Wikipedia:Files for deletion

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

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

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

Examples of what you may request here


  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  2. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
    6. {{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
    If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files.
  3. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  4. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  5. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.
    1. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
    2. For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
  6. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  7. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2; use {{db-nofile}}.
    3. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    4. Any other deletion of a description page with no local file should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  8. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  9. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2015 May 6}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

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

Leave the subject heading blank.

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

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

3
Give due notice.

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

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

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2015 May 6}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos). (often abbreviated UE)
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

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

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

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

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

April 30[edit]

File:Wagreenslogo.png[edit]

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

superseded by vector version and File:WA Greens logo (historical).png Magog the Ogre (t c) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:The shooting news.jpg[edit]

File:The shooting news.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thomas309 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, "it is a company logo of mine". Wikipedia is not free webhosting. B (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:1977 Travel Weekly Article Gailen David.png[edit]

File:1977 Travel Weekly Article Gailen David.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FergusM1970 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid fair-use rationale. The biographical information can be conveyed by text with the newspaper as source. No significant image details, that would require an image. GermanJoe (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Savvy Stews.jpg[edit]

File:Savvy Stews.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FergusM1970 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid fair-use rationale, both persons have separate images available. Permission to use not verifiable (blocked uploader). GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lithuania men national basketball team in 1992.jpg[edit]

File:Lithuania men national basketball team in 1992.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pofka (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image that is largely decorative in an article with many free images, and the possibility of creating more. It is unnecessary for reader's understanding to see this image of this particular team. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a historically significant image not only visually identifying the first Lithuania men's national basketball team after regaining the country's independence, but it also illustrates the historic game versus possibly the greatest basketball team ever formed. There is no other version of this kind of image which makes it irreplaceable. By the way, it is not commercial work and you cannot roll-back time to this particular event and take picture of these players standing together during it. Visual illustration of important and medals-winning team is important for me if I would be article's reader not less than informative text. Furthermore, during this game the biggest lose in the Lithuanian team's history happened so it undoubtedly was historically significant. -- Pofka (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

May 1[edit]

File:Sunn Raha Hai (Female Version).jpg[edit]

File:Sunn Raha Hai (Female Version).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bubaikumar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The source provided for the file doesn't even have the file on its page. It just links to the official video of the song on YouTube where this is NOT the cover art but just a simple titlecard which adds no value to the article whatsoever. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Brigham Young statue at BYU.jpg[edit]

File:Brigham Young statue at BYU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eustress (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

As there are three existing free images of memorials, I don't see the need for a fourth non-free. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

File:This is an Image of Discovery Offices which is Located in Mumbai.jpg[edit]

File:This is an Image of Discovery Offices which is Located in Mumbai.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Akshay b patil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of a building used under a claim of fair use. India has freedom of panorama for buildings, so this image is replaceable. (Even if India did not have freedom of panorama, a WP:FREER version could be created.) B (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a rendering of a building that's under construction. Aren't images of this nature typically kept until the building is completed and a free(r) photograph can be taken? - Eureka Lott 16:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 3[edit]

File:Red Foley 1943.jpg[edit]

File:Red Foley 1943.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RadioBroadcast (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Redundant extra picture, see WP:NFCC#3. Also, no justification is given for WP:NFCC#1. It is typically possible to obtain pictures of famous Americans from this period which can be used under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, and there is no indication that the uploader has tried looking for such pictures. Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Red Foley.jpg[edit]

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

Redundant extra picture, see WP:NFCC#3. Also, no justification is given for WP:NFCC#1. It is typically possible to obtain pictures of famous Americans from this period which can be used under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, and there is no indication that the uploader has tried looking for such pictures. Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg[edit]

File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robertinventor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR: not for an article. Also violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is used in the Expose experiment article here: EXPOSE#EXPOSE-R2. It shows what the experiment looks like, with the various compartments used for the different experiments - does that not significantly improve the user's understanding of the experiment? Are there any other issues you identified with the FUR? Robert Walker (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia:Files for deletion project page, says these files will only be deleted if there is consensus or no objection. So just in case it is not clear from the previous comment - I object to deletion of this file for the reasons just given. Robert Walker (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:IceMole test at Blood Falls.jpeg[edit]

File:IceMole test at Blood Falls.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robertinventor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning User:Stefan2. You've just listed all my recently uploaded "non-free fair use rationale" files for deletion, or flagged them as failing the fair use rationale on their pages, but with cryptic explanations, at least for me, and I don't understand why you think they should be deleted. This one is used in IceMole#2015_test_at_Blood_Falls as well as in a draft for an article that I'm working on in my user space. I gave reasoning in the rationale for all these files which you haven't commented on. It seems to pass the fair use rationale to me, why do you think it doesn't? In what way does it not pass the guidelines you have just cited? Please elaborate, so I can understand your reasoning, and perhaps find more supporting fair use rationale for them if needed. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
On this particular one, the FUR from the page is: "Photo of a historical event, first ever use of the IceMole in Antarctica. No free images available, and this image is from the press release for the event. This image was widely used to report on the event, for instance at space.com, and see google image search: [1]." Robert Walker (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia:Files for deletion project page, says these files will only be deleted if there is consensus or no objection. So just in case it is not clear from the previous comment - I object to deletion of this file for the reasons just given. Robert Walker (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 4[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jcpag2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.

There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.

So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • My argument was nothing to do whether the spectra were PD-ineligible, but due to the claim of fair use. There are PD spectra available from before 1923 in the US. Also photos taken in Australia prior to 1955 are public domain, and US certainly recognises these if taken before 1946. Commons is not deleting those prior to 1955 any more either. There would also be crown copyright expired images available for stellar spectra. (1964 and before). These may all take a bit of work to invert and colour and fatten up to a nice looking bar, but the point is that with a bit of work this cold be assembled from public domain sources.
  • On the topic of copyright of spectra, someone else could also make a new spectrum of the same source, and it could look very very similar to the previously taken one. Only differing in noise, linear shift or minor spectral line changes to to star-spots or variability, eclipsing etc. It would be very hard for the earlier spectroscopist who had a similar image to cl,aim copyright over the new image. But I suppose the point is whether the practice is for people to ask for permission to use spectra (answer seems to be yes) so there is an assumption that they are subject to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Color gradient illustrating a sorites paradox.png
    • @Graeme Bartlett:Thank you for replying and this is where I don't know enough about the science to make a judgment call and so I wanted to bring it here. Consider this scenario: there is a mathematical formula that defines the gradient to the right. We would all agree that neither the list of color values nor the gradient generated by those values is subject to copyright because it is not creative. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the image we are considering is a different scenario because there was skill involved, correct? The standard for creativity is that if two people set out to do the same thing, would their works be indistinguishable from each other. And I think from what you are saying, the answer is no, their works would not be indistinguishable, and so this image is copyrightable. So then as a follow-up question, what spectra are needed to show here in order for the reader to understand the topic? Is it sufficient to show old spectra or could you not understand this without seeing the more modern, still subject to copyright, spectra? --B (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know the legalities and I don't know the genetics science well, but I think there's substantial work involved in just identifying a gene sequence, and that effort is what makes the discovery itself copyrightable in genetics. Anyone with a cheap telescope and a spectrograph can go out and (re)discover the spectrum of any of these stars, so the spectra themselves aren't reasonably subject to copyright. And even if they were, the basic properties of the spectra of each type of star have been known since the 19th century, so the copyright on the spectrum itself would have long since expired. But I think that almost certainly any particular representation of the spectrum, and probably any particular measurement of the spectrum of a particular star (irrespective of the representation), would be subject to copyright.
  • Old spectra would be fine for demonstrating the basic properties of each stellar classification. However, the detailed descriptions in Stellar classification#Spectral types are probably only reasonably illustrated by a fairly modern image. eg The sentence "O stars have dominant lines of absorption and sometimes emission for He II lines, prominent ionized (Si IV, O III, N III, and C III) and neutral helium lines, strengthening from O5 to O9, and prominent hydrogen Balmer lines, although not as strong as in later types." is talking about many of the faint bumps in the spectra evident in the image we're discussing; an older replacement image would not show the detail necessary to visualize what the text is talking about. (Of course, the non-free use rationale should explain this need. The current rationale, "OBAFGKM", is not a reasonable purpose of use.)
  • (Putting on my practicing professional astronomer hat.) This is, in practice, not something that astronomers think about much; once a set of data is published, it's normally considered available for anyone to use with a citation, although it's quite rare for astronomers to bother with a proper license. The major journals have two different sets of licenses: some journals have authors retain the copyright, while others sign the copyright over to the society that publishes the journal. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Chupa Chups Melody Pop.jpg[edit]

File:Chupa Chups Melody Pop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Northamerica1000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a promo photo of a candy wrapper used under a claim of fair use. This image was previously tagged as replaceable fair use. WP:CSD#F7 only permits speedy deletion if it can be replaced with a free content image, but in this case, it could only be replaced with a WP:FREER image, so it needs to come to FFD. B (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep – No fair use or public domain images of Whistle Pops have been found after several internet searches. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. Content to facilitate creation of an image that adequately provides the same information has also not been found. As such, use of the copyrighted image from Chupa Chups is permissible, as per WP:NFCC. Images of and content about whistle pops available on the internet are literally all copyrighted. Furthermore, I have requested on my talk page that the deletion nominator provide evidence that a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and included a ping to them there and added a talkback template on their talk page directing them to the discussion. It does not appear that such content qualifying the deletion of this page actually exists on the internet.
Also, omission of the image would significantly decrease the educational value of the article, whereas its use significantly enhances it. The image functions solely as an educational tool to provide illustrative context about the topic, is functional to enhance and improve the article for educational purposes, and is a small-sized, low-resolution image. No free equivalent is available. North America1000 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gatewaycmb.jpg[edit]

Error: You must replace Gatewaycmb.jpg with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. The image hasn't verified Wikipedia's rules and regulations.The image isn't copyrighted, thereby I strongly consider that deleting the image would be much preferred Danusker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 5[edit]

File:TNO 1996 TL66.jpg[edit]

File:TNO 1996 TL66.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DN-boards1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Extremely low-resolution screenshot of Celestia that presumably includes this object on the screen, but there is nothing to see in this image. No valid uses exist for this image. JorisvS (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the low resolution. Some of the newer uploads are higher resolution. Hi there. My name is DN-boards1. This is my userpage, this is my talk page. Got it? 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Still wouldn't make it useful. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:TNO 2002 MS4.jpg[edit]

File:TNO 2002 MS4.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DN-boards1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Very-low-resolution screenshot of a round object with a general asteroid texture in Celestia. No valid uses exist for this image. JorisvS (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, my apologies. These images, however, were made to depict the objects in question, rather than a general asteroid. Hi there. My name is DN-boards1. This is my userpage, this is my talk page. Got it? 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It is the general asteroid texture from Celestia. That means it does not depict the object. It totally useless. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:The Swimmer Grindhouse Releasing.jpg[edit]

File:The Swimmer Grindhouse Releasing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 500khz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The DVD cover is replaceable or unnecessary. There is already a film poster in the infobox. Also, no sources mention this image at all. George Ho (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:SwimmerOST.jpg[edit]

File:SwimmerOST.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dan8700 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The cover art of the soundtrack is unnecessary. There is already a poster (though different). Although the "Soundtrack" section exists, the cover itself is not discussed. George Ho (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:CBBGroupSmall.jpg[edit]

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

I don't believe these commercial looking images are self made. Deadstar (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, the uploader claims to be a co-founder of the company here, and created the relevant article. He/she has been inactive since 2007 so probably won't be back to give us any further insight, but I'd say it seems at least plausible that the image was created by the uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Norah-Jones-Happy-Pills-video.jpg[edit]

File:Norah-Jones-Happy-Pills-video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FanofPopMusic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image has no particular significance to the article in which it is included; illustrative only. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May 6[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is May 6 2015. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 6 -- (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 6===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.