edit: Was not easy to find any free files of a vintage magic slate so Keep. This0k (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep — Zero indication a WP:FREER image is realistic with a rare, vintage, out-of-production product like this. Moreover, when nominator says: "this image does not clarify anything", I heavily disagree. I'd never heard of this product until just now, and an excerpt of our article reads: "The Magic Slate consists of a piece of rigid cardboard the size of a small clipboard that is covered with dark waxed paper on one side, a sheet of translucent plastic film that covers the waxed paper and is affixed to the top of the board, and a blunt stylus made of wood or plastic." This image immediately clarifies literally every one of those facets: the rigid cardboard the size of a small clipboard, the dark waxed paper on the one side, and the blunt stylus made of wood or plastic. This could not be more illustrative of what is being discussed in the prose. Despite how descriptive this article is, I feel I wouldn't have gained an actual understanding of what this product is without the image. It's crucial to the article's comprehensibility. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep until a free image can be found. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Deterrence2.jpg

File:Deterrence2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wharmening (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not in use in any articles, is WP:OR, and appears to be nonsense. PROD was declined due to a previous PROD I didn't notice. Can we just get rid of this already? Matt Deres (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's nonsense. It's an author created chart that explains an important topic. If it fails any FFD then try speedy deletion but I personally think it should be kept.

This0k (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research and is not a repository for un-encyclopedic images. If you honestly feel that it explains an important topic, add it to an article. Matt Deres (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete it then. Edit: I also want to add that I got mixed up and presumed this file was on Commons, my bad.This0k (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

December 10

File:Jhett Tolentino.jpg

File:Jhett Tolentino.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kiaoid1993 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I set the wrong tag. The problem is not with the licensing of the image, but with the awards. They take up too much space on the photo and can't be in {{de minimis}}. Either need to prove that they are not copyrighted or crop the photo. — Ирука¹³ 00:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Crop the photo Actually I just realized it may not be their photo. The best thing to do here is to crop.This0k (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:2025 FIFA Club World Cup.svg

File:2025 FIFA Club World Cup.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by S.A. Julio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that this logo didn't qualify for fair-use rationale, because when we compare the 2025 CWC logo with other CWC logos, this logo is very simple and IMO, this logo isn't eligible for copyright protection in the US (the host country). Should this logo be removed from Wikipedia and move this logo to Wikimedia Commons instead? 103.111.100.82 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't move to Commons Usually works such as this are not suitable for Commons. This0k (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mohamadali Khalife's Facebook profile pic in May, 2012.jpg

File:Mohamadali Khalife's Facebook profile pic in May, 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mohamedali18499 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned user photo, uploader has been inactive for eleven years. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 06:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Juan rullan.jpg

File:Juan rullan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eljohnson15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have doubts that this photo was taken from a real person. I would like to know here how exactly and when this photo was taken. — Ирука¹³ 14:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep The user that posted this is active so you are probably better off trying to start a discussion with them on the file's talk page or their talk page as they will probably just re-upload this if it gets deleted anyway. This0k (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:William Shaw (Illinois politician).jpeg

File:William Shaw (Illinois politician).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sahaib (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Public-domain alternatives such as William "Bill" Shaw, circa 1983.jpg exist SecretName101 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Sound of the Police audio sample.ogg

File:Sound of the Police audio sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the whole song questionable. George Ho (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no discussion needed over this. This user was taken to ANI years ago and sitebanned and I feel like at that point speedy deletion of their files would work.

Also Delete This0k (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 11

File:Indian Bank logo.svg

File:Indian Bank logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VNC200 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A low-quality fake (WP:HOAX) that is not capable of replacing the original image for encyclopedic purposes (WP:NFCC# 4, 5, 8). — Ирука¹³ 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Change your own file to proper SVG file, and upload it in the old file. It would be better. VNC200 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I inform the community of a conflict of interest regarding this image between me and the administrator Ymblanter. — Ирука¹³ 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iruka13: I don't think that's a conflict of interest as the term is used on Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GiankM. M (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Launchballer 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep As I am not sure since it's been done on multiple song articles, can a picture that is promoted by the artist be used ?Because if so strong keep as Kim Petras had posted it to her Facebook years ago. If this however is not eligible for fair use on song articles then delete. Edit: Actually strong keep. It serves it's purpose, showing who the song is featuring with the main singer listed as well, not just any photo nor is it fanmade.

This0k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:SteamOS Logo.png

File:SteamOS Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Argonauth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Outdated logo. Valve has released Steam Branding Guidelines, in which the logo is replaced by File:SteamOS wordmark.svg. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Outdated. This0k (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:W10BM logo.png

File:W10BM logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nylix4488 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete: Likely poor quality (as is everything about this station) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Sulaiman Adekola.jpg

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

Non-free (licensed under CC-BY-ND, the "no derivatives" part is important); only used in a draft. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

what does that even mean. JCFuniverse (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:6400 & 6524 (Coach USA livery) on Route 24.jpg

File:6400 & 6524 (Coach USA livery) on Route 24.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Danny5784 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probable copyright infringement. Already deleted once from Commons under the same name but then re-uploaded by importing from here. "© Arnold Binaday" watermark on each picture, contrary to WP:WATERMARK. There is an Arnold Binaday who takes photos of buses at https://www.flickr.com/photos/188967537@N05/ and who also has a YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/@DCTransitFilms. That channel has been active since 2012, but Danny5784 claims on their user page to be 16 years old which makes it unlikely they're the same person. bjh21 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: I was slightly confused about user pages; it's the uploader's Meta user page, m:User:Danny5784, that has the age claim. --bjh21 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. The original photographer: Arnold Binaday known as DCTransitFilms, gave me permission to use all his photos and repost it with credit. Danny5784 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

December 12

File:Mon Witt ALS (cropped).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mon Witt ALS (cropped).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Giphmedia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

uploader (myself) is recsinding copyright privelage and wishes to delete this image. Giphmedia (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2024 (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:Diab al-Mashi.png

File:Diab al-Mashi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zanahary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural open since only the tagger (who has been blocked for disruptively nominating files for deletion, if I read their Talk page correctly) and the uploader (myself) have commented on the file's Talk page re a speedy tag. For context, this is a still from a film, which I compressed quite a bit myself (though the actual dimensions of the image went unchanged), being used in the biography of a dead person (Diab al-Mashi). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep you uploaded it so may as well have just speedy deleted if you wanted it gone. I can see a template has been added but yes there's no need to discuss this here. Edit: Sorry I read that wrong so actually Keep.This0k (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment For convenience, the original CSD rationale was

• Criterion 2, because the file is used in a manner that conflicts with the market role of the original copyrighted media
• Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice[3]

—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I contest these, because the original media is a film that's over 40 minutes long, and its market role is not overlapped by a lower-resolution still. Certainly the "entire work" is not here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCI #10 because it is not unreasonable to seek a free use license from a person who owns the copyright in a photograph of the deceased, who only died in 2009. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  …what, someone from the Assad regime? There are like, three photos of this guy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Permission could be sought from the filmmaker. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Nepal Premier League(2024).png

File:Nepal Premier League(2024).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Godknowme1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not a generic logo of the general event, as the inclusion of sponsors in the logo mean that the logo will potentially change season on season. A logo without all the sponsors would also probably be below threshold of originality, and so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep As this new logo is updated when Cricket Association of Nepal singed with Siddhartha Bank for 5 years [4][5][6] and definitely logo will be updated in future when there is change.Godknowme1 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:2024 Shpageeza Cricket League.png

File:2024 Shpageeza Cricket League.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Godknowme1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that this a logo specific to the 2024 season, we cannot simply presume that because sponsor logos are included on the logo (as the sponsors may or may not be the same in future events). As such, fails WP:GETTY point 17 (generic logo being used in specific season article) and also WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep There is plenty of evidence that this logo for 2024 season as Afghanistan Cricket Board media release and other sites used this logo [7][8][9][10] I think this logo is used as wikipedia policy.Godknowme1 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• That all shows that it is a logo used in the 2024 season, not that it is a logo specifically and only for the 2024 season, which is what is required to meet all WP:NFCC. 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:I Love Rock 'n' Roll.jpg

File:I Love Rock 'n' Roll.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by YiddoGeth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Cover art not contextually significant to the whole recording that performed poorly in charts or the whole song popularized by one of prior artists/singers. George Ho (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleteper nom. This0k (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:I Love Rock N Roll sample.ogg

File:I Love Rock N Roll sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the whole song, the whole recording associated by the file, and the whole album questionable. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep at I Love Rock N' Roll (album),delete at I Love Rock N' Roll, the song however. Also edit on me saying it's really well known and highly notable, my bad but I have since added more information cited by reliable sources to the sample used at the album.This0k (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you edit your comment after someone has responded, please underline the added text and strike removed text. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Being "really well known and highly notable" isn't a reason to violate copyright. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the song's audio sample is notable based off it's use in the article because the song itself is highly well known and notable but I understand how that can come off as a bias. This0k (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're biased. The non-free content policy requires that audio samples be "accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary". That is not provided in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I added significant commentary on the album article for the song. The song article however I feel it's really not needed and may as well be deleted but I think it should be kept at I Love Rock N' Roll (album). This0k (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't contextual information about the audio clip. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How do your changes improve the sample's compliance to this criterion? From what I see, you favor the sample as some representation of the whole album. Unfortunately, the sample is of just one song/track. How are the text and the cover art insufficient without this sample? George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Black Myth Wukong, princess.png

File:Black Myth Wukong, princess.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cold Season (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).

It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Kang Jin Star.webp

File:Kang Jin Star.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by YuelinLee1959 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Plots subsection primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. While the Development section briefly mentions the game's inspiration from real-life buildings and statues, using this specific non-free screenshot is not essential to convey this information. The screenshot's current placement in the Plots section is inappropriate and does not directly contribute to the understanding of the game's narrative. Therefore, the non-free screenshot should be removed. Wcam (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Lori and George Schappell.jpg

File:Lori and George Schappell.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Declined F7. Should be deleted per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCI #10 because it is not unreasonable to seek a free use license from a person who owns the copyright in a photograph of the recently deceased twins. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep No free images of the twins exist and there are few recent photographs. Thus far, requests to relicense copyrighted images have been unsuccessful. A free image would be preferable here, but NFCCP and NFCI#10 are satisfied. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  If people are refusing to license an image or not responding, I think that strengthens concerns about interfering with commercial opportunities. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

December 13

File:IISERs Combine Logo.jpg

File:IISERs Combine Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eduworldedu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This not a logo for the group. It is a collage of the logos of the constituent members. So it does not identify the group since the group itself has no logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep "It is a collage of the logos of the constituent members." It's still identifying parts of the group. This0k (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep "It is a collage of the logos of the constituent members." It's still identifying parts of the group. Eduworldedu (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Split Enz - I Got You excerpt.ogg

File:Split Enz - I Got You excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the whole song questionable. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy Banner.svg

File:Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy Banner.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MustaqAD48 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Don't think this file is needed as File:Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy.svg exists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Footer

Today is December 13 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 13 – (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 "===December 13===" 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.