Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have eitherfree content ornon-free content usage concerns.Files that have been listed here for more than7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote thenon-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 todeletion review.
For concerns not listed below,if a deletion isuncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
Forspeedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of thespeedy deletion templates. See thecriteria 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 withoutrationale 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:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of fileexcluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia,not on Commons
{{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.)
Forblatant copyright infringements, usespeedy deletion by tagging the file{{db-f9}}.
If a file islisted as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by aVRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable undercriterion G8; use{{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable undercriterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use{{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file isappropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to theWikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible forspeedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
Ifyou are the uploader of the image, tag it with{{db-author}}.
Instructions
To list files for discussion,useTwinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you canread its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:
How to list a file for discussion manually
Most of these steps are performed automatically when usingTwinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps:
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. You may usethis tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add{{Ffd|log=2025 November 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:Ffd notice|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:Ffd notice 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=2025 November 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 inbold 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.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet thethreshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using{{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as afreely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is:too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread atMedia Copyright Questions.
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 thatpolling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determiningconsensus is throughediting and discussion,notvoting. Although editors occasionally usestraw 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 morebinding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved toWikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding'''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. SeeWikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Note; i originally closed this as Move to Commons and then ran into difficulties with the tool. I've reverted my close as I'm not confident that this would survive over there anymore; it looks like while it's PD India, it's not PD in the US because it didn't become PD in India until 1997 (I know, URAA is a load of horse-shit if you ask me). CCing@Matrix,EarthDude,Cremastra, andJayCubby:Sennecaster (Chat)14:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If this is not free in the U.S., then must be marked as non-free on the English Wikipedia. So, it must be held up against the standards ofWP:NFCC, which has not been discussed here. Evidence of this being{{GODL-India}} requires a source for verification. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit04:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that this is the work of the Indian Government. There is evidence that this is from the Times of India. Thisphoto gallery has the image marked as a BCCL image (Times of India). It is possible the media company is claiming copyright over an image they do not have the rights to. I don't know about BCCL, but Getty have definitely done that. But absent any proof that this is the work of the Indian government, we cannot just slap on a GODL license. With respect to using this as non-free content, the fact that this is a BCCL image means thatWP:NFCC#2 comes into play, and the image itself is not essential to understanding the article about the speech means thatWP:NFCC#8 would not be satisfied. --Whpq (talk)21:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize until just now that it's used in two articles. Just now, also using another portion of the Canadian single in the other article. --George Ho (talk)07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.
Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long beforecassette singles and thenCD singles arrived in stores.George Ho (talk)00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. LikeBlack Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it onDiscogs, seenhere. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label.Yoshiman6464♫🥚00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels failWP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than oneprominent aspect of the subject, right?
With all due respect, regardless of which portion to use, be it a plain vinyl record or a picture sleeve, the right... or an importantrelease matters more. (Portion ≠ release.) Also, a release can be a "prominent aspect" that a reader would realize and have sought for. (Shall I explain further why video game community has preferred displaying English-language cover arts, likeSuper Mario World? Well, Japanese editions ofFinal Fantasy IV andTales of Eternia are unique cases for you to study.)
Also, various single releases of "Old Man" didn't use one universal single cover art (discogs). Unsure why you've thought the German/Austrian single is the most important out of all initial single releases to display, and unsure why we must compare "Old Man" to a Led Zeppelin song.
It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...?George Ho (talk)01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not an expert on copyright law, but there are some white splotches surrounding the text on the album cover which do not appear on the original painting. I would gather that these white splotches are intentional, given the "painterly" vibe of the text of the album's title, and that of the single artworks (see, for example, the one ofViolet Hill). Does this disqualify it from the move to Commons under the basis of originality?Leafy46 (talk)22:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This secondary image claims falsely to be the primary image at the top of the page, necessary to identify the topic. Instead, the artwork is from a later release, and it looks almost the same as the primary artwork. Both of these are not needed. The only way a secondary artwork can be included is if it is discussed by the media on its own merits, and if that source is summarized in the article. Such coverage does not exist.Binksternet (talk)20:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy delete. Sorry about that. I thought that this was a different image because of the different traffic. It appears on closer inspection that the traffic was edited out with AI.IronGargoyle (talk)01:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was apparently published earlier inThe Philippine Star in 2018, one year before upload here, as seenhere (PressReader copy of the 2018 Philippine Star article by Wilson Lee Flores).JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now pulled some CCBY thumbnails from YouTube that illustrates the article equally well, further demonstrating the issue with the above file.Rose Abrams (TCL)11:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rose Abrams: I agree with your nomination, but there's a new YouTube CC-BY license. They are now using CC-BY 4.0. It would still be accurate to use 3.0 for older videos, but newer videos require the correct version number. You can use this template:commons:Template:YouTube CC-BY 4.0. I see thatFile:MrBeastification example thumbnail 01.jpg uses the old 3.0 license, but was uploaded after, what the 4.0 template claims to be, the date the license number changed. I have fixed the license, don't worry. Keep in mind that videos uploaded before the specified date might also be 4.0, due to the license being changed after upload. Archive.org, archive.today, ghostarchive.org, and megalodon.jp could help with that. -Sebbog13 (talk)20:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YUnderstood, I will go back through my uploads from YouTube and fix the licenses for anything uploaded after that date. Next time I would appriciate if you could instead bring this up on my talk page of the project in question, so that this discussion here may stay on-topic.Rose Abrams (TCL)20:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been reverted twice on this (by@ChiruKondo:, and@KILLGOESE:), I'm going to start a discussion on deleting this file so that the dispute can be concluded.
The dispute concerns whether the fair use photo in question can be used when there is another CC-licensed photo (File:Photo of Luigi Mangione.png) available. Killgoese did not provide a reason for their reversion, but ChiruKondo said that it was "potato quality" and therefore unable to be used. Perhaps this is a matter of opinion, but I believe that the CC-licensed photo still reasonably serves to identify the subject and shows his facial features. NFCC1 requires us to replace fair use content when we have free alternatives.
On another front, I have been questioned by@Einsof: on Commons on the copyright status of such footage. Given that the footage was uploaded by NBC News on their official channel with the CC BY license, and that NBC News elsewhere explicitly credits themselves with taking the relevant footage (here; see top right about 16 seconds into the video), I believe they had the full right to release the relevant content under a CC-BY license. ―Howard •🌽3312:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By comparing the footage in the two videos it is evident there are at least two different camera operators involved: e.g.,[1] versus[2]. The footage in the second video, which seems to carry an NBC News attribution as you say, is not permissively licensed on youtube. The footage in the first video, which was used to create these files, seems to be unattributed.Einsof (talk)13:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing here additional footage which is not provided in the CC-BY video, but if you compare the footage which does appear in both videos (here andhere), it is evident they are the same footage, not by different camera operators. ―Howard •🌽3314:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the license of that footage is still not established. The first video is using the footage to provide commentary (seemingly emphasized by the choice to overlay footage of the reporter in the center of the frame). The commentary may be permissively licensed, but may be relying on fair use of the underlying perp walk footage.Einsof (talk)14:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not count as fair use if the content is created and held by the very same entity. ABC News is the copyright holder in both cases and has the ability to license each video however they wish. ―Howard •🌽3315:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since ABC News produced the underlying footage, and released the whole video under a CC-BY license, that makes the entire video CC-BY, including their footage of Mangione. ―Howard •🌽3315:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's NBC News; second, not all of the footage in that video was produced by NBC News; and third, the license of a derivative work is irrelevant if you are simply using that work to extract underlying footage. What matters is the license of the underlying footage.Einsof (talk)15:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter explicitly permitsYouTube videos with copyrighted material uploaded under{{YouTube CC-BY}} by the copyright owner of the said material or its subsidiaries. Any extracted images/audio from the video. ―Howard •🌽3315:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Howard. If NBC News was the one who filmed the footage, then they would have the copyright to that footage. So, them putting it on a YouTube video that is CC licensed would mean that they released it under that license. I don't think that the idea of "the license of a derivative work is irrelevant if you are simply using that work to extract underlying footage" would be true in this case. It's only really true if the footage was actually by a different copyright holder.reppoptalk18:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's definitely not a beauty shot or anything, but he is accused of a crime; a shot of him during his perp walk where his face is still reasonably discernible (though low resolution) can certainly replace the mugshot. Probably gonna get filed atWP:Unusual biographical images anyways.Based5290 :3 (talk)11:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about using a free image of Judi Dench, likethis one as free alternative to this non-free screenshot. The more I have had, the more I have questioned this screenshot'scontextual significance to the fictional character, "M" ofJames Bond franchise. The image'sirreplaceability is probably not the main issue here, though also I've questioned it. Rather the main issue is the potential affects of omitting the screenshot from this project. If no objections, then this screenshot may not sufficiently contextually signify after all.George Ho (talk)04:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be Public Domain, or more likely PD-US. The only maybe copyrightable element is the fleur de lis, and the New Orleans Saints couldn't copyright theirs.Candidyeoman55 (talk)15:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info about the eponymous theme song inDiamonds Are Forever (film)#Music is barebones. Also, there's already a film poster, and the sample (of the theme song) wouldn't improve much understanding about the whole film, anyways. Best not to put itanywhere in the whole project, IMO.George Ho (talk)21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's... a really aggressive comment, but okay. I respect your opinion on the matter. For the record, I think that there may be enough information around the song to put together an article for the song (between its charting, its sample inDiamonds from Sierra Leone, and its rankings in bond themes), but I'm also not interested in doing that.Leafy46 (talk)21:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:NFCC#3a:Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. asFile:MKW Cow render.png suffices. Also arguably failsWP:NFCC#8, as a second image doesn't significantly enhance the article, even though this specific sketch is mentioned in the text.Joseph2302 (talk)15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not uncommon to use concept art to illustrate the growth and development of a character, and in this case, it also provides an image of the Cow driving, which the lead image does not. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)17:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creator keep: I disagree that the file fails WP:NFCC#3a as it is the art itself that is the focal point of the given section of the article as it is tied to the Cow's development as a playable character, rather than that being a simple depiction of the character. This is further proven to be the case by the nominator as to mention the fact that the article's text mentions the concept art in-question. It has contextual significance to the actual article, ergo, it shouldn't violate WP:NFCC#8 either.CaptainGalaxy17:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is virtually identical to the final render besides the vehicle, so it doesn't show how the character changed from the concept art to final phase, like, say,Gordon Freeman's article. It seems like it's just there to add flavor, which is not how non-free copyrighted images should be used. If showing how the cow drives is an issue, the main image can be swapped with one showing the cow driving a kart rather than just standing there.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –It seems like it's just there to add flavor. Not really. Sure, this Cow character is non-playable, and showing Cow driving is... well, hardly surprising. However, the infobox image is a three-dimensional artwork, and this nominated image uses two dimensions. Hard to visualize how Cow would appear in flat drawings without this image, honestly. Compare this with "The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour".George Ho (talk)21:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you consider going from 2D to 3D a huge change, which I don't, there is still the issue of NFCC #8 which is whether it "significantly" increases readers' understanding. Given that the designs are nearly identical, the only possible thing you could argue in this instance is that it shows how Cow drives the vehicle, but that is doable with a replacement of the original 3D image if it is strictly necessary (which I also do not believe either).ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of NFCC #8, the art not only has the added benefit of depicting the cow driving, but as I stated in my last comment, this image does hold significant relevance to the Cow's development as a playable character. It is the image itself that is intrinsically tied to the character's development. It was not there to simply add flavour, it was there to demonstrate what it was that triggered the developers to have the idea to not only convert the Cow into a playable racer, but create an entirely new mechanic; which I do not believe could be justified simply with text. And I would also agree with George Ho above that the dimensions of the artwork changing to also be a factor. That being said, on the notion that we could just have the Cow driving in the infobox, me and a couple other editors attempted to do this off-wiki. However, since there isn't an official render of the Cow driving provided by Nintendo, all we are left is in-game screenshots, which we agreed just ended up becoming too busy for an infobox image. I think how the article handles the two images is perfectly fine as is.CaptainGalaxy11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a screenshot likethis one, properly cropped, would be unsuitable as the main image, if as you claim showing the Cow riding a bike is highly important. It's still clearly visible - any concerns about the background being there or not are just second fiddle to the information it depicts to the reader. It proves that the drawing is not required to depict the cow riding something. I also think that with enough time in Photoshop it could be cropped out entirely, even though that isn't strictly necessary.
I do think the argument that the image itself compelled Cow's addition to the game is a more convincing one, but at the same time I do think that "the Cow driving a truck" is something that can be reasonably extrapolated from an image of Cow driving a different vehicle. It would essentially have to depict something that the reader could not form a mental image of without additional imagery, so I'm still unconvinced myself.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't think the fair use rationale here is valid. This is a building in Salt Lake City, so anyone there can just take a photo and upload it under a free license. A fair use photo from Reddit is not necessary.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)14:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image is from an Instagram post in which the Jonas Brothers simply added a random photograph from a recent photographer's studio shoot. They did not say that this image was the artwork for the single that they were announcing. Nowhere else on the internet is the single represented by any artwork beyond the album cover.Binksternet (talk)20:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources use the same artwork tied directly to the song:[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. Also, even if it was the case of only being the Instagram post, the image is a promotional art for the single nonetheless, the MoS does not require an official artwork available on retailers for an infobox placement. It was undoubtedly used to promote the song specifically. -Artmanha (talk)20:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Music doesn't show this artwork. Spotify doesn't show it. Instead, they show the album art.
At the image file page, the following statement is incorrect: "This is the cover art for the single No Time to Talk by the artist Jonas Brothers. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Republic Records, or the graphic artist(s)." There is no particular reason to believe that the image is the cover art for the single more than it is an example of recent studio photography of the group. No copyright is indicated, so we don't know whether Republic Records owns it.Binksternet (talk)23:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement can be corrected to point out "the Jonas Brothers, the photographer(s) or the graphic artist(s)" as the believed owner(s) of the copyright. It should resolve the issue. But I do believe there is more than enough evidences that this is, in fact, a cover art for the single, as backed by the aforementioned sources. -Artmanha (talk)00:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offical site uses the image as the single art[9],[10] not to mention the one uploaded to the wiki article isnt even in the same aspect ratio as the one listed on the instagram post. It was just resized to fit an article nicely. Most of the links you posted just use the image used on the instagram post, and some even use the unedited version, and most times single art isn't in a wide format. The offical audio for the song even uses the album cover[11]. Offical art is used in the audio video for "Love Me To Heaven"[12]. Which prove when offical art is avialable, it is used in the audio video. I tried to post on your talk page to discuss but you deleted it. (Paul_to_my_Linda (talk) 1:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
To further explain, one of the sites that you listed as proof that the single art is offical,[13], uses art for "The Fate of Ophelia"[14] but that is in no way the offical single art. Just because an image is used doesnt mean it is an offical single art, simply an image to go along with an article, to make it more appealing for audiences (Paul_to_my_Linda (talk) 1:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I can confirm there is no notice on the story. On the issue, there is not a notice on the masthead, on the page listing, on the contact/informational page box, or on the sides of any of these pages, which are where they were supposed to put them. There is a notice for the Parade magazine section[15], but this article is not in that section, but theCourant magazine section, which has no notice[16]. Per[17] they did not do renewals, though this is past the period where this is necessary. So I believe this to be free.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
De-PRODded (by non-admin user) due to assumptions that, if the first version of the song, the content about the version itself is large enough to justify usage of this cover art. (seeExplicit's explanation here) However, I'm doubtful that's the case here.
As shown in the article (old ID link), the section barely covers essential content that would've made omission of this cover art unjust Rather I've seen info about her performance and recording of the song. If the section were a standalone article, I would've redirected the page to the parent album article as potentially a less notable topic in question. Furthermore, I would'veorphaned the whole cover art.
The matter isn't about the section itself but rather the cover art'scontextually significance to the previously recorded/performed song made for an off-Broadway musical. If no objections, then the cover art may have failed to contextually signify the song after all.George Ho (talk)20:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 "===November 23===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b13%2523File%253AOld%2bMan%2b%2528Neil%2bYoung%2bsingle%2b-%2bcover%2bart%2529.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
YUnderstood, I will go back through my uploads from YouTube and fix the licenses for anything uploaded after that date. Next time I would appriciate if you could instead bring this up on my talk page of the project in question, so that this discussion here may stay on-topic.Rose Abrams (TCL)20:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bNovember%2b20%2523File%253AIn-Q-Tel%2blogo%2bin%2bcolor%2b%25282021%2529.svg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_b.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bNovember%2b21%2523File%253AMeghan%2bTrainor%2b-%2bTreat%2bMyself%2b%2528Deluxe%2529.png%255D%255D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
