Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or 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.

Examples of what files you may request for deletion or change 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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States.
  • 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 labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this page. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, 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.
  3. 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:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  6. 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}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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 with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. 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.
  10. 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=2017 May 27}} 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|log=2017 May 27}} 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=2017 May 27}} 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.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1920, not 1926.
  • 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
  • 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}}.
  • 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).
  • Low quality - The image 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.
  • Possibly unfree file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • 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.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

May 21[edit]

File:Hatton, Sri Lanka Station.jpg[edit]

File:Hatton, Sri Lanka Station.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sechzehn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, dark, no foreseeable use FASTILY 05:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

Rock with You[edit]

File:Rock with You by Michael Jackson Side A US vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michaeljrockwithyou.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dabossman1000000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The US vinyl label and the Dutch front cover are used in the article "Rock with You". The US vinyl label should be kept because it came with the most successful US vinyl single release at the time. The Dutch release wasn't charted in 1979: [1][2]. Therefore, the Dutch one should be deleted. However, if the consensus favors having an artwork, i.e. front cover, what about the Australian release? That one was also successful in 1979. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Vijaya Kumaranatunga.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 as obvious copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Vijaya Kumaranatunga.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nimanka Mahesh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is claiming to hold copyright but the image is watermarked with a website and this image appears all over the internet in various forms. Claim of being copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2017 (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:NIBM Kurunegala Branch.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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:NIBM Kurunegala Branch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nimanka Mahesh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is claiming copyright but the image is watermarked with the instituiton's logo. Claim of copyright is dubious. Whpq (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2017 (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:Saul Leiter Early Color.jpg[edit]

File:Saul Leiter Early Color.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Veloman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free book cover used just to decorate a list. damiens.rf 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Self portrait of photographer W. Eugene Smith.jpg[edit]

File:Self portrait of photographer W. Eugene Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pmussler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There are available free images of this guy. damiens.rf 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - The free image is of Smith and the woman embracing each other. Creating a cropped photo of Smith may not be easy because the cropped photo would be poor quality and bland. The non-free image should be kept as "irreplaceable" and truly meeting NFCC#8, i.e. substantially identifying the person in question. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Usdaily100.gif[edit]

File:Usdaily100.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Laurabna (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete: Unclear copyright status / low quality.    FDMS  4    21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

File:Walter Oesau.jpg[edit]

File:Walter Oesau.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abel29a (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A non-free image in an article that also contains a free & properly licensed pencil portrait File:Walter_Oesau_Portrait.png -- I suggest using it instead. The image in question is fairly generic and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - A sketch portrait is not similar to the authentic photograph. Rather the pencil sketch should be used in the body article as it doesn't look good as the infobox image. The photo truly identifies the person in question, and a free substitute is not adequate to identify the person. Such omission would prompt others into searching for an authentic photo of this person and trying to upload it as non-free. BTW, I tagged the image as PD in EU areas as the image was anonymous created, and the subject of the photo died in 1944, i.e. 73 years ago. However, the image may still be copyrightable in the US per URAA. --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
My bad. I must have overlooked some parts of Flickr description. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the uploader stated that the image is part of the collection by Heinrich Hoffmann (photographer). These postcards of Knight's Cross winners were issued by Hoffmann and sold to the public, similar to baseball cards in the U.S. These images are not PD in Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Faded Restrung.jpg[edit]

File:Faded Restrung.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hayman30 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally tagged this alternate single cover with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with: "Violates WP:NFG. Additionally, fails to meet points three and eight of WP:NFCC. This cover is not significantly different from the main one to justify its inclusion." It was originally used in a non-free gallery. It was then moved to the infobox and the deletion tag was removed by the uploader, using the edit summary: "Issue resolved, moved image back to infobox. This is indeed significantly different from the main one". Although the first half of the concern was addressed, the second half was not. The difference of the alternate cover from the main cover is miniscule that this second cover is not needed (WP:NFCC#3) and is not subject to critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8). Its use does not increase the readers' understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to that understanding. xplicit 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Fouta.jpg[edit]

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

Unused non-free image, no possibility of fair use as a free alternative could be found or created at any time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:BondAndJaws.jpg[edit]

File:BondAndJaws.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ultraviolet scissor flame (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

non-free screenshot used just to decorate a characters list. damiens.rf 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:White House cemetery war cross crop.jpg[edit]

File:White House cemetery war cross crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Redvers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete - unused local copy of Commons:File:White House cemetery war cross.jpg. Marked with {{keep local}} but uploader has been absent since 2010. Kelly hi! 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Opal card logo.svg[edit]

File:Opal card logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bidgee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May not be copyrighted at least in the US Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Comment: I'm not sure if the O is a simple shape (to be {{PD-shape}}), since I think it has a somewhat complex design to create the shape of the O. In Australia, it is copyrighted (see: Commons:Threshold of originality#Australia (so can't be hosted on Commons). Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Remain non-free - The "O" looks multi-colorful and original enough in the US for copyright. Also looks rainbow-ish. George Ho (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2NE1 Falling in Love cover.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: convert to fair use. Pretty clear-cut case. xplicit 00:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2NE1 Falling in Love cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Might not be Public Domain in the United States Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I re-licensed the image as non-free. The design looks original enough for copyright. George Ho (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (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.

May 24[edit]

File:S658072.jpg[edit]

File:S658072.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rusty201 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free cover art being used in Normie Rowe#Sixties stardom: 1965–1966 and Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)#Normie Rowe. Non-free cover art is generally allowed per item 1 of WP:NFCI when it serves as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the song/album in question. However, a much stronger justification for non-free use is typically required when the the cover art is used in other ways or in other articles as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. While it's true that this was a big hit for Rowe, the reader does not need to see this cover art to understand anything written about the song in the Rowe article; moreover, the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the Rowe article, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. The use in the song article is problematic because Rowe's version is a cover version, so once again it is not the primary topic of the article. If Rowe's version was notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NSONG, then using the cover art for indentification might be acceptable; that does not seem to be the case and cover art is once again not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article about the main song. Another problem with this file's use is that it does not really have the seperate specific non-free use rationales it needs for each use as required by WP:NFCC#10c. There is a general statement regarding "fair use", but some more specific is needed for each use to show how said use meets all 10 non-free content criteria for each of the uses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep in Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) since Rowe's version is a notable cover version that would have its own article per WP:NSONG. Remove from Normie Rowe for not lacking critical commentary. Aspects (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Same opinions as Aspects's. Also, the file name should be renamed to "File:Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) by Normie Rowe Australian vinyl.jpg". George Ho (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) as has context as article is about the song, it has fair use rationale just not perfectly formatted. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:En-wodr.ogg[edit]

File:En-wodr.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexkillby (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Spoken version of an article from 2005, when the article was one line long. It's now a lengthy article and the spoken version isn't useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png[edit]

File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anarchyte (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Being a malware does not disqualify this software from copyright protection Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi.
First, is it a deletion proposal?
Second, the reason why I think this image is not eligible for copyright protection is already on the image description page's Permission field. But I'd like to hear about your version of a world in which malware is copyright-protected. Are people who get infected with malware arrested for unlicnesed software use? Or are they considered licensees? Or are they infected under the auspices of fair use? How about the antivirus companies that reverse-engineer malware? Are they in violation of Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)? DMCA neither accounts for fair use nor has a scienter requirement. It means if malware is protected by DMCA, a person can get arrested for getting infected by it, even if he or she does not know that he or she is infected by it.
Best regards,
11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all they might not sue under DMCA but still like a video game it's copyrighted even as a screenshot Flow 234 (Nina) talk 15:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If you create malware and create a distribution system which installs the malware on random computers, then I'd imagine that you indirectly give the owners of those computers a licence to use your malware. In other words, those who have been attacked are not using an unlicensed copy of the malware but a licensed copy of the malware.
Antivirus companies: Sounds interesting. Section 107 begins with the words Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, so does fair use only exempt you from the protection given by section 106 (economic rights) and 106A (moral rights) but not from, for example, section 1201 (additional moral rights)? However, I'd argue that antivirus companies are allowed to create antivirus software based on section 1201 (f) (1):
The antivirus company has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of the malware. The antivirus company wants to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program (the antivirus program) with other programs (malware). If this interoperability is achieved, then the antivirus program uninstalls the malware. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no comment on the copyright, but if it doesn't fall into the public domain, then simply re-add the non-free template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retag as non-free Copyrighted text. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ex turpi causa non oritur actio seems to be about the relationship between the victim and the culprit. As far as I am aware, the file's presence on Wikipedia is not related to an attack made against Wikipedia – Wikipedia seems to be a neutral party. I'd say that the ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine only exempts the victims of the attack (and those who assist the victims, such as antivirus companies) from any copyright infringement liability, and only insofar as the copyright infringement is sufficiently related to the attack. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sandmankieth.png[edit]

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

Invalid NFUR: there is already non-free media on this page and this particular scan is not use for any critical commentary or educational purpose. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The image is the only representation of the comic's interior art, which is vastly different from the cover shown in the infobox. I have added a publication history section that discusses Kieth's style. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Mayte (137).jpg[edit]

File:Mayte (137).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gokus Girl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyrighted album cover, ineligible to be licensed under Creative Commons. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Clearly a fair use image. I have added a fair use and changed the licensing to non-free album cover. Discussion should be good to be closed now. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg[edit]

File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by User:Johnbod (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Back cover of St Cuthbert Gospel.JPG and File:The St Cuthbert Gospel of St John. (formerly known as the Stonyhurst Gospel) is the oldest intact European book. - Upper cover (Add Ms 89000).jpg are free files that obsoletes it. The uploader claimed that "The alternative image on Commons was uploaded by a trainee at the BL as part of their work, but their website appears to assert copyright on it. This image is the safer choice", but as long as it's on Commons and there's no dispute about its freedom (on Commons), we shouldn't host a Fair Use image of it. Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously??? A large proportion of Commons image have invalid rationales, and everybody knows it. That's before discussing this promotional image - I don't know that it's not free. As I said before "As the FU notes say, no photography of the book except by the BL is allowed, nor is it likely to be, for conservation reasons. This image has been released to the press, and was sent to me by the BL to use. The alternative image on Commons was uploaded by a trainee at the BL as part of their work, but their website appears to assert copyright on it. This image is the safer choice." Btw, "obselete" is not a verb. This is the 2nd image on an FA, and better than the other. I don't know why you mention File:Back cover of St Cuthbert Gospel.JPG, which is clearly of something else. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Seriously! We're all part of Wikimedia, and we shouldn't sit here and bad-mouth another project instead of trying to improve it. This is a marginal fair use, at best, depicting an existing book that we have an unquestionably free version of, File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg. The fact that there is files of equal quality on Commons that are prima facie free means we shouldn't be hosting it here.
It is true that "obselete" is not a word in English; since I didn't use that word, I'm not sure why you brought it up. As wikt:obsolete says, "obsolete" can be used as a verb. It may be informal usage, but it is so used in published English and it was clearly understood by you and should be understood by most of the readers. It's much better formal English than "Btw".--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The fuzzy black and white image from 1911 is completely inadequate for use. As I say, there is no evidence that this file is not free. I've bolded your use of "obselete" as a verb, since you find it hard to see. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed the bold around obsolete, which you somehow confused with "obselete". I don't believe that fair use lets us take the best quality photo over one that's merely free, but I'll leave that to the experts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 03:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - we have here an image, not duplicated in colour, angle, or quality by any other image, of a book cover that the British Library will not allow people to photograph, so the image is not replaceable now by any free image, and is not likely to be. The EB 1911 image in fuzzy monochrome, shot face-on, does not give anything like the same impression of the object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 AFL Women's logo.svg[edit]

File:2017 AFL Women's logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kb.au (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is non-free, tagged with Media data and Non-free use rationale, but it's resolution is too high for a non-free file (it's an SVG, and therefore has a theoretically unlimited resolution). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:X-Day logo.png[edit]

File:X-Day logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file was previously used on X-Day (video game), which was deleted. Copyright information is disputed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd consider deleting it. Unless the X-Day article is somehow remade, then this doesn't have much use elsewhere Namcokid47 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Gateshead FC New Stadium Graphic.jpg[edit]

File:Gateshead FC New Stadium Graphic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TubularWorld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally removed from Gateshead F.C. but my edit was reverted.

The image of the stadium is not discussed in the article and does not appear to be topic of discussion, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. No NFC rationale for the specific article, either. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: My only comment would to reiterate User:Number 57's comment on his reversion edit, "Er, yes it is. Read the Stadium section" - quote from article, "On 28 October 2009, Gateshead unveiled plans for a new 8,000 capacity stadium..." TubularWorld (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted by TubularWorld, the nominator obviously hasn't bothered to read the article as this is quite clearly mentioned. Number 57 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

File:DFB-Pokal logo 2001.png[edit]

File:DFB-Pokal logo 2001.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by S.A. Julio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo currently being used in 2001–02 DFB-Pokal and 2002–03 DFB-Pokal. File was also being used in 2009–10 DFB-Pokal, 2008–09 DFB-Pokal, 2007–08 DFB-Pokal, 2006–07 DFB-Pokal, 2005–06 DFB-Pokal and 2004–05 DFB-Pokal, but was removed because it lacked a the separate specific non-free use rationales required non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c and instead was provide with a single group-type rationale for "DFB-Polka" articles. A seperate specific non-fre euse ratioanle was provided for DFB-Pokal, but the lfile was not be used there.

Using a logo such a this in multiple season articles about a reoccuring event is not really allowed per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI and group-type rationales are not allowed per NFCC#10c, so the file was removed from all of the individual season articles except "2001-02 DFB-Porkal". If the name of the file accurately reflects when the logo was created, then using it the 2001-2002 season article could possibly be allowed since this was the first occurrence where the logo was used; use in the subsequent season articles, however, is typically not allowed and logos specific to those particluar seasons should be used instead. Even if such season specific logos do not exist, the default is not to automatically use the same logo on all the individual season articles.

The logo was re-added to "2002–03 DFB-Pokal" and a corresponding rationale was provided for that use; moreover, rationales were also provided for the other season articles, but the files have not yet been re-addedf to those article. If the non-free use of this logo is to be justified, then it could only really be done for the main part article about the cup itslelf as a "former" logo (if the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary) and perhaps in main infobox of the article about the season when the logo was first used. In all of the other articles, non-fee use should not be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Jamie Clayton as Nomi Marks.jpg[edit]

File:Jamie Clayton as Nomi Marks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PanagiotisZois (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very much replaceable given she's still alive and active (this is only used on her BLP, not on a character page); insufficient FUR on image page. Nikthestunned 12:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:WaterRace ingame 1.png[edit]

File:WaterRace ingame 1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SwissPol (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is claimed to be non-free and does not have a fair use rationale for its use on WaterRace. However, the game's source code was apparently released with a GPL license in 2003. My question is does that license extend to image assets? If so, the image should be relicensed as a derivative of a freely-licensed work. clpo13(talk) 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:The company car.jpeg[edit]

File:The company car.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tradeexpo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No author and incorrect license. Sreejith K (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete This image should have been deleted ages ago per WP:F4. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:TrumpOrb.png[edit]

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

Per this request on my talk page by Herostratus, I'm going to bring this here as opposed to the delayed speedy deletion as it is quite contentious and more input would be appreciated.

Original WP:F7 rationale placed by Ceosad was:

There exists a free equivalent. Due to that, the image fails WP:NFCCP and WP:F7 criterias. File:President Trump's Trip Abroad (34031496153).jpg is an image that does not differ significantly from this one, and thus is a perfectly fine replacement.

Original F7 dispute placed by Herostratus was:

Well I mean of course its not replaceable. The entire article is about that exact precise photograph, along with what followed from the publication of that photograph, including the fact of that exact precise photograph being widely disseminated on worldwide social media.

Yes there were (apparently) United States government cameramen at that event where this photograph was taken (and photos taken by them are public domain). But the article is not about that event (except peripherally), it is about that particular photograph. Someone did add a public-domain photo of the event to the article, and fine. But it's a completely different photograph from a completely different angle and is not the photograph that became famous and is the subject of the article, and because that photograph is quite different it would be highly misleading and puzzling to imply to readers that it is.

Even if (unlikely) a somewhat similar photograph were obtainable, that would not be the same photograph that was "tweeted round the world". And if we have no photograph... well it makes the article much less clear, and in an article that is (mostly) about a photograph you ought to be able show the photo. N.B. the article contains text such as "The photograph, which was described as odd,[13] creepy,[14] weird,[15] eerie,[16][17], or bizarre[18] by commentators, was quickly disseminated through social media...". so obviously an entirely different photograph would not illustrate that.

I have no opinion either way and am just facilitating this discussion per the request on my talk page. Majora (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The question really revolves around whether the meme of the creepy/eerie/weird photo is notable enough to bother including in an encyclopedia at all. If it is, then this particular photograph is illustrative of it in a way that other angles are not, based on the "stage lighting" effect from this particular angle. bd2412 T 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This is true. The article is at AfD right now and of course anyone is welcome to express an opinion or argument on that. That's a separate issue though. Herostratus (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Working under the assumption that the article is OK, the file seems like it's textbook fair use. It is THE picture that went viral - no freely available file can convey that information. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 27[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is May 27 2017. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 27 -- (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 "===May 27===" 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.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.