Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 24 76 100
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 2 6 8
RfD 0 0 24 53 77
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

deletion review
.

What not to list here

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is
    subst:prod
    }}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of 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.
  3. 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
      .
  4. 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
      }} 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use
    speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9
    }}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a
    subst:npd
    }}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the
    speedy deletion
    per criterion 8 for files.
  10. 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 March 20}} 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 {{

Ffd
|log=2025 March 20}} 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 March 20}} 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:

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

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.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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:

Remember that

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

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

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

March 11

File:McFadzeanVC.jpg

[edit]

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

Per c:COM:FOP UK, there is no freedom for graphic works in the United Kingdom. A lack of publication date and author make it difficult to determine if this mural is old enough to be in the public domain. ✗plicit 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

File:Socalcntyhighlighted.JPG

[edit]

File:Socalcntyhighlighted.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by House1090 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:Southern California counties in red noshade.png. ✗plicit 00:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

File:Tool - Ænima - Ænema - sample.ogg

[edit]

File:Tool - Ænima - Ænema - sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Johnnyw (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file's

compliance to be not excessive in size and amount. Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

March 5

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

File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MarioProtIV (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid non-free file rationale, since a free (albeit worse) image exists, File:Hackleburg_tornado_tower_cam.png. EF5 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. — EF5 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. — EF5 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. — EF5 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file on Commons has been nominated for deletion. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsince with the loss of the tower cam image if it goes under, this is the only other image that shows the tornado. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: repeat !vote Buffs (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

[edit]

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

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
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Whpq?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 07:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

[edit]

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zscout370 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems facially unacceptable to host a non-free image so we can have the "official rendering" of a coat of arms. File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is exactly as correct a representation of said arms, and aesthetic preference or anachronistic sense of "official correctness" in a medium where it does not belong is not adequate justification for use of non-free media. The stated rationale, frankly, reads as reaching nonsense looking for an excuse not to use a free rendering of the arms. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many talks about this before...... the official version and the fake version are not even close. Moxy🍁 23:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even that doesn't matter. If a free rendering is wrong, then we should fix it. Use of non-free media is reserved for when no free alternative is possible, not when it doesn't presently exist. Remsense ‥ 论 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make it exactly the same or it would be a copyright violation..... thus why we have this here. We should never present to our readers and inaccurate version saying that it's official when there is a registered version. Moxy🍁 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the specification of the arms are inaccurately represented in the free version? They can be fixed so it doesn't matter, but I'm curious. This is a coat of arms, so any representation that follows its
etically identical graphic is the only correct rendering is idiosyncratic and especially indefensible with copyright considerations. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
We have an official copyrighted version that is an official symbol. Almost every aspect from shapes to colors etc have to diverge from the copyrighted version so it doesn't violate the copyright. We have discussed this many times with those familiar with copyright for two decades now. This is what we consider a time sink.... most of us aren't here full time and would like to devote our time to other things over trying to explain the same arguments again. Moxy🍁 23:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know I don't like to relitigate things like this if I can help it, but given the copyright considerations it is irresponsible to let it go where I otherwise would like to. The basic reality of what the symbol actually is is being ignored. I don't want to waste your time, but I'd like to discuss the actual reasoning—that's not required to be with you if you're not up to it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones.... but this has come up so many times...so I'm wondering if the real question is are the user generated versions so close to the copyrighted versions that they should be up for deletion as it seems many can't distinguish them. Perhaps this proposal is all backwards. The copyright says "Any image so closely resembling this logo as to be likely to be confused with it would constitute a copyright and/or trademark infringement under Canadian law. As such, any free-use image would either be so significantly different as to be unsuitable to represent the Canada, or would be so nearly resembling this image as to be a copyright and/or trademark violation under Canadian law"Moxy🍁 00:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay focused on the issue rather than the case law, if that's okay with you:
For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones...
What is it? Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a whole bunch of user generated files of this nature..... So really what is the best way to protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement. Why would we not discuss this? File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Coat of arms of Canada (Canadian Royal Crown).svg, File:Canadian Arms Modified 2.png, File:Coat of arms of Canada (2022-).png Moxy🍁 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Billy Joel album covers

[edit]

File:Cold Spring Harbor album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CycloneGU (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Billy Joel - Piano Man.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Both album covers were originally published in the US without an attached copyright notice (sources: Discogs [for Cold Spring Harbor], Your Vinyl Shop [for Piano Man]). They are thus in the public domain due to failing formalities and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Your assessment might be correct, but the copyright notice could've been published on the inner or back covers. The fact that such notices aren't visible on the front cover itself doesn't necessary mean "no notice". Moreover, two websites hosting images of the covers without a visible notice could possibly be due to cropping or some other reason. Do you own copies of these albums? Can you check all the inner/back covers if you do?
    This might be the back cover of Cold Springs Harbor, and it does look like there could be a copyright notice at the bottom of the cover where you'd kind of expect to find such things. The photo used on the front cover could also be attributed somewhere on the back cover too. I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you gave is a 2021 re-release per the copyright notice, not the original 1971 release.
    I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. I think a statement like this could mean that album covers like c:File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg may actually be under copyright, but I could also be mistaken. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link I provided shows the statement "Copyright 1971, 2021 Columbia records a division of Sony Music Entertainment. Originally release 1971. All rights reserved by Columbia Records ..." at the very bottom of the back cover. It's hard to see, but it's there. Whether this matters I can't say for sure. Perhaps it it would be a good idea to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's where these files are going to end up if these are PD for not having a notice. Anyway, the description for File:Are You Experienced - US cover.jpg which is the source for the enhanced quality file you linked above, does make mention of their being no copyright notice on the front or back; so, it might matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg

[edit]

File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiaddict8962 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:ClaudeNelson-Williams Chairman.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiaddict8962 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The editor has uploaded many photos from different years and probably taken in different places. As they writes on their user talk page, they owns the photo album. I think this is a misunderstanding c:COM:Own work. I think in each case it should be proven that the rights to the photos actually belong to uploader. — Ирука13 09:35, 26 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.

March 13

File:British Airways Logo.svg

File:British Airways Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JetBlast (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that the image didn't qualify for fair use at all, at least in the United States, where they're very strict regarding the implementation of TOO in logos. While

Threshold of originality is very low in the United Kingdom, there's not in case of the United States. In this logo, there's a gradient, in which in the case of the United States, is uncopyrightable. Additionally, this logo is using Mylius font, which seems more like standard font to me (also uncopyrightable in the US). So, IMO, this image should be relicensed at least as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Spectra Prime Rise of Algorithm logo.png

File:Spectra Prime Rise of Algorithm logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spectra321578 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like a

WP:COPYVIO of one of the Transformers insignia, which would mean its been uploaded with the incorrect licence at the very least. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Recent nominations

March 14

File:Robocop the melting man.jpg

File:Robocop the melting man.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screencap from RoboCop used in the article for The Incredible Melting Man but the article for RoboCop itself uses File:RoboCop 1987 Melting Man.jpg, which is a non-free publicity still for the film with better quality than the screencap. --Mayimbú (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

File:Final Cut - Deep Into the Cut (CD issue).jpg

File:Final Cut - Deep Into the Cut (CD issue).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soul Crusher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

NFCC#8 is false for this secondary image of an alternate cover design: The claim is wrong that "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work." Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:C-Tec - Cut (2018 digital issue).jpg

File:C-Tec - Cut (2018 digital issue).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soul Crusher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

NFCC#8 is wrong because this is a secondary image, not the primary image associated with the work. This secondary image is not discussed in the article prose, and it is not shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Electro Assassin - The Divine Invasion (Fifth Colvmn).jpg

File:Electro Assassin - The Divine Invasion (Fifth Colvmn).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soul Crusher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

NFCC#8 is wrong because this is a secondary image, not the primary image associated with the work. This secondary image is not discussed in the article prose, and it is not shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Rain - Rebellion Is Over (alternate cover).jpg

File:Black Rain - Rebellion Is Over (alternate cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soul Crusher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

NFCC#8 is wrong because this is a secondary image, not the primary image associated with the work. This secondary image is not discussed in the article prose, and it is not shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Abuela Frontera dance video.ogv

File:La Abuela Frontera dance video.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pollosito (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Too large to claim

(CC) Tbhotch™ 04:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I know. I think just the almost-first 20 or 25 seconds are useful. However, I cannot cut it down, specially when I will be unavailable until between March 14 and 17. What can we do then? Santi (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with the right tool needs to reduce it.
(CC) Tbhotch™ 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Checking it once more, I think the useful part lasts from 0:06 to 0:40, but it can be cropped more if still violates the non-free use rationale. Santi (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This version should be deleted, copyright holders are not interested in waiting for a user's availability. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: With the few minutes I have with Internet outside, I checked how was it going, and I met this. I never asked for waiting for me, I was asking someone to crop that video to the necessary part, they can base it on the El Sol de México's clip duration. I was asking for cropping it while I am not available, as there Is not a policy that demands the file author to do it. Thanks. Santi (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch; @Traumnovelle: I already uploaded a shortened version of the og file, and it cost me a lot of time to do it. Santi (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pollosito, for future reference, https://videocuttool.wmcloud.org/ can trim videos and export them back to your device. Most of the online video editors are a royal pain to use. JayCubby 04:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

File:Flight Pattern Dance.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn, with additional consensus to keep. For five more minutes...it's just a single vice 20:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flight Pattern Dance.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Z1720 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am not convinced that this meets NFCC 1 and 8. This is a recent event, so it's not inconceivable that some photographer could be persuaded to (or eventually release) a free version. JayCubby 02:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage performances like this have very strict photography policies during performances. If a patron took a photograph, that person would be escorted out of the theatre and asked to delete it. Furthermore, if an audience member had photographed the performance, it probably would not be in the public domain because the photographer does not own the copyright of the performance. This is similar to a photographer taking a photo of a movie at the cinema: the picture would still not be public domain if the movie was not public domain. Only employees of the Royal Ballet have been authorised to photograph the performance, who cannot release their photographs themselves because the Royal Ballet would own the copyright of any photograph they took while under contract with the RB. There have been no known public performances of this work. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaiserb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:LTrygggolf2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaiserb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

CCTV footage, so this image is in the public domain. JayCubby 18:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons as it is PD. The CCTV debatable question was before the infamous monkey camera case and more recent AI copyright stuff, which involves the necessity of human authorship for copyright. Given recent and increasingly established precedent, there is no human authorship (and there was probably far more human authorship in the monkey case), so for the same reason as those monkey photos and American AI generation, PD. Also this article can be understood just as well without the image, so if it isn't PD it should be deleted. Sure, a key piece of evidence, but you can explain it in words just fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

March 18

File:Stone Brewing Co. Year Round Beers.jpg

File:Stone Brewing Co. Year Round Beers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shamiejerlock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of packaging in high resolution that is not used for fair use usage. The art on bottle is not de-minimis. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The art on the bottle is indeed de minimis with respect to the entirety of the image. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DECORATIVE manner in an article about the brewery making the product, which seems to be the intent in "User:Notwise/sandbox" should that ever become an article. In my opinion, the only valid non-free use for something like this would likely be if a stand-alone article about the beer itself was created and the file was used in the main infobox of that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

File:Yap Singapore Experience RZ Location Fig 3-p8.jpg

File:Yap Singapore Experience RZ Location Fig 3-p8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mariordo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I looked up an archived version of the paper where the image came from, and it's copyrighted, meaning that this image is too. The map isn't a good candidate for fair use, as the zone could be shown on a free map. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miracle Brothers.png

File:Miracle Brothers.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xx elv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded by an admin user without a rationale. A South Korea TV Series posters may be lack of promotional poster supported by critical commentary or unnecessary when brief description already illustrates (without NFC) how the South Korea TV Series was released, In other words, the image might not be

contextually significant after all. 120.29.79.68 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Assyriansinholland2.jpg

File:Assyriansinholland2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I request the deletion of the image Assyriansinholland2.jpg for the following reasons:

  1. This image was not taken in the Netherlands but rather in France/Belgium, as evidenced by the French text on the banners.
  2. The source of the image is unclear, and it is unknown whether it is copyrighted or not, as the link it references is no longer accessible.

Due to these concerns regarding misleading information and potential copyright issues, I kindly request its removal. Kivercik (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:People gather at the site of a US strike in Yemen.png

File:People gather at the site of a US strike in Yemen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abo Yemen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Shows damage by the American attack in Yemen" is not a valid fair use rationale. The damage won't disappear in a hurry and it is therefore entirely possible to take a freely licensed image of the situation, thus negating the fair use rationale. Schwede66 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I'd love to use freely licensed image of the situation if any exists 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That none exists isn't a rationale for helping yourself to a photo that can be taken. Schwede66 19:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg

File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Subhashcj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Thomas Kallampally.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Subhashcj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious own-work claims. The initial upload of File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg indicates that the image was lifted from an unspecified website. File:Thomas Kallampally.jpg is a portrait photograph that has been so heavily edited, from the background to the subject's seemingly distorted face, that authorship is doubtful. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hylaeus paumako DNLR 2025.jpg

File:Hylaeus paumako DNLR 2025.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Viriditas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails

(CC) Tbhotch™ 02:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

The wildlife reserve is closed to the public. Nobody in Hawaii has access to the reserve except for a few individuals from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and because it is so remote and isolated it is rarely visited except to fix fencing and maintain the firebreaks. In fact, the area is so remote and isolated, this bee was only found in this area because it was the first major survey of that area in a century or so. I should also note that the bee is rare and the number of individuals is unknown. After capturing specimens for identification, a second trip to the wildlife refuge was planned. The second trip yielded no sightings of the bee. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warner Communications Inc..svg

File:Warner Communications Inc..svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GachaDog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBS Records.svg

File:CBS Records.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GachaDog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machine Girl MG1.mp3

File:Machine Girl MG1.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AstralAlley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no sourced critical commentary to justify the inclusion of this file. Skyshiftertalk 15:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:InfoboxHez.PNG violating Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#1 Isla🏳️‍⚧ 19:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in this one beyond saying the replaceable option provided says "This symbol is fictitious", so it shouldn't be used. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EF5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. JayCubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. EF5 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. — EF5 21:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. JayCubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the
WP:ONUS
, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.
To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t even visible in that video. EF5 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — EF5 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. JayCubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. EF5 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

File:2017 Charlottesville, Virginia car attack photograph.jpg

File:2017 Charlottesville, Virginia car attack photograph.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wumbolo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Free video exists (a screenshot could be made of it if neccesary). Only one sentence in the article mentions the photograph, which is hardly enough for a NFF. EF5 00:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is March 20 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 20 – (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 "===March 20===" 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=1275776476"