Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Files for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • NFCC applied to free image - The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labelled given evidence presented on the file description page.

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 discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2016 February 10}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

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

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion.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

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }} for each additional file. Also, add {{ffd|File:Name of the first file nominated|log=2016 February 10}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ffdc|File_name.ext|log=2016 February 10}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (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)
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

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:

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

February 4[edit]

File:Sirius Love Logo.jpg[edit]

File:Sirius Love Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bull-Doser (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Sirius XM Love. This appears to be a former logo of the organization which has been superseded by File:Sirius XM Love logo.svg. The non-free use rationale provided states the file is being used in the infobox at the top of the article which is not the case at all so WP:NFCC#10c is not satisfied. Tweaking the rationale is not really an option because the former logo is not itself the subject of any sourced sourced discussion within the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. Moreover, there's not really much difference between the two logos other than the additional text "XM" in the more recent version, so both are serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose according to WP:NFCC#3a, which means only one of the two is needed. Finally, since no sourcing information is provided for the file other than the boilerplate text added by the template when the uploader fails to add specific source information, it's currently hard to verify that both WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a are being satisfied. Suggest Remove from the article unless the above NFCC issues are appropriately resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: I am unable to notify the uploader of the file about this discussion because they have been blocked indefinitely and their user talk page is protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free screenshots of newscast opens[edit]

File:Wpec 2009.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Wndy open.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wvii open.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wsym open.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wwny 2009.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wwmt dt2 news.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wbfs news 2008.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wkcf weather.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wdtn 10 pm.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wtrf dt3 id.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Wwmt 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strafidlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Various non-free screenshots of newscast opens being used in the "News operation" or "Newscasts" subsections of TV station articles. None of these images are being used in the main infobox as the primary means of identification of the TV station in question and none of the screenshots themselves are the subject of any of sourced commentary within the subsection where they are being used so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. In addition, many of these simply show the same logo being used in the main infobox, so no new encyclopedic information is gained from seeing them per WP:NFCC#3a. Suggest Remove for all files from their articles, unless the non-free content issues can be resolved or if by chance some of these are too simple to be considered copyrightable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg[edit]

File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wotnow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Spike Milligan#Books. File has a non-free use rationale, but the "Books" section is essentially an embedded list of books written by Milligan, with no critical discussion at all. Generally, non-free files are not allowed for single entries of such lists per WP:NFLISTS because such usage is considered decorative and using the cover art for a book in an article about its author is generally considered to only be acceptable and provide the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 when the cover art itself is either used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book, or is the subject of sourced commentary within the subsection of another article (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for reference). Suggest remove from "Spike Milligan" unless the NFCC#8 problems are sufficiently resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As the original file uploader, I have no strong objections. It was some time ago that I uploaded the file (2009), and at the time, I aspired to create article about the book. I was in the midst of culling a very very large library - a project which took me 18 months and nearly sent me broke (but I did it) - so I never got around to it. I don't know if I still have the book even. I may do, but my circumstances have changed significantly, such that time is at a premium, and internet access intermittent, with the result that I seldom get to do any editing at all these days, let alone the commitment to see an article through. I'm a persistent little blighter though, so while I live and breathe, there is a fairly good chance I'll get back into Wikipedia, although as for Milligan, brilliant as he was, I must pass for now. I do have a Milligan 'project' to attend to, but that will entail contacting some people to get a longstanding issue sorted out, if there is the will among those capable of resolving the issue. Cheers Wotnow (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Seitya For Slagaocar.png[edit]

File:Seitya For Slagaocar.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arbazbeckham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Coderzombie (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Zimmber logo.png[edit]

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

Is this logo (just coloured letters) really copyrightable? I am not sure myself, does the overlap between letters count as "original"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As uploaded, I opted to employ caution. Particularly since the country of origin is probably India and c:C:TOO has nothing on Indian law. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
India essentially seems to have copied an old British law and then made some amendments, so it's not unlikely that India uses the same originality criteria as the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking around and it seems (assuming that I wasn't looking at outdated laws) to me that in India, copyright is applied on the basis of subject matter, not as a general standard like a TOO. Worth noting though that for enWikipedia purposes we only consider US copyright aspects as noted on Wikipedia:Image use policy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:CJRB 1220am logo.png[edit]

File:CJRB 1220am logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rudy2alan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems more like a case for PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:All India Boy Scouts Association.png[edit]

File:All India Boy Scouts Association.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in India. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Stefan2: and anyone else who may know. The source for this image is given as File:Boy Scouts Association in India.png, which is being claimed as {{PD-India}}. Could this file, assuming that the source file is correctly licensed, also be considered PD if it is a derivative of a PD file or does it still need to be non-free? For reference, the version being discussed here can be found at boyscoutsindia.org and according to this it's possible that the logo is at least as old as 1951, but maybe even older. Some of the pictures on the organization's official website seem quite old (but that could just be the quality of the uploads), and it looks like the logo can be seen on flags and banners in some of the photo galleries ([1], [2], [3]) . Could any of the above be used to help date the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eclaireurs Neutres de Côte d'Ivoire.png[edit]

File:Eclaireurs Neutres de Côte d'Ivoire.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in Ivory Coast. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dr Kumar Vishwas Singapore 2014.jpg[edit]

File:Dr Kumar Vishwas Singapore 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insidernews (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Archived versions of the image subject's (copyrighted) personal website indicate that the image was published by him at worst within days of being uploaded here. Eg: here and here. There are no earlier archived versions of the site.

I realise that the subject may perhaps have grabbed it from Wikipedia without attribution but I'm a little suspicious because of the sheer number of uploads we see for Indian subjects where the claim of "own work" is proven to be incorrect.

I'm not around much at the moment. If I have nominated this in wrong place then feel free to fix my mistake. Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Normally, such things (questioning the freeness of an image) go on WP:PUF but this isn't a stringently enforced policy, I believe.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Stanley.JPG[edit]

File:Stanley.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sai93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, unidentified subject, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Files in Laugh track[edit]

File:Cdouglass LT.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oanabay04 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Pp show 03.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oanabay04 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Fozzierowlf.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mareino (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:The Odd Couple (TV series) titlecard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iam4Lost (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:M*A*S*H TV title screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staxringold (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

All of these files blatantly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Laugh track. The one file that is not as clearly a WP:NFCC#8 violation as the others, File:Cdouglass LT.jpg, fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is not critical discussion present which requires or is enforced by an image of the device's "inventor"; this file is already present in its respective biographical article. (Technically, these files also fail WP:NFCC#10c, but these files have been restored on Laugh track several times now, so a consensus-enforced decision seems necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Remove all from Laugh track. None of these illustrate any point made in the text (let alone critical sourced commentary); they are purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Remove all from "Laugh Track" per nom. I don't see how the usage of any of these satisfy NFCC#8 or how a valid non-free use rationale could be written for such usage. Also, I suggest remove File:Fozzierowlf.jpg from Fozzie Bear and Rowlf the Dog per NFCC#8. This screenshot's usage seems decorative in both articles: it is not needed to identify either character or the subject of any sourced commentary in either article. Fozzie Bear is only mentioned a single time in "Rowlf the Dog" and that's in the caption for the image, and image is not needed at all for the reader to understand what is written about "Episode 218" in "Fozzie Bear" or that Fozzie and Rowlf occasionally appeared together on the show. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Marchjuly on File:Fozzierowlf.jpg in Fozzie Bear and Rowlf the Dog; both should be removed per NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 5[edit]

File:Zrinyi 1 background and 2 in foreground.JPG[edit]

File:Zrinyi 1 background and 2 in foreground.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RAAR Razorback (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

On Commons, the user claimed this as own work: c:File:Zrinyi 1 and 2.jpg, but here attributes it to a (404) link. Also licensed non-commercial. Is there any way it might be salvaged? If not we should delete this as a precaution. BethNaught (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg[edit]

File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I appreciate Masem's good-faith addition of this photo in the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article. Nevertheless, discussions about suspect profile photos, like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, resulted in deletion. I don't see an exception to this photo, even when the section is very big enough to carry a photo without overlapping other sections and images. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Hopefully this deletion request is not designed to make the point that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We all know about the long running saga over the Chris Mercer image, but I can see no good reason to delete the image of Adam Lanza as it has a properly written fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no impact on the reader's understanding of the article to see the picture of the shooter in understanding the shooting incident. Fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dreamr Logo.png[edit]

File:Dreamr Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miles86 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This logo (text within a black sphere) does look like it'd fall under {{PD-textlogo}} (or PD-USOnly seeing as it comes from the UK, which has a lower threshold of originality than the United States. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Joell Ortiz Human.jpg[edit]

File:Joell Ortiz Human.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koala15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This cover art is only white text on a black background. As such it doesn't meet the threshold of originality at least in the US and can't be copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So fix it. Replace the non-free media tag with a {{PD-logo}} tag. No need for a disucssion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: I very much prefer to run this through FFD for now, seeing as I am not a copyright lawyer and we are talking about sensitive legal stuff here. I am open to the idea of retagging obvious cases, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we have any evidence that this cover art actually was used for the product indicated? The user who wrote the FUR didn't provide any source (and a Google reverse lookup gives no hits). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: Googling for the album name shows plenty of websites which use the cover displayed here for this album, for example on iTunes.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Hm. This doesn't find anything at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Reform logo.jpg[edit]

File:Reform logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A.szczep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pretty obviously a PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg[edit]

File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cuchullain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pretty sure such a text-only logo qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Labour Leave.png[edit]

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

More along the line of "PD-textlogo, no way this could be copyrightable in the US" as it's only text with some colour. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems reasonable. Would this file also qualify for PD-textlogo? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am fairly sure it would.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up Face-smile.svg I've changed the licensing on both files now. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Sally192999.jpg[edit]

File:Sally192999.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zosimus Comes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The poster is used in the plot section of Sally (1929 film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. There is already a public domain film poster used in the infobox, so this poster fails WP:NFCC#3a. The fair use rationale for the image claims, "The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.", but neither of these are true. I could not find any information about this poster being in the public domain, but if the information is found and the use templates changed, then this discussion can be closed as moot. Aspects (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Sally1929HH.jpg[edit]

File:Sally1929HH.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zosimus Comes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The poster is used in the cast section of Sally (1929 film), where there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. There is already a public domain film poster used in the infobox, so this poster fails WP:NFCC#3a. The fair use rationale for the image claims, "The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.", but neither of these are true. I could not find any information about this poster being in the public domain, but if the information is found and the use templates changed, then this discussion can be closed as moot. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 6[edit]

File:India FA.svg[edit]

File:India FA.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OAlexander (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally listed at non-free content review, but discussion is going nowhere. There are doubts as to whether all of these pages can display this image as fair use. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:India FA.svg for the original discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:US Soccer Federation.svg[edit]

File:US Soccer Federation.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yxifix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dead non-free content review discussion, archived at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:US Soccer Federation.svg. Please see the original discussion. There are doubts as to whether all of these pages meet free use policy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.jpg[edit]

File:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IQ125 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer. Image has a non-free use rationale the stand-alone article about the book itself and I believe that usage complies with WP:NFCC. Usage in the list article, however, fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Non-free cover art such as book cover is generally considered acceptable in a stand-alone article about the book itself because the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 comes from the entire article and its sources. However, per WP:NFC#cite note-2, usage in other articles, it generally only considered acceptable when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced discussion. Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is a single entry in a list of books and films, etc, written by Fischer or about Fischer. There is no need for the reader's to see this particuar non-free book cover any more then there is the need for them to see File:My60MemorableGames.jpg, File:Bobby Fischer Against the World.jpg or File:Pawn Sacrifice Poster.jpg, the cover art from three other entries in that list. There are plenty of freely licensed images on Commons atc:Category:Bobby Fischer which can be used if desired so a non-free image is not needed. For reference, I've removed the file a few times, but it's been re-added by IQ125 despite relevant links being left in the edit sums each time it has been removed. So, I have brought here to FFD so that this can be resolved one way or the other. Suggest keep in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and remove from "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The image of this book cover of the seminole work Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Bobby Fischer is the subject of the article, i.e. the author of the book and the book itself; amongst other books about the author in this list. The license attached to the image would allow it to be used in this article. The image should be allowed to stay in the article. In addition, the image is being used in an article about the book Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. This book is the highest selling chess book of time. Considering chess books are the second most written and published books in the world this is quite an achievement and certainly adds value to the article. The same is being done with the seminole work of Adolf Hitler with the book cover for Mein Kampf at List of books by or about Adolf Hitler. [[ IQ125 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The subject of "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer" is not Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. The article is a list of various books and films by Fischer himself or by others about Fischer. The {{Non-free book cover}} license for the file just shows that the cover art is protected by copyright, which is something I am not disputing. Every image uploaded to Wikipedia, free or non-free, is required to have information about its licensing or it can be deleted per WP:F4. A copyright tag, however, is not the same as a non-free use rationale and each usage of non-free content is required to satisfy each of the non-free content criteria in order for a valid non-free use rationale to be written. The file's usage in Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is not being disputed since the file is provided with a valid non-free use rationale for that particular usage. The current usage of the file in the list article, however, fails two out the ten non-free content criteria and this edit you made here does nothing to resolve either of the two.
Maybe it will help explain this if I give some examples. File:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg is non-free cover art which is perfectly fine for use in For Whom the Bell Tolls because that is the stand-alone article about the book itself, but it's not being used in Ernest Hemmingway or Ernest Hemingway bibliography, even though it's mentioned in both, because the cover itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within either article. Such usage would fail NFCC#8 because the book is nothing more than a single entry in a list of other books. File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg is considered fine for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because that is the stand-alone article about the album itself. It is also being used in The Beatles#Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band where the album cover itself is the subject of sourced commentary, so the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 is considered to be provided. However, the Sgt. Pepper's cover art is not being used in The Beatles discography because such usage would be considered decorative since the album is simply one entry (the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion) in a list of other records, films, etc. by the Beatles themselves. You'll see that the freely licensed File:The Fabs.JPG is being used instead, and the same could be done with any of the freely licensed images of Fischer on Commons in "List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
While IQ125's concerns about this being a remarkable book by its author are relevant for content - the article text should be written so as to reflect this fact - it doesn't change the NFC considerations here. "Contextual significance" is an abstraction much like notability and we are not claiming that the book is "insignificant". It simply doesn't meet the requirements that are in place for the relationship between a non-free image and an article topic. The consideration about Mein Kampf is irrelevant as that image is free. If Fischer's book cover was free, it would be a content decision whether to include it or not. But it being non-free overrides any debate over preferred content. The image used in this fashion is nice-to-have, but not contextually significant to the degree that "its omission would be detrimental to [the] understanding [of the article topic]" (WP:NFCC8). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for reference, the Mein Kampf example was added by IQ125 to the above post more than an hour after it was originally posted and after I had already responded, which Is why I made no mention of it in my reply. As Finnusertopltalk points out, the image for that book is freely licensed so it's usage is not restricted by the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:UKentucky logo.png[edit]

File:UKentucky logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Porsche997SBS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned; Now on Commons as an SVG file. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 15:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:RSS.png[edit]

File:RSS.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Remember the dot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

SVG version already available at Commons. This local version is only linked to an archived talk page. Cube00 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:DPKA.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 19:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

This image has been added to the Deepika Padukone awards article. It looks likely to be a copyright violation by a fan as it looks like a photo taken of a another photo from a photoshoot in a magazine. There is no attribution to the author or indication that the uploader is the one who did the original photoshoot. Cowlibob (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (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.

February 7[edit]

File:Anucha Sri Image.jpg[edit]

File:Anucha Sri Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnuchaSri (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (t c) 02:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png[edit]

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IncredibleSE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Another leftover from non-free content review. Again, a non-free image probably used on too many pages. See original discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg[edit]

File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SportsMaster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Three images used on the same article that likely don't comply with our non-free content criteria. This is a leftover from the defunct non-free content review and that original discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg, File:Hornets 55.jpg and File:1939-40hornetspostcard.jpg Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dodge City Law.png[edit]

File:Dodge City Law.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NostalgiaBuff97501 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

decorative non-free image used simply to show the former logo. Usage fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Subhajit Mondal.jpg[edit]

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

Unnecessary: portrait of uploader, who has so far made no useful contributions to the encyclopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Having a Rave Up Canadian album cover.jpg[edit]

File:Having a Rave Up Canadian album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ojorojo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

While it is generally held that a single non-free album cover is acceptable in an article about an album, this does not extend to second covers. There is no evidence that this particular cover is significant, and even the release itself is only mentioned in passing. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

At one point, it was planned to use this in the "Alternate cover" field in the infobox (consistent with Template:Infobox album#Advanced usage). However, that overloaded the infobox. I'm not sure moving it to another section is using it much differently, but if that is the policy, so be it. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:RosemountGNUtn.jpg[edit]

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

Tiny orphaned image (just thirty thousand pixels), and I don't imagine this getting used any time soon; it's so small that it really wouldn't work at Rosemount, Ohio, for example. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 8[edit]

File:Arsenal FC.svg[edit]

File:Arsenal FC.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ngckmax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo for the Arsenal Football Club being used in Arsenal F.C. (the main article about the team) as well as in Arsenal F.C. Reserves, Arsenal F.C. Academy and Arsenal L.F.C.. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but based upon No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and similar prior FFD/NFCR discussions, such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 68#File:Real Madrid CF.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Sheffield FC.svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 12#File:Shels logo sml.png, usage has generally only been considered acceptable for the primary team article (the "parent" article) and not acceptable for any of the sub-entity articles (the "child" articles). This type of usage was also discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/November#Fair use of logo where the conclusion was the same. Each of the three non-main team article begins with a sentence which implies they are directly connected to the the main club. The academy and reserve team article seem to be unquestionably sub-entities of the main club while the women's teams say they are affiliated. In my opinion, this means all three teams are "child" entities of the parent club which would mean the logo should only be used in the main team's article. Would it be possible to use this used by the Arsenal Ladies F.C. on their it official Twitter account? It seems team specific, but it may be still too close to the main team's logo to be considered "different" enough.

Finally, I am wondering if the logo could possibly be considered {{PD-USonly}} because the text itself is not eligible for copyright protection, there are plenty of freely licensed shield shapes on Commons, and simple cannon images are elements sometimes used in freely licensed coat-of-arms. If there's no way this logo can be freely licensed, then I suggest keep for "Arsenal F.C.", remove from "Arsenal F.C. Reserves", "Arsenal F.C. Academy", and "Arsenal L.F.C." -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This logo, which consists of rather simple arrangements of rather simple elements, was declared copyrighted in the United States, see c:COM:TOO#United States. This logo seems to be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think we are looking at a simple logo here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:FoxUSVI.png[edit]

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

Non-free logo being used in WVXF and WEON-LP. A non-free use rationale is only provided for the inofbox of "WVXF". Non-free usage in "WEON-LP" fails WP:NFCC#3a (almost same as infobox logo), WP:NFCC#8 (not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article) and WP:NFCC#10c (no non-free use rationale is provided) in "WEON-LP". Suggest keep in "WVXF" and remove from "WEON-LP", unless the file is considered too simple for copyright protection and OK to treat as {{PD-simple}}. Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to say that this is below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dzup2.jpg[edit]

File:Dzup2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nikbert16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obsolete DynamicSupport (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Gary Burton The New Quartet.jpg[edit]

File:Gary Burton The New Quartet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cdl obelix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free album cover art which is just a gray background and the name of the band and the record company in text. Appears to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. Record company's article says it is based out of German, so maybe this is not OK for {{PD-simple}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but it seems acceptable to be at least {{PD-USonly}} -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Disneyland Jungle River poster.png[edit]

File:Disneyland Jungle River poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blm07 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in Jungle Cruise#Boats. Usage has a very basic non-free use rationale, but I don't think it satisfies WP:NFCC#8. The poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and it's not being used in the main infobox of the article as the primary means of identifying the attraction. Poster looks quite old and the caption calls it a first-generation poster, but I don't think its old enough to qualify as public domain (PD) since Disneyland opened, unless it possible as PD for another reason. Another possible problem may be WP:NFCC#10a. I guess it's safe to assume that The Walt Disney Company, if anyone, would hold the copyright, but nothing specific about the source is provided for verification purposes -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free poster art in Disneyland Railroad[edit]

File:Disneyland Grand Canyon Diorama poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blm07 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Disneyland Primeval World poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blm07 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Two non-free posters being used in Disneyland Railroad. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but neither poster is being used in the article's main infobox as the primary means of identifying the attraction. Posters appear to be for certain sections of the ride, which are discussed within the article, but the posters themselves are not the subject of any sourced discussion so I don't their usage provides the context required by WP:NFCC#8. The sourcing information provided for each poster is also not really given, so there may also be problems per WP:NFCC#10a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Magic Kingdom - WEDway Peoplemover poster.jpg[edit]

File:Magic Kingdom - WEDway Peoplemover poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by blm07 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in Tomorrowland Transit Authority PeopleMover#WEDWay Peoplemover (1975 - 1994). File has a non-free use rationale, but the poster is not being used in the main infobox of the article and is not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so I don't think it's usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. Non-free use rationale claims it may have "future historic significance", but I don't think it qualifies as {{Non-free historic image}} per No. 8 of WP:NFCI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Euro Disneyland Map Poster.jpg[edit]

File:Euro Disneyland Map Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Glenny127 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free map/image being used in Disneyland Park (Paris)#History. The image itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article so removing does not seem detrimental to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Saorview logo.png[edit]

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

Does the gradient on this logo qualify it as "original" enough to be copyrightable? Because if no, it should be retagged as {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:1881 Courthouse Museum front1.jpg[edit]

File:1881 Courthouse Museum front1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Boomer Vial (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is not freely licensed. Boomer VialHolla 09:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Currently being speedily deleted. If you, as uploader, agree, no further action is required of you. If you don't, comply with the instructions on the speedy deletion message. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Charles James Martin01.jpg[edit]

File:Charles James Martin01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rotational (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fair use file, no longer needed as free file available and added (File:Portrait of Sir Charles J. Martin Wellcome L0017186.jpg) Deadstar (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Admiral Ackbar Force Awakens.jpg[edit]

File:Admiral Ackbar Force Awakens.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ageofultron (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Article already has a a non-free image (File:AckbarStanding.jpg) illustrating Admiral Ackbar's appearance. Whpq (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Rosemary Brown Canada.jpg[edit]

File:Rosemary Brown Canada.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Truewhit (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 with its usage in New Democratic Party leadership election, 1975. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 9[edit]

File:Portland Timbers (MLS) logo.png[edit]

File:Portland Timbers (MLS) logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Portland Timbers and Portland Timbers U23s. A non-free use rationale is provided for each usage, but only the one for the main team article seems valid. Usage in the U23 team's article does not seem appropriate per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since the team is "part of the development system" of the parent club. Suggest keep for "Portland Timbers" and remove for "Portland Timbers U23s". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free logos in Erie SeaWolves[edit]

File:Erie SeaWolves original logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Erie SeaWolves former logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Erie SeaWolves old logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Erie SeaWolves new logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Erie SeaWolves flag logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaMikePA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Non-free logos being used in Erie SeaWolves#Logo gallery. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but the rationales for 4 out of the 5 files ("File:Erie SeaWolves original logo.png", "File:Erie SeaWolves former logo.png", "File:Erie SeaWolves old logo.png" and "File:Erie SeaWolves flag logo.png") do not seem to be valid because the logos are not being used in the main infobox (as their respective rationales claim), but rather in a gallery of non-free logos which is generally not allowed per WP:NFG. Usage in galleries tends to be decorative and the logos themselves do not seem to be the subject of any sourced commentary so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. So, I suggest remove for these for logos unless they are somehow better incorporated into the text and any discussion of them is supported by reliable sources.

The remaining logo, "File:Erie SeaWolves new logo.png" is being used in the main infobox so NFCC#8 is satisfied; however, it is also being used again in the gallery of images which fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c since there's no reason to use the same non-free image twice and it lacks a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the second usage. Suggest keep for this particular logo, but only for use in the infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:York Capitals.png[edit]

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

Non-free former logo being used in Central Penn Capitals#Logo gallery. A non-free use rationale, but this type of decorative usage in image galleries is generally not allowed per WP:NFG. The logo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Suggest remove if the NFCC#8 concern is not properly resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The image rationale is adjusted for its present use with the brand. —ADavidB 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The rationale was changed, but that does not fix the NFCC#8 problem of decorative usage because the image is still being used in a gallery and is still itself not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the file out of the gallery, into the associated section of the article. —ADavidB 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:YorkCapitals.jpg[edit]

File:YorkCapitals.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DMC511 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Central Penn Capitals#Logo gallery and 2015 York Capitals season. A Non-free use rationale is provided for "Central Penn Capitals", but file is no longer being "as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is now lacking since the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and decorative usage in a gallery is typically not allowed per WP:NFG. Suggest remove from "Central Penn Capitals" unless the NFCC#8 issues are properly addressed.

Usage in "2015 York Capitals season" fails WP:NFCC#10c since a separate, specific non-free use rationale is not provided and also (possibly) NFCC#8 since team logos are typically not allowed in individual season articles per Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, unless it can be shown this was the first season the logo was actually used. So, suggest remove unless a valid non-free use rationale is provided and the possible NFCC#8 issues are resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 season was the first (and only) season this logo was used – the team used the previous entry's logo with prior seasons – but I'm not sure how that can best be 'shown' for the needed purpose here. —ADavidB 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
A separate rationale is now in place for the season article. —ADavidB 10:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The image is removed from the gallery in the team article and placed instead within its related section. —ADavidB 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg[edit]

File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GDD1000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The below discussion was originally placed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and will soon be archived at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 72#File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg. I've copiedmoved the original discussion from that board below, so it can be resolved here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image of a badge being used in the infobox of Carabiniers (6th Dragoon Guards). Website listed as source does not show the image at all and actually appears to indicate that another logo is used instead. Image actually appears to be photo taken, perhaps by uploader, and contains a watermark-like symbol in the lower-right corner. Uploader appears to have retired from editing quite some time ago, so not sure how to find original source for the image or how to verify image's copyright status. Finally, since the image appears to be some form of heraldry, I am wondering if it even satisfies WP:NFCC#1. Isn't it possible to create free equivalents of "heraldry-like" images? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The image does not come from the website given as source because the little logo in the right corner indicates this is an image from an hosting services used for many eBay lots. This image is not covered by crown copyright. As a photo of a 3D cap badge we require the permission of the author and this is clearly missing and unlikely to be found, so it should be nominated for deletion If all that is required is a logo then a drawing of the badge elements would be ok as the regiment only existed until 1922 unless you can find an existing image. The commons illustration workshop might make one. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The uploader has not retired; the image was uploaded by one of the alternative accounts of User:SonofSetanta, who was active as recently as today. The following deletion discussions for other uploads of his may be relevant:
In short, most uploads of his depicting military medals, badges, and insignia have been deleted on copyright grounds, but in at least one can he was able to secure the necessary permissions. Perhaps this is another such case.

Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ww2censor and Psychonaut for your replies. I did not realize that the original uploader was now editing under a different name. Since the image is licensed as non-free, I don't believe it requires "permission" to be used, does it? However, there is still the issues of WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. As long as the copyright status of the image can be verified and that no free-equivalent can possibly be made, the image can be licensed as non-free, right?
Finally, even if the above is resolved, there is also possibly an issue regarding WP:NFCC#8. The non-free use rationale states "There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: 'All regiments of the British army use different cap badges. This one is peculiar to the 6th Carabiniers.'" yet there is no such sourced discussion of the image at all within the article itself. Since the image is being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the unit, it's possible that such a generic statement is sufficient enough to establish the contextual significance of the image, but I'm not sure. -Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely the uploader took the original photo but we can ask. As a 3D image it absolutely does require permission of the photographer and it immediately fails WP:NFCC#1 because anyone with such a badge, or acces to one, can take a photo and release it freely. As I said, if it were a 2D logo we could probably use it as non-free for which we don't require permission. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#1 is complicated here. For the image for this section lead - a military group that was disbanded nearly a century ago - it is likely that the design itself was done well before 1922, and thus the design is public domain; this photograph on the other hand is likely copyrighted to whomever the photographer is , so we should be able to expect a free image... but, we also are talking about a artifact that a limited number of people would have had and that unlikely any of those people are surviving today (again, nearly a century). And as such, unless we are fully aware of a museum or other collection that holds one of these badges on public display, I don't think we can have expectation that a free image could be made (that is, someone to take and give a free photograph to use).
Note that, say in the case of the 1962 piece that has been deleted, the base piece was likely still copyrighted so even though a free photograph could be taken, that image would still be considered a non-free derivative work. But then the issue of finding a badge to take a photograph and get at least a free photo of a copyrighted work (as opposed to a copyrighted photo of a copyrighted work) becomes much more likely. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't we at the very least need to know where the photo came from so that its copyright status can be verified if the image is to be licensed as non-free? The source given for the image apparently is not really the "source" of the photo. The logo being used on that page looks quite different and it's not even clear if the two units are one and the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We do need the source or origin of the photo as to be able to assess whether it could be marked free (knowing the ID of the photographer) or for non-free (to demonstrated previous publication). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded the image and many others like it. There was a time when I cared about things like this but after the witch hunt of last year, which proved beyond doubt that the vast majority of the images I have provided were genuine and correctly uploaded, I gave up. My reason for that is simple: one goes to a lot of trouble to find free images, even donating a substantial amount of my own photographs, only to have them questioned by people who don't know anything about the subject matter. I was repeatedly called a liar by several members over images of which I could produce, not only the original of but also, the negatives. This didn't stop the persecution however so I just don't bother with images anymore or the fact that over zealous editors call my reputation into question. So fill your boots - I don't care. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:University of London.svg[edit]

File:University of London.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kashmiri (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:UofLondon logo.png(delete | talk | history | links | logo.png logs)

Leftover from Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Original discussion has been moved here, seen below. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is marked as a non-free, non-replaceable logo. However, it is an armorial shield, not a logo. It is replaceable with a free graphic based on the blazon from the University's 1838 grant of arms. http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html (unfortunately the image at that page is too low a resolution to read) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That graphic and the current logo look almost identical, albeit not completely so (the book is narrower in the older). Unfortunately I can't find any larger version of that older logo. I also notice that the current image is used in three pages but has a NFUR only for one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I have found a black-and-white one whose original is public domain, but not a colour one. (I think I used the wrong deletion process here. I should have used delayed speedy deletion as it is certainly old enough to be replaceable with a public domain version. As Jo-Jo already replied, I guess it is too late to switch to delayed-speedy.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the graphics in question is to depict what is effectively being used as LU's logotype, not some historical version. As the image uploader, I was not sure whether the graphics was in public domain (unlike the historical drawing, which has narrower arms, etc.), hence I tagged it as fair use. I tend to believe that there was a degree of creativity put in creating the current offical logo based on the historical coat of arms. Whether it crossed the threshold of originality, I don't know. It is thought that the threshold is lower in the UK than in the US, hence the image might be protected. But no, this current logotype cannot be replaced by a historical coat of arms: the two are different things, both materially and functionally. Regards, kashmiri TALK 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
We should also review the use of File:UofLondon logo.png.
I agree with you that the vector art may cross the threshold of originality so you were right to tag it as fair use.
However I do not agree that because the University currently uses that particular version, that we need to display that particular version in Wikipedia's article about the university. It is shown in the infobox as a coat of arms, and for most old universities, we use an old or re-drawn coat of arms, not a modern non-free version.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree re. vector art vs. raster art. Copyright protection extends to the work of art irrespective of what file format it has been rendered in.
I also quickly scanned Oxford University, University of Cambridge, and University of Sheffield - and did not see us using anything else than the official coat of arms. Actually, I am not even sure there would be different versions of the official coat of arms.
Of interest, an old coat of arms does not mean it is in public domain in the UK - see here: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/about/arms.
Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a good question (and a very useful link). It is possible that Sheffield meant that it is restricted by trademark law or heraldic law, or they meant that their own coat of arms artwork is restricted by copyright. None of which would affect most educational uses of a free version of Sheffield's or London's shield
As a counter-example, we have this free shield on Commons, that is used on numerous Wikipedia articles: File:Cambridge shield.png
There is a long article about this at Commons:Coats of arms
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
To demonstrate that the official shield has been redrawn many times, I just found one on an official UL document in a fuzzy grayscale scan that is probably free (pre-1890 original) and has the same heraldic elements as the logo, but a different shaped book. It is on the first page of this large (13 MB) PDF http://www.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/resources/gr.pt1.pdf
Better to ask an artist to draw a fresh one (such as at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The blazon for the arms is "Argent the Cross of Saint George Thereon the Union Rose Irradiated and Ensigned with the Imperial Crown Proper A Chief Azure Thereon an open Book also Proper Clasps Gold".[4] With this, a heraldic artist should be able to draw a new version. If the idea is to depict the arms rather then the specific logo (which appears to be the case), this should be sufficient. Robminchin (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:MedalPHQ.JPG[edit]

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

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. These 1990 cards are copyright until 2041 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Wggrace.jpg[edit]

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

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. This 1973 card is copyright until 2024 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. I've uploaded a new better quality image with a suitable non-free rationale. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Roywedd86PHQ.JPG[edit]

File:Roywedd86PHQ.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ColinBoylett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. These 1986 cards are copyright until 2036 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Corporater logo.jpg[edit]

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

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corporater logo.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 10[edit]

File:FESFUT logo.svg[edit]

File:FESFUT logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Pink Oboe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Salvadoran Football Federation, El Salvador national beach soccer team, El Salvador national football team, El Salvador national under-17 football team, El Salvador national under-20 football team, El Salvador national under-21 football team, El Salvador national under-23 football team, and El Salvador women's national football team. A non-free use rationale is provided for each usage, but such logos are generally only considered NFCC compliant in the main federation/association article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and the minimal usage required by WP:NFCC#3. The main federation/association is typically considered to be the "parent" entity and the teams are considered to be "child" entities. This has been almost always been the consensus in other FFD/NFCR discussion about similar logos, and I don't see how this is any exception. So, suggest keep in "Salvadorian Football Federation" and remove from the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: I was unable to notify the uploader of the file of this discussion because their user talk page has been protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png[edit]

File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This team logo was the first logo used by the New York Cosmos (1970–85), which was changed to File:New York Cosmos 77.png. However, this logo is almost identical to the later logo that is in the article, with the only difference the inclusion of New York in the logo. This file is not necessary to explain the team logos or to illustrate it. This is a carryover from the old WP:NFCR, discussion here Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Oknazevad:, @Marchjuly: and @Masem: - Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm just to going to repost what I said at that discussion, so people don't have to jump between pages: There is no current logo, as it is an article on a historical team. More importantly, though, the discussion in the article explicitly covers the placement and and font choices for the words on the logo, the original logo. So the original logo needs to be illustrated for the passage to make sense. Also, the change in logo does illustrate the (temporary) change in name, which is discussed in the full team history above. But in general, for a section dedicated to discussing the design of the team's two logos through its history to not include both logos seems like a silly claim. oknazevad (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The difference between two versions, which only change in the words used, is really pushing NFCC#3. While there is discussion that the "New York Cosmos" was dropped to just "Cosmos", one does not need to see both logos to recognize that difference. Note that there is clearly sufficient discusion for one of the logos, moreso than most other logo uses, but I really don't think we can justify both if the only change is wording. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not sure if the difference between the two logos is significant enough for both to be needed per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. The only real difference I can see between the two is that original logo says "New York Cosmos" and the other simply says "Cosmos". I think this is more than adequately explained by the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged." without seeing both logos. All of the discussion about fonts, colors and "three color blades" can still be understood without seeing both logos since the badge itself remained unchanged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:18NightsOfBruce.jpg[edit]

File:18NightsOfBruce.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasted Time R (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour#Commercial and critical reaction. File has a non-free use rationale which states "To illustrate the attempt to broaden the audience of the tour's American leg, by hooking up with AOL and its customer base", but I do not see why a this particular poster needs to be seen to understand that. The file's caption says "To increase publicity, AOL broadcast a different song's performance nightly during the American leg of the tour." which is unsourced and content that should be directly added to the article itself if relevant (AOL is not mentioned a single time in the article other than the file's caption). Suggest remove per WP:NFCC#8 since the image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary so the contextual significance it needs is lacking and per WP:NFCC#1 since text could be added to the article to say "AOL broadcast a different song's performance nightly ...." to serve the same encyclopedic purpose per item "b" in WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:1952 Summer Olympics.jpg[edit]

File:1952 Summer Olympics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cardshark04 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1952 Summer Olympics#Sports. file has a non-free use rationale, but the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and is simply being used for decorative purposes in an embedded list section. Suggest remove per WP:NFCC#8, unless there is some way to convert this to a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:1st World Scout Jamboree poster.png[edit]

File:1st World Scout Jamboree poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Horus Kol (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1st World Scout Jamboree#Olympia and camping. File has a non-free use rationale, but I don't think it's current usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8 because the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. I do think that this may possibly be resolved by simply moving the poster to the main infobox per its non-free use rational. Another possibility is that this file may be old enough for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. The jamboree was held in the summer of 1920 which means that this has to have been created before then, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a promotional poster made before the event to publicize the event. Mine was scanned from a book 5000 miles away.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg[edit]

File:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DragonFire (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free poster art being used in 1954 FIFA World Cup#Seeding. File has a non-free use rationale, but the rationale states the file is "Used in the infobox/header of the article to identify the tournament" which is not the case at all. Since the poster itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, current usage lacks the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. Suggest remove from the article, unless this is possibly old enough for public domain or some other type of free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Finland 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Olympic Games 10Euro Reverse.JPG[edit]

File:Finland 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Olympic Games 10Euro Reverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kevin hipwell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used in 1952 Summer Olympics#50th anniversary coin and Helsinki Olympic Stadium. File has a non-free use rationale, but it seems to be an attempt to combined three separate uses into one rationale so I don't think this passes WP:NFCC#10c. There are other NFCC problems besides 10c. Files use in "1952 Summer Olympics" seems OK since there is some discussion of the coin itself, but none of it is sourced discussion so it could be removed per WP:NOR and thus taking away the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. Coin is also discussed in Helsinki Olympic Stadium#History, but once again none of the content is supported by a reliable source. I don't think the file really needs to be used in both articles since they basically say the same thing and feel file is more appropriate for "1952 Summer Olympics" provided some reliable sources are added in support. Suggest keep for "1952 Summer Olympics" on the condition that reliable sources are added in support of the content of the relevant section, and remove from "Helsinki Olympic Stadium" since the wikilink to the "50th anniversary coin" can be added instead, unless it is possible that this can be licensed as {{PD-FinlandGov}}. If so, then there would be no need to worry about WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:10am Spanish Mass (2008).jpg[edit]

File:10am Spanish Mass (2008).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marburg79 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This nomination is only for the "6 April 2015" revision. There is no source to verify copyright status for the image that was uploaded over the top of the church mass image. The live version of the image has been reverted back to the church image. The 6 April 2015 revision should be deleted unless someone can confirm source/copyright and split the image onto a new page. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 07:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:5th Avenue Records, Inc home office.jpg[edit]

File:5th Avenue Records, Inc home office.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 5th Avenue Records, Inc. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low Resolution; uploaded by a promotional account, likely copyvio (multiple tineye hits: [5]) FASTILY 10:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Stanley Donen - On the Town-1.jpg[edit]

File:Stanley Donen - On the Town-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obviously invalid PD claim. Uploader says image was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, but the source image is clearly dated 1996. We have no information about the original publication of the image, and cannot determine whether it carried a copyright notice. If the 1996 publication is the first, no copyright notice was required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dave Barrett.jpg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in New Democratic Party leadership election, 1989. Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:American Go Association (logo).jpg[edit]

File:American Go Association (logo).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TDerz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I can't find any evidence that the association uses this logo. No source was provided by the uploader, and all links from the article American Go Association (such as the link to the company's website) either use a different logo or no logo at all. This is either a fake logo or a former logo. If it is a former logo, then it's better to retag as {{PD-textlogo}}.On the other hand, if it is a fake logo, then we should delete the file. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Rocco the dog.jpg[edit]

File:Rocco the dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rileypie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused low-resolution dog photo. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:XHLC 98.7radioabsoluta logo.png[edit]

File:XHLC 98.7radioabsoluta logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rudy2alan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Clear cut case of PD-textlogo (a bit of colour is not enough to add originality), but is it suitable for Commons? (i.e {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Shirley Valentine[edit]

File:Shirley Valentine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Emerson7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:PaulineCollins1.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

The article fails WP:NFCC#3a. We only need one picture, not two. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lintel.jpg[edit]

File:Lintel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonett72 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, low quality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Stick Soldiers[edit]

File:Screen12.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Screen4.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Screen6.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keron Cyst (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a. We don't need three similar screenshots. We should delete two of them and give the last one a sensible name per WP:FNC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Green circle.png[edit]

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

Unused circle. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:City Hall Dublin.jpg[edit]

File:City Hall Dublin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tebibyte (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Microsoft WSUS Admin 2.png[edit]

File:Microsoft WSUS Admin 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Warren (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Another editor placed a speedy deletion tag requesting deletion on the basis that the Microsoft license was violated due to an image alteration, the alteration being the computer name being blurred out, presumably for privacy reasons. I declined speedy deletion, but since the license was challenged, I feel obligated to bring it to discussion. My personal view is that the license was not violated, since the blur was for redaction reasons only and the blur did not compromise the integrity of the overall image. I will notify the editor who placed the delete tag and invite him to comment on this. Safiel (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is February 10 2016. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 10 -- (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 "===February 10===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.