Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

  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 October 24}} 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 October 24}} 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 October 24}} 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

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

Old discussions

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

October 18

File:Quark Creative works 1.jpg

File:Quark Creative works 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dhwanit999 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

watermark suggests uploader is not original author. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Commment This seems to be a clear copyright viiolation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this is an old upload, giving the uploader a week to respond seemed more reasonable than putting a F9 tag on it. Judging by the their edits, it appears they could be affiliated with the events and it's possible they have permission to use the photo. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert Exactly. I totally agree with you. Old files should be nominated for deletion via FfD and not via F9 for many reasons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Curtis Hill headshot crop 1.jpg

File:Curtis Hill headshot crop 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Knighttraba (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims that this is in the public domain as a work created by the United States federal government, but the source link goes to a page owned by a state government and there's no evidence that a federal photographer took the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Kim Guadagno Official Photo.png

File:Kim Guadagno Official Photo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Knighttraba (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims that this is in the public domain as a work created by the United States federal government, but the source link goes to a page owned by a state government and there's no evidence that a federal photographer took the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The template seems to be wrong, but per this, if nothing has changed, this may actually be okay. GMGtalk 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm. It seems that a template was deleted on Commons in 2013 (c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NJGov) but a new template was created a few weeks ago. The new template (c:Template:PD-NJGov) has a link at the bottom: "mark this page as patrolled". Seems that no one has dared clicking on the link yet, or maybe no one has discovered the template.
I note that User:Train2104 made modifications to our local {{PD-NJGov}} which have not been made to the template on Commons. Both templates were created by the same person at approximately the same time.
The law says:
What does "data and datasets" refer to? Are we really sure that it includes photographs? It sounds more like something which is distributed in database form, to the extent that such information is copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. Maybe User:Fæ would know who to ping? They're basically my go-to person when I fundamentally don't understand copyright. GMGtalk 23:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
c:COM:VPC is usually the best place to ask. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Posted there. GMGtalk 23:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's the sort of things available on the website "data.nj.gov". Things that are on "nj.gov/governor" are subject to the general notice of "www.nj.gov/nj/legal.html". -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stefan2: The edits I made to the template were to reflect the specific provisions in the law. Data, datasets, and open data are defined here. While raw data is usually not copyrightable, this extends the PD declaration to charts, graphs, maps, and other representations of the data, which is usually copyrightable. Photos of people clearly do not fall under this statute. Delete. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Vivek dagar.jpg

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

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Troy Champ 1968.jpg

File:Troy Champ 1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CM670 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a non-free image of a football team being used in the Troy Trojans football article. The image is not needed to understand the topic nor is it needed to enhance any understanding of the 1968 team. There is no sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Tom-Jones1958.jpg

File:Tom-Jones1958.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CM670 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used in Troy Trojans football with no sourced commentary to support its usage in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. However, as a deceased individual, this image would qualify for use in the article Tom Jones (coach) for use in the infobox for visual identification. I recommend removal from the team article, and the adjust the usage rationale and add it to the individual biography article. Whpq (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

October 19

File:Charlie-Bradshaw-1960.jpg

File:Charlie-Bradshaw-1960.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CM670 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used in Troy Trojans football with no sourced commentary to support its usage in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. However, as a deceased individual, this image would qualify for use in the article Charlie Bradshaw (American football coach) for use in the infobox for visual identification. I recommend removal from the team article, and the adjust the usage rationale and add it to the individual biography article. Whpq (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Bill Atkins Troy State.jpg

File:Bill Atkins Troy State.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kreeder13 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used in the Troy Trojans football. There is no non-free usage rationale for its use the football team article. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image so I don't see that a usage rationale could be created that would satisfy WP:NFCC. Fails WP:NFCC#10c. My removal of the image was reverted. No issues with its use in the Bill Atkins (American football) article. Recommend keeping the image at the individual bio article, and removal from the team article. Whpq (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png

File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Northamerica1000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As this is a photo of a product which is still manufactured, it is replaceable. That no one has found a free equivalent does not impede the creation of one. SummerPhDv2.0 02:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep – Per the rationale I provided when declining a previous CSD nomination. Instead of rehashing the whole thing over again, I have copied the discourse below. The image is clearly of encyclopedic value to the article. The previous keep result was closed by an admin stating, ""Speedy deletion declined - a very plausible argument of irreplacability has been advanced". North America1000 06:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The image is used to illustrate the key theme of the article, which serves to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, whereas its omission would be significantly detrimental to that understanding. Furthermore, use of the image in the article fully complies with Wikipedia Non-free content policy and Non-free content criteria and fair use under United States copyright law.

Furthermore, there has been significant discussion on the talk page about having an accurate image of the product in the article:

The nomination for deletion (diff) comes across as a knee-jerk, drive-by reaction (e.g. see a similar style nomination here) without actual consideration or due diligence given by the nominator regarding how the image actually significantly improves the educational value of the article, nor how omission of the image would be beneficial relative to the overall topic. North America1000 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the lead section, the image shows a product which at least appears to be sold in the United States. It should therefore be possible to go to the United States and take a photograph of this product. The picture therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The likelihood of a free equivalent image of the product being created is very slim to none. Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form. The only access consumers have to it is when it's already mixed in with ground beef, which makes it indistinguishable from the ground beef itself.
Furthermore, as of at least March 2013, the product's primary manufacturer won't let reporters in its plants at this time or even speak to the media. See this article, where it states:

Before all the coverage, BPI routinely let reporters inside its plant. Today, the Roth family and BPI employees generally won’t speak to members of the media, even by phone. In fact, most of the players in the “pink slime” story — including the scientist who coined the term, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver who “manufactured” pink slime on his show, ABC News, laid-off BPI employees, and BPI itself — are communicating almost exclusively through lawyers or representatives, if they are willing to address the topic at all.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. As stated above, consumers have no access to the product, so they won't be able to take a picture of it. North America1000 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form That's no different from typical scientific images where it may only be possible for scientists to create replacements. We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement.
Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. Images taken by mass media typically fail WP:NFC#UUI §7, thus failing WP:NFCC for two reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that WP:NFC#UUI §7 pertains to photos from a press agency or photo agency. This is not a photograph, it is a screenshot. As such, WP:NFC#UUI #7 does not apply to this content whatsoever. Furthermore, at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Acceptable use § Images regarding the acceptable use of non-free content it states, "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." For starters, see Pink slime § ABC News report. This is a screen shot from a television program that is quite clearly aligned with critical commentary and discussion about the topic. As such, it qualifies as an acceptable use of non-free content. North America1000 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement": As explained above, the product's primary producer will not allow anyone access to the product to photograph it. As such, it's virtually certain that the company would not allow its employees to photograph it and then upload the image to Wikimedia commons. If this were to occur, such employees would likely face termination from the company. North America1000 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - while I'm not thrilled with the idea of "it's hard to photograph so let's steal a news media photo", this article is primarily about ABC's reporting and features a screenshot from that reporting for the purpose of criticizing that reporting. So that's a little bit different than if this were a photo from, say, the New York Times, and was not at all for the purpose of criticizing the NYT's reporting. --B (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Tallia Storm presents We Day 2017.jpg

File:Tallia Storm presents We Day 2017.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davemangle10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly needs permission - who is Hartmann Media? – Train2104 (t • c) 02:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Gousto Website Logo.png

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

unused logo, no foreseeable use FASTILY 04:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Glen Carroll and Jon BonJovi performing.jpeg

File:Glen Carroll and Jon BonJovi performing.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikipage2016 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:JayIsaac2016.jpeg

File:JayIsaac2016.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amcecil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, quality of file is so bad that it adds no value regardless of its insufficient permissions. Salavat (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Jonathan Bartley and Caroline Lucas.jpg

File:Jonathan Bartley and Caroline Lucas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kierant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Joy as a Cute Witch.jpg

File:Joy as a Cute Witch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 120mm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Photo of Max Hellerstein.png

File:Photo of Max Hellerstein.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RGReiber (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:RenukaKesaramadu.jpg

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

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Richard Sharp 2016.jpg

File:Richard Sharp 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RGReiber (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 04:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Jonathan Hobin Bio photo.jpg

File:Jonathan Hobin Bio photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brenda Dunn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Paul Glimcher Picture.jpg

File:Paul Glimcher Picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyuiisdm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Rohit Kalia Pic.jpg

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

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for over a year, unlikely permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wade michael page police handout.png

File:Wade michael page police handout.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Medeis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The mugshot taken in supposedly Wisconsin was discussed at Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting#Image of Wade Michael Page as a pre-nomination. I thought about PRODding it. However, because the uploader is one of long-time active editors, I realized that I should take precaution, so I pinged the uploader instead while starting the discussion there. There, the image's compliance of WP:NFCC and copyright status were discussed. Replacing the image with a freer image was considered, but I wasn't sure whether a mugshot from North Carolina is free to use. The other participants there disagreed; no freer replacement was uploaded.

One reason to have the image deleted: the biographical image is used in the non-biographical article about the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Even when the section about the perpetrator is detailed, I believe that readers would already understand the event/shooting itself without this image. The shooting itself, not the shooter himself, is the article subject. Another reason: The image isn't necessary to help readers understand that the perpetrator was one of white supremacists. Even the article doesn't (and shouldn't) emphasize too much on his appearance (unless his overall appearance is the important part of the shooting). Sure, racial hatred was the motive for murder and one of major components of the event. The image might be replaceable or irreplaceable. Regardless, the image fails the "contextual significance" criterion.

Of course, I would hear different interpretations on the criterion otherwise. At first I thought about having a central discussion about image of various perpetrators, but I decided to nominate this individual image on the safer side before doing so. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC); amended, 00:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The matter was already discussed on the article's talk page, there was no consensus to delete, and bringing the matter here strikes me forum-shopping--although I do appreciate the heads up. The argument that the article can be understood with a picture of the dead perpetrator (whose reputation in death cannot be damaged under common law) is not a positive reason to delete it. Indeed, we should think of the readers' curiosity. There's no reason to force them to use a search engine when we have an image. The sole concern might be copyright, but the mugshot was widely distributed, and our fair use of it does not infringe on its potential monetary value. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You mean "understood without a picture", right? --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Talk page discussions don't overrule (or could be considered as forum-alternatives to) FFD. Venue is important.Overall, to attract more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like a reasonable fair usage to me. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
May you please explain why, CapitalSasha, the usage is "reasonable" and it meets NFCC? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
that criterion says that the image is supposed to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. What the person looks like seems germane to a section about a person, so it would enhance understanding in that way. I don't feel very strongly about this one way or another though. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@CapitalSasha: Here is the revision without the image (whole article) to see whether the shooting itself, the article subject/topic, can be understood without the image. The shooter himself neither meets notability standards, especially WP:BIO1E, nor is the main subject of the article, but he was the main part of the event. Personally, I already understood the article without this image as it provides sufficient knowledge about the shooting itself. But that's my experience. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your point, since NFCC refers to the ability of an image to enhance understanding, not whether the article would be at all understandable without the image. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies again, CapitalSasha, for being less clearer. I was planning to explain a little longer, but I thought that I would insert too many words. Therefore, I showed you just the links of revisions to compare and judge for yourself, but then I didn't explain my point very well. I'll be clearer to explain my point, but I'll get to it at the near end.

Now that you mention NFCC (again), I think you misunderstood the intent of NFCC. WP:NFCC#Rationale says that free content is strongly encouraged, that usage of non-free content must be very minimal, and that non-free content can be used if it improves Wikipedia and does not exceed fair use limits. Also, WP:NFCC#Policy says that non-free multimedia content may be used if it meets all criteria. However, the "contextual significance" criterion says further, "[I]ts omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Whether the image enhances the understanding is not the main issue.

Here comes my point... well, revised point actually. Does removing the image affect readers' understanding of the shooting itself? Re-reading the revision without the image, I already understand that the event was racially motivated and that the perpetrator was very disturbing and that the victims were non-white. Removing the image doesn't affect how I read the article... ever, especially when it's not a biographical article. I believe that other readers would say the same about this image, but that's my opinion. How does removing the image affect your understanding of the shooting itself, not the shooter (who is not independently notable)?

Going back to the "Rationale" part, it implies that we have to be selective on non-free content, especially if it is non-text. I was told that using too much non-free content compromises the "free content" principle. I guess I slowly begin to find it more compelling to agree with. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would say that I feel a certain amount of background on the shooter, including his appearance, is germane to the shooting. I don't really understand the difference between the presence of the image enhancing the understanding and the absence of the image detracting from it: after all, removing a positive thing is a negative thing. I am not an expert on the NFCC policies so maybe we should wait for more experienced editors to chime in. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ford Focus Cosworth.jpg

File:Ford Focus Cosworth.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gsom7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Purpose is claimed to be "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question.", however this is a concept car that has a three sentence paragraph about it in the Ford Focus (first generation) article. Fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:RINGBELL.jpg

File:RINGBELL.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image was originally PRODded, but it was rejected as if it were a "di-orphaned fair use" tag. I wonder whether others are aware that WP:PROD has extended to files for months. The image does not accurately represent the song but the compilation album of the same name, Ring My Bell. The issue was also discussed at Talk:Ring My Bell#Picture sleeve?, but I felt that it's more of a local consensus trying to override the existing procedure, the FFD. Also, the image is not used in any of releases. Try eBay, which lists compilations of the same name. As suggested in the talk page, I can replace the (incorrect) front cover with more authentic front cover (either this or that... or others). However, File:Ring My Bell by Anita Ward US vinyl red label A-side.png is uploaded as free and ineligible for copyright because it is too factual, the background uses a plain color, and simple font is used. Therefore, I find the front cover not just incorrectly used but also replaceable by a free label. Same for other front covers, i.e. picture sleeves, used overseas. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to both retain the image and use it in the lede position, simply because it is the most attractive and colorful image, is single-specific, and corresponds (in reverse) to the image on the LP. -- JGabbard (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Umm... Per MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, being "the most attractive and colorful" is another way of saying "decorative", isn't it? The image is the mirror version of Songs of Love (Anita Ward album) front cover, but I guess that's not a sufficient reason for deletion. As I said, the use is improper, and compilation albums of the same name are not independently notable (unless sources say otherwise). The image has misled readers into believing that it "is" the front cover of a picture sleeve; it is not part of one of the territorial releases. Even when it is, the free image does the same purpose as what the non-free image was supposed to do (but is misrepresented). --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:NorthwestHeights01.jpg

File:NorthwestHeights01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbc12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely. MB298 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:ForestParkElementary.jpg

File:ForestParkElementary.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbc12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely. MB298 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:ForestHeightsPark.jpg

File:ForestHeightsPark.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbc12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is listed as a real estate website, which does not license work freely. MB298 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

October 20

File:Sajid Hakim Jogi Photo.jpg

File:Sajid Hakim Jogi Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sajid Hakim Jogi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused personal image no encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Aaliyah-Try-Again-cover.png

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lack of licensing information (which includes lack of a source) is covered by Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § F4. Lack of licensing information. As the issue is resolved, this case can be closed similar to a speedy deletion proposal. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Aaliyah-Try-Again-cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beyoncetan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source given to where the user received or downloaded the image from. the other ryan (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Source has been added. Beyoncetan (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Smarty9108: Files lacking sources should be nominated for deletion via {{subst:nsd}}, not brought to FFD. Salavat (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - This image was used in multiple territories, i.e. overseas. Also part of the single release. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 21 October 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:The Legend of Captain Jack Sparrow.jpg

File:The Legend of Captain Jack Sparrow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative of non-free content; there is no FOP for 2D works in the USA FASTILY 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clearly a copyright violation. Clarification: Nom. has mentioned "FOP". It is an acronym for "freedom of panorama", and refers to laws that permit copyright-protected works that are permanently placed in a public location to be photographed or otherwise reproduced to a limited degree. –Codename Lisa (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:SAP Business One Image.png

File:SAP Business One Image.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dipanshah69 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image in violation of WP:NFCC#8, "contextual significance". This image is supposed to show a screenshot of an app, to show how it looks like, for the purpose of identification and educational commentary. But it doesn't. It shows a laptop and a computer monitor, with something on them that does not amount to much. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Lisa for your comments. The image does indeed show the application. It shows that the application has detailed reports as shown in the computer monitor and a cockpit as shown in the laptop. The cockpit is the initial entry point for the user to the application which displays all the relevant key performance indicators and charts presented directly on one screen as tiles. The detailed report provides more information on the particular object/report being considered. Dipanshah69 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Face-smile.svg You are welcome, although this certainly is not a comment. You obviously have previous familiarity with the software product. But images and articles are mainly for people without such familiarity. Familiarity is supposed to be their result, not their prerequisite. –Codename Lisa (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Lisa.Face-smile.svg Another thing I have learned - emojis! Yes I do have previous familiarity. I am trying to provide a picture of the software so people can see what it looks like - one thing that it is conveying is a message of how simple the interface looks like. It is a licensed software - would I be able to submit a screenshot of the software? Dipanshah69 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Subject to Wikipedia:Non-free content. It's actually easy. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 21

File:William M. Connolley at Moeraki Boulders, Dec 2005.jpg

File:William M. Connolley at Moeraki Boulders, Dec 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by William M. Connolley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned "keep local" personal file since at least 2011. WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~ Rob13Talk 10:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Connolley is an active editor. Why not just ask him if he wants to keep it? Jonathunder (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Windows 10 (version 1703).png

File:Windows 10 (version 1703).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikemeowz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violates WP:NFCC § 3, given the presence of the newer File:Windows 10 (version 1709).png which can, in all respects, replace it. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AroundTheGlobe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10#File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg, this is just the older version. But the license is clear as mud. We need an explanation from the uploader or someone at OTRS to clarify it the license refers to this file as well. Magog the Ogre (t c) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The OTRS tag was added by User:Peripitus, and it seems that there were already two files in the history at that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:David Bradley as the First Doctor.jpg

File:David Bradley as the First Doctor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this fails criteria 3, as it shows the Twelfth Doctor when a portion with just David Bradley as the First Doctor would fulfill its purpose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

October 22

File:Fujimaru 0.jpg

File:Fujimaru 0.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pati cabana (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to be copyrighted, see ru:Файл:Shonen Ninja Kaze no Fujimaru.jpg Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value and copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:FujianPeople'sGovernmentFlag.png

File:FujianPeople'sGovernmentFlag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AjaxSmack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:Flag of Fujian People's Government.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to the SVG version. Salavat (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Fullfat.jpeg

File:Fullfat.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhd Alif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:Fullfat.png Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to the PNG version. Salavat (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Fullexternal.gif

File:Fullexternal.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benderson2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

image of non-useful material. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Fullpipe.jpeg

File:Fullpipe.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tuckjow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superior, real-life images are available and used to depict this object. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:FurnyHalloween.jpg

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

probable copyvio, album cover for a non-notable band. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:FurtherReading.png

File:FurtherReading.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ryn78 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, too low in quality to be of realistic use. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Future single.PNG

File:Future single.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rm w a vu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, I created the file and can't even remember why. Perhaps because it was like 10 years ago? Also it's pretty terrible looking regardless. --rm 'w avu 22:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Fuzzzy-screenshot1.jpg

File:Fuzzzy-screenshot1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hypox0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

website screenshot, possible copyvio. also not a notable website Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Fuzzzy logo1.png

File:Fuzzzy logo1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hypox0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

non-notable website, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Top 5 at 2009 bay league finals cropped.jpg

File:Top 5 at 2009 bay league finals cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pcohen8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file of no use to project only (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:SavannahSquares.jpg

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

no foreseeable use, original map copyright status unknown Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Noting that @PurpleChez: has commented on the talk page. Pinting them here as the place to comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus...here's what I posted at the other spot....
Hi! Got notice that this file is "listed for discussion," where it is tagged as having "no foreseeable use." For reasons I still don't understand the firewall on my work computer blocks images in wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure which of these images it might be, but many years ago I created several schematics that are still utilized in the Squares of Savannah article. I'll follow up at home when I can see more, but please let me know what I can do to clarify this. Thanks!!!PurpleChez (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @PurpleChez:, where does the background image come from?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg

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

File is not source code, so fail to see why this GPL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right, on srwiki it says the file is GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0, and not GPL. The license should be corrected.
PS. The file was reuploaded from the Serbian language wikipedia where User:Mladifilozof sent it into the public domain. Original file at https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Ganjamarsh.jpg Aleksamil (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The copyright tag on srwiki has GNU and CC logos, so presumably it's not in the public domain but licensed under some licences from those organisations. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the comment on 30 August 2006 which says "Предајем ову слику у јавно власништво." meaning the image is submitted to the public domain. The tag is gfdl-self. Perhaps the tag should be edited to gfdl, instead of gpl? Aleksamil (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The original uploader may have claimed to have put the image into PD, but the copyright tag they uploaded is {{GFDL-self}}. So relicensing it as that seems to be the correct move. Or rather, when they uploaded the text of that template on srwiki was "subject to disclaimers", {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:One Piece, Volume 1.jpg

File:One Piece, Volume 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnmaFinotera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The articles List of One Piece chapters (1–186), List of One Piece manga volumes and List of best-selling comics do not need any covers as they could simply refer to the One Piece article which contains a cover. The situation is a bit similar to WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Original uploader not noticed since the talk page is fully protected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep I don't think the motivation makes sense, would you mind explaining it further? Linking to an other article which has an image is not helpful to the articles in question. Why would a reader have to click on another article to have to see an image related to the one they are already reading?
In these cases having an image is greatly beneficial it increases understanding of the subject and in identifying it. Tons of comic related articles have several fair use images of covers to identify volumes of a title because it is very helpful, I see no reason to why this would be different, the image does in no way hinder the sales of the product and is encyclopedic as far as I can see. The image used in the main One Piece article is not relevant to the the lists except in the one which that specific volume appears.
Whether any article at all "needs" an image is pretty debatable. Most article have images because it's encyclopedic and helpful or because the image is free and why not in that case.★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. One use of non-free book cover per article sounds reasonable. One Piece is now a massive franchise so it would be unreasonable to expect the reader to click on the main article to find out more about the particular series they're currently reading about. Deryck C. 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Materialscientist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo has a subsisting copyright in the United States because Sweden has long-standing copyright relations with the United States. This could be converted to non-free use for use in John Franklin Enders, but would need to be removed from List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine ~ Rob13Talk 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Negative. The most recent Swedish copyright law was adopted in 1994, before the URAA date of 1 January 1996. According to that law, photos taken before 1 January 1969 are out of copyright. In other words, {{PD-Sweden}} files automatically comply with URAA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems pretty reasonable to say that URAA copyright does not apply to this image as it was already PD in Sweden before the URAA date. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights such "subsisting rights" apply to foreign-made works that would be copyrighted in the US if made there and it's not clear that this would be the case here given {{PD-US-no notice}}; especially when first made abroad such a photo is unlikely to have a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Plain White T's in 2005.JPG

File:Plain White T's in 2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strangerer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fastily: Actually, a picture of a very notable band can probably be transferred to Commons. This image is valuable because it shows the band before they became famous; such images are much rarer than "post-famous" photos. ~ Rob13Talk 10:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure. However, I'm still seeing source/permission issues with the image. The original source link is dead, so we can't verify that the copyright holder actually agreed to release the file into the PD. -FASTILY 17:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FWIW I have found archived copies of the broken links.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:1965 War the Australian Newspaper.jpg

File:1965 War the Australian Newspaper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HIAS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader falsely claims that the source is "PAF Museum, Karachi", even when the image is rather obviously taken from a Pakistani blog.[1]

File:Captured Indian Centurion tank in 1965 War near Chawinda, Sep 1965.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HIAS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).[2] should also be deleted for the same reason. Even the text in the description is copied verbatim from that blog.
The user has a history of uploading copyright violations on both the English Wikipedia and Commons. —MBlaze Lightning T 13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep You haven't explained what leads you to believe the images are lifted from the blog. It could also be vice versa. Also, the resolution of both pics appears to be different. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It was posted on that website years before the uploading user ripped them off here. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
For your information, the resolution does not matter at all, because vector graphics are scalable, they can be scaled at any size without losing quality. And it's worth looking at his upload log,[3] which shows that he uploaded File:Pakistani Forces captured Kishangarh Fort in 1965 War.png and File:Captured Indian Centurion tank in 1965 War near Chawinda, Sep 1965.png on the same day, both of which he took from here. Given this user's history of uploading copyvios both here and on Commons, it's safe to say that he intentionally uploaded these files with false source and authorship claims in order to make them look fine. —MBlaze Lightning T 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep MBlaze, I don't understand your argument here. It's common for Blogs to use material like this. What are you even suggesting? --Xinjao (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Xinjao the image was copied from a blog which is protected with copyrights. And since the image itself comes from an unreliable source it has no place in encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete ripped off from an unreliable blog and provided a fake source "PAF Museum", which is not even possible because the image clearly matches with what the uploading user copied from the blog.. same content same position and so on. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Both the images are copyright violations, and I can't see how they can be used in a "fair use" way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Since finding pictures of that time and especially times of war are extremely difficult and rare, it seems to satisfy fair use, at least for now until some unpublished free use source turns up in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete clear copyright violation from a source known for nothing but hoax. WP:ILIKEIT is always a bad reason to vote keep. Capitals00 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing to meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping and WP:NFCC#8 for the captured tank image. The newspaper image is non-free and being used with a rationale of "It will explain the Position of Pakistani Forces." The image includes copyrighted elements with nothing to do with the 1965 war so WP:NFCC#3 is an issue. More serious is that the image in now way supports the stated purpose as it provides no insight to any reader as to the positioning of Pakistani forces. The tank image is used with a rationale of "It will show the image of captured tank which alternative cannot show." but there is no discussion aboi=ut a captured tank or why it is an important element of the battle. It;s use is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Whpq: The Australian clipping is useful in the sense that it describes a foreign newspaper's reporting of a major battle from the 1965 war. So I disagree with your assertion that it is not relevant to the context (WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8). The tank image is also entirely in context of the Chawinda battle. I don't see how this requirement is any different from File:Pattonb.jpg, File:Basantar2.jpg and File:Longewala Tank.jpg, all of which are being used similarly. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Those files are not ripped off from unreliable source and fall under fair use unlike these 2. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"Copyright BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited." The 3 images are in clear violation of stated copyright. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mar4d: The stated purpose with which to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping is to explain Pakistani force positions. It does no such thing. Your assertion that it is useful to show foreign coverage is not what is stated in the FUR. And ieven if it were, there is nothing in the article that addresses foreign news coverage so it too would faill point 8. As for the tank image, it may be a photo of a cpatured tank from the battle, but there is no soruced commentary about the image with which to satisfy point 8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This file was also nominated before, but it seems to have been brought up and reverted based on WP:AN [4]. Would appreciate if this could be looked into. Mar4d (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
So deletion tag is not nomination. On WP:AN there was no decision but we agreed that HIAS(uploading user) had not provided source. He never completed those terms of providing sources or permission and just edit warred over deletion tag. Proves that he ripped off images in bad faith and was never able to convince otherwise. And one more of his concerning image[5] has been deleted already but these 2 are left. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant copyvio. The reliability of the source blog is also very questionable and makes the images a candidate for possible hoax. Razer(talk) 08:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

*Keep - Both the images contain no meta data to suggest that they are copyrighted nor does the blog makes any such claim. The blog itself lists Wikipedia among others as it reference. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) blocked for socking

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonny84 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In violation of WP:NFCCP#3a: a similar album cover image is being used in article Edyta Górniak (album). Wcam (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep this Polish image but delete File:Album Edyta Gorniak international cover.jpg - The singer was Polish, so the Polish edition can be used. The European/international release has the similar artwork but different font. I believe that the Polish one enhances readers' understanding more than the international one, though the international artwork was prominently used globally. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of deleting File:Album Edyta Gorniak international cover.jpg, which I have now tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 06:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Correction(?), Jonny84: The international edition was released one year after the Polish release. See their back covers. --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The album was released in Japan and Taiwan earlier. And I meant the polish reedition, which had more songs than the standard international version. Because the standard version was the same international and in Poland, except the font. But in my opinion the international cover is more interesting (for the english language Wikipedia) than a local cover for one state. --Jonny84 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the special edition (Edycja Specjalna), Jonny84? The "Edycja Specjalna" has additional words/subtitle on the front cover, while the standard Polish one didn't. --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus needed on which image to keep and which to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Devudu (Audio).jpg

File:Devudu (Audio).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by B.Bhargava Teja (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Audio covers in film articles violate WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Meizu logo2.svg

File:Meizu logo2.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Could be uploaded to Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}, it isn't a work of calligraphy so it should be OK to fall under TOO for China. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:American Labor Party for Jill Stein 2016.jpg

File:American Labor Party for Jill Stein 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Braddrake9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

possible derivative of non-free content (badge) FASTILY 20:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

October 23

File:TGGF.png

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

Non-free image that does not add anything to the article.WP:NFCCP #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Hussein Saeed in 1981.jpg

File:Hussein Saeed in 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hashima20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused crop of File:Hussein Saeed and Suhail Saber.jpg (which was also deleted as missing verifiable source) FASTILY 07:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Al-Talaba 1977–78.jpg

File:Al-Talaba 1977–78.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hashima20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, and unclear if this is actually PD (if it is, then the PD-Iraq used on it is wrong) FASTILY 07:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Hussein Saeed 1979.jpg

File:Hussein Saeed 1979.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hashima20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably a non-free file (tagged as PD-Iraq but this could not possibly be the case because it was not published more than 50 years ago). Even if this file was converted to non-free, it would likely fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable) and WP:NFCC#8 (no critical commentary) FASTILY 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Al-Talaba 1980-81.jpg

File:Al-Talaba 1980-81.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hashima20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably a non-free file (tagged as PD-Iraq but this could not possibly be the case because it was not published more than 50 years ago). Even if this file was converted to non-free, it would likely fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable) and WP:NFCC#8 (no critical commentary) FASTILY 08:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:WJCT Founder Dr. Heywood Dowling.jpg

File:WJCT Founder Dr. Heywood Dowling.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bstephenson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8. A photo like this should normally only be used in an article about the person, not in an article about a radio station. Also, there's no source. Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Dowling began a six-year effort to license and fund an educational television station for Florida's First Coast." I think it's fair to say that the radio station's founder is a person of significant importance to the radio station, given the amount of work he put in to get the radio station in the first place. Additionally, it doesn't violate BLP because he's dead. Banaticus (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
But since it's not an article about him personally, the picture should not be there. You could easily understand what the radio station is about without seeing a picture of its founder. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Varun unni as featured on Mathrubhumi.jpg

File:Varun unni as featured on Mathrubhumi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Isabelnikolas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

promotional image, apparently taken from a media publication; probable copyright violation FASTILY 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Lightnings sequence 2 animation-wcag.gif

File:Lightnings sequence 2 animation-wcag.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RexxS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused locally/already on Commons, Wikipedia is not a web-host, no reason to retain local copy FASTILY 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep This file was copied on to Commons without my knowledge. It has a {{keep local}} template because I choose not to have to keep a watchlist of images in which I have an interest beyond the one I have on English Wikipedia. Commons has a track record of copying my work from the English Wikipedia; then deleting the copy here; and finally deleting the image from Commons without informing me. I do not intend to repeat that unfortunate experience, and there is no reason why I should have to.
I have no problem with having a copy on Commons, but I object to removal of the local copy here that I uploaded. This is another back-door attempt to subvert editors' wishes in the form of bypassing {{Keep local}}, which has shown in three deletion attempts (see Template talk:Keep local) that consensus is in favour of respecting editors' wishes. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Jarmanpreet image.jpg

File:Jarmanpreet image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jarmanpreet Singh Bal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low resolution, likely screenshot – Train2104 (t • c) 23:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:OMN The Language.png

File:OMN The Language.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikigmm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file not critical to understanding of the article. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 24

Footer

Today is October 24 2017. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 24 -- (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 "===October 24===" 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=806773244"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Files for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA