Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	3	21	24
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	3	78	81
AfD	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:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 February 25}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 February 25}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2025 February 25}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

February 15

File:Bucher rolleiflex.jpg

[edit]

There is no evidence that image was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука¹³ 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a photo governed by Italian law. Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This is pretty clearly the latter. As this was clearly created in the 50s or MAYBE early 60s (based on the publications at the time), this pretty clearly was in the public domain in 1989 in the US (though this photo doesn't claim that). If it isn't, it certainly is by now in Italy and should be kept with a FUR if you find otherwise. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication? No source is provided in the Italian Wikipedia upload.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of publication is irrelevant under Italian copyright protections. It's only protected from its creation date, not publication date. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what year and under what law did this image enter the public domain in the United States? — Ирука¹³ 16:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

[edit]

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark PD. Mere reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

February 18

File:UNCG Julius Foust Building.jpg

The copyright statement on original web source/page of the page said the file can only used for "personal, educational or research purposes only", that is not a free licence and thus cannot upload to the Commons. Also, free licence files are available to the Julius Foust Building. Saimmx (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC criteria...practically all of 'em. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:If i could turn back time.ogg

Doubtful that the sample is needed just to hear what it sounds like. Doubtful such use exemplifies contextual significance, meaning deleting this sample wouldn't impact the understanding of the song, by any means. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hearing "just" what a song sounds like in an article dedicated specifically to said song is of uttermost importance. A brief clip to illustrate what the song sounds like is acceptable under fair use to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. People who come to Wikipedia aren't all music scholars who could understand the composition just by using text description. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This short sound clip of If I Could Turn Back Time is a portion of the song's refrain. It meets the contextual significance criterion defined in WP:NFC#CS because it allows the reader to identify the song that is the subject of discussion in the article. Literally, the title of the song, If I Could Turn Back Time, is sung throughout the clip. It is not simply a song demonstration — it is a portion of the song that defines the work. - tucoxn\^talk 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm perplexed by this nomination. If you want to remove all music samples, then I can see a justification. However, we've said such music samples are allowed and this fits the necessary criteria to a T...not sure what your point is. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

February 19

File:1928–29 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg

This file looks like it would have been published in the 1929 edition of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign yearbook. I think the hidden version can be undeleted and moved to Commons. Brought to FfD rather than requests for undeletion because a review thinks there is no evidence of publication before 1930. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & mark as PD I think it's pretty clear that it's a yearbook photo. Even if it was a standalone photo, it was clearly first published in 1929 in the US and that's clearly PD. AAAAAAAND even if it was 1930+, I see no evidence in copyright records of such a photo or yearbook registered & maintained as required. It's PD. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. No evidence of publication before 1930. No evidence that the photo was published after without copyright notice. — Ирука¹³ 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, this was very likely a yearbook photo. Lo and behold, that's exactly what it was. Clearly published before 1930. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Illio Yearbooks were published with a copyright prior to at least 1937 according to the US Copyright Office records. Buffs (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoJo-Too Little Too Late (2018).ogg

Lacking in any commentary in the prose of Too Little Too Late (doesn't appear to be mentioned at all in the article aside from the caption on the file placement), and is placed right below an excerpt of the same portion of the song from the original recording. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why a clip from the 2018 version of the song is needed in the article. This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8. Indeed, 2018 appears nowhere in the article, except the references. - tucoxn\^talk 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree w/ Nom. I see no need to include it. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bradley Cooper - Maybe It's Time.jpg

Don’t know what the uploader means by “official covert art”. This is an image from the album’s/movie’s promotional rollout, but it was not used as a cover for that song anywhere. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Buffs (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Kirtap92 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Oxford Reference.jpg

Replaced by public domain SVG logo at Oxforf Reference ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Oxford Reference ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superceded. Uncontroversial. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for non-free image. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

File:Boney M. - Love Sale Sale (US).jpg

This (alternative) cover art was previously discussed in the now-defunct venue. Fast forward to eleven years later, I think I may have second thoughts about this image's contextual significance and ability to be not excessive and redundant. The (other) standard cover art has sourced critical commentary; this one may not, on the other hand. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary/redundant Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Misericorde Volume One screenshot.png

Gameplay screenshot without gameplay section (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 08:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two short sentences were added. Their essence: "the gameplay of the game is standard for visual novel games; you can see a free image of the gameplay at the link" (WP:NFC#UUI#6 + WP:NFCC#1 (text) + #8 ..its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding). — Ирука¹³ 16:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say this nomination is borderline disruptive in the sense of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - why not just add in the section then? But given that I have now added a gameplay section, the rationale is entirely moot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

File:Canaan with President Lahoud.jpg

No evidence that this image was taken by a government employee. No link given to a government source, and the disclaimer "The name (and official business) of the U.S. department employee who took this photograph in Lebanon is classified" is insufficient. In ticket:2025022110008465, someone claiming to be the uploader has said that they fraudulently claimed it was taken by a U.S. government employee when uploading, but even without their ticket there is no evidence that this licensing is appropriate. Note that a previous "no permission" speedy deletion was declined by Explicit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient licensing information. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no proof of permission nor the creator of the image. The fact that it's attributed to an unnamed U.S. official whose identity is "classified" is absolutely absurd. That's just not how it works. If this image was part of a covert operation then how can it exist or be used? Ridiculous. Mesoutopia (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal Kids Resort Theme Art.jpg

Fails. WP:NFCC8, not primary topic --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Ирука¹³ 18:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

File:SnivyPlushWithFlowers.png

c:COM:TOYS. ✗plicit 00:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing with no usage in the main space. Salavat (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the toy carries its own copyright as a work of 3D art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Makes sense but then why do we have clear pictures of Pokémon Centers with the plushes in the distance OR manholes with Pokémon on them OR AIRPLANES WITH POKÉMON ON THEM?

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 19:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ILike Leavanny: I can't speak to all these images, but some may fall under de minimis or freedom of panorama laws. Tenpop421 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think my photo of my Snivy plush and my Armaldo plush should be removed in case there are any more copyright problems.

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per uploader's comment. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Philip Low from Youtube video

This image of Philip Low from a Youtube video was originally uploaded to Wikipedia with a CC-BY license, as per the video's original description (see this archive). Since the upload to Wikipedia, the uploader of the Youtube video has modified the description so that it states the video is copyrighted (as per this current link). I originally PRODed this, but after a discussion on Chetsford's talk page where this previous license came to light, I'm uncertain about the copyright issues. Does Wikipedia regard Creative Commons licenses as revocable? The sources I've found ([1], [2]) aren't clear on the legal issues.

Chetsford also brought up the issue of BLP, as the subject of these images may not want a free image of himself on Wikipedia. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you very much to Tenpop421 for his diligent investigative work here. It appears the subject may have contacted the video uploader and had the license changed on this several years-old video literally within hours of it being uploaded to WP. I'm the uploader and I support delete on two grounds. First, the Creative Commons license -- as Tenpop421 pointed out -- is somewhat ambiguous and we may be better to err on the side of caution for images of low, overall value to the project, and I think this counts as one such. It's a simple, low-resolution headshot of no historic value and of a person who may be notable by our standards, but is probably not a public figure.

Second, from a non-copyright standpoint, WP:IMAGEPOL directs we not host images that are likely to demean or ridicule the subject. While the image seems fine to me, the fact that the subject went to somewhat extraordinary lengths to have the license changed on this image suggests that they (rightly or wrongly) feel demeaned by it. (As a general proscription, we usually don't screen capture headshots at odd moments where a person's face appears contorted into an unnatural pose.) The standard of "likely" to demean is softer than "does" demean and I think a likelihood is more-or-less established in this instance. (The circumstances here are somewhat qualitatively different from a public figure who merely expressed performative discomfort out of avarice or spite at WP or to control some aspect of the narrative about themselves.) Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...for now. CC licenses cannot be revoked per the terms of their license. [3] Legal scholars have confirmed the answer is "no". [4] [5].

However, that is only part of the issue for these images. The other is whether they are appropriate for an encyclopedia or useful to people writ large in other contexts. I think the images themselves should remain as they have a capacity for future use. If nothing else, they could serve as a useful illustration within our documentation about licensing and people changing their minds. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford you are uploading files from YouTube with the wrong license, the CC license on YouTube is CC-BY-3.0, not CC-BY-SA-4.0 999real (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons with the correct license 999real (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

File:MonasteryofTransfiguration.jpg

Low-resolution import from Commons. Better images have been uploaded by Patrick Roque here, like File:Transfiguration Monastery (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 12-07-2023).jpg, File:Transfiguration Monastery right side (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 11-30-2024).jpg, and File:Transfiguration Monastery front with stairs (San Jose, Malaybalay, Bukidnon; 12-07-2023).jpg. Hosting inferior images is just no different from treating enwiki as a local image host site. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could serve some useful purpose. Likewise, the image IS used on a user page. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We only have a handful of images of this notable building. This is the only one including congregants and it is of adequate quality. It is not like there are hundreds of images, and it is of potential use, which is the standard for images being allowed under WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Indeed, it was in use for a significant period of time until the nominator removed it from the article it was being used in. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle don't you think that having many images of this single building, even if being used, amounts to enwiki becoming a file host? If there's only around 3-5 images of this building, then it wouldn't be tantamount to a file host. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3-5 images is not unreasonable at all. It allows for future editorial choice. The article on the monastery could be expanded in the future and this could be added to a number of different related geographic articles. You removed it from an article on Malaybalay for example, where it had been used for around a year prior to its first deletion on Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plagiarism and You(Tube) sreenshot of the scrips.png

Unnecessary image, possibly violates fair use. Although Somerton's plagiarism is described in the text, this particular graphic is not mentioned. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's also nothing in this image that is recognizeably about plagiarism or this person's channel. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with FUR. clearly illustrates where plagiarism originated and how it was used. While the graphic itself is not directly referenced in the text, its content certainly is. It's a low-res shot to be sure, but that's the nature of fair use. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

File:Rinpa-style-ink-stone box.jpg

The subject of the photograph is in the public domain. The source, author, and therefore the licensing status of the photograph itself are unknown. The photo has already been removed from Commons. — Ирука¹³ 09:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep...crop the 2D art~~ According to tineye.com, this image first appeared on the internet in May 2021 at historyofyesterday.com [6]. The original image appears to be currently hosted at Medium.com. I am unconvinced of the Alamy copyright claim as they have had numerous claims of copyright for PD works, but it does appear the photo certainly had the capacity for copyright in total. 3D objects can be photographed in creative ways that attain their own copyright. While a car design cannot be copyrighted any more than a headlight (because they are functional, not art) and are PD, photos of such objects generally are considered copyrightable. While this appears to be more of a museum illustration, it certainly has the capacity to be copyrightable. I would suggest we crop the upper lid of the box with the artwork as a slavish 2D art representation (and therefore PD). The rest is indeed unusable unless we can better ascertain the validity of the copyright claims. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. Delete. That artwork is already hosted on commons as PD in exactly the manner described [7] Buffs (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main image was deleted. Undelete request? Saimmx (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeffrussolivepic.jpg

It is unclear that this image is legitimately Free. The lack of information about when and where the photo was taken and the lack of EXIF metadata cast doubt as to the uploader's ownership of the file. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no evidence the file is anything other than a user uploaded photo. Missing EXIF data is not evidence. I can find no evidence the file existed anywhere on the internet prior to its upload, there is no evidence the file belongs to someone else, and I have no reason to believe the uploader isn't the owner. Location and date are fine to have, but they are not required. If you have something else, I'm willing to change my mind. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seventh Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Seventh Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons, such as c:File:Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred 1988 (filter balance).jpg, c:File:Sylvester McCoy Doctor.jpg, and c:File:Sylvester McCoy Doctor (cropped).jpg. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the image depicts McCoy in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying McCoy as the Seventh Doctor. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with image 3. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tenth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Tenth Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons under c:Category:Tenth Doctor. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depict Tennant in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying Tennant as the Tenth Doctor. Several are also shot while he is acting in-character. I have no preference as to an image choice, but several potential alternatives for images do exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with File:David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor in The End of Time.jpg DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eleventh Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Eleventh Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons, such as c:File:Matt Smith (series 7 filming).jpg, c:File:The Eleventh Doctor and Amy Pond.jpg, and if you want uncanny valley, c:File:Doctor Who Experience (8105543636).jpg. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depicts Smith in costume and in character as the Eleventh Doctor, while the image of the dummy depicting him resembles the character closely, and similar still models have been used before, such as at Dalek or Weeping Angel. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a cropped version of image 1, or with image 2. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fifteenth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Fifteenth Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons under c:Category:Fifteenth Doctor. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depict Gatwa in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying Gatwa as the Fifteenth Doctor. There is additionally a video clip depicting the Fifteenth Doctor in character in Commons, which should suffice should the behind the scenes photos be deemed inadequate. No preference as to which photos would be preferable for use here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a screen-grab from File:Doctor Who Boom Clip.webm. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

File:Rosé - Gone (music video screenshot).png

Non-free media not explained or justified. The omission of the image would not harm a reader's understanding of the topic and therefore it fails WP:NFCC. The imagery in the picture is not subject to critical commentary. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find myself surprised by my own !vote/comment. Usually this sort of this thing is completely superfluous and has no references...but I was pleasantly surprised with 4 sources and paragraphs describing the scene(s) in question from the music video. I find the nominator's comments to be either intentionally misleading or copy-pasted from elsewhere without regard for content. There is significant critical commentary on the music video, NF media is both explained and justified, and it enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image enhances the reader's understanding of the topic and is relevant to the commentary provided in the article about the video. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulacan State University Student Lounge8.jpg

File of a sockpuppet of Florentino Floro under "Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs)" username, but there has been a community consensus to nuke all of his local uploads on enwiki, to not condone his acts of evading blocks on Commons. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I discussed this with the deleting admin, who admitted that the deletions were not on the merits and did not object to my re-importation of the files from Commons (as opposed to undeletion). Files were all in use at some point and many still are. The files were validly released with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license and so they are free to use by anyone. The only reason why they are not being hosted on Commons still is because they violated local freedom of panorama in the Philippines, but they are free to use on English Wikipedia via {{FoP-USonly}}. The nominator has repeatedly nominated files I have been importing from Commons for deletion (see my talk page and archives) and almost none of those nominated files have been deleted. This is making me feel like I'm being hounded. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle to clear some things up:
- the files from Commons are still the properties of Judge Floro sock, regardless of whoever made the imports. Right now, I have opened the discussion on Valenzuela400 sock's files on c:COM:AN to propose a similar move to nuke all of Valenzuela400's remaining uploads on Commons. IMO, all files found on enwiki under Valenzuela400 authorship need to be nuked, per logic of that discussion. Re: inuse files, even some inuse files were included in the deletion, like one that was used in Quezon City article.
- I need to look out for your local imports of PH buildings so that I can collect all local uploads at my userspace page (User:JWilz12345/PHL photos FoP). I created this userspace page so that I can easily facilitate the transfer of several files to Commons in the event FoP becomes introduced here, as well as tagging files with (soon-to-be) undeleted Commons versions with NowCommons tags. This was already my practice since around late 2020, during the time PH copyright authorities here were considering for FoP to be inserted in our copyright law. As seen in meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama/Progress, we still have some hopes to have FoP introduced here, despite challenges from a Congress which seems to ignore legislative bills containing FoP. Having a userspace page ensures easier way to facilitate files which should be moved or which whose Commons copies should be restored instead of moving local copy. Enwiki does not have a convenient way to track or sort FoP deletions unlike Commons, which easily sorts deletions through categorizations; that made me felt the urge to create this userspace page of mine in late 2020.
- Yeah, maybe some of the deletion requests I made to imports may have surprised you, but I am not acting in a rash manner; all of the discussions are based on questions on the applications of concepts like WP:NOTFILESTORAGE and the aforementioned discussion regarding Valenzuela400's photos. We all have different opinions and perspectives on these concepts. If the files ended up kept, then I'll add those files on my userspace page, which is simple. If I were a "rash user", then I would have nominated 50% of your uploads, which I didn't, considering the de facto WP:FOP practice. That's why I continue to add local imports to my userspace list, despite my dismay on our slow Congress of the Philippines. Our differing perspectives on concepts like those I mentioned above doesn't mean I am already acting like a rogue user.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of your nominations are just suspicious to me. For example, this earlier nomination came just hours after I turned down your request to help with your userspace project (I was actually helping until you started to nitpick my attempts to help). The present nomination came just hours after I called you out in the other FFD for removing a nominated file in favor of an image you favored instead. As for the rationale here, the logic of nuking in-use images just because they were originally created by a bad user doesn't hold water. I fully support blocking Judgefloro socks whenever they appear, because yeah, he adds a metric ton of crap, but there are some good images that he's uploaded too. There's no sense cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's why there is no automatic deletion of banned user contributions on Commons, and CSD G5 locally does not include cases where there are substantial contributions by another user. I would say that for a file, the fact that it was later uploaded by someone else (me) is a substantial contribution. It's not even Judgefloro's contribution any more really. It's my contribution of his freely-licensed image. What if he starts a Flickr? Would we not be allowed to bring in images from there because they were tainted in some way? Collateral damage should be avoided. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle

Regarding the earlier Philippine Arena image, it's all about our differences on which image must be retained and which may need to be removed because of quality issues. IMO, the arena image obscured by trees is already an issue on quality. BTW, the image was not kept as "kept", but as "no consensus" (in my perspective it's "soft keep" that doesn't favor either the side of the nominator or the defendant/s).

Re: nitpicking, I don't see my reminder on adding some details to file entries (like names of original uploaders and links to Commons deletion requests) as "nitpicking". It is crucial that there is an instant link to deletion requests on Commons so that files can be revisited in the future in just 1 visit (no need to visit the local image description page and click the link shown by {{Deleted on Commons}} just to visit those Commons deletion requests). Somehow, my apology if you felt that way. I'm still firm on the need to add links to Commons deletion requests so there's immediate convenience in facilitating the file transfers/file speedy deletion (F8) tags in the future. I'm a type of user who tries to organize some things.

Re: Judgefloro, no need. He already has a Flickr account (and possibly others like angel_of_death_photography), but I assume he may create another one since those Flickr accounts are already inactive for some time now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:So Close To What, Digital Deluxe Album Art.jpeg

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8, the inclusion of this artwork would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is my understanding that deluxe album covers are not including, per the policy referenced by the nominator. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is currently the only cover available for digital editions which makes it more visible and therefore needed. Pandaboy3 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but File:Tate McRae - So Close to What.png is the more widely sourced and recognized artwork, making it more vital to the understanding of the article. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that she's changed all the digital editions to this version, technically its the 'official' version of the album. Having both would be beneficial in differentiating between the two as the original is still noticeable but no longer the 'official'. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 04:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this album art is not technically the deluxe cover art and has replaced the original as it’s standard album art on all digital platforms, including social media. Whilst the photo is not currently widely regarded it will be used as the primary photo in reference to the album. Especially because if somebody is coming from social media trying to understand what the album is, they will see this version of the art opposed to its “standard” I.e. requiring visual confirmation they are on the correct page. Nickname27 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is the digital version as of Feb 25, 2025. The original cover now only exists physically. This is not a deluxe cover, and the section title has been updated to reflect 2600:1700:67A8:A810:ABB4:A742:62BC:AC84 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the digital cover, it is going to be very recognized and vital to the understanding of the article. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The artwork was changed across all digital editions, including the standard edition. The original artwork is now only for (most) physical editions. It's more similar to the Miss Anthropocene situation, where two artworks are kept because both are standard, than to a traditional deluxe. Case in point: Miss Anthropocene has deluxe versions of both artworks that used to be included in that article but were removed per the deluxe policy. I firmly believe that both artworks need to be in the So Close to What article as well, since they are both standard now and the digital artwork is bound to gain prominence after the change. Removing it would decrease identifiability eventually. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 16:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith. If you want to have the alternate/deluxe cover, go for it, but you can't have the original cover too. Pick one or find something that shows how notable this second cover is. Otherwise it fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement: Arguments above stating the artwork was changed across all digital platforms, it should be noted as of right now, the artwork was reverted to File:Tate McRae - So Close to What.png on Apple Music, Spotify and Tidal. So the argument that it is the standard-use/"official" artwork on digital/streaming platforms is now unfounded. The sole platform which houses the artwork is the official webstore, which notes its release is only available for limited time. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Wakulla County Florida in 2013.jpg

Florida government works belong to PD, including flags and seals. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here...made the change Buffs (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nancy Manter Stay Still.jpeg

There is no mention of "Stay Still" or "flashe paint" in the article (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 09:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the artwork was an accidental omission. It has been rectified. It serves as an overall representation of her most important body of work. Mianvar1 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:190823040949-kurt-cobain-sweater-restricted.webp

Neither of these uses have a sufficient WP:NFCC.

The MTV Unplugged in New York use has deficient WP:NFCC#8 as it isn't used in the infobox for identification.

The use on Kurt Cobain is even worse as it's very easy to check that it fails WP:NFCC#1 as there are free options viewable at commons (with File:Nirvana around 1992 (cropped).jpg having been used for years at this point). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png

Invalid non-free file rationale, since a free (albeit worse) image exists, File:Hackleburg_tornado_tower_cam.png. E_F⁵ 13:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is very little footage of the tornado striking Hackleburg when it was at EF5 (best seen by this video of its progress), and the cam image is arguably worse in quality as admitted by the submitter, and additionally was weaker when that cam image was taken (around EF3/LE EF4, i.e not representative of its true intensity). The NFF rationale is thus, IMO, valid. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarioProtIV, with that logic you could technically have an NFF for every town it hit. creation of a free image is not possible is not valid, as a free image does exist. What makes this NFF "detrimental to the understanding of the topic"? The tornado looks nearly the same in both images. — E_F⁵ 15:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a free image that’s not terrible in quality I’m for adding it. But why replace a good image? The video shows this and despite their being a still image at around 3:45, that image is under All Rights Reserved on Flickr meaning it’s not compatible (was why it got deleted on Commons). Same rationale as the 2011 Joplin tornado image. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. Non-free files aren't added because they are of better quality than a free image. The difference with Joplin is that no known free image exists, which is not the case here. — E_F⁵ 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should try to find a better free image then. I did some more digging and this seems to be the only other good image I can find about the tornado, was cited in a study of the tornado and the author later gave an interview about the image. I’d have to assume this falls under free use if it was widely shared like this. I’m asking here because this is like the third attempt I’ve done with finding alternative images for Hackleburg but all three have either been unusable copyright (ARR) or (in this case and a separate non-free I uploaded last year) removed in favorite of a free one. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No image can be considered free unless the author explicitly stated that the image is free-to-use. I've also looked, and have found nothing else. — E_F⁵ 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As much as I wish the rationale of "the free image is of a horrible quality" was a thing, it clearly isn't. Departure– (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpongeBob SquarePants character.svg

Replaceable with c:File:SpongeBob SquarePants character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrick Star.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Patrick Star character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Krabs.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Mr Krabs character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandy Cheeks.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Sandy Cheeks character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is February 25 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 25 – (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 "===February 25===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

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

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates