File:KhanJoachim.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byDrearwig (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

Prompted by a CSD message for another image onJoachim (Star Trek). This image is a screenshot of the character's death. The article doesn't rely on or reference the image itself, and the composition, production, acting, etc. of the screenshotted scene are not subject to commentary or discussion in the article. The FUR claim of "critical commentary and discussion" does not seem fulfilled since the file's upload in 2007. --EEMIV (talk)02:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as handily failing to meetWP:NFCC#8. —Fourthords |=Λ= |08:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Fourthords.ScrabbleTiles (talk)07:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byIronGargoyle (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

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.

P. S. The copyrighted fragment takes up 1/7 of the image in question (15%), I measured it. — Ирука¹³09:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wata-slab SMB cart.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byMasem (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

The goal stated in FUR is achieved by placing photo of an empty package (WP:FREER). The reader can see what the packaging of aspecific game looks like in a specific article (WP:NFC#UUI). In addition, this photo has its own copyright, which is unacceptable per WP:FREER#3D. — Ирука¹³03:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byFeoffer (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

We don't have an article on the book and the two paragraphs about it at the source aren't enough to justify a non-free image.PARAKANYAA (talk)03:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The upload to theLuis Elizondo biography appears to have been done in good faith, but unfortunately, non-free book covers, movie posters, etc, are only allowed in their dedicated articles. AuthorStephen King has no book covers in his article. Neither do UFO book authorsJacques Vallée,Budd Hopkins,John E. Mack,Leslie Kean,Whitley Strieber,Erich von Däniken, etc. Relevant policies:MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE,WP:IMGCONTENT,WP:NFCC#8. However, if someone were to take and donate to Wikipedia an original photo of Elizondo holding his book, that should qualify imo, but the emphasis in the photo has to be Elizondo the author not the book cover.5Q5|^✉12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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]

  okay, that's fair -- there's definitely enough RSing out there to make a whole article.Feoffer (talk)02:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's free anyway so now that's not even necessary. I do think it would be interesting so I'd say go for it.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:54, 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]

  @Feoffer Is the image actually public domain? If so, the rest is just text with no real creative design, so this would be PD.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is, relicensing is fine.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:29, 9 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.

   ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• Comment: I encourage the reading of this expert article "Book Covers And Copyrights" before placing a bestselling book cover in the public domain.5Q5|^✉13:19, 10 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]

The two templates available areTemplate:PD-ineligible-USonly andTemplate:PD-ineligible. According toWP:IUPC, the uploader has to be able to "prove that the image is in the public domain". Since no such publisher or other official PD declaration exists, the publisher could, if they want to, challenge the PD designation.5Q5|^✉13:07, 13 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]

No, they cannot, because they don't own the image. It would be PD-Ineligible and PD-USGov.PARAKANYAA (talk)03:54, 16 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]

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byIsaidnoway (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

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]

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byRublamb (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

A non-free photo of a free three-dimensional object. The object is on display in a museum. Free photocould be created (WP:NFCC#1 /WP:FREER). — Ирука¹³04:03, 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]

File:L(eonard). C(harles). Bowkett.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byDynamoDegsy (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

Invalid license. Image is not PD as the work was created after 1930.J Mo 101 (talk)13:45, 1 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]

For the record, Wikipedia follows US copyright law, so the 95 year rule applies. Work was created circa 1934 which is less than 95 years ago.Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]}14:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say just update it to the correct licensing as the file itself is Encyclopaedic.Felicia(talk)16:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit14:29, 8 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]

File:APP-06 E 1.pdf (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byJurKo22 (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

The same problem ashere - and it was uploaded after a lot of explanations that the user should not do it.Lvova Anastasiya (talk)18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blows way past minimal usage. --Whpq (talk)02:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marilyn Manson - Personal Jesus.ogg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) – uploaded byRed marquis (notify |contribs |uploads |upload log). 

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.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 22:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't wanna name you initially as the one who de-PRODded the file, but now I am. Why the sudden change of stance?George Ho (talk)23:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho I prefer to remain a mystery. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The rationale is pure boilerplate and its claimed usage is not supported by the article itself. --Whpq (talk)02:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isaiah Kenen.jpg (delete |talk |history |links |logs) 

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]

@Candidyeoman55: You are the uploader of the file. It is part of your responsibility to do a search for free alternatives before uploading non-free content. --Whpq (talk)02:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png (delete |talk |history |links |logs) 

Logo below the threshold of originality that must be moved to Commons. Brazil has a high threshold of originality.Candidyeoman55 (talk)19:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]