Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it.
This implies that, per
WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is
significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.
The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.
Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).
Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.
In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho ( talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson.
Helping readers identify the James Brown song
It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be
contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.
Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2024 April 23. ✗ plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The cover has a very simple design and is therefore not copyrightable. Someone can take a picture of the book and release the photo under a free license. Ixfd64 ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Although this file is accompanied by critical commentary, the commentary is not about the depicted scene but rather about the depicted character
Bill Cipher, thus failing both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Per
MOS:TVIMAGE, a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode ... may only be used if it meets the non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary needs visual support to be understood
. This image can easily be replaced with an image depicting only the character himself, which would more likely meet both
WP:NFCC criteria.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This poster's role of identifying The Wolverine (film) can be achieved with c:File:The Wolverine Trailer Exclusive (2013).webm, a freely-licensed promotional trailer on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The image was designed in Illinois, USA, and the design is too simple to meet the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned, superseded by File:OTMA in 1914.jpg on Commons. ✗ plicit 14:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned, superseded by File:Langhuis.jpg on Commons. Ineligible for speedy deletion due to different file formats. ✗ plicit 14:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the logo of the Anguilla Commonwealth Games Association, not of the participating country of Anguilla, which uses the country's flag as the primary emblem. As such, it's not a logo of the entity in question (and the association doesn't have a Wikipedia article), and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the logo of the Bahamas Commonwealth Games Association, not of the participating country of Bahamas, which uses the country's flag as the primary emblem. As such, it's not a logo of the entity in question (and the association doesn't have a Wikipedia article), and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Violation of privacy. According to the article, this photo was leaked rather than made public by the subject. Kk.urban ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
A painting which from the State Library of Tasmania which they variously credit to artist F.J. Lloyd (d. 1956) (for instance on this instagram post) or treat as the work of an unknown artist (as on this blog entry). Since the latest attribution to F. J. Lloyd is from 8 weeks ago, I would tend not to treat it as an anonymous work but as a work by Lloyd, which would then be under copyright in Australia until 2026 inclusive. Whether it is still in copyright in the US would depend on its publication history, and thus whether it was catalogued or exhibited somewhere where copies could be made freely. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything on its exhibition history, and it is unlikely to be common knowledge given the present uncertainty about its authorship. Felix QW ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Painting by Dacre Smyth (1923-2008). While the exact date of creation is not given, it will certainly have been after 1928, and Australian copyright will still run until 2078 inclusive. While the file is in use in three articles, I doubt that a modern depiction of a historical event over 200 years ago satisfies the criteria for non-free content. Felix QW ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
US copyright in this 1953 Australian image was restored by the URAA restoration in 1996. It is in use at Ken Kearney, together with File:Ken Kearney.JPG, another non-free (URAA-restored) image. Presumably, either of them is sufficient for identification, so unless this file is deemed preferable to File:Ken Kearney.JPG for some reason, it would probably have to be deleted. Felix QW ( talk) 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a disputed CSD F7 nomination. This GIF depicts a final boss battle in Undertale (2015). Its usage in the article " Megalovania" — the soundtrack for this section of the game — does not meet criterion 8 (contextual significance) of the NFCC. I also feel that a 15-second clip is too excessive to meet criterion 3b (minimal extent of use). The NFCI allow for images which "are themselves the subject of sourced commentary" (emphasis original); the article's commentary mostly pertains to the music and not the visual aspects. Delete. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Invalid FUR. Asserted to be used as a logo but File:OSCE_logo.svg exists. Fails NFCC1. -- Min☠︎rax«¦ talk¦» 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't significantly enhance the reader's understanding, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Generally when we use non free logos, we put them in the infobox if they're important, but we have much more important, free images of the main party leaders in the infobox, which provide way more understanding to a reader than this logo. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is a screenshot of a television re-enactment of the murder of Lee Kim Lai, which is used in the article List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty. As a list to record Singaporean fallen police officers, his case is not the main topic of the article (had every fallen officers deserve their images, the article would have been full of fair-use images). While the description is relatively long, most of them are to translate the Chinese appearing in the file.
In short, the file is only used as a replaceable illustration in the article, and as a re-enactment its value is even less when compared with true historical images. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is a television screenshot of a traffic accident in Singapore involving police officers, and is used in List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty. As a list to record Singaporean fallen police officers, his case is not the main topic of the article (see also the comments in #File:True Files Lee Kim Lai 1.jpg), and its omission would not be detrimental to the readers' understanding.
Moreover,
WP:NFC#UUI point 7 states that photo from press agency are unacceptable fair use unless it is the subject of sourced commentary in the article
. As an illustration in the article that solely to demonstrate "2 police officers died in an accident", the file is clearly not the subject of sourced commentary.
In short, the file violates WP:NFCC8# and WP:NFC#UUI, and should therefore be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Although Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear is currently protected by copyright, and although it won't be protected by copyright until 2101 or later, try to avoid using fair use images if there are free copyrighted images, currently in Commons has a Buzz Lightyear statue in Shanghai, China, which is considered a freely licensed image for FoP reasons. The image of the statue is also close in size to the fair use image. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 09:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ TechnoSquirrel69 with the reason: "My concerns that got this file deleted previously still exist. This cover art seems to a represent a single, not the album." Fastily 06:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-free book cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Nori Bunasawa#Career. Non-free book covers are generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the books they represent, but there use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such critical commentary of the cover anywhere in the article (simply mentioning the book by name isn't sufficient) and the cover is also being used in a gallery of images which is not allowed per WP:NFG. For reference, I prodded the file for deletion here, but it was subsequently WP:DEPRODed by the uploader here without any explanation why; so, I'm bringing its non-free use up for further discussion here at FFD. Marchjuly ( talk) 12:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
skeptical about the sample's contextual significance to the whole album, even with a caption and an inline reference. furthermore, role to drive a reader into listening the whole track/recording already fulfilled by free text. furthermore, the album cover art already tells readers what to expect from the album itself. George Ho ( talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is necessary to meet the "Contextual significance" requirement for use of non-free content: 1) the item [song or portion of] is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or 2) where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article".
A comic depiction of the character is already in the infobox. Having another one violates purpose of use ( WP:NFCC#8) and maybe also minimal use (NFCC#3). Neocorelight ( Talk) 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This cover art fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) because the Saudi Arabian release contains a simple cover art design (see here). The Saudi cover art should be uploaded to Commons unless it is determined to be protected under Saudi Arabian copyright law, in which case it should be uploaded locally on Wikipedia as {{ PD-USonly}}. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused file Sangjinhwa ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. It's unclear if this seal is old enough to qualify for PD status. ✗ plicit 05:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Namibian team, it is the logo of the Namibia Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the New Zealand team, it is the logo of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Seychelles team, it is the logo of the Seychelles Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Vanuatu team, it is the logo of the Vanuatu Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 23 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 23 – ( 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 "===April 23===" 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.
Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it.
This implies that, per
WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is
significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.
The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.
Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).
Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.
In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho ( talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson.
Helping readers identify the James Brown song
It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be
contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.
Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2024 April 23. ✗ plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The cover has a very simple design and is therefore not copyrightable. Someone can take a picture of the book and release the photo under a free license. Ixfd64 ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Although this file is accompanied by critical commentary, the commentary is not about the depicted scene but rather about the depicted character
Bill Cipher, thus failing both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Per
MOS:TVIMAGE, a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode ... may only be used if it meets the non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary needs visual support to be understood
. This image can easily be replaced with an image depicting only the character himself, which would more likely meet both
WP:NFCC criteria.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This poster's role of identifying The Wolverine (film) can be achieved with c:File:The Wolverine Trailer Exclusive (2013).webm, a freely-licensed promotional trailer on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The image was designed in Illinois, USA, and the design is too simple to meet the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned, superseded by File:OTMA in 1914.jpg on Commons. ✗ plicit 14:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned, superseded by File:Langhuis.jpg on Commons. Ineligible for speedy deletion due to different file formats. ✗ plicit 14:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the logo of the Anguilla Commonwealth Games Association, not of the participating country of Anguilla, which uses the country's flag as the primary emblem. As such, it's not a logo of the entity in question (and the association doesn't have a Wikipedia article), and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the logo of the Bahamas Commonwealth Games Association, not of the participating country of Bahamas, which uses the country's flag as the primary emblem. As such, it's not a logo of the entity in question (and the association doesn't have a Wikipedia article), and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Violation of privacy. According to the article, this photo was leaked rather than made public by the subject. Kk.urban ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
A painting which from the State Library of Tasmania which they variously credit to artist F.J. Lloyd (d. 1956) (for instance on this instagram post) or treat as the work of an unknown artist (as on this blog entry). Since the latest attribution to F. J. Lloyd is from 8 weeks ago, I would tend not to treat it as an anonymous work but as a work by Lloyd, which would then be under copyright in Australia until 2026 inclusive. Whether it is still in copyright in the US would depend on its publication history, and thus whether it was catalogued or exhibited somewhere where copies could be made freely. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything on its exhibition history, and it is unlikely to be common knowledge given the present uncertainty about its authorship. Felix QW ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Painting by Dacre Smyth (1923-2008). While the exact date of creation is not given, it will certainly have been after 1928, and Australian copyright will still run until 2078 inclusive. While the file is in use in three articles, I doubt that a modern depiction of a historical event over 200 years ago satisfies the criteria for non-free content. Felix QW ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
US copyright in this 1953 Australian image was restored by the URAA restoration in 1996. It is in use at Ken Kearney, together with File:Ken Kearney.JPG, another non-free (URAA-restored) image. Presumably, either of them is sufficient for identification, so unless this file is deemed preferable to File:Ken Kearney.JPG for some reason, it would probably have to be deleted. Felix QW ( talk) 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a disputed CSD F7 nomination. This GIF depicts a final boss battle in Undertale (2015). Its usage in the article " Megalovania" — the soundtrack for this section of the game — does not meet criterion 8 (contextual significance) of the NFCC. I also feel that a 15-second clip is too excessive to meet criterion 3b (minimal extent of use). The NFCI allow for images which "are themselves the subject of sourced commentary" (emphasis original); the article's commentary mostly pertains to the music and not the visual aspects. Delete. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Invalid FUR. Asserted to be used as a logo but File:OSCE_logo.svg exists. Fails NFCC1. -- Min☠︎rax«¦ talk¦» 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't significantly enhance the reader's understanding, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Generally when we use non free logos, we put them in the infobox if they're important, but we have much more important, free images of the main party leaders in the infobox, which provide way more understanding to a reader than this logo. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is a screenshot of a television re-enactment of the murder of Lee Kim Lai, which is used in the article List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty. As a list to record Singaporean fallen police officers, his case is not the main topic of the article (had every fallen officers deserve their images, the article would have been full of fair-use images). While the description is relatively long, most of them are to translate the Chinese appearing in the file.
In short, the file is only used as a replaceable illustration in the article, and as a re-enactment its value is even less when compared with true historical images. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is a television screenshot of a traffic accident in Singapore involving police officers, and is used in List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty. As a list to record Singaporean fallen police officers, his case is not the main topic of the article (see also the comments in #File:True Files Lee Kim Lai 1.jpg), and its omission would not be detrimental to the readers' understanding.
Moreover,
WP:NFC#UUI point 7 states that photo from press agency are unacceptable fair use unless it is the subject of sourced commentary in the article
. As an illustration in the article that solely to demonstrate "2 police officers died in an accident", the file is clearly not the subject of sourced commentary.
In short, the file violates WP:NFCC8# and WP:NFC#UUI, and should therefore be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Although Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear is currently protected by copyright, and although it won't be protected by copyright until 2101 or later, try to avoid using fair use images if there are free copyrighted images, currently in Commons has a Buzz Lightyear statue in Shanghai, China, which is considered a freely licensed image for FoP reasons. The image of the statue is also close in size to the fair use image. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 09:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ TechnoSquirrel69 with the reason: "My concerns that got this file deleted previously still exist. This cover art seems to a represent a single, not the album." Fastily 06:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-free book cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Nori Bunasawa#Career. Non-free book covers are generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the books they represent, but there use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such critical commentary of the cover anywhere in the article (simply mentioning the book by name isn't sufficient) and the cover is also being used in a gallery of images which is not allowed per WP:NFG. For reference, I prodded the file for deletion here, but it was subsequently WP:DEPRODed by the uploader here without any explanation why; so, I'm bringing its non-free use up for further discussion here at FFD. Marchjuly ( talk) 12:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
skeptical about the sample's contextual significance to the whole album, even with a caption and an inline reference. furthermore, role to drive a reader into listening the whole track/recording already fulfilled by free text. furthermore, the album cover art already tells readers what to expect from the album itself. George Ho ( talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is necessary to meet the "Contextual significance" requirement for use of non-free content: 1) the item [song or portion of] is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or 2) where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article".
A comic depiction of the character is already in the infobox. Having another one violates purpose of use ( WP:NFCC#8) and maybe also minimal use (NFCC#3). Neocorelight ( Talk) 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This cover art fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) because the Saudi Arabian release contains a simple cover art design (see here). The Saudi cover art should be uploaded to Commons unless it is determined to be protected under Saudi Arabian copyright law, in which case it should be uploaded locally on Wikipedia as {{ PD-USonly}}. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused file Sangjinhwa ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. It's unclear if this seal is old enough to qualify for PD status. ✗ plicit 05:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Namibian team, it is the logo of the Namibia Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the New Zealand team, it is the logo of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Seychelles team, it is the logo of the Seychelles Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Vanuatu team, it is the logo of the Vanuatu Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 23 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 23 – ( 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 "===April 23===" 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.