THC Science

XFD backlog
V	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	5	13	18
TfD	2	6	8
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	30	30
AfD	0	1	1

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[edit]

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:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 April 19}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 April 19}}` 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 April 19}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
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 it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

April 11

File:Bakersfield Dancers 1950s.jpg

[edit]

The fair-use justification seems dubious, as there is likely some PD photo of 1950s SoCal dancing available at this point due to an unrenewed license (possibly this photo itself — that should be checked before it's deleted). Sdkb ^talk 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Fair Use justifies 2% of a photograph that is so small a portion of a rather large book that this shouldn't be a problem when documenting West Coast Swing. The entire image itself comes from the one of the libraries in either Bakersfield or Santa Monica... It's been fifteen years since I contacted them to try and get a more accurate date for the image, which they could not supply. Again Fair Use where "no suitable replacement is available." Steve Pastor (talk) 23:32, 11 April 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 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

April 12[edit]

File:Amity Blight s2e13.png[edit]

This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Amity Blight.png for the Amity Blight article). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be fairly easy to adjust/fix things in order to overcome both criteria. Critical commentary sufficient to clarify the significance of the character design—as relates to the character's development/growth—can definitely be located and worked into §Character as citations without too much difficulty, which would then clear WP:NFCC#8. As for WP:NFCC#3b, if it is the case that minimal resolution is not sufficient enough, then the file can definitely be updated to feature a version of the image with the character model cut out from the background. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the critical commentary now present in the current version of the article seems sufficient enough to warrant some form of Keep — Jamie Eilat (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the newly-added commentary (resolving WP:NFCC#8). However, it would likely mean replace with a render of purple-haired Amity with a transparent background (which would resolve WP:NFCC#3b). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is now updated to have the background removed. So that now resolves both criteria. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The transparent background should be cropped out though to resolve the blank space in the file. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uncomfortably Numb-American Football.ogg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC as there is no critical commentary, this isn't necessary to understand the article, and it's just used as decoration. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnneBoonchuyBlueGemForm.webp[edit]

This alternate character design is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus likely violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Even if accompanied by critical commentary, stills from animated works for identification/discussion of depicted characters (and not the depicted scene) would most certainly contain multiple non-free background elements in violation of WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use) and should in any event be replaced with a character render containing a transparent background (such as File:Anne Boonchuy pro.webp for the Anne Boonchuy article). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current version of the article now contains further critical commentary regarding the image subject, which better clears it of WP:NFCC#8. As for WP:NFCC#3b, the image is not meant to depict just the character design in and of itself, but additionally to show the character in the act of using her abilities (i.e., it is meant to depict the character's abilities interacting with the surrounding environment within the scene). Thus, including parts of the surrounding background is relevant to the conveyance of the image subject. With that in mind, the cropping and minimal resolution already present in the current file serve as the means for sufficiently minimal use. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about instead using this render of Anne in her calamity form from the Amphibia Wiki, an external wiki, which features a transparent background? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current file is meant as a depiction both of the character design, and of character action within the scene. The Amphibia wiki render depicts only the former, and not the latter, so it is not a sufficient replacement. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ovais Mangalwala Image by Faizan Munawar Varya.jpg[edit]

This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ovais Mangalwala Image by Faizan Munawar Varya.jpg[edit]

This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umar Khayam Hameed Image by Faizan Munawar Varya.jpeg[edit]

This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faysal Aziz Khan Image by Faizan Munawar Varya April 2021.jpg[edit]

This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and I suspect that this one is also not their own work, as they claim. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jbchandler.jpg[edit]

No source and no indication of when the image was taken or published. The subject was alive until 1962 and Lord Mayer of Brisbane until 1952. The photograph would have to have been taken before 1946 to be free of copyright in the US. The image is in use on the article of the subject, but free alternatives are available at Commons. Felix QW (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

April 13[edit]