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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 December 17}} 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 December 17}} 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 December 17}} 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 11

Non-free album cover art in Will Dailey

File:GoodbyeRedBullet Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ljentla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:BFF Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ljentla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Torrent 1 2 Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ljentla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:NationalThroatArtWork.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wheelkick (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free album cover art being used in a decorative manner in Will Dailey. In general, a non-free album cover is allowed to be used for the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the album, but (as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3) a much stronger justification is needed when the file is added to other articles, such as the artist's article. None of these particular album covers is itself the subject of any sourced critical commentary about the its artwork or branding, so the context required for non-free use in the artist's article by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. The fact that none of these albums seem Wikipedia enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NALBUM, does not automatically mean OK for non-free use in other articles. If more sourced content about the cover art is added to the sections discussing the albums or if stand-alone articles are written about the albums, then it might be possible to justify the non-free use of these files; otherwise, they all should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails fair use requirements. No apparent need in the article and lacks critical commentary. Salavat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Mooney1.png

File:Mooney1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JimmyJoe87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

missing verifiable source; was also deleted at Commons for the same reason FASTILY 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – this photo is not found on the Congressman's current House website, nor is it found on his official Facebook page or official Twitter account. Plus, this photo looks a little different than the one uploaded here. I've asked for an exact link to the image (same h×w size) and none has been given. This can be seen at the Commons deletion request listed above. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like the file has been used here at least as far back as February 15, 2016. That website, however, is protected by copyright which means if that's where the image originated, then probably it can't be uploaded as {{PD-USgov}}. Same file seems to also be being used here as far back as November 2015, but in a much smaller size and with the same copyright issues. My guess is that this might be an older official photo that the Congressman's staff was using for PR purposes; it may even be an official photo taken by a US government employee, but not sure if Wikipedia can automatically assume that without a proper source. Maybe the thing to do here would be to tag the file with {{npd}} to give the uploader a chance to send something to OTRS for verification purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This portrait should not be deleted because this is Congressman Mooney's Official Congressional portrait. The portrait that was used until today: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Mooney.jpg is just a zoomed in version of this very photo. Furthermore here is the same portrait from the Congress website: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001195 JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The Commons photo and what we're discussing here don't look like the same photo to me. The Wikipedia photo has a flag in the background that background, while the Commons one doesn't. Also, the link you've provided says "Image courtesy of the Member" which means the website is hosting the photo, but is not necessarily the original source of the photo. The photo was deleted fron Commons because there was a problem with its licensing. There's no reason to host this type of photo locally on Wikipedia if it's truly PD-USgov. You should've started a c:COM:DRV for the image on Commons and made your case there instead of re-uploading it to Wikipedia. If you can't convince Commons that the licensing it appropriate, Wikipedia shouldn't accept it either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Its exactly the same photo, but zoomed in, just using his face and they have coloured in the background. I can show you more than a dozen photos like it for Members of Congress from Commons if needs be. Actually whether the website is hosting or not, the fact that it has been published on a Congressional Website means that legally it is allowed to be used. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ummmm... not necessarily. Just because a photo is on a US Government website doesn't mean it's been taken by a government official and released into the Public Domain. A prime example was Trump and Pence's transition portraits which were displayed on the White House website for 10 months. The photographer was not a government employee and did not release their works in PD. All you need is to provide an exact URL to the picture on his website or have his office send permission to the OTRS team. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're sure they've colored the background, then I believe that would make it a derivative of that one you uploaded, which then means that the copyright status of the original photo also needs to be taken into account. If the original copyright photo is not PD, then the derivative on Commons might not be PD as well. Finally, as Corkeythehornetfan points out, I don't believe a US government website hosting a file automatically means a transfer of copyright ownership as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works. Still having said all this, this type of PD-USgov file, in my opinion, does not really need to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; it's better of on Commons, which is why you should start an undeletion request for it there and explain why the file should be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#File:Alex Mooney.jpg. I think this would be better to sort this out first at Commons DRV because if this is really PD-USgov then it should be on Commons. Keeping the file will likely mean that someone will eventually tag the file for a move to Commons, which will in turn probably mean re-deletion unless things are sorted out over there first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 12

File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg

File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sperxios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There seem to be plenty of public domain images of this event, see c:Category:Dekemvriana. There doesn't seem to be any particular need for non-free photos. See WP:NFCC#1. Also, this file fails WP:NFCC#10c in Dekemvriana. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there are no other photos or films, free or non-free, depicting the exact moments when the shootings started. They are either hours (not any in the category you linked though) or days later, during the 2 months after the shootings. This photo is also important for the uniforms of the soldiers laying down the pavement, in combination with other photos depicting the central square in Athens hours before the events(WP:NFCC#8). In a nutshell, if there is a defining moment for the modern Greek state, that was it, given the fact that the events unfolded drove directly to the civil-war, 2 years later, and indirectly to the the Junta, 20 years later. Also WP:NFCC#4 has happened numerous times in Greece. Finally, I don't understand why you say it fails WP:NFCC#10c? Sperxios (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Have updated License tags of the media file based on the discussion here. Sperxios (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a note at User_talk:DatGuy#Reduce_size_of_File:Dekemvriana_1944_SYNTAGMA.jpg asking for a revert of the size reduction (which DatGuy cannot do, as he is not an admin). I've looked at both the oversize file and the standard file and if one zooms in on the standard file, then the amount of detail is quite similar (although of course slightly less sharp). I see no reason to revert to an oversized image, although you may all want to discuss this here as well. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:SDP-Election-Poster-1932.jpg

File:SDP-Election-Poster-1932.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carrite (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have three concerns with this file:

1. There's no original author information.

2. I'm not sure if "campaign ephemera" qualifies it as free.

3. There's no evidence that the original creator licensed it under the license given. Holdek (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep - The original author is the German Social Democratic Party. The fact that it was campaign ephemera does indeed indicate it was released without copyright and is free. A slavish reproduction of a non-copyrightable image is not copyrightable. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying the file should necessarily be deleted. But, what is the source that the original author is the SDP? For example, this article suggests Sergei Chakhotin may have created it (it's also a bit unclear). How do we know that it was released without copyright? The Barack Obama "Hope" poster is copyrighted. I don't understand what you mean in your third sentence. Would it be more appropriate for it to be public domain, rather than a specific Creative Commons license? Holdek (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep - it is the burden of the nominator to demonstrate that the file in question *is* under copyright. There is no substantive evidence the file was created in a manner other than given by uploader. The editor adding this file to Sergei Chakhotin gave no evidence it was his work, although it appears the poster incorporates symbolism developed by Chakhotin. Even if it can be demonstrated that Chakhotin designed this poster, it should be shown that he held (reserved) copyright, and that he retained copyright separate from the campaign, and did not intend the poster to be freely distributed, which would be the intent of most campaign posters. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems backwards that the burden of proof is to demonstrate that a file is not free. With articles the burden of proof is on the editor to demonstrate that content is supported by reliable sources. Holdek (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that an organization cannot create a poster, only a person can. And that person could hold copyrights. However, commons:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure) says that a work published in 1932 without a known author had its copyright expire in 2002. Now since it was still in copyright in 1996 it is now copyrighted under the URAA until 95 years after publication that is until 2018.
commons:Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG might also apply but the Wikipedia article is not clear whether "juristic person" here includes "political party". This does not change the URAA situation.
So perhaps the best copyright outcome would be to fair use or delete this until 1st January 2019. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd hate for it to be deleted, since I think it is of historic value, and I don't think its monetary value is diminished by reproducing a small image of it online. But I do think the authorship (even if unknown) and licensing information (be it public domain or fair use) should be accurately attributed. Holdek (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Rocky logo.png

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

Available on Commons under a superior format: File:Rocky Logo.svg Magog the Ogre (t c) 06:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg

File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GiollaUidir (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drumm at Bodenstown.jpg. Possibly fair use candidate? Magog the Ogre (t c) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2012 Pennsylvania House Legislative District 44.png

File:2012 Pennsylvania House Legislative District 44.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sen Penrose (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file uses copyrighted map material from Google Maps. It would be better if someone took the shape of the district and overlaid it onto a freely licensed map, so that no copyrighted material would be used. At the moment, this file does not meet the criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria because a free alternative could be created that gives the same information. Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 13

File:3 Landships vector.svg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 18:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:3 Landships vector.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sisyphos23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used only on an AFD’d article, Fictional landship, and an archive for an SVGification request. Might be based on original research. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 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.

December 14

File:25 To Life Logo.jpg

File:25 To Life Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HCPUNXKID (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo being used in a decoarative manner in Tragedy Khadafi#Discography. If this logo was being used at the top of stand-alone article about the record company label using the logo (which seems to be 25 to Life Entertainment) for branding purposes, then it's non-free use would seem justified; however, just adding it to the article about the label's creator without the logo itself being the subject of any sourced critical commentary to provide the context required for non-free use fails WP:NFCC#8.

The logo needs to be better incorporated into the article in support of specific sourced critical commentary about it in order to justify it's non-free use; simply wanting to show it is not enough in this case. Moreover, the non-free use rationale should be revised accordingly to reflect this type of use. If this is not done, then the file should be deleted for failing WP:NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 since simply mentioning the company by name is not enough to justify type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:EasyBus logo.png

File:EasyBus logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevem1966 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Redundant to File:EasyBus.svg
Just to note this file is technically different so I don't believe F1 applies, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 15

File:VFA-213 Insignia.PNG

File:VFA-213 Insignia.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mackin90 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an unused, poorly cut-out version of File:Strike Fighter Squadron 213 (US Navy) insignia 2015.png. There's no reason to have both. — trlkly 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:ScalesOfJusticeAndWreath.png

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

copied from commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScalesOfJusticeAndWreath.svg

why keep this copy? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:VoxBox2.jpg

File:VoxBox2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sallyrob (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image shows an album cover, but the album is not notable, so there is no album article. The non-free fair-use rationale is for the record label but this is not the record label logo. It's only an album cover, so it doesn't represent the whole record label. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Vox Records. Salavat (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 16

File:POMM cover.jpg

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

This image is actually the front cover of the German vinyl release. It was incorrectly labelled the front cover of the UK single, which actually lacks a picture sleeve. I made corrections, but I also uploaded a freer image, File:Pictures of Matchstick Men by Status Quo UK vinyl.jpg, to accurately depict one of the labels of the UK single, which would make the German picture sleeve replaceable (unless some others disagree). Also, the previous revision using this file page was actually one of compilation albums using the same name, replaced by Mistymountain546. Now that the UK label is uploaded and used as a lead image, the German front cover should be deleted. The picture sleeve does not further increase readers' understanding of the song; rather the song is already understood without this image. Also, no reliable sources discussing the image itself are found at the moment... unless I overlooked one. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Longewala Tank.jpg

File:Longewala Tank.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rueben lys (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also going to note with respect to copyright vio that this and the two other dubious files nominated below were stolen off the internet. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • delete - Agree with Mar4d that no purpose served. Just waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Basantar2.jpg

File:Basantar2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deepak~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Pattonb.jpg

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

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeckenhamBear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is dispute as to whether inclusion of this file in Rodney Bewes violates WP:NFCC#1. This is a procedural nomination so that interested parties have a venue to discuss; I am neutral. FASTILY 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @BeckenhamBear, @George Ho, @Stephen. -FASTILY 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Before voting, I would like to say about this image. I'm unsure whether it's replaceable by File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg, which depicts him at an a very later age and is awaiting an OTRS verification, in contrast to this non-free image that depicts the actor/character at a younger age in the '70s. Also, I'm unsure whether BBC has U.S. commercial interests in this screenshot, even when it is a non-profit British television service. The deletion of another file at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 was endorsed due to BBC's commercial interests in that file. However, I would say that being a mere screenshot of a fictional element is not a sole reason to remove or delete the image itself. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am using the following policy to justify use of this photo:
    • Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo mentioned above is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. This one does. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least).
    • An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo).
    • For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (First he's deceased, and second the rest applies here too, His fame dates from the 1960s and 70's, he never looked remotely the same since out of that era. His features differ greatly from those in the nations consciousness. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Troy baseball game.jpg

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

This image has a legal quagmire. The fair use rationale states that "The owner has given full written permission to use this photograph in Wikipedia.", yet it does not appear that it has gone through the correct processes for doing this as per WP:DCP. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the author has given permission of its use. !dave 14:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Glory Days Platinum Edition.jpeg

File:Glory Days Platinum Edition.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CarpeDiemBelieve (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Artwork fails per WP:NFCC#3a and #8. The Platinum Edition artwork is not required to further enhance one's understanding of the work. livelikemusic talk! 14:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 17

Portsmouth FC crests

File:Portsmouth FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wanc.co.uk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These appear to be identical files uploaded under different formats. The svg is being used in the Portsmouth F.C., while the png is being used in Portsmouth F.C. Ladies. I am unable to see any differene between the versions of the logo, so I don't feel both are needed per WP:NFCC#3. The first question is which of the two should be kept and which one should be deleted. The svg appears to be user created and I able unable to verify that it is an original vector version provided by th club. There's been previously been considerable discussion regarding "non-official svgs" on both WT:NFC and WP:MCQ, and no clear-cut consensus has been established (as far as I can find) on their use, but in this case I don't think much if anything is lost for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification by deleting the svg and keep the png.

The question has to do about the non-free use in Ladies article. The rationale provided for png is for the men's team article, and it appears that an IP (in their only edit) just added the file to the article with this edit without any consideration to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In the case of similar discussions involving the use of the type of logo, non-free use has been generally considered acceptable for articles about the men's team, but not the women's team per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI: the men's team has been seen as the "parent" entity, while women's and youth teams have been seen as "child" entities. I am inclined to say the same with respect to this particular use as well, but if others want to argue differently then please do. If the consensus is that the non-free use in the women's team is acceptable, then a rationale will need to be provided for it to whichever file is kept.

Lastly, I don't see how this can be considered {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it might be OK for {{Pd-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO#United States. In that case, the file would still be only a loal file, but it would be treated as public domain for Wikipedia's purposes. If this is acceptable, then I think both files might be able to be kept; however, this will only be the case if the svg is treated as a simple reproduction of the original image and not a derivative work with its own copyright independent of the source image. In the latter case, Wikipedia could not keep the svg version per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Footer

Today is December 17 2017. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 17 -- (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 17===" 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=815821880"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion
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