Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

Shortcut: WP:FFD

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have 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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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]

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.
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.
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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
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.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages 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.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2016 January 15}}` 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 {{subst:ffd\|File:Name of the first file nominated}} 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 January 15}}` 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

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 24 - 6 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30 - 6 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 1 - 9 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2 - 6 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 5 - 8 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 6 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 8 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 9 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 13 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 17 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 20 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23 - 3 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 28 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 30 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 31 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 1 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 4 - 8 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 5 - 5 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 8 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

Recent nominations[edit]

January 9[edit]

File:MattCarol.jpg[edit]

Subject's article was deleted as non-notable. Orphaned and no foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 00:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Arkham Knight Nightwing Promo.jpg[edit]

Non-free promotional image being used in Dick Grayson#Arkham series. File has a non-free usage rationale, but its claim that the it's needed for the "Illustration of a specific point within the article" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within that particular section, so omitting it would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding at all in my opinion. The sentence "Robin design is an alternate costume for Tim Drake." seems to be the only sentence about the costume itself, and I don't think a non-free image is needed for the reader to understand that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg[edit]

It looks like someone was trying to upload a "new version" of a previously uploaded non-free image, but then decided to make two separate files for the same image. The new version added to "File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg" is so different from the "old version" that I do think they should be considered to be the same file. Once the non-free versions that are not being used are deleted from "Siya Ke Ram.jpg", we'll be left with two practically identical files (with even essentially the same name) which is something which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#3a. Any suggestions on what to do here? Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: "File:SiyaKeRam.jpg" was previously uploaded as File:Siya and Ram.jpg which was deleted by admin Ponyo back on December 22, 2015 per WP:G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1st of ol thnku User:Marchjuly for creating a beautiful user talk page 4 me. Firstly i tried uploading new version of d title pic.the older version contains old name Maryada Purushottam Siya Ke Ram as it was announced but the serial is released with the name Siya Ke Ram so that older version was totally wrong. Older version doesn't show the real name but i was failed to upload. So i upload it with new name. Divya Thaakur (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Paramural bodies.PNG[edit]

This is either in the public domain (as stated in Special:PermanentLink/690151835) or in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Thus, the file should either be deleted or have its file information modified. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Tariq Imran Legislative Process of Law.jpg[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Barbary Coast, San Francisco. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep - The complaining criteria, WP:NFC#UUI §6 , states that "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)"

The use of this previously discussed and approved image [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_27#File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg ] is not about "an article passage about the image", but is merely the use of a reduced-size image as it pertains to a topic within the article, in order to better engage and illuminate the reader. The phrase "about the image" is not satisfied, and that is why this proposal for deletion is misapplied, and threatens the quality of an article which hardly has any photos to begin with.

In support of keeping the image, its use displays "Contextual Significance" in accordance to WP:NFCC#8 which states, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Below are some examples of Contextual Significance for this photo,

Within the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article, the photo helps the readers' understanding of a forgotten historic era, and also functions to hook the readers' interest in a subtopic -- to encourage them to further read its satellite article, Terrific Street.
Within the Terrific Street article, the photo is paired with another current-day photo of similar viewpoint, in order to contrast the change in buildings and a neighborhood over the course of a century.

Also in support of keeping the photo, WP:NFCC#1 states, "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There is no free equivalent photo that presents Pacific Street from the view necessary for comparison in the Terrific Street article.

Both instances of the photo serve to better inform and engage the reader in giving a more vivid experience. To needlessly delete any current use of this photo would be detrimental to Wikipedia, and not serve any real purpose.James Carroll (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion you are linking to is about whether the file is unfree or not. Since we have no evidence that it is free, we have to assume that the file is unfree. In Barbary Coast, San Francisco#After the 1906 earthquake, the image is merely used to illustrate a passage about something, but per WP:NFC#UUI §6, it is sufficient to link to the article about that thing - the non-free image is not to be repeated. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote the text of WP:NFC#UUI §6 here, as you read it? I am having trouble telling what you are referring to. James Carroll (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See above: In Barbary Coast, San Francisco#After the 1906 earthquake, the image is merely used to illustrate a passage about something, but per WP:NFC#UUI §6, it is sufficient to link to the article about that thing - the non-free image is not to be repeated. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You still have not given me an accurate quote, concerning the text for WP:NFC#UUI §6. Again I ask, is this the text of WP:NFC#UUI §6, that you are referring to, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)"James Carroll (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You still have not given me an accurate quote - incorrect, see above. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image) - exactly. The venue can be described by linking to the article about the venue, instead of including an image of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

James commented on my talk page since I was involved in the previous discussion, but I will like to make sure that James is aware that this is not about outright deletion of the file, simply its use of the file on Barbary Coast. The use in Terrific Street appears fully valid and the image is not going to be deleted, but Stefan is properly pointing out that we can link to Terrific Street on the Barbary Coast article instead of reusing the picture as to minimize the use of non-free (per WP:NFCC#3a). --MASEM (t) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It may not be about "absolute deletion", but the photo would be permanently removed from the Barbary Coast article where it has provided a valuable function there for nearly 2 years -- to encourage the reader's appetite to go on and read the Terrific Street satellite article. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. However within the Terrific Street article the photo is much smaller, at the very bottom of the article for a specialized purpose, and does not have as commanding presence as it does in the Barbary Coast article. WP:NFCC#3a states, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case it seems that one instance will NOT "convey equivalent significant information." Maybe what we should be looking at is the big picture -- what is best for a specific article(s). And isn't that what WP:NFCC#8 says, that photo-removal should be halted "if the photo's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." James Carroll (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with User:James Carroll's arguments above. The Barbary Coast, San Francisco article is so poorly illustrated that this image serves an important role here. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, the image of the perpetrator of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting may no longer be necessary. Removal of the image may not affect a reader's understanding of the shooting. In fact, the perpetrator is not the main subject of the article, regardless of the length of the section about the perpetrator. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep the perpetrator is always key to a crime. I can understand not wanting to have the person committing the crime be given recognition and be immortalized, but that is not Wikipedia policy yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete A non-free picture of a person should only be used in the article about the person. If the person doesn't have an article, then this means that the picture shouldn't be used anywhere. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. I ask anyone !voting Keep to read it carefully first, then explain how the knowledge that the perpetrator looks like this, and not like this, significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic (the shooting, not any individual), and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Hint: "the perpetrator is always key to a crime" fails to explain that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep Information about the suspect/defendant is a necessary component of an article regarding a criminal event. First, under allot of circumstances a subject's visual appearance in general/under specific circumstances can be essential to one's conception of that individual. This may not be necessary in fiction or a historic article, but in regards to important, current events where the conception can have influence on one's opinion on important subject matter, this is very important. It can be argued that yes its important but not important enough to meet the non-free image WP:NFCC#8. Yes in some cases that is correct, but it is in this case, where we have a picture of the suspect shortly after the crime occurred. The mental state of the suspect is one of the key components to understanding this event, seeing the facial expression of the suspect is very informative to understanding his mental state at the time and in turn to one's understanding of what happened.
A non-free picture of an individual can be essential to an article even if the article is not a broader article about that individual. Right now the colorado springs piece has seven sections, the suspect is an essential component of five of those sections - shooting, standoff and arrest, suspect, investigation and legal proceedings. In this case the suspect's picture is as essential as it would be in a specific article about the suspect. This picture should be moved to the article regarding that individual if/when that article is created.
In this case removing the head shot of the suspect shortly after the crime has occurred would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the subject of that article (the crime). Rybkovich (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I completely agree with this reasoning. No one really needs or deserves to know what the perp looks like. Parsley Man (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Thank you letter SS.jpg[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use, presumably invalid public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

File:FIRST FRC 2016 Stronghold banner.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated the page with the official logo of this year's game. Since this image is no longer in use on any pages, I believe it can be deleted. I uploaded this image. Wywyit (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagged as G7.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 13 January 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.

File:Sdparty.png[edit]

This image is only used for "decoration" when the organization it represents is mentioned in other articles (than the article of the organization itself). It may not meet the contextual significance criterion. Liangent (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:ApikorosSleuth-bookcover.jpg[edit]

Non-free cover art being used in Robert Majzels#Partial bibliography. Majzels is the author of the book, but the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary so usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for details), and usage also fails WP:NFLISTS because image is being used in a bullet-listed bibliography section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Imbox deletion.png[edit]

This cascade-protected file is as far as I can tell an exact duplicate of File:Ambox deletion.png, including copyright license and uploader. While I can see the benefit of having a differently-named title, having a file redirect (which would still be cascade protected) seems better than to maintain two different files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. MediaWiki incorrectly reports that the file is an exact duplicate because the bKGD chunk (which specifies the image's default background color) is ignored. Each of the two files contains a bKGD chunk that's perfectly matched to the background color of the designated template type, which compensates for a bug present in older versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer (wherein 24-bit PNG transparencies are rendered as white – unless a bKGD chunk is used to override the default).
Such legacy support is not as important as it was when the affected browser versions were in wider use, but given that this file is causing no harm, its retention's modest benefit outweighs its deletion's negligible/nonexistent benefit. —David Levy 16:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know about this technicall background - is this something like File:Ambox deletion.png and File:Ambox speedy deletion.png? Although I note that the Imbox file is currently almost completely unused, and mainly in "experimental" (?) templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know about this technicall background - is this something like File:Ambox deletion.png and File:Ambox speedy deletion.png?
In that instance, the two files are separate (and I'm unfamiliar with the latter's background).
Although I note that the Imbox file is currently almost completely unused, and mainly in "experimental" (?) templates.
Yes, I just noticed that. It appears to have been replaced at some point. —David Levy 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The two files seem to be identical, or at least there doesn't seem to be any apparent way to download the differences:

$ wget -O - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Imbox_deletion.png | sha1sum
05eec50a7244cb12aef46cf83e780bb9cc636a1c  -
$ wget -O - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Ambox_deletion.png | sha1sum
05eec50a7244cb12aef46cf83e780bb9cc636a1c  -

I don't see any reason to keep duplicate copies, but if one is to be deleted, then I think that it is better to delete the most recently uploaded copy instead (File:Ambox deletion.png uploaded by User:Anomie). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct; the two files are identical. I misremembered. The above explanation applies to other icons, but not to this one. Template:Ambox and Template:Imbox have the same background color (#fbfbfb), so both files contain the corresponding bKGD chunk (with an RGB value of 251,251,251). I have no specific recollection of why separate files were uploaded, but I suspect that it related to a template syntax issue that no longer exists. Therefore, delete.
Regarding the chronology, I uploaded File:Ambox deletion.png in April 2008. This was unapparent because the local copy was deleted and reuploaded in 2011 (following a transfer to Commons). I just restored the original history. —David Levy 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Official Logo of 2016 FRC challenge FIRST STRONGHOLD.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This image was replaced with an image of higher quality. It is no longer in use on any pages and can be deleted. I uploaded the image. Wywyit (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagged for G7 since you are the uploader.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 10 January 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.

File:Louis theroux.jpg[edit]

Same as File:Louis theroux1.jpg, but with some unnecessary whitespace. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete, although uploading a better version of theroux1 may be advisable - the Flickr here seems to be of better quality.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Slugs handbill with Sun Ra every Monday.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

let us document the continued vandalism by wiki admin stefan2. yes, keep searching wiki for all my postings, and delete them all.

Per article the venue shut down in 1972. This means that the handbill was published prior to 1978. Because it was published pre 1978 and there is no copyright on it (I checked the image) the handbill is in public domain. So it should be re-listed as a {{PD-US-no notice}} Rybkovich (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is this the entire publication, or was there more than one page? Has something been removed from the borders of the picture? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I know I am confident that this is the only page. I checked and a hand bill is what I thought it was - a piece of paper that you stack at a place or give to people to advertise an event that is happening at a club. The only aspect that would make the hand bill copyrightable is the place's logo. I would be surprised if they would feel like it should be copyrighted and if so would put it on the very edge of the bill. It does not look cut to me but I do not know. Rybkovich (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Might there be something on the back of the paper? To save on paper, some of the advertisement was maybe printed on the other side? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We can't rule out that there wasn't anything on the back. But its also reasonable to assume that there wasn't, I think of hand bills as mini posters. To me its its more unlikely that there was something on the back, but that's a personal opinion. Rybkovich (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Gowind fair use.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 on all pages except Gowind-class corvette. Fails WP:NFCC#9 on User:Rigel Squadron 3. Fails WP:NFCC#10c on a number of pages. There are FURs for three articles, but it is used in six articles. Also fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:University of Edinburgh logo.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#9 on User:Coconut Kilt/Edinburgh University Rifle Club. Appears to fail WP:NFC#UUI §17 on a number of pages. The file only seems to be necessary on University of Edinburgh. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

File:Noorjahan1.jpg[edit]

According to {{PD-India}}, the copyright term to a 'work of cinema' is 60 years from publication (or 50 years from publication if published before 1941). Those films which were in the public domain in India as of 1996 would typically be in the public domain in the United States too (as {{PD-1996}}). According to Noor Jehan#Filmography, this person has appeared in films since 1936, so this image seems to violate WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by an image from a pre-1941 film. This picture appears to be from a film from 1946, which is thus in the public domain in India but not in the United States. Additionally, the file appears to violate WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:SheriffIsInTown. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:DaoofCapital.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mark Spitznagel and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Oceanflynn/Zero Sum Game (Finance). Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove from "Mark Spitznagel" per Stefan2. The way the cover art is being used the "Roundabout investing" section is purely decorative since book cover itself is not the subject of the sourced commentary typically required for such usage according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. Finally, I have removed the image from User:Oceanflynn/Zero Sum Game (Finance) per NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left a note on their user talk explaining why, so there are no more outstanding NFCC#9 issues to resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg[edit]

This appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in Rita Pam Tarachi and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Adrian 8076/Fragments of her identity. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was this listed here? It passed all the necessary requirements so why is it here? Adrian 8076 (talk)

Hi Adrian 8076. I removed the file from your user subpage per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left a more detailed post at User talk:Adrian 8076#Non-free images explaining why. The other problem with image's usage has to do with WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Generally, a non-free book cover or album cover is only considered appropriate when used in stand-alone articles about the book or album itself and not appropriate in article about the book's author or the album's singer/band (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for more details). In this particular case, I agree with Stefan2 that the use of the non-free book cover in "Rita Pam Tarachi" is mainly decorative and thus it should be removed. I'm not sure what you mean by "It passed all the necessary requirements". but simply adding a non-free use rationale to a file does not automatically mean it's usage complies with WP:NFCC. Simply wanting to show the book cover is not enough; the cover art itself should be the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article. In other words, reliable sources should have talked about the cover itself (e.e., its design, significance, etc.) and the content in the article should reflect that discussion. There's nothing like that currently in the article at all so omitting the book cover would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding at all in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Rita Pam's sixth book, Sunday.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was this listed here? It passed all the necessary requirements so why is it here? Adrian 8076 (talk)

Remove per NFCC#8 and for the same reasons I gave above in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 11#File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Good the bad and the ugly poster.jpg[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Exploitation film and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Khalid Nezami/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed file from the user sandbox per NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left note on user's talk page explaining why. Agree that the usage in "Exploitation films" is mainly decorative so it also fails WP:NFCC#8 (as well as possibly WP:NFLISTS). I think the usage of the other non-free movie poster in "Exploitation" should also be evaluated for the same reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Coffy.jpg[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Exploitation film. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with nominator and also think it violates WP:NFLISTS (and thus WP:NFCC#8) and should only be used in the stand-alone article about the movie -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Cannibal Holocaust movie.jpg[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 on multiple pages and WP:NFCC#10c on one. It should only be used in Cannibal Holocaust. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed from Cannibal boom per WP:NFCCE. Agree with nominator and think it violates WP:NFCC#8 in "Canibal film" and "Exploitation film" and should be removed from them as well. Should only be used in stand-alone article about the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:PDO-Logo.svg[edit]

Appears to violate:

WP:NFCC#8 in Cheddar cheese,
WP:NFLISTS in Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union and
WP:NFCC#9 in Talk:Obama logo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hid image being used in talk page discussion per NFCC#9. Agree that usage in "Cheeder cheese" is inappropriate per NFCC#8, but not completely sure about the usage in the "Geographical indications" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a dicey case. Given the topic of these two sections, one could make a claim that they serve identificatory purposes and thus satisfy WP:NFCC#8 there. I do think though that such identificatory scope is usually given on per article not per section basis in practice.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany and Walther Funk, WP:NFCC#9 in User:A.S. Brown/Herschel Grynszpan and User talk:AmritasyaPutra and WP:NFCC#8 in Herschel Grynszpan. Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

NFCC#9 issues taken care of and notes left on each user's talk page explaining why the non-free images cannot be used in such a way. Removed images from "Walther Funk" and "Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany" per WP:NFCCE since there was no separate, specific non-free use rationale provided per WP:NFCC#10c and replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-083-42, Magdeburg, zerstörtes jüdisches Geschäft.jpg per WP:NFCC#1 since it serves the same encyclopedic purpose. Also, I do not feel non-free usage is justified per NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 in either "Herschel Grynszpan" or "Kristallnacht" as well because the Commons image exists. The Commons image is already being used in "Kristallnacht", so a non-free image showing another broken storefront window is not needed, and it can be added to the "Grynszpan" article if desired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was not aware of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-083-42, Magdeburg, zerstörtes jüdisches Geschäft.jpg. It seems that the picture violates WP:NFCC#1 everywhere, then. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete As indicated, a fully suitable free replacement exists.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:MIAA previous logo.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association: former logo. Fails WP:NFCC#9 in User:Msjraz64/sandbox3. Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed image from user sandbox per WP:NFCC#9 and left note on their talk page explaining why. As for the image's use in the association's article, I agree that the usage is primarily decorative and not allowed per NFCC#8. Is it possible, however, that this qualifies as {{PD-logo}}? Would the outlines of the State of Missouri and State of Kansas be considered to be copyrightable? Aren't they essentially the same as what is shown in File:Missouri in United States.svg, File:Kansas in United States.svg or in File:MIAAstates.png? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Maps are typically copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A. Most people who either participated or watched games in the MIAA from 1990 to 2008 would recognize the conference by this logo. Some people who may have stopped keeping up-to-date with the conference for whatever reason and haven't kept up with them for a long time may not recognize it with the new logo. B. How is this any different than this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? C. How can maps be copyrighted when there are a shit ton of them on Commons? That is just a portion (mainly for sports), but there are plenty of more maps on there. Do you wanna go through and file all of those for deletion, too, since they are "copyrighted"? I've never understood this stupid-ass rule and I think it ruins Wikipedia and its readers. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- A By default, we only permit one logo in the article unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logo. We can't include lots of galleries of logos as WP:NFCC#3b would disallow this.
- B Many of those seem to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Some might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or something else. Some might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- C I checked some of the maps in that category, and those were listed as licensed by the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
so are you nominating the others I mentioned for deletion too? If not, then this file should stay. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Many of those seem to be PD-textlogo or in the public domain for other reasons, so they would need a careful review before any of them are nominated for deletion. For example, you may have noticed that I didn't tag File:MIAA (1912-1990) logo.png (from the same article) for deletion because it is stated that this logo was first used in 1912. If that claim is correct, then that file is {{PD-1923}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Mohun Bagan first logo.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about these files? These are also non-free images and fails WP:NFCC#8. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Former logos are typically not permitted unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Kindly fix the errors from the file. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove per Stefan2. Decorative usage in galleries is not allowed per WP:NFG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Please help me in this regard. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Mohun Bagan other logo.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about these files? These are also non-free images and fails WP:NFCC#8. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Former logos are typically not permitted unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Kindly fix the errors from the file. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove per Stefan2. Logo is also being used in a gallery which is almost always indicative of decorative use and also not something that is generally allowed per WP:NFG. As for fixing the files, please note that WP:NFCCE states "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." So, if you ("you" meaning Swastik Chakraborty) wish to retain the file, then you should be the one to try and fix it. What you need to do is somehow incorporate the logo into the article text and provide reliable sources which discuss the logo so that its "contextual significance" to the reader's understanding is more apparent. Right now, the logo (and the other ones being used in the same gallery) does not really need to be seen for the reader to understand any of what is written in the article. On the other hand, if you can find reliable sources which discuss on the changes made to the logo over the years and what the imagery of the logo means, then you might be able to satisfy NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Please help me in this regard. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 08:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:The Corrs Only When I Sleep Music Video.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no contextual significance except just a screenshot showing all four band members of The Corrs. Removal is not detrimental to article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:SpokaneShock.PNG[edit]

Former logo. Appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in Spokane Shock and WP:NFC#UUI §14 in all other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Dakar route.jpg[edit]

According to the fair use rationale, This is a poster for 2016 Dakar route, but it seems that it is just a map, and the image seems to be in violation of WP:NFC#UUI §4 and WP:NFCC#1 in 2016 Dakar Rally. It also seems to be in violation of WP:NFCC#9 in Template:Infobox rally raid and Template:Infobox rally raid/doc. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The file was replaced by the integral picture (and not a part as first version). Now its the full poster, not just "the map part" and looks not simple. Replaced image used on template documentation (Template:Infobox rally raid/doc) (its was lapse by copy-pasting). The image was never used in Template:Infobox rally raid.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:ESET NOD32 Antivirus.png[edit]

Redundant extra image. Per WP:NFCC#3a, it should be enough to have one image (File:ESET NOD32 Antivus.png). Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:OrangeBowlLogo1951-1988.png[edit]

This violates WP:NFC#UUI §14 in all of the year articles. It also violates WP:NFCC#10c in Orange Bowl and some of the year articles. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:1200 S Indiana, Phase Two, Chicago, Illinois.jpg[edit]

Image is being used under fair use with a claim that it is being used at the top of the article. It is not at the top of the article and is also redundant to another fair use image at the top of the article, File:1200 S Indiana, Vinoly's South Loop Tower in Chicago, Illinois.jpg. This exceeds a minimal use of non-free material within the article. Whpq (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Monster Strike.png[edit]

This has a fair use rationale for Cooperative gameplay, but I can't see why someone couldn't create a free replacement. For example, someone created File:Korenanteeroge.png to illustrate articles about pornographic games (for example, zh:日本成人遊戲), and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to create a similar replacement for this game type. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#10c in Boss (video gaming), where we already have two freely licensed images. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on Portal:Video games/Picture and Portal:Video games/Picture/94. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems are solved. --Pangkakit (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Even with the WP:NFCC#10c issue now being resolved in Cooperative gameplay, I would argue that the file also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article since the commentary is not specifically about the video game in the file. Also, I could also argue that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for the reason is seems to be claimed to meet WP:NFCC#8 since a picture of people playing video games could illustrate the same purpose of this file, which could be created with a free license. In fact, I would even go to the extent to say that the only article where this image may meet all of WP:NFCC with its inclusion is Monster Strike, but even that is questionable since Monster Strike currently already has a gameplay image included in its context (File:MonSt Gameplay.jpg), so adding the nominated file may be overkill, failing WP:NFCC#3. Steel1943 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Pangkakit has been using Wikipedia just to show off his Monster Strike team because he has three copies of a super rare monster. He has used this on File:Monster_Strike.png and File:MonSt.png, as you have found out here, but he also uploaded File:Lucifer.png which he posted to Japanese popular culture and has repeatedly changed the picture File:MonSt_Gameplay.jpg to be identical to his Monster_Strike.png image. You can see that Monster_Strike.png was deleted multiple times but he keeps re-uploading it just to have his three Lucifer team hosted on Wikipedia to show off and have his picture as the main Monster Strike picture however he can.--OuendanL (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete - it's use in the co-operative game play article does not meet the stated use in the fair-use rationale as the rationale claims it is being used for "Identification of game" and the target article is not actually a game but a type of game. Furthgermore, the rationale cannot be tweaked to use it as an illustration of co-operative gameplay in that there is already a freely licensed image in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Phoenix Stage5.png[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#1 in Boss (video gaming) as the article already has two freely licensed images. Additionally, the file appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Phoenix (video game). Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Chukong Technologies Logo.png[edit]

Would this image actually not be eligible for copyright in the United States due to lack of originality and consisting solely of characters that represent letters and words? Or, is that not the case with this? Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not copyrightable in the United States. The copyright status in China is unclear, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
commons:COM:TOO doesn't have much information about China, but apparently one character (not used in this logo) is copyrighted there. I presume here it would fall under PD-USOnly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:MonSt.png[edit]

This has a fair use rationale for Mobile game, where it appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image additionally appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Video gaming in Japan, and WP:NFCC#9 in Portal:Video games/Featured article and Portal:Video games/Featured article/128. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems are solved. --Pangkakit (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Even with the WP:NFCC#10c issue now being resolved in Video gaming in Japan, I would argue that the file also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article since the commentary is not specifically about the video game in the file. Also, I could also argue that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for the reason is seems to be claimed to meet WP:NFCC#8 since a picture of people in Japan playing video games could illustrate the same purpose of this file, which could be created with a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I would even go to the extent to say that the only article where this image may meet all of WP:NFCC with its inclusion is Monster Strike, but even that is questionable since Monster Strike currently already has a gameplay image included in its context (File:MonSt Gameplay.jpg), so adding the nominated file may be overkill, failing WP:NFCC#3. Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In #File:Monster Strike.png I explained what Pangkakit is doing with this and the other picture. --OuendanL (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete - The fair use rationale claims the purpose of the image is "Identification of game", but the target article is not a game, nor is there any discussion of the depicted game in the target article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Shī shì shí shī shǐ -施氏食狮史 poem.ogg[edit]

This is an entire poem, which seems to be a violation of WP:NFCC#3b. The file also violates WP:NFCC#9 on User talk:Martinevans123. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On this file, there is something odd about the information in the fair-use template. It makes me wonder if there is a way to prove that this file has been released with a free license, but was not declared when the file was uploaded. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe related to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den Shī shì shí shī shǐ .ogg? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Same file. Originally a full article read in ch-wiki. So a shorten version, like first lines would be OK?RicHard-59 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would an OGG file be useful in the first place? I don't see how a file where someone says "shi" several times with different tones would increase the understanding of the subject of the article. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

File:Shels logo sml.png[edit]

Non-free logo being used in the infoboxes of Shelbourne F.C. and Shelbourne Ladies F.C.. File does have a non-free use rationale, but it broadly worded and states that "It is asserted that the use of this image in articles pertaining to or in reference to Shelbourne F.C. (SFC) qualifies as fair use for the following reasons." Not sure if that means it's intended only for "Shelbourne F.C." or any article which references "Shelbourne F.C.", so perhaps the rationale should be tweaked per WP:NFCC#10c. In addition, usage in the "Ladies F.C." should not be allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since women's teams, youth teams, academy teams, etc. are generally considered to be "child entities" of the main team and using the logo (even when the other teams do not have there own unique logos) has been considered inappropriate in similar past WP:NFCR discussions such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg to name just a few. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Bebo Norman - Britney.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free cover art used in Britney (Bebo Norman song). Isn't this too simple to be protected by copyright since it's basically just some text on a grayish background? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously not copyrightable. Does the source link work for you? I get a message that I need some Apple software in order to access the source page. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am also having the same problem you are having. The source link redirects to a page for downloading iTunes. You can access the album's iTunes page without iTunes, but not the single's page for some reason. Anyway, I found the image here, but not sure if that's helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Firefox displays a message saying that I need to use a different program to open this link, and then asks me to select a program. If I choose to open the link in the proposed program (Rhythmbox), then the program starts, but there does not seem to be an obvious way to access the link from there. The other page seems to be a Wikipedia mirror, so the page does not constitute evidence that this is the cover art used for the song. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    - I have iTunes installed on another computer (which I cannot access at the moment) so I may be able to view the source page. I'll try and check it later. Would this webpage be acceptable in lieu of iTunes?-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      - Thanks! That works for me. Since I have now been able to verify that the cover art is correct, I have uploaded it to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 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.

File:Lutz Bachmann posing as Hitler.jpg[edit]

A free photo of Lutz Bachmann is currently used. Therefore, this image may be replaceable. Also, an image of him looking like Hitler can be easily imagined without this image. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Waterloo Watch Out.jpg[edit]

This image is Danish. As there is another infobox image of the Swedish release of the Swedish-language version, I don't think this image is necessary. And I don't think replacing it with English-language release from Sweden would help differentiate from the other image. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:1 waterloo anni.jpg[edit]

The 30th Anniversary edition is not necessary. There is already another infobox image. George Ho (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Dalton Maldonado.jpg[edit]

Press usage of this photo credits it to "Facebook" or "(C) Dalton Maldonado / Facebook". No evidence that is the "own work" of uploader User:Tanner Banks. McGeddon (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

University of Cincinnati seal[edit]

This seal seems to violate WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §17 on a lot of pages. We don't need the seal in articles about the university's departments, only in the main University of Cincinnati article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove from all articles except University of Cincinnati per Stefan2. I hid "File:Uc-seal.png" which was being used in User:Jeffermj/sandbox and User:KenHirsh/sandbox and then left notes about what I did on each user's talk page. Moreover, I can't see any real difference between the two files other than that one is an svg and the other is a png. Both are not needed so one of them should be should be deleted. FWIW, university departments/divisions often have their own logos, so perhaps those may be used instead as replacements for the seals. For example, University of Cincinnati Clermont College uses this on their Twitter and Facebook accounts while McMicken College of Arts and Sciences uses this on their Twitter and Facebook accounts, etc., etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:USMA band logo cropped and finished.jpg[edit]

This is listed by unfree, but it seems that the picture may have been created by the West Point Band, which might mean that the picture is a 'work of the United States Government' (that is, {{PD-USGov}}). If it is in the public domain, then it seems that the old revision which was deleted per WP:F7 should be undeleted as we do not need to reduce PD files. If, on the other hand, the file is unfree, then the file should be removed from User:LavaBaron/BandSand per WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Pope John Paul I.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There are 4 free images of him on the article already. I don't think the claim that this non-free image is irreplaceable holds up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While there may be existing images, none are all that viable for use as identification purposes for the infobox, but it is not for mere inclusion in the article body itself, but rather in the infobox should no appropriate alternative be found. Lord Sidious 82 (talk)

There's an entire category of them at Commons: [1]. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, but I don't see how these free images are not adequate to identify the article subject.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 13 January 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.

File:Beatification tapestry - Blessed Manuel Gonzalez Garcia.jpg[edit]

Stated purpose - "visual identification of the object of the article" - is already achieved by a free image in the infobox. No clear purpose or reason why this image is not replaceable by free media. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There aren't appropriate categories to place images such as this but the image pertains to a certain section of the article and in the absence of appropriate images helps to provide sustenance to the article itself. There are not a whole lot of good images to use for this article and are scarce in the free media range since it might not be appropriate or relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Sidious 82 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

File:Neerparavai Audio Cover.jpg[edit]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:A Charlie Brown Christmas trade ad.jpg[edit]

Used in A Charlie Brown Christmas#Animation, I hope that this image is useful in showing readers how the special was advertised. If the image fails to help readers understand the special, so be it. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:NationalDemocraticParty1896Ticket.png[edit]

Unused crop of File:National Democratic Ticket- Palmer & Buckner (4360107258).jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Charlie Brown Xmas tree.jpg[edit]

The screenshot of Charlie Brown and Linus looking at a very small pine tree is used in two articles: A Charlie Brown Christmas and Laugh track. Omission of it doesn't affect readers' understanding of ~~the special and~~ "laugh track". George Ho (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am now unsure because there is "Tree" section, but the tree is not the main topic of the article. --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

keep The tree might actually deserve an article by itself, enough sourcing there and at Aluminum Christmas tree.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

clarify–image use justified only for the Charlie Brown special.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove from Laugh track. In that article, this file is a clear WP:NFCC#8 violation. I have no opinion about this file's inclusion in A Charlie Brown Christmas. Steel1943 (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Turtle Squad.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: Speedy delete _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This image does not look like it has any possible encyclopedic use. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete as copyright violation from [2] _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:59, 12 January 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.

January 13[edit]

File:Vodafone logo.png[edit]

This seems to be used in unnecessarily many articles, see WP:NFC#UUI §17. Additionally, the file appears to violate WP:NFCC#9 in User:Romanisation/sandbox/Vodafone Roaming Services. Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Michael Galeota.jpg[edit]

Wireimage is an author of this image and asks a license to commercialize or promote this image. Although the subject is deceased, there are other fair use images not owned by news and photo agencies. George Ho (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I replaced this image with File:Michael Galeota screenshot from Disney material.jpg, a screenshot. --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep - File was originally taken from [3], but the source URL was changed after the fact. This is the most recent photo of Galeota that I was able to find. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - File:Michael Galeota screenshot from Disney material.jpg is not free either, placing us in the same situation as this file. If there is a decent free up to date photo available, I will gladly support this file being deleted. BTW, what SPECIFIC part of WP:NFC#UUI does this photo violate? Adding File:Michael Galeota screenshot from Disney material.jpg to list of files to be discussed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  - A specific part which is violated is the specific part which was stated above. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    - Reply - Los Angeles Times is a paid daily newspaper, not a an organization that gathers news reports and sells them to subscribing news organizations nor a supplier of photographs, which are often licensed for specific uses. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      - The link in the fair use rationale points at Wireimage. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        
        Reply - Now it points to [4]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        
        WP:NFC#UUI §7 is not dependent on which source the file information page happens to list. Replacing the source on the file information page with a different source doesn't affect whether a file is to be deleted for this reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Reply - If Los Angeles Times is a paid daily newspaper, not a an organization that gathers news reports and sells them to subscribing news organizations nor a supplier of photographs, which are often licensed for specific uses, how can this photo violate WP:NFC#UUI §7? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Copies of the picture are sold by Wireimage, as evidenced for example by the image caption in the newspaper and by the link to Wireimage which was previously present on the file information page. The file therefore fails WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Reply - OK, I just replaced the picture with File:Michael Galeota 002.jpg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Laff Box02.jpg[edit]

This image probably fails WP:NFCC#1 since photos released with a free license of this device can most likely still be created, unless all of these devices have been destroyed (which I doubt since this photo was probably taken in 2012.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Mackenzie 5 channel repeater HBUse.jpg[edit]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#1 since there are most likely still machines, such as this one, that are still intact, allowing someone to take a photo of the device and releasing it with a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Carroll Pratt 19102009.jpg[edit]

I think this file may fail WP:NFCC#8 with its usage in Laugh track. However, I am not completely sure since the photo is of Carroll Pratt using a laugh track, which is what the photo illustrates and is what the section is about, but I am not sure if it actually adds enough to the section to fulfill WP:NFCC#8 or warrant the use of a non-free file. Steel1943 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Fire Safety Certificate.jpg[edit]

The image seems to vague to meet WP:NFCC#8 anywhere in Fire Safety Certificate. Also, the file also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable. Steel1943 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:"Shelter From the Norm" LP by Tim Ware Group - 1983.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 since the article is about the album's artist, not the album itself. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Succeeds because the article is about the artist and his work, and the cover illustrates some of the work. The artist didn't feel it was necessary to add a new Wikipedia page for each album, and that readers of the article would appreciate some pictures to accompany the artist's Wikipedia entry. There is no harm being done here, and the cover art is certainly relevant to the artist's work Scribblerman (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:NFC#cite_note-2, the cover art is only to be included in the article about the product but not in the article about the person who created the product. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Michael Galeota 002.jpg[edit]

This image is not appropriate as infobox image. It is a 31-year-old (i.e. adult) body of Michael Galeota. The image of him as a child or teenager is more encyclopedic and recognizable than the image of him as 30-something man. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I have added the photo as an addition to the page to show what he looked like more recently as an adult. A discussion took place as to avoiding the portrayal of Travon Martin as a kid or thug. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

File:Amar Akbar Anthony 2015 - Album Cover.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:The Android 6.0.1 Notifications System.png[edit]

Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 with its current placement since the section which the image is placed does not go into enough detail about the subject of the image for the image to provide contextual assistance for readers. Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: After reviewing the file on Commons that this file replaced, apparently, this file could possibly be released with a free license called the Apache license. On Commons, the template for this license is C:Template:Apache; however, I am unable to find any such template on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if that license can also be used here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:The Android 6.0.1 App Permissions System.png[edit]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#8 with its current placement due to the section where this file is placed not going into enough detail about the apps permissions function for this image to provide contextual assistance for readers. Steel1943 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: After reviewing the file on Commons that this file replaced, apparently, this file could possibly be released with a free license called the Apache license. On Commons, the template for this license is C:Template:Apache; however, I am unable to find any such template on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if that license can also be used here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Meet Bros at Filmfare 2015.jpg[edit]

photo of two alive and active fellows. No reason to have a non-free rationale based image for their biography article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

12 Labours of Hercules (video game series)[edit]

This article fails WP:NFCC#3a. The four non-free screenshots should be reduced to one. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep the first, or whichever might be deemed the most representative and delete the rest. -- Whpq (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

File:GMK logo small.png[edit]

Non-free logo currently be used in WTVQ-DT#News operation. File has a non-free use rationale, but this type of decorative usage is not allowed per WP:NFCC#8. It's possible that this logo may be too simple to be protected by copyright and a candidate for free licensing using {{PD-logo}} and tagging with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. It should be removed from the article, however, if it can only be used as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Bryant alt logo.jpg[edit]

Orphaned PD image; File:Bryant Bulldogs wordmark.png has replace this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Coppin State Wordmark.gif[edit]

Orphaned PD image; c:File:CSU Athletics wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is January 15 2016. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 15 -- (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===January 15===" 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.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

What not to list here[edit]

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Old discussions[edit]

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

January 9[edit]

File:MattCarol.jpg[edit]

File:Arkham Knight Nightwing Promo.jpg[edit]

File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg[edit]

File:Paramural bodies.PNG[edit]

File:Tariq Imran Legislative Process of Law.jpg[edit]

File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg[edit]

File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg[edit]

File:Thank you letter SS.jpg[edit]

January 10[edit]

File:FIRST FRC 2016 Stronghold banner.png[edit]

File:Sdparty.png[edit]

File:ApikorosSleuth-bookcover.jpg[edit]

File:Imbox deletion.png[edit]

File:Official Logo of 2016 FRC challenge FIRST STRONGHOLD.jpg[edit]

File:Louis theroux.jpg[edit]

File:Slugs handbill with Sun Ra every Monday.jpg[edit]

File:Gowind fair use.jpg[edit]

File:University of Edinburgh logo.svg[edit]

January 11[edit]

File:Noorjahan1.jpg[edit]

File:DaoofCapital.jpg[edit]

File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg[edit]

File:Rita Pam's sixth book, Sunday.jpg[edit]

File:Good the bad and the ugly poster.jpg[edit]

File:Coffy.jpg[edit]

File:Cannibal Holocaust movie.jpg[edit]

File:PDO-Logo.svg[edit]

File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg[edit]

File:MIAA previous logo.png[edit]

File:Mohun Bagan first logo.jpg[edit]

File:Mohun Bagan other logo.png[edit]

File:The Corrs Only When I Sleep Music Video.jpg[edit]

File:SpokaneShock.PNG[edit]

File:2016 Dakar route.jpg[edit]

File:ESET NOD32 Antivirus.png[edit]

File:OrangeBowlLogo1951-1988.png[edit]

File:1200 S Indiana, Phase Two, Chicago, Illinois.jpg[edit]

File:Monster Strike.png[edit]

File:Phoenix Stage5.png[edit]

File:Chukong Technologies Logo.png[edit]

File:MonSt.png[edit]

File:Shī shì shí shī shǐ -施氏食狮史 poem.ogg[edit]

January 12[edit]

File:Shels logo sml.png[edit]

File:Bebo Norman - Britney.jpg[edit]

File:Lutz Bachmann posing as Hitler.jpg[edit]

File:Waterloo Watch Out.jpg[edit]

File:1 waterloo anni.jpg[edit]

File:Dalton Maldonado.jpg[edit]

University of Cincinnati seal[edit]

File:USMA band logo cropped and finished.jpg[edit]

File:Pope John Paul I.jpg[edit]

File:Beatification tapestry - Blessed Manuel Gonzalez Garcia.jpg[edit]

File:Neerparavai Audio Cover.jpg[edit]

File:A Charlie Brown Christmas trade ad.jpg[edit]

File:NationalDemocraticParty1896Ticket.png[edit]

File:Charlie Brown Xmas tree.jpg[edit]

File:Turtle Squad.jpg[edit]

January 13[edit]

File:Vodafone logo.png[edit]

File:Michael Galeota.jpg[edit]

File:Laff Box02.jpg[edit]

File:Mackenzie 5 channel repeater HBUse.jpg[edit]

File:Carroll Pratt 19102009.jpg[edit]

File:Fire Safety Certificate.jpg[edit]

File:"Shelter From the Norm" LP by Tim Ware Group - 1983.jpg[edit]

File:Michael Galeota 002.jpg[edit]

January 14[edit]

File:Amar Akbar Anthony 2015 - Album Cover.jpg[edit]

File:The Android 6.0.1 Notifications System.png[edit]

File:The Android 6.0.1 App Permissions System.png[edit]