XFD backlog V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total CfD 0 0 105 36 141 TfD 0 0 0 0 0 MfD 0 0 0 0 0 FfD 0 0 8 1 9 RfD 0 0 6 7 13 AfD 0 0 0 0 0 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 Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here: Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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] 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: {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale. 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 an OTRS 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. 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}}. 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=2022 March 14}} 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 March 14}} 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 March 14}} 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
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

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]

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

March 2

File:Detroit Wheels Poster.jpg

[edit]

File:Detroit Wheels Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gonzaga15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is stated to be used to " illustrate and uniquely identify this WFL competition and the Detroit Wheels franchise". However, the identification of this franchise is already done in the infobox using File:Wheels Logo.gif, and so fails WP:NFCC#3a. The poster is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and so also fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is used to to convey significant information about the franchise. NFCC#3a states, “Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” The other non-free item in the article infobox (the logo) does not convey equivalent significant information. NFCC#8 states, “Contextual significance. Non-free 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.” This image improves readers’ understanding by informing them of, for example, the design of the team’s uniforms, including style, color scheme and pattern arrangement; television coverage in its market by WKBD channel 50; sponsorship of the team by a major brewery; and equipment construction (helmet, shoes, ball). Therefore, this image does not fail these policy criteria. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff in CA: Team uniform design is replaceable with free images as typically used in all the NFL team pages where the design and patterns are diagrammed in the infobox. Television coverage by WKBD can be expressed with text that is already in the article. Sponsorship by a brewery can be expressed as text. These all fails to meet WP:NFCC#1. As for equipment construction, there is no commentary about the design or construction of their gear that would support the use of this image. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that the other non-free item in the article infobox (the logo) does not convey equivalent significant information. The poster significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.Jeff in CA (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

File:Rflgirls.jpg

[edit]

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

Cover art of Race for Life's take on Girls Just Want to Have Fun insufficiently supported by sourced critical commentary. Version charted in only one country. Not contextually significant to the song originally sung by Cyndi Lauper. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George, perhaps this image signifying a fundraising benefit for medical research and charity has social significance above and beyond the scope of pop culture, regardless of its limited release or performance on the music charts? The creator of the art, sponsors of the project and the uploader evidently all do. An undertaking of a humanitarian nature in the interest of saving lives would surely merit the representation provided by a promotional cover. - JGabbard (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate their fight for the good cause and the front cover's presentation. However, even after I added more info about the single release, I'm unsure why deleting the cover art would affect readers' understanding of the song. I previewed the section without the cover art, and even I think the free text is already substantial to provoke heartfelt reactions about something that has affected everyone for years and to convey the making and release of the version. Furthermore, there are already wikilinks to other related articles, including one about the charity. I searched for any other sources that would've improved the section but came up short. George Ho (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George, you need to take this discussion to the article's talk page to secure support if not consensus for what you propose. You don't get to be judge, jury and executioner on every image you think is unnecessary. I for one believe that Cyndi Lauper would be proud to see this image here. - JGabbard (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why an article talk page? That would lead to a local consensus only to be overridden by wide consensus, wouldn't it? Furthermore, I have reasons to take this file to FFD, which is normally the right venue for NFCC enforcements. This is no exception. No comment on your assumption about Lauper's opinions, but she would be proud to see (text) information about the version there... and the cause. Isn't that enough for her? George Ho (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, many article talk pages I've seen have been hardly visited and hardly active. As I figured, FFD can attract many others. George Ho (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forspoken gameplay.gif

[edit]

File:Forspoken gameplay.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SolarStarSpire (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: Unnecessary use of the non-free animation with 107 frames. Using still images is sufficient to demonstrate the gameplay. As the game is still unreleased, the trailer may not be an accurate representation of the actual gameplay, making it more unnecessary to use this non-free animation. Wcam (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous discussion. The gif is meant to show "focus on terrain traversal speed and fluidity". Speed and fluidity definitely can't be illustrated with a still image. "As the game is still unreleased, the trailer may not be an accurate representation of the actual gameplay" is just a presumption, so not a reason for removal. Neocorelight (Talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg

[edit]

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JG66 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. George Harrison and Bob Dylan rehearsed "If Not for You" before a concert. The text sufficiently explains this, a non-free screenshot of the rehearsal is not justified under policy. ✗plicit 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the uploader. I can't see how this violates WP:NFCC#1 when a free alternative does not exist and certainly can't be created now, because one of the subjects (George Harrison) died 20 years ago.

With regard to WP:NFCC#8, I don't believe the text does sufficiently convey the significance of the rehearsal image. Several commentators cited in the article focus on the visual aspect, which only came to light with the release of the footage in 2005, not just the fact (which obviously could be explained in words alone), and how that aspect reflects the depth of the Harrison–Dylan connection. Jack Whatley of Far Out Magazine refers to subtle glances and body language cues, which can't be conveyed fully in words. David Fricke of Rolling Stone (whose comments I've added just recently) talks about the song becoming a statement on Harrison and Dylan's friendship, given they perform it together with such intimacy.

Less directly, it also supports other themes in the article: "If Not for You" was the most popular song on New Morning and a concert tour was expected to follow up and complete Dylan's creative comeback. He didn't want to return to the stage, as it turned out, but he did make an exception for Harrison and his Concert for Bangladesh project. Another theme, in the section on Harrison's 1970 recording, is how "If Not for You" and other Dylan-associated songs on the All Things Must Pass album ensured Dylan had a felt-but-not-visible "presence" on Harrison's debut album as a solo artist. Dylan's arrival at the Madison Square Garden rehearsal stage is the realisation of that "presence" (and a note in the section where the image appears explains the emotional significance of this moment).

On a more general note, I'm confused how there can be an issue with including the Harrison–Dylan image, given that secondary sources recognise its significance, when I raised images here for discussion that are completely ignored in their relevant articles and they were similarly ignored in terms of engagement from Ffd editors, back in May. (I'm talking about the non-free images that are still used at the top of Break-up of the Beatles and The Beach Boys' 1968 US tour with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) Yes, other stuff exists, but I try to be very mindful about including non-free media (which was the reason for seeking some guidance from outsiders about the other files), and I don't see a problem with this 1971 rehearsal image. JG66 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I appreciate the depiction of Dylan and Harrison performing the song at a live concert. However, I merely see two singers doing the duet. Apparently, to me, the image's purpose would be more about identifying merely Dylan and/or Harrison than displaying what would be considered significant to the song itself and to a specific version. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the image improves understanding of what can be already understood without this image. In other words, presumably, average readers can understand what the "Live performances" section says without the image around. Right? George Ho (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, I think it meets the standard because of the comments of David Fricke and Jack Whatley. The latter writes about "some shared moments and some body language cues", something the reader appreciates more deeply through actually seeing the image. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friedrich Leibacher.jpg

[edit]

File:Friedrich Leibacher.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Months ago the article about the perpetrator was merged into Zug massacre as WP:BIO1E has applied. Some other perpetrator images have been kept per other FFD discussions. However, I don't believe that the image may comply with WP:NFCC#8. The article is about the tragic event, and the event was already tragic enough. I don't see how the image improves the understanding or identifies the event. It identifies the perpetrator, but he is not the main subject of the already-merged article. George Ho (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The perpetrator is arguably one of the core subjects of a mass shooting article, which is in part also his biography. This warrants illustration. Sandstein 07:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's pretty clearly a failure of fair use and adds literally nothing to the readers' understanding. Could be a picture of anyone. Now, a picture of the actual mass shooting would be fine, but not this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The image serves to illustrate the Perpetrator section of the article, of which this individual is ostensibly the main subject. —Legoless (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotus Land Story.jpg

[edit]

File:Lotus Land Story.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kettleonwater (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Lovelight Alstroemeria Records.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kettleonwater (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file corresponds to the promotional cover of the whole Lotus Land Story game, not just the game's Bad Apple!! soundtrack. The file could be useful for illustrating the whole game if it had its own article (which it does not), but it is not suitable for representing Bad Apple!! alone. I am also nominating this file since it features the same concerns as the first one, just that instead of a game, the cover portrays the 2007 Bad Apple!! remix' album. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded these, and these files represent both the cover of the game's soundtrack, and the cover art of the album from which the pop song (which basically is the real focus of the article) is from. They are both low-quality images to satisfy fair use and are used to represent things discussed in the article because they are their cover art, and the article is the sole article that they represent - I personally don't see how these meet WP:FFD deletion criteria. Kettleonwater (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.jpg

[edit]

File:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Teggles (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Final Fantasy concerts and Music of the Final Fantasy series, both broader topics. Displays an orchestra band performing in a specific concert and one of Final Fantasy characters on video screens. May not be contextually significant to comply with WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of these FfDs are for secondary album cover arts that have snuck in to articles covering multiple albums over the years; I disagree with the policy there but it is the consensus and I'm not going to try to overturn it. In this case, however, it's being used to demonstrate the way the concert has an orchestra with lighting and a video screen corresponding to the music, and is the only non-free image in either article. It's a perfectly fine instance of fair use. --PresN 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PresN's rationale. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily fails WP:NFCC#8. Lacks contextual significance and can easily be described by text alone even with sourced critical commentary as outlined by WP:NFC#CS and WP:FREER. ✗plicit 14:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

File:Without-the-Communist-Party-there-would-be-no-New-China-excerpt.wav

[edit]

File:Without-the-Communist-Party-there-would-be-no-New-China-excerpt.wav (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daniel Dacanay (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Audio sample de-PRODded under assumption that a Chinese patriotic song "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China" is harder to understand contextually without the sample and/or the lyrics (which were removed and then hidden from public view). The song has been sung and recorded many times variously; we don't have info emphasizing one version or the other. Furthermore, readers would already know the song as sung in always the Mandarin language and "patriotic" as described. The sample can help readers identify one portion of a recording, but I doubt the sample can help readers contextually connect well with the text and with the song. BTW, the original source is no longer active, so I won't be able to determine whether the sample is too excessive. Speaking of excessive, I thought about arguing against use of wav format, but then as I learned, a NFCC-compliant wav file would be acceptable. George Ho (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it from the nomination that the concern here is NFCC#8. I think the file meets NFCC#8 – for most articles about songs, an excerpt from the song has contextual significance, and in this case the excerpt helps to convey the patriotic style and rhythm of the song. But my concern is NFCC#1. According to commons:Template:PD-China, audiovisual works enter the public domain in China 50 years after publication, so a free equivalent can presumably be created, right? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, the song is still copyrighted. The lyricist has been identified, so the Chinese copyright lasts fifty years after his lifetime. Meanwhile, its US copyright can last until middle of 2030s or 2040s, especially after restoration by URAA. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'd say keep; it meets NFCC#8 per my reasoning above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing by Donny and Marie

[edit]

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing - Donny & Marie Osmond.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing by Donny and Marie Osmond (US single, side A).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

In a prior unrelated FFD discussion, I promised the uploader that I wouldn't nominate any more of the uploads if the result was not "delete", but then the result became "delete" anyways. Now here I am nominating both: the one I previously listed, and reluctantly the other I uploaded. I just wanna compromise if the other uploader is willing as well, but I don't know. He hasn't seemed happy with my past nominations. Well... I'm nominating mine as well, hoping that I'm showing a compromise. I also hope the whole discussion focuses solely on the images I'm listing here, not primarily about either of us, like what I saw (or believe that I saw) at one of FFD discussions (still ongoing to this date), which I won't discuss in detail... yet.

I nominated the German single picture sleeve (discogs, 45cat, ebay?), assuming that any portion of a single release was unneeded (like some other song articles having a bunch of cover arts, like Ain't Nobody), but then the consensus disagreed with me, leading to "keep". I had thought about what the uploader/participant said about the version: charted in the biggest music market in the world, the United States. If that's the case, then I wonder why a portion of the US single release wasn't used. Oh wait, the release wasn't packaged in a picture sleeve, was it? Telling from the sources here (ebay, discogs, 45cat), I guess not, especially when a picture sleeve of the US single hasn't been known to exist.

Nonetheless, per MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, a free image is preferable "whenever possible", be it a sleeve or a label. Speaking of "free", even after the other FFD discussion that led to one non-free image being deleted, regardless of which release a portion belongs to, I couldn't find a suitable free replacement, like a free portion of a release, so now we're left with two non-free images to debate. (BTW, that discussion kinda has affected how I will argue and how I can select a portion of any release from any location in the future.)

If at least one image shall be kept as before, but then if using more than one image exceeds the "minimal number of items", then I have no choice but to choose one of them. Like the uploader said, there's no specific rule on which release should be chosen, unlike WP:VGBOX (which normally prefers an English-language video game cover art). It all comes down to our own interpretations of consensus, "contextual significance", WP:NFC#CS, and MOS:MUSIC.

Preferably, the one I uploaded (the label portion of the US single) a few months ago should be kept to illustrate what was distributed and sold to "the biggest music market in the world, the United States". Indeed, I don't think an average American music customer at that time would afford an expensive imported single, like one from Germany packaged in a picture sleeve. Also, the US label portion should be identifiable to those who bought the release and to those curious about what the US market was like in the pre-CD era. Otherwise, I'd be happy to keep both images I'm listing here. I'm unsure how I would handle the omission of the US label portion well, but... We'll see how this discussion goes. George Ho (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stridently oppose, on the basis that even by the nominator's own acknowledgment, readers find picture sleeves to be of substantially greater popular interest than side labels, regardless of the sleeve's nation of origin. Yet the nominator tendentiously and systematically (and, might I add, tediously) seeks to replace picture sleeves with side labels, generally using the pretense that they are "more free," whether such is actually the case or not. But most of these picture sleeves have remained unmolested on the articles for several years, becoming familiar and even cherished to readers, as opposed to cold, boring, clinical record labels. And just such is the case with this article and image in question. - JGabbard (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, as your first choice, you favor keeping the non-free German sleeve you uploaded and scrapping out the non-free US label I uploaded, right? What about keeping both images of the Osmonds version as the second choice? Well, I still don't know whether someone interested in reading the section about the Osmonds version is more curious about the historical context of the manufacturing and distribution of the single release or more interested in what the Osmonds look like in a sleeve portion. George Ho (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what are your definition and examples "free" besides what's seen in c:COM:TOO US? George Ho (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I certainly do, though the latter proposal is also acceptable. I have no objection to the occasional addition of side labels, and even welcome those that are unique or rare. Just "please" stop continually forcing your fellow editors to have to waste their time wrangling with you over your penchant heretofore to supplant sleeves and replace them with labels. - JGabbard (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a vast source of free images, but it is not an exhaustive source. - JGabbard (talk) 00:59, 20 February 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.

March 7[edit]

File:Otagoflag.gif[edit]

File:Bintou01.jpg[edit]

File:Bintou01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Belovedfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded under assumption that screenshots are acceptable for use in Template:Infobox film. However, the template's documentation has not mentioned specifically any screenshots other than "title card". Neither does WP:FILMPOSTER. Furthermore, the screenshot depicts a woman and a boy reading a book together in the film Bintou. However, the frame can be conveyed in text, and/or the frame itself doesn't contextually represent the branding or marketing of the film. Whether it significantly improves contextual understanding of the film isn't the main issue. The issue is whether omitting the screenshot drastically deprives readers from contextually understanding the whole film. Sadly, as I can assume, the text content can already convey what the whole film is about. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Optillusionsci.jpg[edit]

File:Optillusionsci.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Latitude0116 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Support deletion - orphaned raster image not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. HouseBlaster^talk 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This image is black and orange, the later image is black and white. The shape is also completely different. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radin Mass Community Centre Mural4.png[edit]

File:Radin Mass Community Centre Mural4.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rebekahanthony (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No indication whether there is freedom of panorama for 2D graphics works where this picture was taken. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breidablik helmet v1 1.jpg[edit]

File:Breidablik helmet v1 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dadigu34 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breidablik helmet v1 1.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xylitol to xylitol pentaacetate reaction.png[edit]

File:Xylitol to xylitol pentaacetate reaction.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Herravondure (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The product structure is factually incorrect: it has the carboxyl groups backwards (these are methyl esters of longer carbon chains, not acetate esters of the original alcohols). It's also a typographic problem (subscripting) and should be uploaded to commons once corrected. DMacks (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, there are problems with this chemical diagram. Both chemical structures are missing the relevant stereochemical information. The product of the reaction is drawn incorrectly. The reagent is acetic anhydride, not acetic acid. The inconsistent highlighting of some atom labels with red color is just confusing. I have created File:Xylitol to xylitol pentaacetate reaction.svg as a replacement. Innerstream (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the replacements! DMacks (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

March 8[edit]

File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg[edit]

File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously tagged Di-replaceable fair use disputed:

image can be replaced with the free license image File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg or File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg" -- Nosferattus 12:21, March 7, 2022‎ (UTC)

This photo is per the guideline WP:NFCI#10. The Wiki unseen image is a recent selfpublished monochrome artwork by a netizen, it is not per guideline "close substitute" (or "equivalent" per WP:NFCC policy). The artwork states "Likeness taken from photographs", so let's use a photograph. If I understand Commons' rules correctly, copies made from copyrighted photos is not allowed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I started an article on the artist, Enam Bosokah. I still think the photo should be the WP:LEADIMAGE, but adding the artwork as well is fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to FfD to discuss. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two factors here: 1) Whether the drawing is actually free. A person's likeness is not copyrightable, so if a drawing is made based on many different copyrighted photos, such that it cannot be traced to the original expression of any particular photographer, then there is no copyright violation. 2) Whether the drawing is an adequate substitute. If I draw a stick figure and claim it represents some person, that is obviously not going to work, and it is OK to host a fair use image despite the existence of my free "alternative". In this particular case, however, I think the drawing adequately shows what the subject looks like and so it should be used in place of the fair-use image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Not having access to the artist's inspiration-material (but there's a nice video at [1]), it's hard to argue copyvio. The drawing has clear differences with this photo, this is clear. 2) I don't find it "close substitute"/"equvalent" of the photo so I think the photo should be used. The WP:SPS-ness also bothers me (hiring an artist with WMF-money instead of just using a WP:NFCI photo, it wasn't hard to find one) but that may not be relevant. However however, I think there are WP:s that don't allow fair use at all, and that's a different situation. And of course Commons can be used outside the WMF-projects, so it can be seen as a "gift to the world" kind of thing. For some info on Wiki unseen, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/In the media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Unless there is a specific reason to believe that Bosokah's portrait is a copyright violation, that should not have bearing on the discussion. A quick Google search shows that Bosokah is an experienced portrait artist, not just a random person tracing a photo. Plus the description says that the likeness was taken from photographs (plural). The guidelines for the Wiki Unseen project state that "When you make drawings of a person based on photos, you can take them as inspiration or reference. But you must make sure that your drawing is not: a reproduction (the same image but in a different mean), a derivative work (a new work with many recognizable elements of the original)."[2] So I think we should assume good faith and take the copyright issue off the table. 2) Personally, I agree with King of Hearts that the portrait is an adequate substitute in this case since it faithfully renders the appearance of Marian Ewurama Addy and does so in a neutral and tasteful fashion. The quality of the portrait is in line with (or in some cases better than) similar illustrations used in other Wikipedia articles. If we allow the use of copyrighted photos in cases such as this, I think it undermines our fair use justification. My opinion would be to delete the copyrighted photo and replace it with the portrait. Nosferattus (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at Talk:Asquith Xavier#Request for comment on images in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - However, I am unconvinced that the closely realistic portrait of her accurately depicts her. Also, the colors used to depict her are monotone, but I wonder what the portrait intends to depict her as. Is she supposed to appear motherly, serene, calm, and neutral? The live-action one is more accurate and gives out real, accurate colors especially of her clothes and her hat. Also, it helps readers contextually identify her more than the painting. Also, she looks directly at the camera and shows her necklaces. Unlike the painting, she's not wearing a pearl necklace. Furthermore, she appears (slightly?) feistier than what the painting depicts. George Ho (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The painting is not a suitable replacement, and if these paintings are going to cause issues with the use of fair-use images, then Wikimedia needs to reconsider the program. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject in question is deceased and there are no good free replacement photos that would depict her accurately. Per the other nominees, the painting is not a good suitable replacement for her as the painting is far more abstract than necessary. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beauty and The Beast blu Ray.jpg[edit]

File:Beauty and The Beast blu Ray.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlondeBaller (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Cover of Blu-ray + DVD edition unneeded. There's already theatrical poster. Even when they look different, both a home video cover and a poster convey the same marketing and branding info and intent given to public. Furthermore, the text content already helps readers convey info about home media releases. To put this another way, omitting this Blu-ray/DVD cover still won't affect how the article conveys detailed info about the film and its releases. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per George Ho's rationale. The fact that the series has a home-video release needs no additional image, considering that the artwork is usually different than the theatrical poster anyways. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing cover arts[edit]

File:Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing by Chris Isaak original 1995 single release.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing by Chris Isaak 1999 re-release.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploaded two cover arts just to bring them into discussion. As I know, using more than one cover art for the same purpose is discouraged. However, I'm torn between the two. The original 1995 release charted only in Australia. The 1999 re-release helped the song gain more attention due to being featured in the film Eyes Wide Shut... and probably a music video. The re-release charted better in Australia, but it went so-so (if not modest) in the UK, and it flopped overall in the US (but charted better in adult charts). I'd love to lean toward the 1999 reissue cover but only because it (literally) mentions the song being featured in the film. Apparently, however, neither release was successful more than the other. If there are no other votes on either cover art, then the original 1995 cover art shall be used by default. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't mind keeping both covers as the result. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original cover: I also found this a difficult decision, but the 1999 re-release did chart in three countries as opposed to one for the original. When it comes to successful re-issues, I usually add the re-release cover (e.g. Catch (Kosheen song)), and the original cover for "Fill My Little World" was deleted for similar reasons. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both covers: Even though the single would go on to chart even higher four years later, the original release did at least chart in a major Australian chart. It's not super common in songs. The only other one I can think of is Send Me an Angel, which charted internationally in both 1983 and 1989. Furthermore, it is used to illustrate how the song was presented in both years: a minor single in 1995 vs. a major single in 1999 through its use in the film "Eyes Wide Shut". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dream SMP cast2.png[edit]

File:Dream SMP cast2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SWinxy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sahaib3005 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Dream SMP cast2.png is supposed to be a replacement for File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg but unused since Dream SMP (diff 1075705442). No non-free template. This file is "A derivative work. Skins retrieved from https://namemc.com/.", no idea how official that is, and without deeplinks I don't consider it sufficient as I don't plan on searching that site for a bunch of characters to see if the uploader usernames can be connected to the actual people involved. Meanwhile File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg comes from https://www.etsy.com/listing/864331283/dream-smp-skin-stickers and I suspect Etsy is a garbage source for this. Maybe we can keep one these with a proper source and non-free template. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dream SMP cast2.png is a replacement for File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg. Sahaib removed it because it isn't allowed on commons (see the deletion page), and suggested I make it local. I've forgotten to replace the image on Dream SMP (done now) when I uploaded it here. NameMC is just a database that reflects Mojang's that makes it easier to search. I've updated the file's description so that it's easier to verify which skins belong to who. Also, File:Dream SMP cast2.png should be renamed to File:Dream SMP cast.png if this is the kept image. SWinxy (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palmcentrowikipedia.jpg[edit]

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

Shows non-free home screen. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photoshop ß.jpg[edit]

File:Photoshop ß.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Applemeister (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added image back to Photoshop's early history. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poabackside.jpg[edit]

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

Likely a screen capture due to low resolution and lack of metadata. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polkstreet.jpg[edit]

File:Polkstreet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kida97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is credited to a Justin M. McGrackin, but uploader's user page says her name is Jennifer. Copyright issues aside, the image is of low quality and not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Ixfd64. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palmoscentrowikipedia.jpg[edit]

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

Another unused picture of a screen that shows non-free contents. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 9[edit]

File:Otter pops.jpg[edit]

File:Otter pops.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Glane23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use. For one, the Otter Pops wordmark is fairly simple and does not meet the threshold of originality. The packaging does show copyrighted characters, but those are not essential to the article in my opinion and can either be cropped out or treated as de minimis. If we want to illustrate the freeze pops, then an image without the packaging should be adequate, assuming we have an image of the logo. Furthermore, there is no record of the photo's license, which can no longer be checked as the original photo on Flickr has been made private. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image in my first year as a volunteer after finding it on Flickr using the Flickr Search tool, which is limited to finding free images. It is not a quality image, but the only one I could find at the time, as I was working on a 750+ backlog of image requests for food-related articles as my first project effort on Wikipedia. (I'm a strong believer in illustrations for encyclopedia articles.) In any event, I am not sure how the image fails to qualify as fair use, which label I selected in an abundance of caution as to the trademark and packaging. The best solution would be a better image, of course. By way of example, there is a current free image on Flickr showing a container full of Otter Pops: <https://flickr.com/photos/26560681@N02/6172905340/>. Perhaps that one would work better as a fair use image? But as to the existing image, can you elaborate your concerns? Thanks! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 10[edit]

File:Gujaratis.jpg[edit]

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

4 source files deleted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keunigkaizerviktori.png[edit]

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

Personal photo of non-contributing user. Against WP:IUP. P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genshin Impact logo.svg[edit]

File:Genshin Impact logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Awesome Aasim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo but not suitable for Commons. Neocorelight (Talk) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The file is not suited for Commons, but the cover from Epic Games Store is even worse since it is non-free everywhere. I am going to revert back to use of the SVG logo on the page for this reason. PD-ineligible in the US only is the best we can do since this is a Chinese game. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nom is currently engaged in an edit war concerning this image. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Edit war related. Image itself is fine, but discussion should be at article for which image to use for article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pencil manufacture.png[edit]

File:Pencil manufacture.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. HouseBlaster^talk 15:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FlashCS4proMacX1062.png[edit]

File:FlashCS4proMacX1062.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marcorosas1991 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

File:MithunZLKH.jpg[edit]

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

Violates WP:NFCC#8 which states, "Non-free 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". Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Co-Op Netball Superleague Logo.jpg[edit]

File:Co-Op Netball Superleague Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KnowIG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use, it fails WP:NFC#UUI point 14, as it's a generic logo being used in an article for a specific season of the competition. No valid fair use exists on Wikipedia (as it's no longer the current NSL logo) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vegetagt7.jpg[edit]

File:Vegetagt7.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Narutosonic330 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Description credits the image to an unknown author, so the uploader can't be the copyright holder. The depicted character is also separately copyrighted. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

File:Paddy Power Betfair logo.svg[edit]

File:Paddy Power Betfair logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file not suitable for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAMove.jpg[edit]

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

Unused screenshot of a computer game with no indication of the software's license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13[edit]

File:Vaush2022.png[edit]

File:Jacobolus spectrum.jpg[edit]

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

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

Orphaned, superseded by File:Jacobolus spectrum.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 02:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jrdesktop-mac-vista.png[edit]

File:Jrdesktop-mac-vista.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benbac20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot shows copyrighted elements from macOS. I'm not opposed to cropping the image, but the software shown does not appear to be notable. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cadwell, California Google Maps.png[edit]

File:Cadwell, California Google Maps.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yeetstuff (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file name seems to suggest that this is a screenshot from Google Maps and not the uploader's own work. ✗plicit 04:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14[edit]

File:Italian Colonial Empire.png[edit]

File:Italian Colonial Empire.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VoodooIsland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Support deletion - orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. HouseBlaster^talk 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodycotelogo.PNG[edit]

File:Bodycotelogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dormskirk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by vector version File:Bodycote logo.svg. ✗plicit 00:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg and File:1-ykD13vyoRxi BYM4 pLqLQ.jpeg[edit]

File:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hesperian Nguyen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:1-ykD13vyoRxi BYM4 pLqLQ.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hesperian Nguyen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I understand the motivation to use memes in Irish slaves myth, since it's describing a largely meme-driven phenomenon. However, I still feel that the use of these images fails several of the criteria at WP:NFCCP, namely:

• 3a: Even if we decide to keep one of these, we definitely don't need two. They're both making the same point.
• 4: Not sufficiently proven. One is cited to an article that uses it as an example to criticize this myth (with no attribution on their part besides a Whisper watermark). The other is cited to a broken link that was previously just the top-level domain for a blog. Neither provides any information about the creators or copyright holders. This is doubly a concern for the first one, which is also a derivative work of a presumably non-free image.
• 8: You can easily get the idea of memes like this across by simply quoting or even paraphrasing their text.
• 10a: None of this information is given, just links to other secondary usages by non-copyright-holders.

I will also point out that the first image was edited by the uploader to remove the attribution to Whisper that was present in the source he took it from. I'm not sure if this has fair use implications or not, but it certainly doesn't seem like it helps, and it also created an artifact on the image. I recommend deleting both, but if we do decide to keep one, I would suggest it be the second one. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Mario Odyssey PS4 boxart.JPG[edit]

File:Super Mario Odyssey PS4 boxart.JPG[edit]

File:Super Mario Odyssey PS4 boxart.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rjsb0191 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Also, the previous version(s) of this file are non-free and are no longer being used in articles. Therefore, both the previous and current revisions fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria and have no reason to retain they are given. So, both of them will be deleted on March 19, 2022. But I want to delete it as early as now, since I uploaded a opposite version of the file. Thank you. Rjsb0191 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is March 14 2022. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 14 – (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 "===March 14===" 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.