This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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 December 16}} 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 December 16}} 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.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed byAnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Yeah yeah. I can make an article on the book itself -- it's gotten lots of coverage. But it's so silly to have to do that just to satisfy NFCC.Feoffer (talk)15:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would defend it if it was a larger portion of the biography, equivalent to a full sized pagein another article. But two paragraphs is not that. And that photo wouldn't help, if it was enough of the focus it wouldn't be de minimis and if it wasn't it wouldn't show enough to be useful.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great for his particular case! Thank you! But what about the policy in general?
I don't really know how to explain our aversion to notable, irreplaceable fair use imagery. Obviously, image usage way back in 2001 was far more restrictive, but in 2025, nobody is going to sue the Wikimedia foundation for hosting an image of a book cover, and there is no "free alternative" to the cover of an author's memoir. Remind me -- what good does it serve to limit the usage of such images? When an author writes a memoir and agrees on a cover, that'sprobably something readers are going to want to see, right? What am I missing?Feoffer (talk)05:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the question is, to me, how much of the article discusses it. PerWP:NFCC, "content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In certain circumstances I would argue it could be justified, but others may not and say it is only warranted in a full article alone. I think the per-article understanding is overly pedantic and not focusing on what the policy actual means, but it just depends on what you can argue here, really. I would not have brought this to a deletion discussion if the way the article was written suggested the book was a key aspect of him or the book devoted a large portion to it.PARAKANYAA (talk)06:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is there any we could "evolve" the rules somehow? Showing a memoir cover on author's bio doesn't feel like something that should be forbidden. The cover might not even meet the threshold of originality for copyright, given that the image featured on the cover is public domain.Feoffer (talk)17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as PD. The image is definitely a US government work. Seethis news article which identifies it as "U.S. Department of Defence". The rest of the cover is simple text which is not eligible for copyright. --Whpq (talk)02:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense - Agreed that nothing on the cover seems copyrightable - certainly not the text and likely not the government image.
Comment: HarperCollins Publishers (William Morrow imprint) owns the copyright to the cover art ofImminent but not the public domain image within it. Elizondo owns the book's text. Here are some examples of past FfDs concerning use of book covers in non-book articles, including author articles, all delete:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.5Q5|✉13:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't own copyright to text this simple. It is words and beige, far, far, far below the american threshold of originality. TheCyberpunk 2077 logo was ruled by the copyright office too simple for copyright. And yes, sometimes they delete, sometimes they do not, NFCC#8 does not saymust have a dedicated article butcontextual relevance.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A book being bestselling doesn't make thethreshold of originality not exist, or put an image in copyright that was public domain. You cannot copyright the word "Imminent" or the phrase "Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs".Cyberpunk 2077 was a bestselling game, and its text only logo was explicitly declared uncopyrightable by the copyright office because it wasjust text and minor styling, despite being far more stylized than this cover. That article is unrelated to this situation, it is aboutderivative works ofcopyrighted works, e.g. a photo of Obama that was copyrighted, not aphoto from the American government, which cannot be copyrighted, reproduced exactly.PARAKANYAA (talk)15:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "official declaration" because none is needed, nor would one be expected. A publisher is not going to issue explicit declarations for their covers. The image is verified to be a US Federal government work. The rest of the cover is just simple text. Neither is copyrightable and the combination of the two does not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyrighted. --Whpq (talk)20:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be clear, my delete vote is only to remove the image from theLuis Elizondo article. I am fine with it being used in an article dedicated to the book, if such an article qualifies.Amazon UK has a different color scheme for the cover with additional wording. Once a book cover is in the public domain it can be sold on posters, shirts, mugs, and such without any payment to the publisher or author. I couldn't find any examples ofImminent book cover merchandise as of this writing. As a matter of principle to protect the business model of the publishing industry and the thousands of book covers in its past and future catalog, the publisher may decide to challenge the PD status, but if it doesn't, that's on them.5Q5|✉13:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That no one has done it yet does not mean that (why would people sell merchandise of this terrible book cover, and why would that matter? most merchandise like that is illegal, that would prove nothing). The image is public domain. There is no creative content on this cover that was not created by the US Government, who cannot claim copyright. You cannot own copyright to simple text, because there is athreshold of originality!PARAKANYAA (talk)03:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the image was officially published (WP:NFCC#4). There is no evidence that it is Edmond de Goeyse in the image (WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL) – written from him personally, and not from a description. We can just as easily get a free image by drawing a new portrait and publishing it under a free license (WP:FREER). — Ирука1303:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the second time this photo has been brought here by the same editor for the same reason. As explained last time, Digital Museums of Canada allows its images to be shared, with attribution, for educational purposes. "Materials on and accessible through this website were produced and/or compiled and posted for educational and personal purposes. Users may use the Content on this site as permitted by law, and subject to the following conditions: Users must acknowledge the source of the material. The source citation should include the URL digitalmuseums.ca or the URL of the Canadian museum or heritage organization that created the material". Since the use is not for profit and educational--and attribution is included--I do not feel there is a problem here. Furthermore, the rationale that someone can go to the museum and take another photo is flawed. Just because this item is part of the museum's collection does not mean that it is on display. Museums typically have a small fraction of their collections on display. Also, many museums do not allow photography of their displays for preservation reasons; thus, they share their collections digitally.Rublamb (talk)11:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the attribution is incorrect. The rights to the photo do not belong to DMC, they are only exhibit photo. Sam Waller Museum owns the rights, but that's not stated on the file description page.
The file description page states that this is a non-free logo. This is not true. It's a free "logo" and a non-free photo. — Ирука1312:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is correctly linked to its source. That is its attribution. Wikipedia and Wikicommons do not differentiate between a text attribution and and weblink attribution. (However, a text attribution can easily be added to the file if that is an issue). Sam Walter Museum shared its photo through the collaborative DMC, which has a general copyright statement forall images. Such file sharing comes with agreements regarding copyright, which is why DMC can have a general statement of copyright for its entire database. You are correct in a sense--this is a non-free image unless used for educational or personal purposes. That limitation is why the image was added through Wikipedia instead of Wikicommons. If you think this image was added under theincorrect category, it can simply be moved. That is not a reason to delete the image. Do you have a recommendation for a better category?Rublamb (talk)13:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree withRublamb, that the museum has granted permission. Additionally, this low-resolution image is used to identify the organization on its Wikipedia page. We allow such primary image usage to ensure clarity. This is a completely unnecessary request for deletion.Jax MN (talk)22:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is PD in UK, as "70 years after publication (unknown author)".
It is PD in US, as "95 years after publication (URAA restored)". — Ирука13 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)problems with maths — Ирука1300:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Updating this to the correct licensing means we need to delete this file. The provided date is circa 1934, with the publication of this card almost certainly in the UK. There is no evidence of US publication at the time and given it looks to be a rugby card, I doubt very much there was any US publication. As such, the 95 year rule does apply as noted byUser:Aydoh8. Conversion to non-free content would not be possible as use for visual identification is already provided through a PD image (File:Leonard Bowkett - Huddersfield.jpeg). --Whpq (talk)19:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
De-PRODded under previous assumption that the "Marilyn Manson version" section is large enough for a sample like this. "WP:COVERSONG andWP:NFC#cite_note-3" were cited, but they have been yet to be proven to apply to (non-lead) files used in body article. Kinda unrelated, but the assumption that such rules apply was challenged or refuted by an admin (Link to archived discussion). Even the same person who de-PRODded this file also started the discussion at WT:NFC about.... well, just cover arts (revision link to another discussion).
Regarding this file, I still have concerns about itscontextual significance to the version itself or the song whose original version was already a hit years prior. Of course, I may anticipate those "text isn't auditory" and readers-won't-understand-how-songs-sound-like-without-samples arguments, despite otherwise. If no one object to deleting this file, then this sample would fail to contextually signify the whole song after all.George Ho (talk)19:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. - There is no section where the musical content of the song is discussed enough to warrant a non-free file.
Verify the copyright status of this photo, as well as the others. If there's no free image that would serve the same purpose here, keep this image as a fair use image.Candidyeoman55 (talk)19:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond TOO. But there may be a PD based on the time of publication. This needs to be proven, of course.. — Ирука1303:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film. "Contextual significance" (WP:NFC#CS) doesn't limit to such demographic but applies to everyone else, especially those who've yet to see the films. Well, it says that screenshots shouldsignificantly increase readers' understanding of the fictional characterherself enough to make omitting such screenshots detrimental to understanding this character.
As I see, this character has been just a secretary to "M". I'm afraid I have found images of portrayers not much of improvement but rather.... decorative perhaps. How do the screenshots (of actresses portraying the same role) improve your understanding of the character... besides what she looks like differently?George Ho (talk)17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Moneypenny didn't appear in the 2006 film adaptation of the novel, unfortunately. Did you mean perhaps the 1960s spoof (of the same name)?
if you've only seen one run of Bond: This is pandering to Bond-fandom, isn't it? Honestly, I've yet to see you explain (further) why deleting the screenshots would impact the understanding of the character.George Ho (talk)17:02, 5 December 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]
Keep. Section about the Melanie C cover could be it's own small article - there is significant discussion and sourcing for it. Since it could be it's own article, the cover is warranted for contextual significance.
These album covers were published in the United States without an attached copyright notice (sources:Heritage Auctions forSgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [the "notice" on the back cover appears to apply only to the lyrics],eBay forMagical Mystery Tour,eBay forYellow Submarine,eBay forAbbey Road,eBay forLet It Be) within thirty days of their publication in the United Kingdom. Per{{Simultaneous US publication}}, Wikimedia Commons treats works published "simultaneously" (within thirty days) in the US as first published in the US. They should thus be transferred to Commons and tagged{{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Simultaneous US publication|country1=United Kingdom|publication year=1967/1969/1970}}.JohnCWiesenthal (talk)01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,Neoogai. There is no doubt about your good intentions, but please understand that the basis of such discussions are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agreed with the logic of moving to Commons.
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]
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.
Uploader seems to be suggesting that anything created by a dashcam is public domain. I cannot find any precedent for such a broad, sweeping claim about dashcam footage.aaronneallucas (talk)00:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aplucas0703: SeePD-automated on Commons; things not produced by human input are indeed generally considered public domain. Dashcam is not specifically mentioned but from othercategories and uploads I've seen it generally falls under this. Camera does not move at any point during the video this was taken from.EF501:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 I'm really not convinced of this argument. I think someone could easily (and correctly) argue that choosing where to drive their car is human input sufficient for copyright protection. This might apply to CCTV footage or traffic cameras that receive no input, but a moving car is significantly different. By this interpretation, all footage captured from a drone would be in the public domain. It's difficult to even know if the footage was captured by a camera manually activated or automatically activated, but I don't think it matters in this case.aaronneallucas (talk)01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that, but then that's equally an opinion as mine. Dashcam has been a subject of contention (in the US), although I'll note that looking up ToO in relation to dashcams in Thailand I find zero results, so there doesn't appear to be any defined law relating to CCTV/dashcams.EF501:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. - Dashcam video is not "entirely of information produced by an automated system." Nor is it the "work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence."
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.
Uploaded last year and then inserted to the "2013 Washington, Illinois tornado" article. This matter was raised recently, but not much discussion has been made (WT:NFC;article talk page). I'd thought about PRODding the images initially, but then I fear the possibility of the active uploader reverting the tag to contest the deletion proposal.
The one who raised the issue favored one of the screenshots showing the intensity of that tornado. However, a huge tornado isn't that surprising to look at, IMO, despite casualties and devastating losses and damages. Not just the"minimal number" issue, the more concerning would be"contextual significance" issue. Of course, one would disagree and choose either one, but even with captions, the tornadoes depicted in the screenshot... I couldn't tell the difference from other tornado incidents other than... text, and non-free image still wouldn't improve my understanding of the tornado itself impactingWashington, Illinois. (I'd thought about"irreplaceability" issue initially, but then I don't know freer images depicting that tornado itself, so...)George Ho (talk)20:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFile:Washington, Illinois tornado at peak intensity.jpg,deleteFile:Washington tornado seen over rural farmlands near Roanoke, Illinois.jpg. I'm inclined to keep the peak intensity image over the Roanoke picture since it depicts the tornado at the point that it had its most notable impact. And per EF5's comment, there is some precedent for keeping non-free images of tornadoes (although@EF5: the link you have for the Joplin tornado goes to a nonexistent page.). For irreplaceability, it is the case for most tornado articles that there are free images of damage, thanks to NWS surveys, but none of the tornado itself, as those are usually captured by private storm chasers or incidental witnesses. Though I do see value in the question of what essential information the photo conveys unless there is something unusual or significant about the tornado's appearance.TornadoLGS (talk)01:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree — The file in question is listed underPosthumous honors to show that aCommemorative US postage stamp was issued in Keller's honor. In regards to NFCC 1: As a unique image of a commemorative postage stamp, there is no free equivalent available anywhere. --Gwillhickers (talk)18:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's point one, but probably point eight. The image only confirms the fact that such a stamp was issued. This is not enough to place a non-free image in an article. — Ирука1312:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image depicts the national honor that was given to Keller by the USPS in 1980 and as such merits inclusion in the article. In regards to NFCC 8 — Contextual significance. The image is listed underPosthumous honors, and in that context has significance and is appropriate. --Gwillhickers (talk)17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the Flickr account (photos description and photo of the account owner), the photos were taken from a family archive. It's not even certain that they were taken by a family member. — Ирука1303:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the image isn't critical but without it there is no depiction of the add besides the description in the article, which can only do so much.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)22:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to note that the frame is one of the most common depictions of the advert that I have seen and I pulled it from an article.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a bit more consideration, I am moving toslight keep. I think that the nominator nominated this assuming that a random frame had been chosen, but in addition to Variety, as listed on the file page, a few other articles and the YouTube video use this image as their thumbnail. Their are a couple other thumbnails floating, but this is certainly one of them. I'm pinging @Iruka13 to ask for their opinion on the matter.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)00:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The video has no official cover, no unofficial cover, and no "special" frame. In such cases, even the presence of a free image in the infobox, according toWP:LEADIMAGE, can easily be questioned. — Ирука1304:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – critical commentary inadequate to support this frame (of a girl, a man holding a potato chip product, and a woman). Furthermore, reading the synopsis, the commercial is more about the girl herself raising a potato (seed?) as a future plant, and the synopsis itself is easy to understand (in text) without this frame. For better example, seeWhen Harry Met Santa (Christmas example).George Ho (talk)05:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dependent on Commons deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Whpq (talk)03:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of this image states on the file description page that the image was taken from the company's official website. On the company's official website, this image was only available in .png format,never in .svg.
The image contains multiple distortions relative to the original image, which are more common when images are automatically converted to .svg. In this case, these are watery-looking artifacts along the edges, turning the headlights into a blurry mess. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is theoriginal .png image from the official website.
I believe that given the availability of an official, high-quality .png and its poor-quality reproduction in the "slightly better" .svg format, we should give preference to the former, as recommended byMOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука1301:35, 4 December 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.
I question thecontextual significance of this non-free screenshot(?) ofRalph Fiennes as "M" (real name Gareth Mallory). Sure, Fiennes (as "M") appears face- and clean-shaven and well and professionally dressed, but I'm skeptical about the image's impact on readers, especially general ones, of the article about this "M" character of the James Bond franchise.
I don't remember what the character looked like in all three films, but the replacement photos provided are too different from the non-free image. — Ирука1312:29, 14 December 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.
For now,do not transfer all to Commons –Sky Italia was/is a subsidiary ofSky Group, a British company. Huh... Either forgot or didn't realize that Sky Group is now part ofComcast. The logos you wanted to transfer are still subject toc:COM:TOO UK as they have been still part of the British company, regardless of Sky Italia's HQ location.George Ho (talk)19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "Sky Sport" is the Italian branch, while "Sky Sports" is the British one. Some words like "Uno" and "Due" are clearly Italian, so these would be Italian works.Candidyeoman55 (talk)13:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those logos are still of British property, despite being used for Italian channels. Most likely, the Sky Group, the British entity, must have used "Uno" and "Due" to appeal Italian senses, huh? Also, the Sky logo still has some graphic effects that may guarantee protection from the British law. (some of them may be or are identical to the ones used by Sky UK) Your own words.George Ho (talk)20:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the logos of British subsidiaries of American companies. The logo of Lay's is below the threshold of originality in the United States, but the logo of Walker's is possibly above the United Kingdom's threshold of originality.Candidyeoman55 (talk)15:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that the precedent you cited is corrected. Actually, was hoping you find other "Italian" logos that are of British properties. I've just now listed the Walkers logo (File:Walkers logo.png) for discussion.George Ho (talk)19:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI,WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for deletion. As for whether NFCC applied, I uploaded the file originally so clearly disagree, the nominator agrees that makes is 1:1 - happy to go with majority/expert opinion>>Lil-unique1(talk) —20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately – I can see a screenshot of just the singer in the music video's setting. "OTHERSTUFF" concerns aside, I couldn't fathom how and why omitting this file would harm the understanding of the song itself. Sure, the synopsis of the music video may be detail-y and all, but this doesn't justify the use of the screenshot, despite the rationale by the one who voted "Keep". Furthermore, is the use intended to improve the understanding of (what) the song or the music video (is all about) or to just merely identify the singer [performing(?) in the video]?George Ho (talk)02:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident.~2025-40752-07 (talk)05:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This logo was mentioned atanother FFD discussion as attempt to exemplify some "precedent" that may be, IMO, questionable (link). I get the concerns aboutc:COM:TOO UK, despite one 2020s case that may have raised originality standards guaranteeing a UK work some protection under British law. Nevertheless, most likely, the logo is more.... American-ish[?] (despite "Walkers" in place of "Lay's")?and should be transferred to Commons.George Ho (talk)19:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC); edited, 19:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Keep and move to Commons. - Graphical elements of logo are clearly the same asLay's, created first and in the US. I'd be shocked if it met the threshold for originality in the UK, even with the latest ruling.
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.
Discussion moved down below for the same image, under a different file name
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.
You're explaining compliance withWP:NFCC#1, notWP:NFCC#8 ie how the imagesignificantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. The grainy image of two men with guns on a footbridge (which we have a better, free photo of anyway) does not add anything that cannot be described with words.orangesclub🍊17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident.~2025-40752-07 (talk)05:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The user that uploaded this image has filled out the non-free content criteria very well so there is no doubt as to whether the image can be used. This is a significant event in Australian history and deserves to be illustrated with any kind of image. The image being of low-quality does not matter for this article's use, a high-quality one would be nice but they would be difficult to find due to how quickly the circumstances were changing. If there are better ones, I might advocate using one of those but in the absence of an alternative, this should remain online. I disagree with the image not meeting criterion 8, I think the image also meets the majority of the other parts of that guideline.Qwerty123M (talk)03:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The image of the bridge was perfectly fine, and there is an external video linked in the article too. Also, the current free use rationale falsely asserts that the image is an artwork being discussed.Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)21:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Montanan: Please read what's attached to the file again."The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion ofthis work" This is incorrect, as the article is about the mass shooting, not "this work" (the photograph). Also"Any derivative work based uponthe artwork..." and"The use of a low resolution image ofthe artwork will not impact the commercial viability ofthe art" are other errors with the fair use rationale.Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that when uploading this photo, you used the template for"This image isthe object of discussion in an article", which states in bold"The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work,not just about the thing or person it shows"? It'd likely be better to redo the fair use rationale as a"Historic photograph" under"This issome other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use".Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)23:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lede photo of terrorists in the very act –and offhand, I don't recall such. Provides excellent geographic and spatial orientation. Dynamic, with excellent composition. Doesn't display gore, as opposed to, say, theZapruder film. Which was also grainy. What this photo adds to the reader's understanding is the visceral, grimdetermination of the terrorists.kencf0618 (talk)01:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrighted banner extends beyond thec:COM:De minimis: it is large and centered. The banner should be blurred/squared, or the image should be removed completely. — Ирука1302:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. perc:COM:De minimis point 2: The "Copyrighted work X is identifiable but is an unwanted intrusion to the subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed." The example of the painting in this section is a very comparable example in terms of size relative to the entire image frame (this is less than 10%). In the present image, it is very clear that capturing the poster was not the primary intent of the photographer.IronGargoyle (talk)08:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second point doesn't apply here. The copyrighted images are much smaller and located in the corners. The only thing that even vaguely resembles this image is the image of the scarlet-yellow painting. However, unlike the image in question, this painting is obscured by people.
Next, "cannot be easily removed." I believe the exact opposite. Even with my rudimentary image editing skills, I was able to easilyremove the adv. portion without losing the image's encyclopedic value. And if you say that even a gram of this value was lost, you'll confirm that the inclusion of the advertising image was an intentional act on the part of the photographer.
This image is most similar in size and location to the third image from point 6. Moreover, in the second image, the copyrighted fragment took up even less space, and, nevertheless, was removed.
And I'm more than sure that even if the sixth image had just the smallest (square) fragment of the three, it would have been retouched too.Wdwd, please comment.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more input on applicability of de minimis Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Whpq (talk)13:58, 16 December 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 "===December 16===" 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}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bDecember%2b1%2523File%253AL%2528eonard%2529.%2bC%2528harles%2529.%2bBowkett.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg){kind=link}
._C(harles)._Bowkett.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bNovember%2b24%2523File%253ALogo%2b-%2bBrasileir%25C3%25A3o%2bSerie%2bA%2b%25282024%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}
.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}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(54062064271)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bDecember%2b12%2523File%253ASky%2bSport%2bMax%2b2023%2blogo%2b%2528television%2bchannel%2529.png%255D%255D){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
