Wikipedia:Files for discussion

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice if and when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut:

WP:FFD

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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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[edit]

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.
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.
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
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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
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}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
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.
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.
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 July 23}}` 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 July 23}}` 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 July 23}}` 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[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 7 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 11 - 3 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 13 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 15 - 2 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 16 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

Recent nominations[edit]

July 17[edit]

File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg[edit]

The image was discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. There, an SVG format is considered "copyrightable" due to the format itself. However, the logo itself is too simple for copyright, and it contains just "jaeger kahlen partner" in lowercase. Maybe the transparency makes the version copyrightable? Still, if uncopyrightable, the logo should be moved to Commons. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I started the thread at MCQ because I came accross the file being used in someone's sandbox. It seems simple enough to be PD to me, but Graeme Bartlett made an interesting point about the svg format and copyright status. Note that there was something about svg and copyrights also being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg and there's also been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Vector images of non-free logos from unofficial sources and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Non-free images and SVG. Not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but Graeme Bartlett did suggest that re-uploading the file as a png would resolve the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment Yes if you convert to a .png format it would definitely be eligible for PD-Simple or PD-Textlogo. I assume that the .svg file came from an official source, and so copyright would apply to the code. As a sample line, the .svg has "path d="M6.838,178.518h2.464v2.114h0.053c0.339-1.281,1.782-2.563,3.567-2.563c3.901,0,5.377,3.591,5.377,8.714" and there are about 60 more like this. So I suspect copyright applies to this. Transparency has no effect on the copyright as its application is not creative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment The copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia However the permission does not extend to third parties. So it might be copyrighted at the same time it might not be as its a text logo Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Permission of the copyright holder is not needed for the file to be licensed and non-free content or as public domain to the best of my knowledge. A {{Trademark}} template can be added to the file's page; however, if its design is too simple to be above the threshold of originality of its country of origin]], then I'm pretty sure it's not copyrightable. Even if this was copyrightable in its country of origin, it seems more than simple enough to be below the the threshold of originality of The United States and may be possible to keep locally on Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  - Okay.. let's make it "PD-ineligible-USonly" then if impossible to transfer to Commons then. George Ho (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What was the consensus at Commons on SVGs being copyrightable? Relevant to whether we import there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Two Sabrina Spellman files[edit]

Marchjuly's original rationale:

Decorative use in Sabrina Spellman#Live-action television. Non-free images of fictional characters are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles of such characters, but this particular image is not being used in such a way. The screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Moreover, there are free images of Melissa Joan Hart the actress who play the character availble on Commons which could be used to show her if necessary.

However, I think that rationale is not valid for speedy deletion. I think more input is needed as a free image of the actress is not a good substitute for this image, but I'll leave others to decide. To make matters more complicated, it was uploaded by a blocked sockpuppet in 2010. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: A freely licensed photo of the actress can be used to show her ("her" in this context refers to the actress, not the character she's playing) if needed, but I don't a non-free image of the character is needed since its main function seems to be decorative. If the file was being used at the top of the article as the primary means of identification, then its non-free use would be OK; however, it's being used in a sub-section of the article about one representation of the character. There's no sourced article content specifically about this particular screenshot, which means that it could be replaced with any other screenshot of Hart as "Sabrina" in order to show her in the role. If that's the case, then there's really no need for any non-free image of Hart as "Sabrina" to be used since there's nothing about seeing Hart as "Sabrina" which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing her as the character would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: No free-use image of the actress would be appropriate to show the appearance of a character as portrayed in the show, which is he point of the image here. There won't be any free-use images of any copyrighted character. This portrayal is significantly different than the cartoon image in the infobox and, in a similar way that that cartoon image illustrates that version of the character, this image does the same for the live-action portrayal. Generally fair-use images should be minimized in articles but this image adds value to this article. Any other screenshot of Hart as Sabrina could replace this one, there will not be a free-use one available so this one is as good as any as a representation of what the character looks like in the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It would agree with you if this was a stand-alone article about that particular character, but it's not. I think the guidance in MOS:TV#Images is relevant here in that this is an "in-the-body-of-the-article image" which the reader does not actually need to see in order to understand what is written about the character. While I can appreciate that Hart is obviously not the same as the the animated character, I just don't see the context for WP:NFCC#8 be provided for this particular screenshot. I also don't think tweaking the caption as you did here is sufficient enough to justify non-free use. Perhaps there's some sourced information which could be added as to why Hart was choosen as "Sabrina"? Something about her appearance and how it reflected the way the character was portrayed in the comics which goes beyond the obvious that she's female and blond would help justify the screenshot's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The guidance at MOS:TV#Images is more for additional non-free images for the same portrayal. This article is basically a merger of what could be two separate character (in show disambig) articles of the character and just as the infobox character is justified for the animated portrayal the live action portrayal is similarly justified as that would have been the infobox image of a separate article if there were one. Even if there is no commentary about that specific image, I believe it is contextually significant for this usage and meets NFCC#8 and would be detrimental to this article to remove it. I changed the caption as I wanted to emphasize that this is a character image, not an actor image, the emphasis is on the character's appearance, not the actor's. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of contextually significant when it comes to non-free use seems to imply that something more is needed than simply wanting the reader "to see" a non-free file; it has to be essential to the reader's understanding is such a way that not having it would be detrimental to that understanding. Sourced commentary about the image in question somewhere in the relevant article would better connect the article content to this particular image. I don't see how omitting this particular screenshot is going to make anything written about the character in that relevant section difficult for the reader to understand. In fact, I don't see anything in that section about the character's appearance at all. This is why I asked if it were possible to added content about the character's appearance and perhaps why Hart was chosen to portray the character. Why does the reader need to see this particular screenshot for them to understand anything of the content about the character's background or love life? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Same justification as for the non-free image in the infobox. Infobox character images are generally permitted without commentary solely to illustrate appearance of the character and that is deemed sufficient justification for the infobox image. This is the significant portrayal in another medium justified in the same way, to illustrate appearance of the character as it is different from the infobox image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This file is no longer being used as a main infobox image so that comparison is not really valid in my opinion. From the article's edit history, it does appear that at one time it was primarily about the character protrayed by Hart, and the file was being used as the main infobox image at least up to this version; however, it was replaced and moved to the sub-section here. Lots of editors simply move a non-free image without really taking into account how it affects the file's non-free use justification. They mistakenly assume that non-free use is "article-specific", and all that matters is that image is being used in the same article. Non-free use, however, is "use-specific" and the non-free use rationale is supposed reflect the particular use and how it satisfies all ten non-free content criteria; therefore, moving a file from one location in an article to another is likely going to impact its non-free use justification. A main infobox image may be allowed because it is assumed that the context for the image's non-free use comes from the enitre article and its sources, and that somewhere within that article there will be (or can be) some sourced discussion of the file per se which better justifies its use per NFCC#8. The same, however, cannot necessarily be assumed for non-free images within a sub-section of an article. For example, non-free content use policy might allow the use of a non-free logo in the main infobox because the logo is seen to serve as the the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. The same non-free logo, however, generally requires a much stronger justification, typically being the sourced of critical commentary, when used within a sub-section of the article and the justification for non-free use for the infobox may no longer be applicable. Per your reasoning, it seems that non-free images could also be added for all of the portrayals of the character listed in the "In other media" section as well. I don't think non-free content use policy would consider such a thing to be permissible without a pretty strong justisfication for each specific use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The article is in poor shape. Too much in-universe coverage and too little real-world perspective. Also, the casting section is missing. If "Casting" section is added, File:Melissa Joan Hart 2011.jpg or File:Melissa-joan-hart-portrait.jpg can be used. However, the current version of the article looks as if it's meant for Wikia. Yes, I took this image to FFD because the "speedy deletion" tag usage was contentious, but I'm not sure how effective the non-free image is. I can find an image of the character using her finger to put spells on others, i.e. special (visual) effects. As Geraldo said, the image may have potential. However, the content looks dull as is, and I don't mean image quality. Without her using a pointy finger in the image, it's still dull. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 12 June 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) 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Update - I uploaded and then added File:Sabrina Spellman casting magic milk.png into the article. Therefore, I'm listing the image for discussion. Pinging Marchjuly and Geraldo Perez. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Looks better to represent the character doing something in character. My above Keep reasons apply here too but I prefer this image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  - So, Geraldo, may I remove the other (JPEG) image ~~and tag {{db-g7}} for you~~ please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC); Oops, I assumed that the person above is the uploader. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    - @George Ho: I have no problem with deleting the other image if the one you added is the replacement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      - Removed the primary image, File:Sabrina Spellman.jpg, though I mistook you as an uploader. I could not add "db-g7". --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kansas Jayhawks logo.svg[edit]

Would this logo be considered in the Public Domain? It was created in 1946 (see here), the only difference being the "KU". I don't believe the "KU" would change the outcome of whether or not it is PD or non-free, due to the fact that the main focus is on the Jayhawk itself. Many logos, even those established some 40-50 years ago, have some slight changes made (i.e. colors) over the years that do not effect the licensing. I'd appreciate any help! Please ping me so I can see your response (otherwise I'll forget). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: The file was moved from File:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg to File:Kansas Jayhawks logo.svg by Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) at 23:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Prisma (app) - Tokyo filter.jpg[edit]

License was updated in good faith, but this would appear to be a screenshot (albiet of a processed version of an image that was free.). Anyone know what the effect is ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The effect is a filter based on Prisma's AI algorithms. It's the Tokyo filter listed on List of Prisma (app) filters.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Using the Prisma filter creates a derivative work of the original, but does the filter cause any copyright of Prisma to subsist in said work, given the filter is an algorithim? I know this may sound like I'm being overly pedantic but.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 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) 20:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep To me the filter is no different than using, say, Photoshop's content aware fill. If you photoshop an image you took, no matter how much, you still own the copyright, so this should be OK. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:HudsonYardsProject.png[edit]

There are numerous free equivalents since the complex is under construction right now. Several buildings are either complete or almost complete. epicgenius (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep - The picture is not of the Hudson Yards Project as it is. It is of the Hudson Yards Project as it is expected to be, a very different thing. Any picture taken now would not replace it, because it would not function in the same way this image does, as a rendering of the expectations of the designers and developers. I don't believe that any free image would be available which would perform this function, as they would all have to ultimately originate from the same place: the architects and developers of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like I was wrong, then. epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment - couldn't a free image/permission be obtained from the architects? Kelly ^hi! 10:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so. These images were for advertising materials so they may even violate NFCC #2. epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Does not enhance readers' understanding of the article beyond what is provided by the existing free images. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 17 May 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) 20:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment How many times, and for how many months, is this going to be relisted? It's already going into its third month. Face it, the conclusion on this is no consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert Goldston01.jpg[edit]

Non-free image being used to identify a possibly still living individual. The file's rationale claims that the subject is deceased, but there is nothing cited in the article which also this to be verified this. Per WP:BDP, Wikipedia assumes that an individuals is alive to age 115 unless their death can be confirmed by examining reliable sources. Since that is not the case here, I believe we have to assume that this is a violation of WP:NFCC#1 and just not assume that Goldston is dead based upon this forum post. If a reliable source can be found verifying his death, then I suggest changing the licensing to {{Non-free biog-pic}} since claiming this is a historical image is a bit of a stretch because being old and being historic are not really the same thing with respect to non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The period of 115 years is unjustifiably long. "Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71.5 years (68 years and 4 months for males and 72 years and 8 months for females) over the period 2010–2015 " - see List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy. Wikipedia policy in this matter needs revision.......Paul venter (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see whether people agree that "subject possibly still alive" is a sufficient rationale to assume WP:NFCC#1 non-compliance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Smooth Island - Norfolk John Wise - Property Title.JPG[edit]

Questionable copyright status. Files are claimed free ({{PD-AustraliaGov}}), but uploader has also added detailed fair use rationale. Unclear if these are suitable for Wikipedia. -FASTILY 05:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep all. Your concerns are ambiguous, unsubstantiated and likely trifling. Please state exactly what your specific concern is, citing a specific Wikipedia policy. Please also estimate the magnitude of the risk to all stakeholders. Thank you. Jkokavec (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep They are all public domain. However information must be added to the file descriptions to say what they are, who made them, and what date they were published, so that public domain nature is readily apparent. Anything published in 1966 or before by an Australian government (not just the commonwealth government is now in the public domain. Since the government has declared this to be in the public domain after 50 years, this public domain nature is also valid in the USA. Any fair use templates should be removed, and if anything is used under fair use only, it is probably not fair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Jkokavec: Can you specify the sources and origin of the images? Otherwise they will have to be deleted due to lac of sources/questionable copyright status
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

KEEP: All of the above files were photographs taken by Jkokavec at "THE LAND TITLES OFFICE, HOBART, TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA."

Jkokavec (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Jkokavec, please add the source information to each file, per what Graeme said, and then we can move forward here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DONE. Now, please stop wasting everyone's time with this pathetic and irrational nonsense. Jkokavec (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

I uploaded the side label of the US vinyl single because the US release was successful in its home country. The song wasn't charted in Germany, yet the German artwork is used. Hmm... the artwork was also used for a Dutch release. My preference is keep the US vinyl and delete the other. However, I don't mind other kinds of votes as the single was a hit in both the US and the Netherlands. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Is there any sort of music guidelines on preferring to use cover art or the actual disc itself as the infobox image? It seems like cover art is more frequently used. While it was more influential in the US, I feel like cover art would be more recognizable than the disc itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Prefer picture sleeves Images that prominently feature the title and artist name and/or have an depiction of the artist or something to tie it to the artist, album, tour, etc., serve to better identify the subject than the generic record label, where only the "fine print" identifies the subject. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73 and Ojorojo, Wikipedia:Non-free content doesn't mention preference; WP:NFCC is very subjective. The NFC says that a cover art may be acceptable but must be contextually significant. In my view, the generic vinyl side label is significant enough. The whole "other stuff exists" should not apply to every file. Therefore, let's stick to the single release itself. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation says that... a free image is preferable (e.g. Rebel Rebel, especially since the picture sleeve of non-UK release was deleted per FFD), but an irreplaceable non-free multimedia content is acceptable as long as it meets NFCC policy and fair use. In this case, to me, the picture sleeve doesn't meet the standards because it doesn't help increase the readers' understanding of the song and its release. Instead, the picture sleeve is used to distract readers into looking at the image of the artist and/or the titling layout of the song.

Also, without image caption per MOS:CAPTION, readers would be confused and misled into believing that the picture sleeve is of the particular American release. That's why I added it. Also, the picture sleeve is used in German and Dutch releases. When originally released, the song was better charted and more receptive in the US than the Netherlands. I saw that the song was better charted in Norway and Sweden, but I could not figure out how the song was released in those countries.

If usage of multiple images were accepted, I wouldn't have taken both images to FFD. Right now, seems... I don't know. I made some exceptions to using picture sleeves for songs that did not receive domestic releases. For example, Down So Long, Sometimes (Britney Spears song), Money (Pink Floyd song), Spiderwebs (song), etc. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with George's point about captions. If an image is used that is something other than the release listed in the infobox, it should have a caption, e.g.,

Netherlands single picture sleeve (Polydor, 1990)

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 29 June 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) 09:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Alfred Gelder.jpg[edit]

File with no source. Kelly ^hi! 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File with source with link that no longer works. Graemp (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment The image is on the web here and [1]. It's a photo of a deceased person. There are two paintings of him here and here, out of copyright in US and UK, and the photograph will not be copyright (at least in the US). Thincat (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

We would need to know the author and the date/place of original publication to determine the copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Sean Kratz.png[edit]

Works produced by Pennsylvania government are not PD. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Jennifer world map.PNG[edit]

Superseded by File:Jennifer_Government_world_map.svg, there are also some minor mistakes and a general lower quality than SVG. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Council of State Governments regional office logos[edit]

Non-free logos used only in a gallery in Council of State Governments#Regional offices. Fail WP:NFCC#8; see WP:NFG. —Bkell (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I believed these logos would be significant identifiers but see how they may fail WP:NFCC#8. I've also noticed activity on the agency's website that seems to mean they are rebranding and these may no longer be relevant. It may make sense to remove thee images altogether. Bkell please advise and I'm happy to assist. --Samuronin (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the images from the page due to the reasons mentioned above. --Samuronin (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

File:Nicobar troopship.jpg[edit]

Unlikely own work given user's other uploads from news websites. Low resolution. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Train2104 truly disappointed to hear this, whereever i posted from i mentioned website name & link but this one i clicked from mobile camera, which is why it looks low resolution to you. I can not satisfy you any more. thanks Joydeep ghosh (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Pixar Pier.jpeg[edit]

File:Pixar Pier.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) Carlyc999 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dont know how to fix. Definitely under non free use.

July 20[edit]

File:EDSA.jpg[edit]

Lacks a source. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:James Bond cover.jpg[edit]

(OTRS agent): These images were primarily created by Buckingham Covers, a stamp/memorabilia company, and contain reproductions of UK stamps. An OTRS ticket 2017050510006926 was received from the creators which released the images into the public domain. However, the UK stamps within the images are copyrighted property of Royal Mail, who governs the conditions of their use in a manner that permits use for specific purposes (though strictly non-commercial) and prohibits derivatives. So even though the attempted release into the public domain was confirmed by OTRS, the (a) size of the reproduction and the (b) significance of the copyrighted material as almost main subjects of the works themselves, means that the images cannot be properly considered to be public domain works. The authors are not legally able to release the Royal Mail components into the public domain, and the components present in the images have restrictions that are incompatible with our requirements for freely licensed media. seb26 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete: When I first tagged these for speedy deletion it was on the basis that Royal Mail stamps are copyright for 50 years per crown copyright, so due to their prominence the image were a copyvio. It would have surprised me if Royal Mail really relinquished their rights to a stamp dealer to allow commercial and/or derivative use of their stamps. For these 3 images to be kept we really require an additional OTRS release from Royal Mail. Besides which there are some other issues with these 3 images: who was the photographer of the background image on the Bowie image and where is their release, and has the Hornby logo been released freely because it is likely non-free considering the low threshold of originality in UK. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is a valid point about the Bowie imagery. A public domain release is the decision with the most significant legal consequence in comparison to all other copyright arrangements. It is highly unlikely that the record label for that album donated all exclusive rights to Royal Mail for that album cover, and that is exactly what would be required of Royal Mail if they were to properly designate their stamps as public domain. They most likely purchased a limited license to use the album on their stamps, key word there being limited, with no ability to relicense and donate the work entirely. However, the OTRS ticket as I mentioned above does *not* in its current state have any clear words from Royal Mail saying they *did* release anything into the public domain, only that Wikipedia was permitted to display them. Of course, that is not sufficient for our needs. For the record, I posted this ticket on the OTRS noticeboard a few days before nominating but I will try to get the attention of another OTRS agent to cross check its contents. seb26 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am currently waiting on a reworded permission from Royal Mail. If you're still not happy I will re-upload the images with the stamps not visible

Obriens86 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That will be a better solution. Royal Mail does not appear to be in a position to declare public domain for David Bowie album covers or James Bond comic book covers so whatever permission they send is not likely to be legally acceptable for us. seb26 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To wait for that "reworded permission"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The image File:James Bond cover.jpg does not now appear to be a problem but there are issues with the other two. Who is the photographer of the background photo used in File:David Bowie Music Icons.jpg and where is the evidence this image has been released freely. For File:Hornby cover.jpg , who designed the train labels and where is the copyright release for those labels. Additionally, has Hornby released their logo into the public domain as UK copyright will still consider this to be above the threshold of originality due to the low level UK accepts. Maybe the logo is old enough to be in the public domain but that must be determined to keep this image. Without answers to the 2nd and 3rd image we really need more details otherwise they should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:James Joseph DeMartis.JPG[edit]

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: Delete; deleted as F11 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting license - "fair use" and GFDL – Train2104 (t • c) 17:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "fair use" and GFDL copyright tags from all 5 images on the James Joseph DeMartis page and replaced each one with the PD-self copyright tag. Please let me know if these images are ok now. Thanks, Leezk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any serious doubts concerning the (now) PD-self tag or can this be closed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement "courtesy of the estate of James Joseph DeMartis" is still on the image, these should be probably tagged no permission. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you suggest that beneath each image I write something like: "Permission to reproduce this image must be granted by the estate of James Joseph DeMartis" ? Thanks, Leezk (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to submit evidence of permission (not just a statement) to WP:OTRS. See WP:DCP. Once you have done so, you place {{subst:OP}} on the file. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:30, 21 July 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:Immanuvel Devendrar.jpeg[edit]

The "own work" claim seems fairly implausible. It is a crop from something and a part of the provided information refers to a poster. Probably a copyright violation but it has been here since 2012 so there will be a lot of propagation on the web. Sitush (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with that. Although, a possible explanation is that the "creator" thought that cropping it and uploading it somehow made it there own work. It does not, but it's not an unlikely assumption for them to have mqade. Incidentally, I "closed" this by mistake, as the close button is right where the "edit" button usually is. Sorry bout dat! — fortunavelut luna 11:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Press Meet of Movie "Jackson Durai".jpg[edit]

Smaller versions exist in numerous places online, request verification of own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Abimbola Gbemi Alao 2.jpg[edit]

Previously published on official website, request verification of own work – Train2104 (t • c) 16:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Troy vs. Duke 1.jpg[edit]

This image is being used decorative in Troy Trojans men's basketball. The stated purpose in the non-free use rationale is for "visual identification of the object of the article", however that purpose is already being served better by File:Troy University logo.gif in the infobox so this use fails WP:NFCC#3a. The minimal use explanation is that the photo is being used to " show an image of the first-ever meeting between Troy and Duke" which sounds more like the purpose. If so, this fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image use is not supported by any commentary in the article whatsoever. Whpq (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Troy Sun Belt Title.jpg[edit]

This image is being used decoratively in Troy Trojans men's basketball. The stated purpose in the non-free use rationale is for "visual identification of the object of the article", however that purpose is already being served better by File:Troy University logo.gif in the infobox so this use fails WP:NFCC#3a. The minimal use explanation is that the photo is being used to "show Troy winning their first-ever Sun Belt Conference Tournament championship" which sounds more like the purpose. If so, this fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image use is not supported by any commentary in the article whatsoever. Whpq (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:The Troy-USA Belt.jpg[edit]

Non-free image which states that its purpose is for "visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work", however this image of a championship belt and the article topic is South Alabama–Troy football rivalry failing WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The championship belt that is pictured is part of the main subject of the article. The South Alabama-Troy football rivalry is officially known as the "Battle for the Belt" as of 2015, with the "Belt" being what is shown in the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreeder13 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why can't this image be replaced with a free one? -- Whpq (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:News World India Second Logo File.jpg[edit]

Unsubstantiated claim that copyright owner has released their copyright for Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it even eligible for copyright? It's a red square with lettering in it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The red square isn't, but I'd say the background is. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Relicense to fair use given the background is likely over TOO. Salavat (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this the actual logo? The image is sourced with a direct link to an image hosted on blogspot. I cannot find any usage of this specific logo with the grey background on the newsworld India site --Whpq (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I don't believe that this image with the the grey background is the logo. From their website, the logo would be this. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Circle drive church.jpg[edit]

appears to be a screenshot from a video, questionable own work claim FASTILY 19:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

File:James Stewart - Katharine Hepburn - Philadelphia Story.jpg[edit]

Unused locally (Wikipedia is not a webhost), possible copyvio (uploader has a long history of copyright violations) FASTILY 06:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Map rajasthan dist Sri Ganganagar.png[edit]

unused, scaled down version of File:Map rajasthan dist num blank.png. No foreseeable use FASTILY 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:MayCoverFinal.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted magazine cover. Unused, mislicensed. XXN, 15:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Tommy and Laylani.png[edit]

Non-notable people pictured - out of scope.

+File:Art kid tommy.png. XXN, 16:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Stmanchanschurch.png[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted content. XXN, 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:WaitingForGodot.JPG[edit]

Not needed, we have a free file now. Yann (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:AnthonyScaramucci.jpg[edit]

Published at [2] before upload here credited to SkyBridge Capital, evidence of ownership/permission needed. January (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Floyd mayweather sr.jpg[edit]

unused vanity image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert tan.PNG[edit]

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:TommyWildfireRichautograph.jpg[edit]

unused, blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Simple Kapadia.jpg[edit]

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Tarak Ghosh, author of Flight 73.jpg[edit]

On various sites, including official LinkedIn. Require WP:OTRS verification of permission. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

File:Clark Ervin portrait.jpg[edit]

missing verifiable source information FASTILY 06:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kanye-west-life-of-pablo-art-2016-billboard-650.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted as F5 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

previously deleted file [[3]] that serves no purpose Kellymoat (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep as uploader. The album cover is intended to be placed in the article pending the result of this discussion. I believe the previous decision to delete was mistaken for the following reasons:

1. It was claimed that this is an "almost replica of the actual cover art" and therefore violates WP:NFCC#8. This is incorrect. It is described as the album cover by Billboard: [4], The Verge: [5] and by the artist, Kanye West: [6]. The image currently used on the article is, as it is described, an alternate cover: [7].

2. As the album has two covers, it is doubtful that WP:NFCC#3a can apply. The use of multiple album covers is common practice in such articles.

Cjhard (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

delete too similar to matter94.177.248.237 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more explanation of why WP:NFCC#3 is met - why are two album covers necessary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 22 July 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:Futurewar Screenshot from Cyber1.png[edit]

Uploader claims to be the copyright holder in the licensing tag, but this is a screenshot of a video game, "PLATO's Futurewar (1978)," credited to Erik K. Witz, Nick Boland et al. in the description. —Bkell (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded it, can get this freed up by copyright holder, whom I know and one of whom was with me when I uploaded. What do I need to do? Zelchenko (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zelchenko. There are instructions at either WP:OTRS or commons:COM:OTRS, saying that you must ask the copyright holder permission to use this with a compatible license. Also, it says that you must forward the permission to the OTRS service. --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 19 July 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) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpg[edit]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:McLean County Courthouse Old2.jpg[edit]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Abilify bottle.jpg[edit]

probably copyrighted Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Accounting networks.PNG[edit]

unused image of text, if necessary, data can be easily replicated in a non-image form. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)