Wikipedia:Files for deletion
|Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions ·
Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion 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.
If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.
Examples of what you may request here
What not to list here
Instructions for listing files for deletion
To list a file:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to delete a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.
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.
|Possibly unfree files (PUF)|
- 1 What not to list here
- 2 Instructions for discussion participation
- 3 Instructions for closing discussions
- 4 Old discussions
- 5 Recent nominations
- 5.1 August 27
- 5.2 August 28
- 5.3 August 29
- 5.3.1 File:SoulSurvivorPeteRock.jpg
- 5.3.2 File:Animal liberation youth logo.png
- 5.3.3 File:Bose soundtrack.jpg
- 5.3.4 File:Gbears.jpg
- 5.3.5 File:Care Bears Play Day Title Screen.png
- 5.3.6 File:Sir M.Visvesvaraya.jpg
- 5.3.7 File:Oman Football Association.png
- 5.3.8 File:AlexYoungandFatmanScoop.jpg
- 5.3.9 File:AlexYoungCTPvideo.jpg
- 5.4 August 30
- 5.5 August 31
- 5.6 September 1
- 5.7 September 2
- 6 Footer
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.
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 deletion/2014 August 24 - 8 remaining
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 25 - 3 remaining
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 26 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
- View - Reasoning ... -- Wapacman (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)the photo was taken by myself, if person claiming this is not my own work can show another photograph with exactly the same composition of people seating behind the monument, then his claim is true. Otherwise, this was my picture and should not be deleted.
- There is no evidence that you are the sculptor. Unless you are the sculptor, you can't upload images of the sculpture. See for example Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have to be the sculptor to include a picture of a destination in historic Filipinotown? The photo is promoting the district as a destination, not the sculpture itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wapacman (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This is just the mural itself. Photo does not show any context to where the image was located. The Valor Monument photograph is promoting the district, not the art itself. I own the photo. There are no exact replica of this photograph. So if there's a picture of the Rizal monument, I have to be the sculptor to post that picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wapacman (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Vera Cruz and Larry Itliong.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Wapacman: To upload a picture of a non-free sculpture (in the United States) on Wikipedia as a free image, you would need to obtain the appropriate permissions from the copyright holder (usually the creator of the sculpture, but check because the copyright may have been assigned to someone else). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan2, I did the mural I posted in the right, the mural in Filipinotown, yet that has been in Wikipedia for many years, yet no one has asked my permission. Can I sue Wikipedia then, because I did not grant permission, yet my mural was published for many years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wapacman (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is probably exempt from liability per 17 U.S.C. § 512. However, if you indeed did create the mural, you may be able to sue the uploader or anyone who has added the image to an article. If you can't identify those people, then it is your problem. If you indeed did create the mural, and wish the image to remain on Wikipedia, then please follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Advice of images please, specifically where I note that Wapacman has uploaded copyvios using image manipulation tactics to prevent automated or semi-automated discovery of those copyvios, and then gone on to claim they were his own images. Per the precautionary principle articulated at Commons, we should consider all of Wapacman's uploads tainted from a copyright perspective and subject to deletion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you are suggesting that the statement "I took the photo" probably is wrong, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from http://www.visitscotland.com/see-do/events/winter-festivals/inverness with no evidence of permission. Eeekster (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply: This album cover is for the Piano music LP which is an album in its own right (but also forms part of the 150 great classics release). The other Dacrop LP cover is used for the other 4 LPs. The guideline states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It does NOT say you can't use two covers. Here one cover does not, as the fifth album is a Piano compilation. Also, it is listed on Amazon and ebay, and other review websites as a separate album. I have replaced the photo with one with no GPS metadata.
This file is a WP:REDFLAG. Nobody knows for sure what this image shows. From one listed source to another the wp:captions are politically biased and factually dubious. For example: Wikipedia claims that this is "Rzeszow, Poland, German Policemen Tormenting a Jew". Not true. Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz says it is not Rzeszow but Lodz. Different city, hundreds of miles away in Reichsgau Wartheland. Wikipedia claims the policemen are German. Not true. YV Photo Archive says that the black uniforms belong to Trawnikis (Ukrainian guards). And indeed, the black uniforms of the former Allgemeine-SS including their characteristic field caps were stripped of German insignia in World War II and given to Schutzmannschaft to use with the new patches. It means that the perpetrators can be from a number of auxilliary formations in Eastern Europe, these are historical facts. Rzeszow was not in Poland at the time, but in General Government. The name of the photographer is ommitted in all instances. This file can be so broadly misinterpreted that it has no place in Wikipedia. It is therefore Unencyclopedic. Poeticbent talk 05:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Not a very clear photo, but could be used for Commons if perhaps it can be confirmed that this is Lukachukai rather than Monument Valley - Uploader has in general not named his images very clearly, so it could well be that name is incorrect. Without confirmation, this should be deleted as there is no need for "unknown bits of mountain" on Commons/elsewhere. Deadstar (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Watermarked image. User has uploaded many images, 99% of which have EXIF data (this doesn't), and none look this sharp. I suspect this is not self made, but cannot make out the watermark. Deadstar (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Three individual pictures by two uploaders, none of which have great information on them as to what they are. Sizewise they look as though they came from a webpage and are not self made, so license is invalid. 1st version available on Commons as File:Lankeswari-Junagad.jpg. Deadstar (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"license incorrect. The image was taken after the death of the painter in 1924 (per description), which means it was not published before 1923. Deadstar (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Available online in much higher res (e.g. here). Looks like a product image in comparison to the picture of a remote uploaded at the same time (File:SKYNZRemote.JPG). Dubious claim of own work.... moogsi(blah) 22:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article tells that this man was notable and that he died in 1962. If any Indian photos of him were published before 1941, those would be in the public domain and serve as perfect replacements of this one. The article doesn't provide a justification for all points in WP:NFCC#1, which states that non-free content can't be used if a free image is available or can be created. The FUR only tells that free images can't be created, but doesn't discuss whether such material is available or what the uploader has done to check whether such material is available. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - There are plenty of other photos etc of him but determining when they were created is tough, eg: this one, which claims copyright. However, I'm pretty sure that the one used here in the animation/slideshow will predate 1941 - he looks pretty young in it. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not helping in increasing the understanding of the article and is purely kept as a decorative image. Furthermore, it is clearly replaceable by free image available from commons, or he infobox image alone suffices, being that both are visually similar. In that respect it also fails WP:NFCC#3a. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mancow Muller, the only article in which this image appears. Contrary to the NFUR, the cover art depicted is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A photo of an individual named Matt Thurling, the founder of science.tv. There is no real use for this image here, as this person is a not a notable individual, and I don't see why Commons would want it either. — and 04:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Picture of unidentified person. No use to us. —and 11:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose it's Ahmed Reza Abedzadeh. Still not sure that we need this image, though. — and 11:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Dreadful quality, not well identified, currently unused. —and 11:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The file name does (somewhat cryptically) identify the car in this nomination and the one below. It's a Lincoln Continental Mark V. That said, there are plenty of better images on Commons. - Eureka Lott 14:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Similar to above: dreadful quality; unused; bad composition; etc. —and 11:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a modification of File:Orthoceras BW.jpg. This file should not be separate, and the uploader has been the cause of one excellent illustrator, User:ArthurWeasley, leaving the wiki. He does not give the original author, Arthur Weasley, acceptable credit, and as I can tell, the original image was better than the new one. Also, the updated version of the file is no longer in use, which means that based on commons:Commons:Project Scope, this file can be deleted. IJReid (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Source information is too bad even to verify if this image portrays who it's said it portrays. It's just a (broken) link to a page on Geocites (a service that allowed anyone create his personal webpage with whatever info they wanted). damiens.rf 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - All that is needed a simple google image search for Jose Julian Acosta to realize that the person in the picture is Jose Julian Acosta: Example: and . Besides that the photo was taken pre- 1891, the year of his death. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Image use does not conform to WP:NFCC#8: contextual significance. There are lot of times in which it is useful to show an image on an older version of the program. This is not one of those times because of the absence of said contextual significance. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Please ensure "===September 2===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.