Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either
free content or
non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the
non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to
deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is
uncontroversial, 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.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the
speedy deletion templates. See the
criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without
rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{
db-f1|Full name of file excluding 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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use
speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a
VRT 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 at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under
criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under
criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the
Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for
speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use
Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{
subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{
subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use
this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{
Ffd|log=2024 June 12}} 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=2024 June 12}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the
threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
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 a
freely 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 at
Media 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 that
polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining
consensus is through
editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use
straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more
binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to
Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See
Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps
here.
It is recommended to reselect authorization because it is likely not protected by copyright in the United States, but since the copyright protection threshold of the PRC is very low, it is still not advisable to import into commons.
It is recommended to cancel fair use and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-USonly}}.
Fumikas Sagisavas (
talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense: PRC isn't UK and it doesn't come from the
country of kangaroo either. The protection threshold in PRC is low, I agree. However, PRC has its threshold much higher than UK but at a relatively low level.
Kys5g talk! 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense per nominator
hinnk (
talk) 01:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Status quo, keep as-is. Per
this excellent analysis by @
Clindberg, there is no legal precedent for CCTV footage in the US automatically falling into the Public Domain. Also, the proposed replacement is grainy/low-quality to the extent where it's barely possible to discern the identity of the individual depicted. Fair use is appropriate here, no need to change anything. -
Fastily 02:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-transformative use of Reuters image, fails
WP:NFCC#2 and
WP:GETTY point 7.
Wcam (
talk) 12:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok but then I want you to suggest an alternative image to post
Personisinsterest (
talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
But I would argue that this does not violate these rules. This photo is included in commentary of the article. Many reactions are explicitly based on the images and videos of the attack. This is an image from a video of the attack. And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. It’s exclusive commercial use by Reuters is already invalid.
Personisinsterest (
talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
From
Template:Non-free historic image, the [u]se of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is a subject of commentary, as I said. It is an image from a video of the attack, and videos and images of the attack are mentioned heavily in reactions to the attack and this article itself.
Personisinsterest (
talk) 00:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. That still doesn't the image compliant with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion. The image has to meet all criteria, not nine or less. In this case,
John and
Wcam, according to
CNN, this image came from Reuters TV, meaning it's a screenshot.
This article confirms where the image originated from. Well, it says the image came from some random video, yet somehow, Reuters requires license for commercial use.
If it's a screenshot of a random video later obtained by Reuters, or if it's a screenshot from Reuters TV, then likely the image may have very little or no commercial value. Otherwise, if it's a photo made by news agency, like Reuters itself, then most likely the image has commercial interests as originally intended, and using the image in any non-commercial way would be very risky.
George Ho (
talk) 02:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep reluctantly – This isn't a press photo, unfortunately. It's a screenshot, and a
YouTube video by Reuters channel confirms it, starting at around one minute and five seconds (1:05) of the video. Most likely complies with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion if it's made by a non-Reuters person, like some ordinary bystander recording the horrific event like this.
George Ho (
talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment — If this image is from a press agency, it should be speedy deleted under
WP:F7. If it is from any other source, it qualifies as fair use. George Ho's argument appears to be valid. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That only applies "where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary", but see below for sourced commentary.VR(Please
ping on reply) 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As far as I can tell, and based on the
source shared by George Ho, this is content from Reuters. I don't think this being a still from the video changes anything with respect to
WP:NFCC#2 &
WP:GETTY. Also worth nothing that this does not meet
WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the
article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -
Fastily 00:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree. The image does indeed enhance understanding of the article topic. Consider
this commentary by CNN. The attack has been subject to many visual analyses and image helps in that understanding.VR(Please
ping on reply) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment On
this Reuters page under the image in question there's a "Purchase Licensing Rights" link, indicating that Reuters may have acquired the image's distribution rights and its reuse requires permission from Reuters. Thus Wikipedia's unauthorized reuse fails
WP:NFCC#2. --
Wcam (
talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image itself (and the video its from) is subject to significant commentary. See
this addition of commentary into the article and
the CNN source that makes that commentary.VR(Please
ping on reply) 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The image is now used twice in the same article: one use in lead, other in a section. Cannot be repeated in the same article. Shall it be in the lead or the section? Cannot be both.
George Ho (
talk) 19:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll remove it from the lead.VR(Please
ping on reply) 21:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This addidion is just the figure caption whereas the article's main text still lacks sourced commentary, in which case the omission of this image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article topic, thus fails
WP:NFCC#8.
Wcam (
talk) 22:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".
However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art
detriment the understanding of the topic in question? Do both cover arts
convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago.
George Ho (
talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
this discussion. Deleting this will cause a disruption of detriment the understanding of the topic in question, and both covers provides both the same and the different facts. This is an alternative cover so it can't violate both criterions. The song is also inadequate without the American one, cause this is a country-specific cover, and specific covers are distinctive with global versions. This image was also displayed in a correct place.
Kys5g talk! 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate.
George Ho (
talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Imagine the article where it is used exposes to an American reader, and the reader compares its cover with the global one, and sees both covers are distinctive, would the reader understand? Heck no! Because it's missing another cover! If so, then will the global cover be subjected for deletion in the future, citing the
sourced commentary and crucial identification?
Kys5g talk! 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The "sourced commentary" and "crucial identification" are two common circumstances, not absolute. That depends on
due weight and
balance.
Because it's missing another cover! Please be careful of
circular reasoning in your arguments. The
WP:AADD and
WP:AAIDD essays should help you learn how to make your arguments count.
George Ho (
talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, and
Wikipedia is not a repository, i.e. not a project to hold media content that lacks "encyclopedic context" to justify usage. It's not Discogs or any other sort.
George Ho (
talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because the image illustrates the credit differences mentioned in the article.
Morrissey4Prez2024 (
talk) 23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet
WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the
article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -
Fastily 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sample of the 1968 Cass Elliot/Mamas & Papas cover recording not an improvement to understanding a 1930s classic song previously sung by other artists before the cover recording. Doesn't
contextually signify the song in question.
George Ho (
talk) 02:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying Keep it for a few years until more of us die off implies that the sample may possibly fail "contextual significance" criterion or NFCC all together, especially in the next "few years", right?
George Ho (
talk) 20:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not "own work"; can't be CC0
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense and move to Wikimedia Commons - This image does seem to fall under the
threshold of originality in both the United States and India.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-free, unfortunately – The changing or translucent colors all over the logo and background... and glossiness make the logo potentially eligible for US copyright, unfortunately. Furthermore, the company associated with the logo
has questionable notability. Also, I don't think the logo has any educational value, something that Commons is against.
George Ho (
talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's already an album cover at the article, a second one doesn't significantly improve contextual understanding per
WP:NFCC8. —Matrix(!) {user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, the 2022 version cover is significantly different from the original release (as is the album content itself). So inclusion meets NFCC8 by allowing this version of the album to be identified, and its omission would be detrimental to understanding. Where alternative covers are significantly different this is a commonly accepted use. Quoting
Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover: If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per
WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.the wub"?!" 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral – Sure, the 2022 cover looks different from the original, but I don't think it's a sufficient reason to keep the alternative cover. On the other hand, the 2022 release was reworked or remastered or remixed (whatever you call it) and expanded as the double album as originally intended. I thought about originally voting "delete" because the alternative cover doesn't provide info substantially different from the other. However, differences between original and 2022 releases seen much greater than I thought, and deleting the alternative cover would leave readers much curious or assuming that the standard cover art is also used for the 2022 release. —
George Ho (
talk) 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The use of both non-free files for identification violates
WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items), especially since the logo of the team is also present on the cap insignia.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 03:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The photographer's consent should really be brought directly to
VRT; as is, there is no evidence of permission.
Felix QW (
talk) 09:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence presented for why it should have been published without a copyright notice or before 1963, when renewal was still required.
I have not been able to locate a free photograph of the individual in question, so relicensing as non-free may be an alternative.
Felix QW (
talk) 10:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is replaceable with a free image, as you can re-create this map on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons using a free map of England and adding these places as dots onto that map (I am not an expert on doing this, but it's possible with not too much work if you know what you're doing). As such, fails
WP:NFCC#1.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is currently only one accessible image to use that shows the most up to date list of English distillery. Removing the image would damage the quality of the articles in which it features and remove an important information that is needed for the relevant sections.
ChefBear01 (
talk)
ChefBear01 (
talk) 20:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone with enough knowledge (like people who are part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps) could create a freely licenced image with the same information, using the process I mentioned above. Therefore, we should not use a non free image when we don't need to, as this violates
WP:NFCC#1.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The rationale's explanations on
WP:NFCC#1 and
WP:NFCC#8 are both incorrect. Even if it were irreplaceable, the article is about the city and not this complex.
hinnk (
talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not able to discuss about that point so I can't state whether this is true or not. Probably other users give us more info about this topic. Nothing more from my part, thank you.
Fma12 (
talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The upload was sourced from
a Lady Gaga fan Twitter account, and I can find no evidence of it existing in official sources. No single release on Spotify, Apple Music, or Tidal.
A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack) says it was a radio-only single in Europe, and I doubt it would have unique cover art in that case.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This non-free audio file samples ~13% of a copyrighted musical recording, in violation of both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:SAMPLE.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This non-free audio file samples ~16% of a copyrighted musical recording, in violation of both
WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and
WP:SAMPLE.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, I uploaded this audio file before I knew about
WP:SAMPLE. I'll upload a reduced version (which should be about 0:15 seconds, since the Undertale version is half a minute longer than the original recording) when I get home. P.S. this file clearly has a purpose, and should not have been listed for deletion. λNegativeMP1 15:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment If I may, the above assertion regarding the length per WP:SAMPLE is based on the time in the infobox, which is the duration of the original version. The version illustrated from Undertale is [
[1]] is 2 minutes 36 seconds in length (additionally verified by the wikia
here short of ripping it from the OST itself). Would it be viable to use a 23 second clip with this in consideration, so it can go past the opening section?--
Kung Fu Man (
talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My take on it would be that they aren't redundant since neither's clearly inferior, or at least the first could be adjusted so it wouldn't be. (I myself tend to upload an extra photo or two of the same subject so editors can have some discretion, excited to find out if I've been doing it wrong this whole time!)
hinnk (
talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have my doubts that the one on Commons is in the public domain. The uploader of the Commons image is indeffed here for being a sock.
SWinxy (
talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NFCC#1: no free equivalent. There are plenty of tweets
on Commons, and it's possible to use the icon SVG alone.
SWinxy (
talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NFCC#1: no free equivalent. This can be replaced with a freely-licensed image
on Commons that has the share icon, or replace it with an SVG of the icon itself.
SWinxy (
talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (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 "===June 12===" 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 the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.