Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, 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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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 process. 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 template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template 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=2018 December 13}} 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=2018 December 13}} 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=2018 December 13}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1920, not 1926.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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

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

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation

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

December 7

File:USAID sign at Liberian ebola treatment center pictured in 2015.jpg

File:USAID sign at Liberian ebola treatment center pictured in 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAID sign at Liberian ebola treatment center pictured in 2015.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Waterloo-Mathematics.svg

File:Waterloo-Mathematics.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kyuko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Too complex for PD-textlogo Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Relisted from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 12. Obviously, @Ronhjones: is correct that it is too complex for PD-textlogo. I googled and found at [1] that the shield has been used since 1961, which means it is most likely subject to copyright. (If it is considered a Crown Copyright, it would have needed to have been published 1946 or earlier to be public domain in the US.) So unless someone can offer evidence that it is PD, the question is whether to keep as fair use or delete. --B (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Comptroller and Auditor General of India logo.png

File:Comptroller and Auditor General of India logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SshibumXZ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obsolete. Better version at File:CAG HQ LOGO.pngSarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

File:GatewayFootballConference 1.png

File:GatewayFootballConference 1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Porsche997SBS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The boilerplate rationale on the image states "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Missouri Valley Football Conference...", however because this is a historic logo for an organization that preceded the MVFC, it does not appear in the infobox. There is no commentary (critical or otherwise) about this logo in the article, thus no reason why it would meet WP:NFCCP#8.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 8

File:BBC iPlayer Screenshot.png

File:BBC iPlayer Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davey2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No need for the whole screenshot and so big. Could be cropped and reduced a bit. Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ronhjones *cough* [2] *cough* - I reduced it 4 days ago when another screenshot was sent here for the exact same reason - The size is absolutely fine and I would say it's hell of a lot better than the previous image. –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Also whilst I'm here why are we nominating images purely based on the size ? .... Are we not capable of reszing the images ourselves or something? ..... If I can do it online then so can everyone else. –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Bush portrait at White House on 1 December 2018.jpg

File:Bush portrait at White House on 1 December 2018.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:A portrait of 41st President George H. W. Bush is draped with black cloth in the White House (46144854061).jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.png

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coasterdude1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Summary: Fan made poster.

Explanation: No evidence exists that an actual poster was created specifically for The Secret World of Jeffree Star, and the only poster that represents that (although as a "reference poster", to represent the series but not an official poster) is available in The Mind of Jake Paul. As such, this seems like a fan-made poster to represent the series. A similar file was deleted on October 16, 2018. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:F-4D Phantom II.jpg

File:F-4D Phantom II.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain, per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:F-4D Phantom II.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep on Wikipedia, though I have no position on its status on Commons. The file's licensing tag has been updated to reflect that this is not a work of the US government but, nonetheless, has been released to the public domain. The hosting entity of the image has clearly labeled it a public domain image using the words PUBLIC DOMAIN and the "copyright free" circle/slash logo. The hosting entity, the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, does not label all images it hosts using these two symbols, thus indicating these release terms were selectively applied as an intentional indicator of this image's PD status. The hosting entity is not a random blog or Flickr page but is, in fact, a major publisher and distributor of visual content with a legal personality and it can be reasonably assumed it competently and accurately labeled this as a Public Domain image. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Friday Evening Parade MBW.ogv

File:Friday Evening Parade MBW.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain, per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Friday Evening Parade MBW.ogv Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:NORTHCOM Supports Southwest Border Security.jpg

File:NORTHCOM Supports Southwest Border Security.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain, per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NORTHCOM Supports Southwest Border Security.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 9

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.jpg

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tamas Szabo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

no source, dubious CC claim, unclear copyright status/may still be copyrighted FASTILY 01:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Azonosítatlan személyek" = anonymous, and the quotation says that the library has the right to use this image; the uploader's purpose in quoting it is obviously that this statement appeared at the source (yes, the image does have a source) with the image. Clearly the library's right to display this image didn't come from the creator (otherwise they'd know who the author was), so this is either the second or the third point of c:Template:PD-Hungary. (The library's statement is a claim that they can restrict use of digital images to nonprofits, a position we solidly reject.) The only remaining issue is whether this has been published (and that's only relevant for US purposes), but what I'm seeing indicates that this and other images from the same collection are part of a collection of printed-on-paper (and thus published, given the time period) photographs. This is reinforced by the metadata options in the source's dropdown at the Wayback Machine, which lets you specify the published source from which items are taken. If it were some person's personal photo from 1910 being first published in a book (and then they scanned the book and uploaded the scan), or if they scanned an unpublished photo from 1910, they'd know who the author was; only if it were published would they be able to ascertain the date without knowing who the author was. Consequently, I believe this to be a published-circa-1910 image and thus (1) PD-US, (2) PD-Hungary point 2, which would put this at PD in 1980, and (3) PD-1996 as well as PD-US. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Cyril Luckham.gif

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

"Unable to find another photo of subject" is not sufficient under WP:FU. Nor is the source identified; another site containing the photo is listed, but that doesn't identify the copyright holder of the image. Indeed, that site is rife with copyright violations. Note however, the uploader correctly noted that the subject has been deceased since 1989. Yamla (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • As the need for these discussions shows, the rules for these uploads are difficult to interpret definitively. I have been guided by moral considerations in putting these photos up: (1) to help Wikipedia readers; (2) to protect copyright by reducing the photos to a quality below commercial level; (3) to respect the subject by uploading only photos that are both representative and not un-flattering; (4) to provide what information I can find about a photo's origin and ownership. I shall have to leave the rest to the rules experts.Sammyrice (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • These rules are indeed difficult to interpret definitively. It's very clear to me that Sammyrice is acting in good faith. Sammy and I disagree on this particular image and while I think I'm correct, it's quite plausible I'm in the wrong here. Regardless, I sincerely thank Sammyrice for his good-faith efforts around images, particularly those of long-deceased subjects where copyright and fair use is even harder than normal. --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This looks like it might be a screenshot taken of Luckham from one of his movie/television appearances. He is deceased and non-free photos, etc. of deceased individuals are allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI and long as WP:FREER and WP:COPYLINK are not an issue. Obviously a new photo of him cannot be created, but there might be some image of him floating around somewhere which would be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} which might exist. If there are concerns about the source website being "rife of copyright violations" and the use of a non-free image is deemed OK, then either figuring out which film this came from (if it's indeed a screenshot) or finding a better sourced non-free photo (per WP:NFCC#10a) to use instead of this file might be a way to resolve this. Scrooling down on the source website shows the same image as being credited to an episode titled "Iris" from the TV series The Saint (TV series), but I have no idea if that's accurate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Screen shot Federal Fugitives.png

File:Screen shot Federal Fugitives.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot is used in the production section of Federal Fugitives. The fair use rationale states its purpose is "This image is being used to illustrate the article on the film in question and is used for informational or educational purposes only." The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Impossible to guess what the scale model is without an image. AFAIK, this is the only scene in the film that shows what the aircraft in the story looks like. The film is supposed to be about aircraft secrets being stolen but no aircraft appear in the film, so therefore, an image is important. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There was no mention of the scene until you added one, [3] after this replay. By your addition, this is a "a fleeting shot," which shows it is not that important in the film and is not necessary to the understanding of the film. The addition is still not critical commentary, but simply describing the scene, and with the scene described, the image now fails WP:NFCC#1 having been replaced with words. There has been no change to make a valid rationale on its file page and nothing in your reply shows hows this passes WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8, therefore it should still be deletd. Aspects (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The caption plus note explained the importance of the film model. The photo is the only indication of what was supposed to be an aircraft company, but one without any aircraft, save the model. The production house was one of the "poverty row" companies as described by Steven Pendo in his landmark book on aviation films. Many other films of this era tried to exploit the news of the day and spy stories abounded in the media. This film tried to do a story that was current and used a model of a revolutionary new aircraft, the Bell XP-39 Airacobra to create a sense of the high-tech company then involved in the aviation industry. The fact that the model is only seen in one scene is indicative of the importance of the model in setting the scene of being in a secretive operation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:LSMR-409.jpg

File:LSMR-409.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mdhennessey (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A Commons administrator has raised an objection, believing this image is not properly sourced and so we don't know the author is a navyman. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LSMR-409.jpg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:National Highway 709 Bangladesh.svg

File:National Highway 709 Bangladesh.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Asm sultan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Available on Commons with a slightly different font, but the image is just as good. Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10

File:Bogor FC logo.jpg

File:Bogor FC logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EDP Sagittarius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Jakarta Timur FC.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EDP Sagittarius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Persija Barat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EDP Sagittarius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Persitangsel logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EDP Sagittarius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:PSJS Jaksel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EDP Sagittarius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

originally tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G5 by Hhkohh as created by a banned user, EBR Taurus. FASTILY 01:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I asked about some of these at WT:NFC#Non-free uploads by socks of blocked/banned users. It was pointed out in that discusison that WP:BANREVERT also applies to files. A non-free file, however, is in most cases not really an orignal creation of the uploader, but rather something already existing online somewhere that was simply uploaded to Wikipedia. The files themselves do seem to be OK per WP:NFCCP except for possible sourcing issues, which is something which can often be sorted out without lots of difficulty. For example, "File:Bogor FC logo.jpg" is basically the same as what is shown at here and is the same as what is shown here, while "File:Persija Barat.jpg" looks similar to what's shown here. These files all look like official team logos (or former logos); so, the question then is whether these still need to be deleled if they can be properly sourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete as CSD tagger. G5 applies here. Sockpuppet is uploading the original version Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Shopkick logo.jpg

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

unused, superior versions available: Category:Shopkick FASTILY 01:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Associated Press photo of Kryczka with Ahearne and Staravoitov.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: deleted F7 I'm not sure what the reason was that this wasn't speedy deleted to begin with. It's an obvious case of F7. There is no fair use defense EVER for using a press agency photo for commentary on the thing it depicts. Quite simply, if this were valid fair use, then nobody ever would pay Getty, AP, etc, any money - they would just claim fair use. So either Wikipedia has just discovered a novel strategy to avoid paying Getty/AP/etc the royalties they are due when you use their images ... or something is wrong with claiming that this image is fair use. And even if it weren't an obvious F7 case, the argument for fair use is so absurdly bad anyway - it's a decorative image that adds nothing to the user's understanding of the article. --B (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Associated Press photo of Kryczka with Ahearne and Staravoitov.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Flibirigit (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally tagged for speedy deletion under F7 by Whpq with the reason "from Associated Press". FASTILY 04:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo with my interpretation of fair use that...
  • it is not to depict a person or persons in the photo, rather it is to illustrate the event in question, which is the Summit Series
  • it gives credit in the photo's caption to Associated Press for the photo
  • there is no free replacement available, since it was taken in 1972 and all people in the photo are now deceased
The photo is currently used in the Summit Series article, and in the Joe Kryczka article where it discusses his role in negotiating the agreement to play the Series. Flibirigit (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Flibirigit makes a strong case for its fair use. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (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:Picture of protesters using a sleeping dragon, 2007-03-08, Carnegie Mellon University.jpg

File:Picture of protesters using a sleeping dragon, 2007-03-08, Carnegie Mellon University.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Useful photo, but the article is about the general activist tactic rather than this single specific performance of it in 2007. As such this copyrighted press photo doesn't meet "no free equivalent" - another photo could be taken or may already exist. (File:Mother and Son Enjoy a Lock On Together (14038965171).jpg may suffice?) Lord Belbury (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - The suggested replacement image isn't explicitly using the term sleeping dragon but it is essentially the same thing. In any case, this tactic has been used in protests for years and is not specific to the Carnegie Mellon protest. As such, a free replacement could conceivably made even if one discounts the replacement image suggested. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Request to the closing Admin: If you delete, please revert this edit to put back the external link. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DatBot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looking to see if this image can be hosted on Chinese Wikipedia article or on Commons to illustrate a new translation of the English Wikipedia article Drowning Girl newly created by student translator User:Zhuijiao Zhang. I see it is hosted on the Russian Wikipedia article so wondering about license. Stinglehammer (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you're asking whether this file can be moved to Commons, then I would say no simply because of c:COM:FAIR. If you're asking whether this can be downloaded and then re-uploaded to Chinese Wikipedia, then that depends on whether Chinese Wikipedia allows non-free content to be uploaded and used. According to meta:Non-free content, some Chinese language Wikipedias do allow non-free content to be uploaded, whereas others do not. I'm not sure which one applies to you, but you can try asking at their respective equivalents to WP:MCQ (check the "Languages" section in your browsers left sidebar links to other language Wikipedias which have pages like MCQ). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a chance, without an explicit copyright release from https://lichtensteinfoundation.org via c:COM:OTRS As their Image Database says The contents of this website are for personal and/or educational use only. The texts, graphics and designs contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Estate of Roy Lichtenstein. Ru-wiki does allow non-free images, but they have to be uploaded by an admin. (... What a great idea...) Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

December 11

File:Tinashek 2011.jpg

File:Tinashek 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stunners (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tinashe Kachingwe has given me permission to use this picture under a free license. is not a valid permission. Not eligible for transfer to Commons either. Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 05:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I just tag such things with {{subst:npd}} rather than bringing them here. The user warning for it provides the uploader with specific steps they can take to resolve the issue. --B (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Agree with B, next time something similar appears better to tag it with {{subst:npd}}. Salavat (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Original Mountaineer Field.jpg

File:Original Mountaineer Field.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmcginni (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I believe that this image is [4] whose image description page is at [5]. The problem with the "not renewed" tag is that we have no idea whether it was ever published to begin with. [6] says that Fairchild went out of business in 1965 so most likely they did not renew any copyrights they had. But this being public domain is predicated on it having been published at some point. If we can't find evidence that it is public domain, it would not qualify for fair use since [7] and [8] (possibly among other yearbooks at [9] have pictures of the stadium. It would be nice to find a PD aerial somewhere though ... B (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:CJ Santos at the SM North EDSA Skydome.jpg

File:CJ Santos at the SM North EDSA Skydome.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalaboomsky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is claimed to be released under a CC BY-SA 4.0 but there is insufficient evidence. Thepermission link as of this nomination states "Photo of CJ Santos released under a free license." but with no specifics about the license. Whpq (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 12

File:Batman DC Comics.png

File:Batman DC Comics.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrRC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Why bother having a non free file when a non free file works totally fine fair use is only last resort, this image should be speedily deleted because a free alternative exists. I love rpgs (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

December 13

File:Toeben.jpg

File:Toeben.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Truth seeker 69 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The picture uses the Holocaust memorial to support the expertise of the person. Gerald Fredrick Töben has visited Auschwitz and published his pictures making fun of Holocaust victims. This picture misuses the image of the Birkenau camp to suggest Töben's expertise in the Holocaust. Töben is a Holocaust denialist, he lacks any knowledge. If you want a picture of Töben, please remove the Birkenau building from the picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • (Xx236 alerted me on my talk - [10]) - @Xx236: - could you point out how the photo is misused ? We should have no tolerance for Holocaust denial, however I don't see how the photo itself is mis-used - perhaps we should assert the denial under the photo in the caption ? Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what Xx236 is on about. On the article talk page, [11] he compared this photograph to people stealing artifacts from Auschwitz, or stripping nude there or urinating. As I pointed out there, I abhor Toben's ideology, and I work very hard to stop Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites from spreading their filth on Wikipedia, but this picture is in no way comparable to the actions he describes. It's simply a man in a suit in front of the entrance to Birkenau. Period. It makes no statement except to say that Toben was there. It does not "make fun of Holocaust victims" it does not in any way "support the expertise" of Toben. Anyone can go to Birkenau, even loathsome people such as Toben, and have their picture taken. Such images do not make any statement about those people.
    To delete the image – especially when there are no stated policy grounds for doing so, and therefore the request amounts to "I don't like it" – would be ... I'm at a loss for words ... patently absurd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A Holocaust denier visits Auschwitz to pretend a reasearch and to manifest his pro-Nazi views and this Wikipedia publishes one of his propaganda pictures. Toben sells his Nazism and the picture is a part of his PR. Would you publish a picture of a metalsmith promoting his products? Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly how does the image say any of those things? Do you have a source to say that the image is "part of his PR"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I just searched the image with Tineye and got 16 hits [12], all of which seem to date from after the image's upload to Wikipedia. It certainly is possible that the uploader, the blocked-since-2007 User:Truth seeker 69, is connected in some way to Toben, but how do you know this to be the case, what is your source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • And to answer your question, if the metalsmith was notable enough to merit an article, then we would certainly publish a photograph of the metalsmith as long as it met our criteria for uploading. If the picture was of the metalsmith standing in front of one of his or her creations, that most probably would not be considered promotional and would be used -- but I fail to see your point, since nothing is being "promoted" in the Toben image, so your analogy is false.
    Please explain: under what policy should the image be deleted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Footer

Today is December 13 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 13 -- (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 "===December 13===" 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=873444352"
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