Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Images for deletion)
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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2014 August 20}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|Uploader= |Reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }}

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 {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2014 August 20}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. 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

Contents

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:

  • (None at this time)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

August 14[edit]

File:Clippy wikipedia parody.jpg[edit]

File:Clippy wikipedia parody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Herostratus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8: we don't need to see a parody to understand that Clippit parodies exist, there is already a picture of Clippit in the Office Assistant article, and a parody could reasonably be made that has freely-licensed text that could either be used as text or made into a non-free derivative work. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah if the point being made was just "parodies exist" then text would do. But the point being made is "observe, the parodies look like this". For "looks like this" type exposition images are useful. Not clear your point re "could be made into a non-free derivative work" since that's what I did. It's legally OK as fair use parody I assume. Obviously a free version isn't available and won't be for many decades or probably this century I guess so it's fair use or nothing here.
Your point that it's fair use that's exceeds our remit... dunno, it's debatable I guess. "Presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"... the section its used in titled "Criticism and parodies" and I guess an example might be considered useful. "Minimal usage"... dunno, it's used once and in that article, don't see how it could be more minimal without disappearing... can't really make it too much smaller or fuzz up the resolution much more without the text becoming illegible for people without pretty good vision. Maybe though. Not really up to date on how these policies are applied on the ground though. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't seem clear to me from looking at the file description page that you freely licensed the text you wrote. If the text is freely-licensed, then it serves as an acceptable substitute for the derivative-work image, and it could be displayed in the margin where the image is currently located. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK. The problem is, there isn't really a good way to indicate (in our system) "Here is a work, some of which is taken from copyrighted material (but for which I am claiming fair use) and some of which is my own work (which I donate under a free license)". The actual file is my original work (made in PC Paint), but it's not really transformative original artistic work (in the sense that, say, Andy Warhol's painting of Campbell's Soup cans was, which I assume gave Warhol copyright of the painting and prevented the Campbell's Soup Company from contesting that). I suppose I could claimed that and maybe that'd fly or maybe not, I don't know, and since I don't know I didn't claim it as entirely my own work. I assume that copyright for a work devolves to the most restrictive status. Anyway, there's no easy way to express this in the license. Herostratus (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The violation of WP:NFCC here is serious. This policy makes it a point that copyright-protected non-free intellectual properties of others must never be used (even under fair use) to make a point that can be made with words alone or with freely licensed material.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Beyond the points made, I dislike the idea of encouraging/frustrating/etc. vandalism. I can't say (much less prove) that the vandalism to the article was provoked by that Clippy supporting vandalism, but I'd find it much more tasteful if the image was just about regular or good faith editing. I also don't understand the dating site thing... how is that relevant or funny? This may not be a strong enough standalone reason to delete it, but it certainly doesn't help its case.moluɐɯ 14:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mount Saint Vincent Logo.jpg[edit]

File:Mount Saint Vincent Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nynj450 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

a new image of better quality will be uploaded Nynj450 (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynj450 (talkcontribs) 02:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Westminster Pollution History.jpg[edit]

File:Westminster Pollution History.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrindtXX (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The statement in the NFUR that "All modern grey literature is likely to be in copyright" is probably false; at the very least, an editor-made mockup of gray literature could be created, or an author of gray literature could be contacted to freely license their work. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion[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: Malformed nomination For instructions on how to nominate files for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/heading. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 14 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Rules of Nature (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2014 (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:Sri Ram Ashram Shyampur.jpg[edit]

File:Sri Ram Ashram Shyampur.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pradeepwb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of minors, and it's removal would not adversely affect the article in which it appears. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Do minors enjoy some protection adults do not when it comes to being photographed? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Minors may not appear on pornographic pictures. This is not relevant here, though. I am not aware of any other protections for photos of minors. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't state the blatantly obvious. I was trying to figure out why User:Sfan00 IMG even mentioned that they were minors. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I was referring it here because I think Wikipedia needs to be more pro-active about not using pictures of kids unless it really needs to.

I appreciate there is no formal guideline on this at present, but my understanding was that were an image of minors/children could be removed from an article, without affecting the article content, or where the image wasn't directly mentioned in the article, the image should be removed. If the image has OTRS confirming model releases it would be a different issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of such a policy, or of any problems caused by not having such a policy. Where did you get this "understanding" you speak of? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't formal policy as such, but a previous admin advised (can't recall who.), If there is no policy reason for this to be deleted, then

Withdrawn. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Ghalib-Farsi-Kalam-Iran.jpg[edit]

File:Ghalib-Farsi-Kalam-Iran.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nannadeem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If file can be kept (no deletion), then anyone may kindly help by giving it necessary tags/temp. My intention to have it in the article(s) is to illustrate pictorial high profile evidence. However, it is a copyright concern itself (my uploading bears a general permission and email which I have already forwarded, is a prove of implied action). Now admin may decide per EN:WP norms & policy. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, nominator is right. This is not a free image, hence it cannot be helped. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wehwalt the centurion.jpg[edit]

File:Wehwalt the centurion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brianboulton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused , personal file? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Obviously it's a personal file if it has the user name of a prominent Wikipedian in it. This image file is linked (not transcluded) onto Wehwalt's talk page. Keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty obvious keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What purpose is achieved by deleting it? This looks likes the jobsworth mentality at work. Keep, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Userspace file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Maris racal playing different instruments.jpg[edit]

File:Maris racal playing different instruments.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ImTaeYoon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, personal? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cvhedc5.jpg[edit]

File:Cvhedc5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mario94606 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: something like htis should only be used in the article about the book, but not in the article about the writer. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete The comic book cover is being used to illustrate a section in the writer's bibliography against WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tuan Burhanudeen Jayah.jpg[edit]

File:Tuan Burhanudeen Jayah.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abhayaputta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unclear source. A newspaper is mentioned, although not a complete URL. Many newspaper photos violate WP:NFCC#2. Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lahore-Lions.jpg[edit]

File:Lahore-Lions.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiki id2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Per WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Rawalpindi Rams.gif[edit]

File:Rawalpindi Rams.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiki id2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Rawalpindi-Rams.jpg[edit]

File:Rawalpindi-Rams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rajaghalib (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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[edit]

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)

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 103.242.199.170 (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)

File:Pat1908.jpg[edit]

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[edit]

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)
  • 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.--67.68.22.129 (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)

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[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[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)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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)

Footer[edit]

Today is August 20 2014. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 20 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===August 20===" 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.