Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For speedy deletion candidates, 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.
  2. 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 tag but isn't used in any articles
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
    6. {{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
    If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files.
  3. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{isd|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.)
  4. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  5. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.
    1. 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}}.
    2. For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
  6. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  7. 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 for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2; use {{db-nofile}}.
    3. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    4. Any other deletion of a description page with no local file should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  8. 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.
  9. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2014 August 21}} to the file page.

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= }}

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 {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2014 August 21}} 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. Some common reasons are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
  • 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}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
  • 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). (often abbreviated UE)
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

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.

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:

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:

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

August 15[edit]

File:Mini Bassam.jpg[edit]

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

Unused, personal image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tvx1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems to be a heraldic image, meaning a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I can't find the passage in Wikipedia:NFCC#1 that deals with "heraldic images". Anyways the licensing information and the fair use rationale for the article on which it is used are provided. Tvx1 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • See c:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blazon). All coat of arms images are replaceable by a freely licensed drawing based on the same blazon. --12:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Now I got this image from Italian wikipedia. They got it from this site, who made their own "drawing" of it based on the description of it. Interestingly enough, they release their contents under a creative commons license 3.0, as you can see near the bottom of the home page. Does that mean that picture I have uploaded is actually copyright protected at all and is in the public domain? Tvx1 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 is not a free licence. Besides, I think there was a deletion discussion somewhere where someone pointed out that many images on that website probably come from other sources, meaning that the website isn't allowed to license them anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I have found this discussion where you yourself admit that such images qualify as irreplaceable by free images. I don't know how I could possibly "produce" a free equivalent of this image if the design is copyrighted by the municipality in question. Tvx1 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Update: I have replaced the file's licensing tag with a more accurate one, and improved the fair use rationale. It still stand by the fact that it's not possible to replace this file with a free equivalent. Tvx1 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Google Doodle-Indian Independence Day.jpg[edit]

File:Google Doodle-Indian Independence Day.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pratyush Chowdhary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't think it serves any special purpose as independent India's first stamp is already available on Commons. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Google doodle showcasing independent India's first stamp itself serves some purpose, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and any small detail should be posted whether is serves any special purpose or not. More over the independent India's first stamp is already available on Commons is not the same Google doodle which is specifically mentioned in the caption, so please reconsider before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

File:Radio Free Sarawak logo.jpg[edit]

File:Radio Free Sarawak logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bobk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unlinked locally, PNG version available at Commons:File:Radio_Free_Sarawak_logo.png. Cube00 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthology cover collage.jpg[edit]

File:Anthology cover collage.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GPHemsley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Homemade(?) artwork using copyright material. Artwork created by someone other than the copyright holder to make a statement about an individual or individuals, and not relevant to the article. Dinkytown talk 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. As stated in the article and the fair use rationale, the image is a re-creation of the collage created by Klaus Voormann for The Beatles Anthology. It demonstrates how the album artwork for each of the three albums forms one continuous illustration. It is a significant symbol that is repeated throughout the material it represents, and there is no alternative to its representation. Gordon P. Hemsley 01:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hearts XP.png[edit]

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

This was previously deleted after being nominated for deletion for the following reason: "Used against WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 because we already have File:Hearts 7.png." Following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 8, the discussion is relisted because of the previously limited participation in the deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination and I am neutral.  Sandstein  10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: If this file is deleted, where does the precedent end? Will we limit Wikipedia articles to a single non-free image each from here on out? Let's take a look at the unique features of this file compared to File:Hearts 7.png: the name of the software (!), the names of the default players (this is discussed quite a bit in the article, and is sourced there as well!), the dots pointing to the cards, the button (as opposed to the arrow) and message in the status bar, and of course the completely different, classic Windows styling (with the exception of the icon, which is nevertheless different from the other one), the card design actually being specially mentioned at Solitaire (Windows) - perhaps it could be mentioned at the article in question as well. Note that these features (except the icon) are also present in a number of versions of Windows older than XP; this image therefore also serves as a representation of the software as it appeared in those versions, which also means that the deletion of additional such non-free images is unlikely to be as contentious. Furthermore, the points counter in the status bar - which is a functional feature! - along with the aforementioned arrow are unique features of the other file compared to this one. As an additional point, the two versions were developed completely independently as far as I am aware (feel free to correct me on this): the XP version was made in-house at Microsoft, while the 7 version was developed by Oberon Games; I would therefore argue that these are actually two entirely separate games (which should have separate screenshots regardless of the other points I brought up above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hi. I believe this image violates WP:NFCC, articles 1, 3 and 8 because, in comparison to the primary image (File:Hearts 7.png, also non-free) this image has very little differences. (User:Dogmaticeclectic listed them above.) As a result, this image does not significantly increase the understanding of a person who has seen File:Hearts 7.png. (Significant increase is a requirement of NFCC #8.) The minute differences between the two can be explained with words alone (hence, the violation of WP:NFCC #1) although doing so would be putting too much emphasis on intricate details that lack due weight. And, the very fact that the function of this image is almost the same as File:Hearts 7.png makes it an NFCC #3 violation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The layout of a Hearts game is something not unique to MS software, and there's little discussion about how the UI looked; we allow exactly one image to be used for software to demonstrate the UI in association with the article, but all subsequent image uses must show strong contextual significance with the text, and this does not. No, it doesn't matter that they are from different versions of the software - we don't use non-free to track historical aspects of software if no one else has commented on that facet. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Showing the history of improvements in a piece of software is a substantially important piece of encyclopedic content. Therefore images showing what older released versions looked like are strongly desirable. While the image is non-free, the fair use rationale is sound, and I see no policy-based grounds for deletion. Specifically in regardes to Codename Lisa's arguments, WP:NFCC article 1 is not violated because there are no free equivalents that illustrate the history of development of this game, article 3 is not violated because this is the only image used to illustrate that history, and 8 is not violated because it illustrates content in the article (i.e. the details of changes made between Windows XP and Windows 7) that are not illustrated by the later image. JulesH (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. If you keep ignoring the condemning words, well, yes, your analysis would be right. Except NFCC #1 mentions replacement of the image with text alone. Dogmaticeclectic practically demonstrated above that it is possible. NFCC #8 says signficantly increase the understanding, not showing the changes. (Show the changes with text alone.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#3a, as we already have an image of a different version of the software. We have things such as WP:NFC#UUI §2 and WP:NFLISTS which prevent unnecessarily many images in certain situations, and this is basically the same situation. There is furthermore no sourced critical discussion about the evolution of the graphical design of the software, so the image violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's some major historical significance to this particular image. We already have another picture of the game on a different version of Windows; why have two? For full disclosure, I was directed to this discussion by a message on my talkpage. --Jakob (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per JulesH. I do not buy the NFCC arguments. Showing the difference in aesthetics and interface between two versions of a software is a significant increase in understanding of the software itself, it is something where words cannot really convey such understanding, and it is irreplaceable.--cyclopiaspeak! 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Both images are used in the article, and both show how it has changed over time. Dream Focus 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the differences between the images are minor and both are not required to adequately convey the necessary information. What differences there are (mostly changes to bring the application in line with more general Windows styling changes) can be easily summarised in text, as demonstrated by the current state of the article and some of the keep comments above. To address some of the Keep arguments: the fact that this is the only historical screenshot in the article doesn't mean its usage is minimal, the fact that the changes to the UI are mentioned in the article text doesn't mean they are significant, and the fact that the code for the two versions was written by different companies doesn't mean they are different pieces of software. Hut 8.5 19:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the better picture of the two of them, anyway. Red Slash 21:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, on balance. That's not to say that a historical screenshot is necessarily inappropriate, if we had one from Windows for Workgroups I be pleased to see it in the article in addition to the Windows 7 image in the infobox. - Pointillist (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have permission to use this image and I can't see how deleting it improves the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about improvements? WP:NFCC is a stringent policy that is made because of dire need, not to make Wikipedia more fun or more beautiful. NFCC violation is actually an avenue of speedy deletion with {{di-fails NFCC}}. In addition, unlike what you said, I don't see a permission registered with OTRS system; but again, as long as it is non-free it make no difference. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • {{Microsoft screenshot}} documents a permission from Microsoft for using Microsoft screenshots. I assume that this is what the user refers to. Unfortunately, the permission in {{Microsoft screenshot}} is not sufficient to treat the files as free files, and files with {{Microsoft screenshot}} are therefore still subject to the limitations in WP:NFCC and subject to deletion if the limitations aren't satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The actual permission is here. Given that we do have such unequivocal permission to use the image, deleting it doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia in the slightest. I believe the pretext for wanting to delete it is because some Wikipedians find non-free content ideologically unsound.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The pretext to deleting it is that the foundation mandate that the project is based as far as practical to use free content, and that non-free content is only used in limited circumstances (Foundation resolution on such). The resolution requires projects wishing to use non-free content implement an exemption doctrine policy. EN wikipedia have that in the form of WP:NFCC, in order to be in line with the foundations requirements that policy needs to be followed. That you disagree with the foundation about the basis of the project which they sponsor is not a reason to ignore it. It's been suggested previously if you aren't happy with the basis of the project as heavily favouring free content, you try and get the foundation to change it's view, I guess you've had no luck so far. -- (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on this appears coherent and reasonable to me and I would not take issue with it. My position is that there's a mismatch between the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution and Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The mismatch is specifically in the area of images we have permission to use. I understand and agree with Wikipedia's stance on commercial images where we don't have clear permission to use them. But where we do have permission, I think our current rules are unnecessarily obstructive and there's room to fix them.

    Specifically I feel that where two tests are satisfied, being (1) that a good faith user wants to use images in a relevant encyclopaedia article and (2) that we have clear evidence that the user has a good faith permission to use that image then (3) we should be able to host that image on Wikipedia. I believe that to allow image files in these circumstances would be consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution that you linked above, and that Wikipedia's failure to allow for permitted use in the non-free content criteria is myopic.

    I have other thoughts about the way Wikipedia treats Crown Copyright media as if it were the same as commercially copyrighted media as well, which aren't relevant to this discussion. Experience with Wikipedians tells me I'll probably to be told to take these arguments to RfC. Since I've now largely recovered from my two-year crusade to rid our policies of "verifiability, not truth", I probably do have the stomach to begin that shortly, but I will just pre-empt that predictable point by saying that our policies are supposed to document our practice rather than govern it, so a change to practice could come first. It follows that it's reasonable for me to make the case in this FfD discussion and not just at RfC.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per the many points raised above. If there is third party coverage discussing the evolution of the look of this particular software item, then perhaps there is a case to be made, however I've yet to see one. The differences seem trivially describable (and indeed have been described multiple times). -- (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Pat1908.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 5shot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Could be copied to Commons, but I don't see the point. Just a drawing from a random patent; nothing special or encyclopedic about it from what I can see. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is one of a number of images uploaded by the same editor and used in this edit. None are in use anymore. They may have had some use back in 2006, but none serve any purpose now. --AussieLegend () 19:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mc at Work.jpg[edit]

File:Mc at Work.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dpetranker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the Cronulla Sharks sports team. See User:Mchammerhead. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mc Hammerhead and Razorback Jack.jpg[edit]

File:Mc Hammerhead and Razorback Jack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mchammerhead (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the Cronulla Sharks sports team. See the uploader's user page. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Aliconazole chemical structure.png[edit]

File:Aliconazole chemical structure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Aliconazole.png on commons DMacks (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Alifedrine structural formula.png[edit]

File:Alifedrine structural formula.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alifedrine.png on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Simpsons-Guy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StewieBaby05 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This still fails WP:NFCC#8 - it can easily be described with words. Peter and Homer both have their own articles with images - there is no need for this one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Meeting the requirements of NFCC#8 wasn't a condition of closing the last FFD. It was added as an "aside" comment by the closer. Nothing has changed since that discussion that would justify another nomination only 4 days after the last FFD was closed. --AussieLegend () 19:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated it again because I didn't notice there were comments on the first one until it closed. I'm going to address them now - the image needs critical commentary to be justified. Right now it's just a picture of two people - and the keep votes on the first nomination are greatly overexaggerating its usefulness. It is clearly easy to picture two characters (who have articles with pictures) together. There is no justification for a fair use image that can easily be described by text. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't get to start another deletion discussion just because you didn't think to keep track of a deletion discussion that you started. Really, that's your fault for not paying attention. Your nomination then argued that it was "just a picture of two characters" but that was addressed 7 days before the discussion closed, so you had plenty of time to respond. --AussieLegend () 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I agree, this person should not be able to renominate something that ended in KEEP. This is ridiculous. And the picture does illustrate two characters from two well known series getting together. Dream Focus 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please address how this meets WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No. You had time to discuss this a few days ago. The discussion ended in KEEP. This bad nomination should be closed. You aren't allowed to game the system. Dream Focus 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hardly gaming. Explain why you think it meets WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It shows a notable event, covered in the news media, of these two characters getting together. I just added a couple of reliable sources to the article its featured in that demonstrate this. [1] Dream Focus 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6. The copyrighted artworks (the character designs) have their own articles: Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson. Therefore, anyone who needs to know what they look like should go to those articles instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:NFCC in showing the meeting between two characters in a crossover, a unique occurrence, and as such it adds reading understanding. Also, renominating something after a few days is absolutely disruptive. One can't just go around and renominating until they get the result they like. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, as I pointed two weeks ago and as pointed out above, this image aids understanding and meets WP:NFCC. It's not just a picture of the Simpsons character and a picture of the Family Guy character. Note: I was asked to comment by Dream Focus—because I was the only registered user to comment on the previous deletion nomination. —innotata 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not just a random image of the two characters it is an image of two major characters appearing in the first ever crossover between the two series the characters appeared in. I see the image as significant enough for inclusion.-- (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - Clearly for fans of the two cartoons there will be a cosmic contextual significance to this image BUT that cannot happen until the episode is broadcast. Currently the Keep arguments are based on the speculated significance of the two oafs meeting from a 5-minute preview. The episode will go out on 28 September 2014, less than six weeks from now, so let's all be patient and just wait for that. The image can always be recreated at the time if we feel it is needed. Green Giant (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    If the article is notable enough to exist, so its the picture that goes into it. No sense deleting something only to recreate it later on. Dream Focus 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:111 wendy msellen.gif[edit]

File:111 wendy msellen.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfufan2005 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Butt Out scene.jpg[edit]

File:Butt Out scene.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfufan2005 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Structural formula of alentemol.png[edit]

File:Structural formula of alentemol.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alentemol.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Chemical structure of acronine.png[edit]

File:Chemical structure of acronine.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Acronine.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Muhammad Junaid Chheenah.jpg[edit]

File:Muhammad Junaid Chheenah.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar.jpg[edit]

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

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Zaheer Ahmed.jpg[edit]

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

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster - I've deleted the version on Commons INeverCry 20:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 17[edit]


File:Nkotbsb-dont-turn-out-the-lights-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BSBOfficialEditor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pretty sure it's a fake cover. Google image shows only 2 other sites with this image and both are fan blogs, they possibly got this picture from wikipedia in the first place. Krystaleen 16:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18[edit]


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

Unused image which was uploaded for an article but that has been redirected because it fails WP:NALBUMS. Green Giant (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mach Schau.jpg[edit]

File:Mach Schau.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dan arndt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image fails WP:NFCC#3a because the article (Mach Schau (album)) already has an unfree album cover (File:Mach shau HG.jpg) in the infobox. It also fails #8 because the presence of the image is not essential to a reader's understanding of the article. Green Giant (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - the image is of the cover of the international release of the album and it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#8 as its presence does increase readers' understanding of the article topic. In that the international release contained not only a different cover but a different track-listing. Dan arndt (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Arndt. If an album has been released with different covers in different international territories, then all of those covers are acceptable fair use in an article about the album — we do not have any rule that an album's article may only contain its original cover in its artist's home country. Rather, we have many, many articles in which we do include one or more "alternate" album covers in addition to the original, and no reason has been provided why the international cover would be uniquely less legitimate here than in those other comparable cases. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I would agree if the article had some discussion of the different album cover. As it stands the only prose mention of the international album cover is "For its release outside Australia, under the Acadia/Evangeline label, Mach Schau was given new cover art". All that an uninformed reader needs is a reference link to the source of the alternative cover where they can view the album cover. It doesn't need to be hosted on Wikipedia and its absence would not result in a reduction the readers' understanding of the article topic since the cover has such sparse text devoted to it. The more important point is that there were some different tracks on the international version, something adequately covered by the listing at the bottom of the article. Green Giant (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Containing extra discussion of the alternate cover, as nice as it would be, is not a condition of including a cover image in the album's article. The only condition that an album cover has to meet is that it provides visual identification of the topic. The article as written doesn't contain any text content about the cover you're not trying to delete either, so why should an alternate cover from a different release market have to meet a higher inclusion standard? Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan arndt. Additionally, new information in the article indicates that the listed file is actually the earlier, i.e. original, version of the album's artwork. It has consequently been moved to the primary position in the infobox. However both versions should still be kept as being different from the other and each helps identify the album for readers residing in different markets. I agree that descriptions of each version's content should be added to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is good that the article has been expanded but nothing more has been added about the album cover. Is there any information about why this cover was chosen or who designed it? What does the image show that can't be conveyed by words? These are the sort of things the prose needs to justify having two cover images. Green Giant (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As nice as such content would absolutely be, it is not a requirement for inclusion of a cover image in an album's article. Visual identification of the topic is the only fair use condition that's required for an album cover — sourced text content about the cover, as valuable as it is to include such material whenever possible, is a bonus rather than a basic inclusion requirement. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Bearcat and shaidar cuebiyar, the images provide a clear and direct visual reference to both the domestic and international releases of the album and should both be included in the article on the album.Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Alvin Singh COPE AGM.png[edit]

File:Alvin Singh COPE AGM.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Albinopigeon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image of a politician whose article was deleted for failing WP:NPOL; as the most substantive claim of notability in the article was an unsuccessful candidacy for political office at the municipal level, there's no realistic prospect of the article actually being recreatable with better sourcing at the present time. It can certainly be reuploaded in the future if circumstances change, but at the present time there's no immediate or sourceable prospect of this being usable anywhere. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


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

Orphan. Also, the seal is only to be used with permission on official school documents. RevoltPuppy (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep We don't need the college's permission to use the seal and we've standardized on using it in the university infobox. I've also replaced it in the college's article so it's no longer an orphan. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


File:JosephLoeffler3.jpg(delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JosephLoeffler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Also includes unused copy at File:JosephLoeffler.JPG. Photos of musician not notable outside of his short time playing with Chevelle. Parent article has been redirected to the Chevelle article, no need for these photos. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19[edit]


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

WP:NOTWEBHOST CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Im too sad to tell you.jpg[edit]

File:Im too sad to tell you.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nowa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails NFCC#8. The image of him crying doesn't add anything to the article. You can say in words that the film features a long close-up of him crying, which the section of the article where the image appears does, and this is a simple concept, with no need for visual illustration. INeverCry 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the “post card” image from Ader's larger work “I'm too sad to tell you” (movie, images, post card). It is one of his most famous images and has had a significant influence on subsequent artists. I'm in the process of researching an expansion of the article to cover the nuances of the image itself and it's impact. I'll probably be ready in a week.--Nowa (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fails NFCC#8. Image adds nothing to article, content can be described in words. Adds nothing to the artist's page or to that of DW artist David Horvitz. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

File:Lehman Caves 016.jpg[edit]

File:Lehman Caves 016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staplegunther (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Blurry, useless file. Not used in any articles. Safiel (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Witold Kieżun[edit]

File:Witold Kieżun as a child.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Witold Kieżun 1950.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Witold Kieżun and Pope John Paul II, Burundi, 1991.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Witold and Danuta Kieżun, Warsaw, 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Witold Kieżun Postage Stamp 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

We have several free photos of this person (see c:Category:Witold Kieżun), so per WP:NFCC#1, we don't need these unfree ones. There is no critical discussion about them, so they all violate WP:NFCC#8. The stamp is mentioned briefly, but is not needed for understanding the article. Some of the photos are also missing evidence of compliance with WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

→Thanks Stefan2. All the pictures comply with WP:NFCC#4, as they're taken from the Jarocki (2013) book on the subject matter, or were published in a press release (stamp), that has been published. I think there is great informational and encyclopedic value to these pictures, as bc the person is 93 years old, illustrations from various decades help the reader understand the specific historical and cultural context of the facts described, the exising free pictures do not provide that. However, I am in the process of obtaining official confirmation for all the pictures used, and will update accordingly in a few days. Best KonradFunk (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, me again. I just got official confirmation per email from the rights holder of all the pictures except the stamp, with the authorization to use them. As I am relatively new here, please let me know if this closes the matter, or the files need to be reclassified somehow, or anyone would want to see the email I received, if so, happy to provide. Best, KonradFunk (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The photographer should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If the photographer is dead, the photographer's heir should do this instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it Polish stamps, as with other Polish images, are copyright for 70 years pma, so this new stamp is covered by that time frame and even a non-free claim for a stamp must comply with WP:NFCI #3 but it is identifying the subject of the stamp without any critical commentary about the stamp itself; a NFCC requirement. The fact that a stamp was issued can be clearly made in prose alone without using a non-free image or deminshing the reader's understanding of the article. ww2censor (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:AE Manacor.png[edit]

File:AE Manacor.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raymond Cruise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Jgfox cmu.jpg[edit]

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

Missing evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

i'm not sure where i was to learn about WP:NFCC -- it's not mentioned in any of the templates for non-free use, that i recall. but perhaps i misunderstood (or simply missed) one of the template directives. in any case, if it's just #4 that's at issue: this image was used, with CMU's permission, in Martinez' 2004 discussion of Fox's work. cite is here: . since you may not have a copy of that paper (it's likely behind a scientific journal paywall, but wasn't previously), i can also point you to a russian translation of that paper: . a google translation of that link will yield "Picture 4 John G. Fox (1916-1980). Courtesy of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellouna." [sic]. please advise on how i can label the image to avoid its deletion. Pgf (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Wilke-Starification.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wickethewok (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free work of art being used actually to illustrate what a living person looks like. damiens.rf 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Provo2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staplegunther (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused file, no foreseeable use. Safiel (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Provo20071.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staplegunther (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused file, no foreseeable use. Safiel (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:SSPX0234 edited-1.jpg[edit]

File:SSPX0234 edited-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staplegunther (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused file, no foreseeable use. Safiel (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Bindaas 2014 Movie Poster.jpg[edit]

File:Bindaas 2014 Movie Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaheed229 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:FutureSex LoveSounds (Deluxe).png[edit]

File:FutureSex LoveSounds (Deluxe).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tomica (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: seems to be a non-notable extra edition. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:The News Quiz CD cover.jpg[edit]

File:The News Quiz CD cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 159753 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - significance. Image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the The News Quiz, which is a radio programme not a CD. Visual identification is not relevant to a radio programme, and File:News Quiz Theme tune 280907.ogg provides more relevant audio identification. The CD pictured here is but one of several collections of episodes issued by the BBC, all with entirely different cover designs, and most listeners to the radio programme will not be familiar with any of them. If considered as an image of the programme participants it fails WP:NFCC#1 as freely-licensed images are available of at least five of the current regular participants, including three of the four in this image (Alan Coren, left, died in 2007), which is clearly a photomontage so a similar but more up to date composite image could be produced if really desired. Qwfp (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:The 2020 Experience (Deluxe).png[edit]

File:The 2020 Experience (Deluxe).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Status (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8: very similar to File:Justin Timberlake - The 2020 Experience.png. Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:TexaChapsLogo1971-73.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Strawberry Shortcake[edit]

File:K-strawberry234.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:StrawberryShortcake2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Per WP:NFCC#3a: the two extra images do not seem to provide anything in addition to the infobox image. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Uindy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Godfather 8850 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §17. The article in the FUR uses File:University of Indianapolis Official Seal.png instead. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:SanAntonioSpursABAlogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:SanAntonioSpurs90slogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Saban 1993 logo.jpg[edit]

File:Saban 1993 logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Powergate92 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo not necessary for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21[edit]


Today is August 21 2014. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 21 -- (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 "===August 21===" 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.