Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 21 169 0 190
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 2 0 2
RfD 0 1 15 0 16
AfD 0 0 6 0 6

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.

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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=2022 July 8}} 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=2022 July 8}} 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=2022 July 8}} 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 1929, not 1923.
  • 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}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image 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 file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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:

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

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

June 30

File:AEW Blackpool.jpg

[edit]

File:AEW Blackpool.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vjmlhds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Support deletion—uploader has tagged this image as {{PD-textlogo}}. I do not believe that the image is below the threshold of originality. Orphaned, so would fail WP:F5 if relicensed to nonfree. HouseBlastertalk 00:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC) See below for new !vote HouseBlastertalk 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: short lines of text, regardless of the font/method of production, do not meet TOO. There may be other protections (such as trademarks and signatures), but it cannot be copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buffs: Personally, I see more than just text in the image—there are bits of "blood" that seem to add to the image to the point it is no longer simply BCC written in fancy letters. Given that the file is now in use, I would change my !vote to relicense to nonfree. HouseBlastertalk 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even those bits as stray marks cannot help it attain copyright. It is no different than stray marks on a signature (which also cannot be copyrighted). Think of it this way: if intentional marks on a design in this manner don't help it attain copyright, why would sloppiness help it attain copyright? Buffs (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolly Parton - I Will Always Love You.ogg

[edit]

File:Dolly Parton - I Will Always Love You.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sauloviegas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even with critical commentary (be it one portion of an article or the whole article), I'm still concerned about the de-PRODded sample's ability to help readers understand the song (as a whole). I hear just the chorus/refrain portion, but I think it makes readers more curious about what the full song sounds like and drives readers into seeking a full song. When listeners hears the verses not heard in the sample, they will eventually grasp and realize what the full song is about and what it describes. George Ho (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough sourced critical commentary in the article to justify the sample's inclusion there thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. The nominator even states that there is critical commentary, nullifying this nomination. Aspects (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (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.

July 1[edit]

File:Brigadier-General David Neo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brigadier-General David Neo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SuperWIKI (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The individual is not deceased and fails the non-free rationale. The clause "or where access would for practical purposes be impossible" does not apply here as the individual is a public figure and someone can always take a photo of him. Seloloving (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent nominations[edit]

July 2[edit]

File:Medication injection.jpg[edit]

File:Medication injection.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ikeaj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims that this image is public domain as a work of the United States Geological Survey, but the author is the seemingly unrelated "Studio Michal", and the source is a dead link to a website with no apparent connection to the USGS. Whoever the actual author is, it doesn't appear to be the USGS, meaning we have no actual evidence that this image is public domain. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence to support PD claim, unused. While encyclopedic, if could be replaced and fails NFCC as well. Buffs (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 3[edit]

File:Railway Tie Association Logo.jpg[edit]

File:Railway Tie Association Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Singinginmycar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Pretty sure the tree puts this logo above the threshold of originality. Putting it here for discussion as it is also used outside the article space. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relicense/or... The RTA has been around in that name since 1932. I can find no specific mention in the copyright or trademark offices for "railway tie association", but it is a reasonable guess that the logo predates the cutoff dates necessary to retain copyright. That said, even if it is copyrighted and/or this is a more recent creation, a FUR would be appropriate in the parent article as the identifying logo of the organization. Absent any clarification, the latter is the appropriate option. Buffs (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

File:2022 Maurice Revello Tournament poster.jpg[edit]

File:2022 Maurice Revello Tournament poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pnslotero (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use, as it's not the logo of the event, but is a poster which includes 12 other team logos, all of which are presumably copyrighted. If the tournament had a specific logo, then this should be uploaded and used instead (as a valid fair use), otherwise this should be deleted and not replaced with any other image Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that other seasons of this tournament have similar posters on their articles, but that isn't a valid reason to keep this one- in fact, I believe it's a reason to delete them too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FUR seems to be a good-faith attempt to choose what would be most appropriate. I wouldn't fault them for that. Likewise, you presume that the logos in question are in fact copyrighted, but have provided no evidence. Please keep me apprised if you nominate future posters as I'd like to see where it goes. Buffs (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Logos, along with everything else, should be assumed copyrighted unless it's explicitly clear that they are not. So for each of the 12 team logos, the copyright belongs to the associated football association (e.g. French Football Federation for France), and using the logo on the 2022 Maurice Revello Tournament article is not a valid fair use for that logo. If there were a poster without the copyrighted team logos, then it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The official poster makes sense as a lead image. If a single logo were available, it would be more appropriate. As one does not exist, the official poster for the tournament is as sufficient and appropriate as the movie poster for Top Gun: Maverick as the lead image (just an example, though you could certainly use any movie for a similar example). The fact that certain logos are incorporated is not relevant unless public domain is being asserted (it isn't). Buffs (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a poster for this specific event, and as an item used to advertise the event, it fits the purpose of visual identification for the article about this year's instance of the tournament. I have fixed the copyright tag to identify this as a poster and not a symbol. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It includes copyrighted team logos though, and this article isn't a valid fair use of the team's logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The poster as a whole incorporates these logos as part of the branding for the entire tournament identifying these teams as participants. That does not violate WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barry Mitchell WHITE TEETH GRIN at anchor desk 10-24-2021.jpeg[edit]

File:Barry Mitchell WHITE TEETH GRIN at anchor desk 10-24-2021.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xspace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Asserted to be own work, but this look like a publicity photo. It has appeared as part of a collage of publicity photos. VRT confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio without evidence uploader owns the copyright. Buffs (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

File:Green State Bedroom.jpg[edit]

File:Green State Bedroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Free alternatives have since been made available. File:Holkham Hall 20080717-09.jpg is a fairly good example. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Free alternatives exist and thereby fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No longer being used on wikipedia (replace with free alternative noted above). Kiran_891 (TALK) 11:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbrasunset.JPG[edit]

File:Mumbrasunset.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samiazmi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Poor quality picture; mostly dark and can't explain subject at all. Kiran_891 (TALK) 12:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless context can be provided. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbra sunset.jpg[edit]

File:Mumbra sunset.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samiazmi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Poor quality picture; mostly dark and can't explain subject at all. Kiran_891 (TALK) 12:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless context can be provided. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Wylder.jpg[edit]

File:James Wylder.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KnowledgeMeansEverything (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a non-free photo of a living person and could be replaced with a free image. gobonobo + c 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Replaceable = fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarleton Gillespie CU.jpg[edit]

File:Tarleton Gillespie CU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leobag (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low-res (though not by any means bad) image with no stated source that appears to be a staff profile picture from the subject's employer (Cornell University, the "CU" in the title, presumably). Uploader made three edits ever: uploading this file, adding it to the subject's page, and one other unrelated edit to that page. —⁠Collint c 21:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC: replaceable (in fact, already replaced). Buffs (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

File:Orange Vimto.jpg[edit]

File:Orange Vimto.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J.Spudeman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Design on packaging is above the threshold of originality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not because of TOO. Unused, unencyclopedic, low quality (blurry). The fact that the label is present is de minimis for purposes of this photo. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Origin graphs.png[edit]

File:Origin graphs.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Accountuserid (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Probably doesn't qualify for fair use because Origin (data analysis software) already contains a non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic/unused, fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 7[edit]

File:Pratyush Kumar Vikky.jpg[edit]

File:Pratyush Kumar Vikky.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xavi09422 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned user photo, contributor has not edited in seven years. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep now in use on his user page. I see no reason to delete it even if the contributor is on hiatus. Buffs (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:All Summer Long Beach Boys 28 Sec.ogg[edit]

File:All Summer Long Beach Boys 28 Sec.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by rfc1394 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

All Summer Long (The Beach Boys song) is 126 seconds long, yet the sample is more than ten percent of the song's runtime, even when it is 30 seconds, exceeding the limits of MOS:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC#3b. I don't know which segment in 12.6 seconds can help readers understand the song (as a whole). Also, it's used in both the album and song articles, and I'm worried about the excessive use of the sample. Furthermore, I'm concerned about the sample's potential commercial value, regardless of its quality. Major music websites, like Amazon, hold samples of the song. George Ho (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but trim down the length I recognized the tune immediately. Even the first 4-6 seconds would be sufficient to meet MOS:SAMPLE and NFCC including WP:NFCC#3b. Otherwise, delete it. It fails our criteria. Buffs (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first half or second half of the sample? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trim the last half. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 8[edit]

File:WZTV-DT2 Logo.svg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:WZTV-DT2 Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrschimpf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Speedy delete: Poor quality image. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looked fine on the computer I drafted it on, but something happened during processing. Will try again. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It now appears properly; don't know what Inkscape did on one PC, but it fixed it on the other. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Malik Poster2.jpg[edit]

File:Malik Poster2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David George Antony (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused film poster, no evidence uploader is the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is July 8 2022. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 8 – (new nomination)

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 "===July 8===" 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.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220707222542/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion