Wikipedia:Files for discussion

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice if and when the backlog is cleared.

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

Shortcut

WP:FFD

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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.

Examples of what files you may request for 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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this page. 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 an OTRS 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

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2018 January 5}}` 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. Also, add `{{ffd\|log=2018 January 5}}` 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:fdw\|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:fdw-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=2018 January 5}}` 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 1920, 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}}.

Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name
Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
Low quality - The image 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 file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 22 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 14 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 30 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 12 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 28 - 13 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 29 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

Recent nominations[edit]

December 30[edit]

File:Katy Perry - Roar.ogg[edit]

An audio sample that doesn't provide any discernible enhancement for the article, failing criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria. It was likely added just for the sake of including some of the track, which isn't in itself a sufficient reason. Furthermore, this is too long per WP:SAMPLE at 23 seconds when the track runs for 3 minutes and 42 seconds (222 seconds), exceeding the limit of 10% of a song's duration (with 30 seconds being the absolute maximum permitted). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dan Onorato 2008 crop.jpeg[edit]

Originally tagged by @Train2104 as created by a banned user (Herblouise945) in violation of their ban. As these are currently linked, I would like to give the community an opportunity to comment before deleting. FASTILY 04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Normally I'm all for G5'ing everything that someone does in violation of a block. But free use images are a different issue. They aren't that easy to come by or require some work to get. The fact that they are all in use makes me want to keep them even more. If necessary, I'll take responsibly for them. --Majora (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Screen shot of Template-Caledonian Sleeper (Netscape 7.1).jpg[edit]

This image shows a web browser and a Wikipedia article. There is a source and license for the Wikipedia article, but there is no source, license or fair-use rationale for the web browser. (If I am not mistaken, the web browser is a Netscape product, but I don't know which. They are all non-free anyway.) Most importantly, this image is not used in the article space. This means, according to WP:NFCC, it must be deleted. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So instead of looking at the image in isolation, look at where is it used. It was part of a development of coding which was not working as expected. It is appropriate to the discussion is was used in. As regards the Netscape product, the file clearly states it is version 7.1 and a review of the details shows it came from a PC running Windows 98SE. I fail to understand why the lister of this proposal can not fathom which Netscape product it is from based on the elementary information available. so let us look at WP:NFCC criteria.

Detailed analysis of WP:NFCC from Pencefn's point of view

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

This was produced to illustrate a difficulty in coding a specific page when displayed on a certain browser

Meets criteria as no free equivalent was available at the time it was available. In fact no equivalent was available.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.

Meets criteria there is no way this can replace an original market role of this image.

3. Minimal usage:

a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Meets criteria Only one item exists and it is only used on two Talk pages to assist in development of another page.

b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Meets criteria the full screen shot provides context and there is no original of this image that has been copied.

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

Meets criteria this is a derivative of work created by myself in Wikipedia.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

This is an image purely for page development, its retention is part of the archive to demonstrate the appropriate coding. Deletion will remove the context of the discussion of the coded.

6. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Not sure this applies in this specific case

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

Yes, this is not used in an article, however it is used in User Talk pages as part of a discussion to develop appropriate coding and its removal would lose the context of the discussion

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Meets criteria the image is most appropriate in the discussion in the User Talk pages it is used in.

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

IF this needs sorting then amending the listing of the image is in order rather than deletion

10.Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

a. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.

This image has no market value or artist - so how do we sort this?

b. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.

If the incorrect copyright tag is used, a suggestion of the correct one would be appreciated

c.The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.^[1] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

The image description has sufficient detail to identify usage, as does the information in the User Talk pages.

Keep Image - Instead of blindly following what appears to be an issue resulting in deletion of an image, a solution to ensure it is kept should be followed. Not all images are used in article space, and as such they provide valuable context to decisions that have been previously made. ---Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So. Fair use would never be acceptable in this instance. Period. If it is a non-free image that is not actively being used in an article it gets deleted. That is how it works. However, if you were to crop out the netscape material (top and bottom) there would no longer be any issue here, Pencefn. --Majora (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Screenshot editted to blank the Netscape logo. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That isn't what I said at all. Not quite sure how I was misunderstood there but ok. Crop the entire netscape material. All of it. Top and bottom. Leave only the Wikipedia screenshot. Nothing more. No trace of netscape. At all. The logo itself was never the problem. --Majora (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pencefn: Spamming this discussion and not adhering to the discussion etiquette is a very poor way of defending the image that has no source, no license and no fair-use rationale for its non-free component and according to your own admission, violates WP:NFCC § 7 too. In reality, unlike what you claim, it violates all but two of WP:NFCC clauses. Violations of articles 1 and 3 are the most gross of all violations: Your use in the given talk page never need the inclusion of the Windows taskbar or even any portion of Netscape. It could have simply been the Wikipedia screenshot itself. Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the NFCC also fail because they depend on the image being used both in an article and for an article. The prevailing problem in both your upload and your defense, is an absence of the required due dilligence for honesty, as well as an abysmal lack of proper regard for WP:NFCC, which happens to be one of the very few serious policies of Wikipedia. I am sorry that I cannot even offer you my sympathy.

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As for censoring the Netscape logo, I don't even know what went on in your brain that you thought doing so makes the slightest difference. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how my analysis is spamming the discussion. It was my analysis of why I thought this image was appropriate. Since Codename Lisa has determined that by WP:NFCC this image should be DELETED. Do it now I am done with defending what was done in good faith 10 years ago. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominating someone's image for deletion is not bringing his whole editing career into question. (This sentence is normally the defense, not the consolation.) So, don't be hard on yourself. As for the spamming matter, all I said was "this image is not used in the article space. This means, according to WP:NFCC, it must be deleted." To defend against it, you copied and pasted the whole NFCC here, only to admit that "Yes, this is not used in an article". It was not a good decision. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and there is very good reason for that: Its survival.

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Danger girls cover.jpg[edit]

Non-free image currently only being used to illustrate a bibliography list. Kelly ^hi! 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Travis Charest. Salavat (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruthwarejacketdesignpic.jpg[edit]

This is a photo of a cover jacket., which as the uploader says is authored by Nick Tucker. Almost certainly not free as a photo of a presumeably copyrighted image. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

December 31[edit]

File:The Welsh booklet cover "Holi ac Ateb ar Wybodaeth Eglwysig (Questions and Answers on Church Knowledge) by Rev Hugh Arfon Evans 1948.pdf[edit]

unused, not in an ideal format (pdf), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Diocese of Bangor Year Book for 1964 - cover page only.pdf[edit]

unused, not in an ideal format (pdf), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete The file is not used in any article, clearly fails NFCC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Foreword to the booklet "The Parish and Churches of Capel Curig" by Rev H. Arfon Evans 1948.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

unused scan, no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete @Fastily: OTRS Permission confirmed, file moved to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Park Kultury Basrelief Young Engineers.JPG[edit]

3D artwork. No freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. and Salavat. Green Giant (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It is allowed to take photographs of objects of no special strategic value in the Moscow Underground (Moscow Metro) if the camera is not a professional one (otherwise it is still allowed if you have permission of the Moscow Underground authorities). Here is a link to Moscow Metro regulations (in Russian): http://mosmetro.ru/info/ I added the image to the Park Kultury Station (Koltsevaya Line) article. It can be useful for people interested in the interior of this station and in Soviet fine art. Denghu (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo candidature Iekaterinburg - Expo 2025.png[edit]

Doubtful that this image is owned by the uploaded. More complete source info needed. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment I realize I'm the nominator, but I'm thinking it's simple enough to be {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-Textlogo}}. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:ControlUnitTorture.jpg[edit]

unclear if {{Attribution}} applies. I suspect this may be non-free, in which case it would fail WP:NFCC#8 (no critical commentary in the article it is used in) FASTILY 20:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but just what is your point here? They clearly publish their work under a free licence, provided that they are credited. So we can use this, and we have to credit it. So what's to discuss? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, the author explicitly permits free use with attribution on his website. If you wanted to make sure I suppose you could write him. groupuscule (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:209sumsequence.jpeg[edit]

Even if the copyright status is resolved (IMO, the file is uncopyrightable as having insufficient original content), it is a graphic representation of $61 + 5 2 + 4 3 + 3 4 + 2 5 + 1 6$ or $6^{1}+5^{2}+4^{3}+3^{4}+2^{5}+1^{6}$ . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete–replaceable by math wiki markup, as seen above:

{{math|6<sup>1</sup> + 5<sup>2</sup> + 4<sup>3</sup> + 3<sup>4</sup> + 2<sup>5</sup> + 1<sup>6</sup>}}<br>
<math>6^1+5^2+4^3+3^4+2^5+1^6</math>

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Copyright is irrelevant because it's just an image of some text, with no creative addition to that text, and the uploader has already made the same text available by adding it to Wikipedia as text. But because it's just text, it's not useful as an image (regardless of the current dispute over whether the text it depicts is useful as an addition to 209 (number)). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Gibson Southern Crest.PNG[edit]

Non-free image being used in a Gibson Southern High School#Gallery. Non-free images are typically not allowed to be be used in image galleries per WP:NFG because such usage tends to be decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8. There is no sourced critical commentary about this crest anywhere in the article (it's not even mentioned in passing anywhere at all). If someone wants to add sourced content about the crest to the article, then the file could possibly be moved so that it's near the relevant article content; however, simply adding the file to a gallery of other images to "show" it clearly does not meet WP:NFCCP and the file should be deleted.

There are also problems with the file's non-free use rationale and copyright license. The file is not really a logo (at least for Wikipedia's non-free content purposes) and the boilerplate rationale is more for a case where the file is being used as the primary means of indentification of a logo at the top of an article, not in the article body. Perhaps {{Symbol rationale}} and {{Non-free symbol}} can be used instead, but these things will also need to be addressed if the consensus is that this file should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Gibson Southern High School. Salavat (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 1[edit]

File:Iangow.jpg[edit]

File has no valid link, It leads to Revolvy which displays the screenshot image we have here. No idea where it came from not even after searches. We hope (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete per rationale above. Note that Revolvy is a clearly identified and active mirror. It is frequently refreshed with the material here. Kuru (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Jocox.jpg[edit]

Fails NFCC. There is a nice non-free portrait photo of her. It would be a bad trade to substitute this one for it. There's no reason in article text, etc. that this photo is needed there. We hope (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. No real need for multiple non-free images just for identification purposes, so unless this particular one is the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context, there's no need for it. For reference, the file has been removed from Jo Cox and is now an orphan and will be deleted per WP:F5, so it can be deleted after five days unless it's re-added to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment It was out of the article when I saw it. Listed it here in case someone started to play "dueling photos"-and it has happened-didn't want to have the better photo inadvertently deleted. We hope (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File:慈禧皇太后之宝.jpg[edit]

This photo has been orphaned for a while. It is claimed as PD-100, which is true for the object but the photo needs a license from the photographer. The source in the summary is now a deadlink but even the archived versions only reserve rights. Noting that two other sources were given at upload and just afterwards, the file is ineligible for Commons without license, source or author. Green Giant (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The title is not in English. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- So what? WP:UE is not even listed as a valid reason for renaming (but maybe it should be). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete The file name reads "Empress Dowager Cixi's treasure". The copyright tag implies that both the photographer and the designer of the item have been dead for at least 100 years, but given that the item was created for someone who only died in 1908, I don't think that we can assume that the designer of the item necessarily has been dead for at least 100 years and there's no information about the photographer available. For what it's worth, it could be a recent photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Walterguiness.jpg[edit]

This non-free file was used to replace the PD photo File:Walter Guinness, Lord Moyne.jpg which was in the article. We hope (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. No need for a non-free image when their exists a free equivalent suitible for serving the same encyclopedic purpose, unless the non-free is itself the subject of some sourced critical commentary within the article to justify it use per WP:NFCC#8. This probably should've been tagged with {{rfu}} instead since it seems clearly to fail WP:F7. Both require administrator review, but RFU takes at least two days to assess and tends to be much quicker, while FFD runs at least seven days and can drag on even longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete under WP:NFCC#1, because a perfectly good PD alternative exists. This file can also be found at the National Portrait Gallery, where it states that the photographer was Walter Stoneman who died in 1958. His work will be PD from 2029 onwards. Green Giant (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Exhibition Centre Liverpool.jpg[edit]

Non-free image, uploaded 2012, with the rationale "The building does not exist yet, therefore there is no non-free alternative." The building now exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One or more of the files in c:Category:Exhibition Centre Liverpool would be more than adequate for the article until more free-licensed ones become available. Green Giant (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2[edit]

File:FiveKwans FamilyTree.png[edit]

likely derivative of non-free content. Source cited is taewondo wikia, but this doesn't tell us anything about the source images' copyright status. FASTILY 07:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Sweet Love by Anita Baker US vinyl.jpg[edit]

I uploaded this image as "non-free" image a year ago. Then I took this to FFD discussion last year because I wasn't sure whether the generic company label is eligible for copyright. The result was "no consensus" due to lack of participation and huge backlog before File PROD was done. Over time and re-evaluating, I figured that the label doesn't qualify for copyright. The black and red background colors don't overlap each other as many vinyl labels by Columbia Records do; rather the invisible(?) border between the colors appears solid. The red forms like a sun, but I think the whole background is unoriginal. The paper material appears to have some texture, but I guess it's still not enough for copyright protection. Also, a lot of information contained in the label is too factual for copyright, and the expression of facts is unoriginal. Therefore, the image should be transferred to Commons. Of course, someone is welcomed to comment if the person disagrees. George Ho (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Houser, Apache Cradleboard.jpg[edit]

The museum may have allowed the photo, but the artist retains the copyright to the sculpture, no? Themightyquill (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 3[edit]

File:Still from Erica.png[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by @DHeyward with the rationale: "Commercial image where the image is not the subject of discussion." Since this isn't a valid reason for immediate deletion, I'm starting this FfD so that interested parties can discuss. For the record, I am neutral. FASTILY 08:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @George Ho and @Andrew Davidson -FASTILY 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete this individual died a handful of days ago. There has been no attempt to obtain a free-to-use photograph. E.g. there are many, many images at Flickr, has anyone contacted the owners of each of these images to request they be re-licensed under Creative Commons? For such a prominent activist, the likelihood of a free image being available is high. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete in addition to a free version likely available, the current version was ripped from a professionally created video with a commercial copyright. It's the definition of db-f7. --DHeyward (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep The video in question is now historical as that campaign is over and done. The image has no commercial value because it is a fuzzy still from that video. The claims that good faith efforts to find free images have not been done are false. I have made multiple searches myself and I am usually quite good at finding things online if they are there to be found. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You ~~clearly didn't~~ appear not to have read what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is violating multiple arbcom sanctions by involving himself in this matter and insulting my competence. George Ho was already all over this issue – see Fastily's ping above – and TRM is forbidden to interact with him. TRM should please strike his comments and withdraw. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your competence, I'm saying you haven't asked those editors at Flickr to review their own licensing. I have done this in the past with success. And this nomination relates to a file you are responsible for, no-one else. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The latest version of the file was loaded by George Ho and so that's the version in question now. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about this specific nomination. I have made no mention of any other party. I've clarified what I said above. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pure speculation to say it has no value. First, it's not clear if the campaign owns the copyright or whether they have the rights to release it. Second, if Bernie writes a book or supports a movie, this type of material has obvious commercial value. It's certainly questionable enough that it does not belong in Wikipedia without the proper release. --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

According to sources such as Rolling Stone, the video was produced by Garner's people and financed by the Sanders campaign. It was not a commercial product; it was an advert. They posted it on YouTube and encourage others to share it. You can post the video on Twitter; you can share it in email; LinkedIn; &c. When the entire video is made so freely available to use and share, it's absurd to suggest that we can't use even a still from the video as fair use. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And another thing. I find that, not only is TRM subject to relevant arbcom restrictions but that DHeyward was topic-banned from "from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed". By hanging around the Erica Garner article, trying to disrupt it, they have violated their topic ban. As Heyward's speedy deletion nomination was apparently made in bad faith, for political reasons, I suggest that this discussion be speedily closed, please. Andrew D. (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been no infringement of any restrictions on my behalf - I qualified my statement about the apparent inability to find a free image (i.e. you just looked, but didn't ask, as I have done, successfully, a number of times). But what is now troubling is that you would subject editors to personal attacks and hyperbole with claims such as ""... suggesting that her life did not matter ..." – an egregious attack on an editor who is simply noting that a standalone article should be subject to deletion because, in their opinion, they fail to meet the basic policies of Wikipedia. I see nothing at all about anyone here suggesting that someone's "life did not matter". That is a despicable claim and should be redacted, and you should be advised not to make such unfounded statements again in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of arbcom restrictions, I now see you have been formally warned during an arbcom enforcement case which (ironically) you started about your behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep -- the person is now deceased, so the image would qualify under fair use guidelines. The image is used in the infobox as a means of visually identifying the subject of the article. It's a suitable portrait showing the subject as a political activist. I don't see any issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, just because someone is deceased, it does not mean the image qualifies under fair use. That's a common misconception. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete We do not immediately allow non-free of recently deceased people as we expect ppl to try to make a reasonable effort to find a free image. That period lasts about the same time that BLP's extension to recently-deceased lasts (eg around 6 months). --Masem (t) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Diocese of Bangor Year Book for 1965 - cover page only.pdf[edit]

unused, not in an ideal format (pdf), no foreseeable use FASTILY 10:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Chris Alexander Canadian Politican.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS pending for ~8 months. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it is unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 10:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete This has been here for too long without OTRS validation. Also the subject is alive, so there is still a chance for a free image. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Ryanmeili2.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS pending for ~8 months, but the email correspondence dates back to 2009. After reading through the associated ticket, I think it is very unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:The first VSOP Fine Champagne.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS pending for ~8 months. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it is unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 10:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg[edit]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg. Possibly fair use candidate? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:DART Underground.jpeg[edit]

Not a logo. The map can be recreated as an SVG or as a modified OpenStreetMap export. Jc86035 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:TobywIanFergus.jpg[edit]

No evidence to support "This photo was given to me by the photographer, who has released all rights to it." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 4[edit]

File:Carrie Symonds 2017.png[edit]

No evidence of license. Image is taken from the net and probably from her twitter account at https://twitter.com/carriesymonds

File:HGParkway Western End.png[edit]

tagged OTRS pending for a year. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 10:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to contact the original owners now, as completion of the project resulted in the shuttering of their Flickr account. All I have is the conversation I had with them on my flickr account. Why showing this isn't sufficient, is beyond me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The ticket appears to be invalid because OTRS does not accept forwarded correspondences. The copyright holder needs to contact OTRS directly and confirm the permission in order for the ticket to be accepted. -FASTILY 22:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't... the account is inactive, I tried at the time. I'd willingly provide my login credentials to OTRS to verify the messages and their origin. Short of that there is no way to recontact the copyright holder, as the project finished a couple of years ago. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Helitrephes jellyfish.png[edit]

Screenshot from a youtube video[1] under Youtube's standard license. Does not appear to be fair use. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-free graphs images for Alexa rankings[edit]

Both fail WP:NFCC#8. Since these are graphs, these non-free images can be replaced with graphs or charts using wiki markup and/or templates. Non-free images are not necessary when "free" charts/graphs can be created. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following comment is from 2600:1008:b06b:ed0a:5da2:4c59:99:778 (talk) disputing the {{Di-replaceable fair use}} tag I placed on the files (same text fit both):

Image is a cropped screenshot of a graph regarding the Meetup.com website, using underlying data that is not separately available apart from the image. Data underlying, and needed, to create the graph is not available to the general public. Also, the graph is rendered by a dis-interested 3rd party. It is specious to claim a graphical representation of the sharp decline in site visitors over time could believably be created from data freely available elsewhere, or that it would be perceived as fairly representing the true facts, or that it wouldn't be considered Original Research. There is NO alternative source for the data over time, and it cannot be recreated as it changes every day. It tracks activity for a company which is highly secretive and does not divulge such information. It is critical in that it shows, from an unbiased, third party source, the results of recent management decisions.

They have been notified of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:963 Hao FM.jpg[edit]

I think this is a free image due to lack of uniqueness, but I'm not sure ... because I don't know/remember if non-Latin characters are considered unique enough for copyright in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 5[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is January 5 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 5 -- (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 "===January 5===" 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.

^ A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale.

[1] A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale.

[1]

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.
About Wikipedia	Welcome! Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous Awards Reward board Contests
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Portals 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
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	Editor assistance 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 Mediation
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Online Ambassadors Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Paid editors Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup
Book Media Category Templates