Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 0 9 9
TfD 0 0 0 10 10
MfD 0 0 1 1 2
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 51 51
AfD 0 0 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]

  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 a VRT 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=2024 March 28}} 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 March 28}} 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 March 28}} 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:

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 20

File:Nicosia Neighbourhoods.png

[edit]

File:Nicosia Neighbourhoods.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tom1955 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is unclear on what grounds the base map is assumed to be out of copyright. Cypriot copyright terms apparently ended 50 years pma at URAA restoration date, and 50 years post-publication if published anonymously, but I don't see enough in this snippet to determine that this has been published anonymously in Cyprus before 1946. As the map could be redrawn by anyone, I think non-free use will be hard to justify. Felix QW (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: With the copyright status of this image being as dubious and difficult to confirm as it is, I don't think the image can be kept, and certainly not under its' current free license. That said, even if the copyright status of the image in question was known with complete certainty, I concur with the nominator that it most likely would not pass WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability), as the map could be redrawn by a willing individual, and released under a free license. FHSIG13 TALK 03:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a copy of the map and the front cover of book it came with at:https://www.etsy.com/in-en/listing/1296533078/cyprus-nicosia-visitors-street-guide.
I have taken screen dumps which I could post or load somewhere for the purpose of this discussion. I also have a copy of the book, although I am not sure where it is at the moment, as I scanned part of the map about 11 years ago when this article was loaded. The current web site says:
"Nicosia visitors street guide around 1940 with folded map inside". The front cover says title: Guide to Nicosia, published by M.L. Efthyvoulos, printed at Cosmos Press, Nicosia.
The map shows the "English School" which was replaced at this site by Wolsey Barracks before 1940 and also the municipality building is at its old site only, not on the bastion next to Metaxas Square (now Eleftheria Sq); also Metaxas Square is not shown at all. On another map dated 1952 in Keshishian's Romantic Cyprus 7th edition, all of these changes are shown.
Also, you will notice that the file Nicosia_Neighbourhoods.png covers only a small part of the map in the guide book and merely uses it has a base to place the coloured administrative divisions, which are defined in other works. The layout of the divisions and the codes to link it to the Wikipedia text are the purpose of the file and no information is abstracted from the Guide or its inserted map.
Please let me know if I should post this information elsewhere for the discussion Tom1955 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your input! Your research should indeed confirm that publication was before 1946. The remaining issue now is that copyright terms in Cyprus are determined by the date of death of the author, as long as the name of the author is at all known. So I wonder whether the title can be read as crediting M.L. Efthyvoulos with the map, or whether there is any other indication in the booklet or on the map (perhaps on the back) of who drew it. If the answer to both questions were "no", then it would indeed have been out of copyright in Cyprus in 1996 and we could keep the image! Felix QW (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW I would think that, as author of the book, M.L. Efthyvoulos would also be credited as author of the map, by the transitive property. That said, unless @Tom1955 or another user is able to locate and provide information contradictory to the former (I have not been able to so far), before this discussion passes into WP:FFDO, I think that we'll have to assume the map is still under copyright and that therefore the image in question will have to be deleted on the grounds that it is replaceable by way of a redrawing. FHSIG13 TALK 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

File:JamesMayAutocar.jpg

[edit]

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

Whilst there is text in the article about the incident to which this image pertains, the addition of this image does not significantly enhance reader's understanding of the incident anymore than the text explanation of what it spelt out. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But for me it greatly enhances understanding of the incident. Taivorist (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After reading the article, I agree with @Taivorist that having the image showing how the letters of the hidden message were laid out in the articles of the magazine does enhance the reader's understanding of subject, and so in my opinion it does not fail WP:NFCC#8. --Fhsig13 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, keep. None of the articles are actually readable minus the big letters, and seems to enhance understanding of the article by making the message clear. Maybe the cover bit to the left should be cropped further, but the right side of the image (the important part) is good IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the article already explains how James May did this, I don't personally believe that this visual representation of this adds any significant understanding of the subject matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But for me it enhances understanding. I did not understand without image, that all big letters were situated on separate pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were situated always on the same position on different pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were so big, when compared with normal text, and they had another color. Taivorist (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 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 06:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The information about what he did is adequately described with text. The entirety of this represents one sentence in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep readers would be very confused without this image in the article. Certainly I wouldn't be able to imagine this with just the text alone. Mach61 04:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it's a really cool image and I'm sure readers would be confused without it iff it actually was discussed in-depth in the text of the article with sourced critical commentary. Perhaps you'd like to be the one who makes these improvements to the article? :) -Fastily 03:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily Upon reviewing the article, it would seem the that entire "Dismissal from Autocar" section consists of what is now three paragraphs worth sourced critical commentary connected to the image, which I have also just added to. The section describes why and how the hidden message was created and laid out (as well as can be done with text at least, hence the need for the image), and I have also just added a blurb on how the message was detected, leading to Mays' termination. That said, and with all due respect, I am not sure what more can be added in terms of commentary related to the image itself, and moreover, I feel that what is present should suffice to make this use of the image in question compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Please accept my apologies, however, if I am mistaken in that regard. FHSIG13 TALK 06:48, 24 March 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.

March 21[edit]

File:Jaipur Enamelers.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 15:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not sure that the uploader (who has not been active for almost 10 years) really intends to claim they are the original author of this 1965 work, which will still be copyrighted in the US at least until 2060. Felix QW (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A brief Google search revealed that the image in question was quite possibly lifted from the one here, where it is under copyright, so the uploaders' claim of "own work" is dubious at best. FHSIG13 TALK 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your find! The source you discovered actually indicates that the image is from 1886 and that the last author died in 1917. It is therefore in the public domain in both the US and the UK. I uploaded a high-resolution copy to Commons at File:Jeypore Enamels Plate 1.jpg, so I believe this image can still be deleted. If a copy without the caption is required, it could easily be cropped from the new Commons version. Felix QW (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW Thank you very much for your additional research! Based on what you uncovered from the source I provided, as well as your Commons upload, I concur that the image in question can now be speedy deleted as F8. FHSIG13 TALK 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Palladiusrudenko.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 15:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This orphaned file seems to be (based on) a portrait of this subject, who died only in 1971. It is at least plausible that this image was first published in the Ukraine, and as Ukrainian copyright terms were 50 years at the URAA restoration date in 1996, it seems unlikely that this image is now PD in the US. Felix QW (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was an altered portrait from a photograph to adhere to fair use standards, but I don't understand your logic: 1971 was 53 years ago, and he was quite alive when it was taken. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! Do you have a specific source for the original photograph, or any further information about it? The issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation has its servers in the US, and that US copyright is 95 years from publication. The only exception is that US copyright is not restored for foreign-published material that happened to be in the public domain in the source country in 1996. WP:Non-US copyrights has more information about all of this. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A Google Lens search revealed that the image in question may have been lifted from the one here, where along with the entire contents of the site, it has been under copyright since 1951. The aforementioned site is also the only previous publication of a similar image online, so I'm not sure that the Public Domain claim will hold. FHSIG13 TALK 23:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Robin - Ilosaarirock 2015 12.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 14:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robin - Ilosaarirock 2015 12.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Teevee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is irrelevant because the subject isn't mentioned in the page itself MillieRoberts03 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palmer Preparatory School Campus, circa !973.jpg[edit]

File:Palmer Preparatory School Campus, circa !973.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikepena (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder, that the copyright holder released this image into the public domain or that this image has ben published before 1979 without a copyright notice. It may be eligible for non-free use as a historic image, though. Felix QW (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg[edit]

File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anachronist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally nominated this for F7 under "replaceable fair use"; however it got disputed by the original uploader. My original rationale was Can be described using almost exclusively text., the reason for the dispute was The rationale "Can be described using almost exclusively text" is true for almost any non-free image on Wikipedia, and isn't a valid rationale. It is one thing to simply claim that CNN broadcasted the term "shithole countries" but it would be impossible to cite a verifiable source. The image accomplishes the verifiability requirement of any statement we make on Wikipedia about the topic, in a way that "exclusively in text" fails to do. I searched for a long time and could not find a free version of any image of a news service reporting this. Therefore, there is no suitable visual replacement for something that demonstrate's CNN's or any other news service's use of this phrase.. As gold as this image is in showing that cable news is not subject to FCC regulations, only OTA TV is; I am failing to see how this cannot be conveyed in text. I'd support editing to remove all but the headline then the image might be usable on Wikipedia with c:De minimis or c:Threshold of originality elements; and, failing that, deletion. Awesome Aasim 19:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. As the uploader, I must say that the nominator's rationale strikes me as grasping for straws. The content of any image can be conveyed in text, depending on the image and how much text you're willing to use to convey it. The image in question is a valid and valuable demonstration of a key point made in the text, and as such, there is no free replacement image. The nominator's rationale could apply to any fair-use TV frame-capture on Wikipedia. We even have a Template:Non-free television screenshot exactly for the purpose I uploaded this (quoting directly from the template): "for identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contents" it "qualifies as fair use." What more needs to be said? Are we going to delete that template as being unusable now? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO CNN programming might be more useful in an article about CNN than an article about Seven dirty words. The image is a really good find. I am merely disagreeing that its use in Seven dirty words aligns with WP:NFCC. Awesome Aasim 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awesome Aasim: I didn't "find" the image, I took the picture myself. It was on a display monitor in our company cafeteria, and when this appeared in the CNN broadcast, it instigated immediate discussion among coworkers in the cafeteria, with comments like "wow, can they do that?" until someone pointed out that CNN doesn't broadcast over the air. So I took the picture, thinking it might be interesting to use on Wikipedia, because nobody could remember something like this ever being shown on a news channel, even a cable news channel. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While I definitely don't think F7 applies here as there is definitely no free equivalent to be had or created, and while I also think that the arguments surrounding image content being conveyable by text alone are superseded by the existence of a fair-use template for non-free screen captures of television programs being used to provide the aforementioned critical commentary on the program and its' contents, I don't see enough of that sourced critical commentary in the article, to support this image being kept. FHSIG13 TALK 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the image is illustrating non-broadcast stations not being subject to FCC obscenity guidelines. That can be done in words and doe snot need this non-free image to illustrate it. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Additonally, the image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary so fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NFCC: there is no prose in this article requiring this NFC to be understood (#8), and since its purpose is seemingly to say "CNN once said 'shithole countries'", replace with that exact text and a citation (#1). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

March 22[edit]

File:EdwardConradiStatue.jpg[edit]

File:EdwardConradiStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:SandyD'AlemberteStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:DAlemberteWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SandalsObelisk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SeminoleFamilyStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Sodcemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SportsmanshipStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WerkmeisterWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:BobbyBowdenWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These are all images of statues and stained glass windowpane art, and cemetery (non-building) architecture from a list article, however there is no FOP for statues or 3D displayed artworks in the US. These images also cannot likely be kept as non-free either, as that would likely violate WP:NFLISTS, due to a lack of sourced critical commentary related to the images. Lastly, the cemetery image is now redundant to a better version on Commons, so it need not be kept either. FHSIG13 TALK 07:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all nominated images apart from File:Sodcemetery.jpg should be deleted as freedom of panorama violations if they cannot be relicensed as non-free content. What exactly is the copyrightable element claimed in File:Sodcemetery.jpg though? Landmarks and monuments of Florida State University claims that the cemetery dates from 1937, which would render elements without a copyright notice public domain. Felix QW (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: It should also be noted that the uploader has a history of copyright violations. Given the lack of metadata and small file sizes, I am also doubtful that these photos are the uploader's "own work" as claimed. Any photos of non-2D artworks should be retaken if we are to use them in articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Felix QW Thank you for clarifying that File:Sodcemetery.jpg does not violate FOP, as I was originally unsure of that, which is why I decided nominate that image as well. As for @Ixfd64's concerns about Mgreasons' claim of "own work", a Google Lens search confirmed that the image in question has not previously been published anywhere else online, so I'm not sure if there is grounds for deletion of this specific image on that basis, despite the uploaders' past transgressions. In consideration of both preceding points, I have struck the cemetery image from the nomination. FHSIG13 TALK 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel dubious about the remaining Sod cemetery image, we also have this one from Commons. Felix QW (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW Thanks, that's a good find! That Commons image is better than the existing one for sure, and as such I am re-nominating File:Sodcemetery.jpg for deletion on that basis. FHSIG13 TALK 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TATA IPL Auction 2024 Logo.jpg[edit]

File:TATA IPL Auction 2024 Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vestrian24Bio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid fair use on List of 2024 Indian Premier League personnel changes, as that is not a specific article on the auction itself, and so is not the logo of the article as claimed. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8 too. Note that this article was previously using File:Tata ipl auction 2024.jpg which is also at FFD for the same reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Article mostly includes information about the Auction, Pre-auction stats (e.g: retained players) and Post-auction changes (e.g: withdrawn players). And the Infobox is titled as 2024 Indian Premier League Auction, which is what the logo is also about. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is a list of which only a part is about the auction. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per @Whpq, the image is not related to the entirety of the articles' subject, and so it fails WP:NFCC#8. FHSIG13 TALK 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amarantine (Special Christmas Edition).jpg[edit]

File:Amarantine (Special Christmas Edition).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hzpjxewy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an alternate cover for the album. It is a Christmas edition which is substantially similar to the standard cover but with a different colour background and sparkles added. Fails WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, the image fails both of the above-named WP:NFCCP criteria, due to the presence of the standard album cover, as well as a lack of sourced critical commentary relating to the image in question. FHSIG13 TALK 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23[edit]

File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png[edit]

File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crickdreamer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Generic logo being used in a specific season article, in violation of WP:GETTY point 14, and also failing WP:NFCC#8. Nothing in this logo demonstrates it's a logo specific to the 2023 season e.g. it doesn't have 2023 mentioned anywhere Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is a generic logo for the tournament itself, and as such is not representative of the season for which it is being employed to identify. FHSIG13 TALK 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the PLGA.svg[edit]

File:Flag of the PLGA.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thespoondragon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As stated in the source info, this is a vectorization of a raster image which is not from the organization itself. We do not allow non-free SVGs generated in this manner due to the infinite resolution of SVGs. Masem (t) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, the improper formatting of the image in question causes it to fail WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use). FHSIG13 TALK 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 24[edit]

File:Borderline (music video) B&W.jpg[edit]

File:Borderline (music video) B&W.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No need to have two screenshots to illustrate B&W/greyscale and color scenes, honestly. The free text would already suffice to educate readers about the subject of discussion. Furthermore, I'm hesitant to consider the pair of screenshots contextually signficiant to the whole song, the whole recording, and the whole music video. I'm hesitant to also consider the omission of the pair detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: After reviewing the article, there is definitely not enough sourced critical commentary connected to the image for it to pass WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Additionally, I question whether or not the fact that the image consists of two screenshots should also constitute a violation of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal usage). FHSIG13 TALK 06:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:In This Life (audio sample).mp3[edit]

File:In This Life (audio sample).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample/Portion not improvement to contextually understanding the whole album. Also, doubt that free text isn't enough; actually, free text suffices. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, this file fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) as it is a sample from a specific song which is not representative of the entirety of the album it is being used to describe, and while text alone can convey an equivalent, if not better description. Additionally, the file likely fails WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as there is no fair-use rationale present, as well as some other necessary information is missing. FHSIG13 TALK 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Why's It So Hard (audio sample).mp3[edit]

File:Why's It So Hard (audio sample).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample/Portion not improvement to contextually understanding the whole album. Also, doubt that free text isn't enough; actually, free text suffices. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Like the above file from the same article (and per nom), this file also fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) as it is a sample from a specific song which is not representative of the entirety of the album it is being used to describe, and while text alone can convey an equivalent, if not better description. Additionally, the file likely fails WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as there is no fair-use rationale present, as well as some other necessary information is missing. FHSIG13 TALK 22:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

File:Dont You Want Me.ogg[edit]

File:Dont You Want Me.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andi064 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even after being de-PRODDed, I still have concerns about the sample's ability to improve readers' understanding of the whole song. I still have to wait until the last seven to eight seconds to hear two lines of the first verse. Furthermore, the assumption that free text isn't sufficient may originate from mistrust toward the "free content" principles. To put another way, hearing the sample, I couldn't find any content from the sample that would be harder to summarize and understand in text. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I am honestly not sure how the user that de-PRODDed this file concluded that the sample in question passes WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) or WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). From what I see, there is one short, sourced paragraph referring to the song's instrumentals, however even then it talks more about prior instrumentals that were removed than it does about the final released track, and just a sentence or two about the lyrics. I concur with the nominator that this sample does not serve to enhance the reader's understanding of the song, and certainly not in any way that text alone could not. FHSIG13 TALK 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg[edit]

File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even after de-PRODding and shortening the sample length, I'm still unconvinced that any portion/sample of the whole recording is necessary. Re-hearing the sample, I couldn't detect a content that is hard to summarize or describe in free text. Furthermore, I'm not confident that omitting the portion(s) is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. In other words, not contextually significant, regardless of (familiarity of) the genre and the band. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with the nominator, in that there is definitely not enough sourced, critical commentary referring to the sample, in the article. I also agree that text alone could convey enough about the song to enhance the reader's understanding of it as much as the sample could, if not more. As such, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), and once again I can't wrap my head around how the user that de-PRODded the file (also the same user that de-PRODded the file concerned in the previous discussion) came to the opposite conclusion. FHSIG13 TALK 05:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg[edit]

File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mardochaios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even after de-PRODding, I'm still unconvinced that the sample is necessary (to understand the whole hit song), which would've put free text in shame. Furthermore, it's all music by instruments; no lyrics (yet). In other words, neither contextually significant nor proven that omission of the sample is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As with the two discussions above this one, the same user is responsible for de-PRODding the file in question and for the third time in a row, I can't seem to figure out why they did it. The article this file is used in lacks sufficient sourced, critical commentary to support the use of this file, and even if such were commentary were present, the text alone would probably still enhance the reader's understanding of the song just as much as the sample does, if not more since the songs vocals are not present in sample. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). FHSIG13 TALK 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg[edit]

File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hiplibrarianship (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image illustrates a point in the cultural references section which is all of one sentence. The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the episode. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, the image is completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the entire episode it is being used to describe, and certainly not in a greater capacity than what text alone could convey. Fails the above-named WP:NFCCP criterion, as well as WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text). FHSIG13 TALK 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Originally uploaded per the redirect to this article, in place since 2013. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Whether the text can summarize what the screenshot shows isn't my main concern. The image doesn't improve readers' understanding of the whole episode, unfortunately. Such omission wouldn't affect how and what free text already educates about the whole episode, anyways. —George Ho (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 26[edit]

File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg[edit]

File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dellwood546 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This bridge collapsed in the middle of a major metropolitan area, someone could go out right now and take a free image of the aftermath, so this particular screenshot is not irreplaceable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fair use claim is invalid. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Keep and move to Commons per below. --Bedivere (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, free images likely to come within hours Personisinsterest (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CCTV footage, public domain due to no human input/author. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is CCTV? If that's true, I would say to reupload as a free file. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StreamTime LIVE uses PTZ cameras, and they actively point and zoom them at various targets, mostly to follow ships going in and out of the port. These aren't fixed CCTV cameras. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, however it is still from a general 24/7 livesstream of the bridge. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are claiming that they own the copyright: DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has absolutely not been legally established within the United States. In some countries, maybe. In the US, there is no such clear legal precedent. We need to err on the side of caution. The original source itself [1] claims that their videos are copyrighted. -- Veggies (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/upload full resolution/move to commons - CCTV or 24/7 webcam footage does not contain any original authorship which could be protected by copyright, see c:Template:PD-automated. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow c:Template:PD-automated only applies to images from "a completely automated system", so this image would not qualify since it is from a camera remotely steered by humans. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's highly unlikely that someone manually steered the camera to the bridge the moment before the impact, and even if someone did: Copyright claims by that person on the footage would be absurd. They don't own the camera, they didn't install the camera, they probably could not have expected the accident -> clicking a button to move a webcam is not "original authorship" IMO. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cameras are controlled by StreamTime LIVE, who also own and installed the cameras. They're not controlled by random people on the Internet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the automated CCTV justification above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the automated CCTV justification above. Additionally, the image is irreplaceable as it shows the collapse as it happened, not the aftermath. There are very few photos of the event as it had occurred. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a Commons upload of the CCTV video linked in the {{External media}} template in the body, similar to what was done at 2020 Nashville bombing. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the video to Commons as File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm and added it to the article. — Goszei (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CCTV_video_of_Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse.webm --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 17:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/reupload as Commons file as per the automated CCTV discussion above. Also agree with Dellwood that this image of the bridge is irreplaceable and there is likely no comparable image PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This YouTube video seems to be the same as the one from the screencap, although it seems much more blue rather than the yellowish tint in the screencap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULzspJZuf8 -- Note the description: "The StreamTime LIVE camera captured the collapse. ... DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION." So... can we really just reupload the entire CCTV stream as a commons file under fair use? --Corporal (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an example of copyfraud. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The principle of copyright-free CCTV videos has never been legally established within the United States. The original source, StreamTime Live, explicitly says that Duplication or distribution of our videos is strictly prohibited without permission. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. [2] I strongly urge that admins err on the side of caution here. -- Veggies (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I concur with @Veggies, in that the image was taken from a source claiming copyright ownership and where no legal precedent exists in US copyright law to allow for re-licensing as Public Domain. By virtue of these two factors, the file in question more than likely meets criterion WP:F9 for WP:SPEEDY, as this seems to be a clear-cut case of an unambiguous copyright violation by the uploader. Secondly, (and thanks to @Goszei for doing this), this file is now redundant to a similar Commons upload, so it more than likely meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY as well. Lastly (and this only applies if the file is somehow proven not to qualify for speedy deletion), I also concur with the nominator that the file in question cannot be kept by virtue of fair-use, as the possibility that the collapsed bridge could still be photographed (and the existence of free media which depicts that) would cause it to fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). FHSIG13 TALK 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

File:Mayor's Office Festivals Billboard.jpg[edit]

File:Mayor's Office Festivals Billboard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D graphic works, whether displayed temporarily or permanently. plicit 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The image in question cannot be kept as free media due to the copyright issues cited by the nominator, nor should it be kept and relicensed as non-free, since I don't believe that it would meet the requirements for {{Non-free 2D art}}. Additionally, after reviewing current uses of the image in question, it would more than likely fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), in all five articles in which it is present. FHSIG13 TALK 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png[edit]

File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iljhgtn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Two problems. Firstly, I cannot spot any "cover art" that would prevent us from uploading such a photo to Commons. Hence, it's not a fair use image. Secondly, and more importantly, this photo is under copyright as the website it's taken from does not publish its content under a free license. Schwede66 06:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: Firstly, the image in question does appear to depict the covers of the books, so the license template used on the description page is valid, as far as I can tell. Secondly, if the image is copyrighted then fair-use is the only avenue through which it can be used on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the image appears to pass all 10 WP:NFCCP criteria, so I don't see any issue with maintaining the status quo here. As such, I am recommending WP:SK, per Applicability point 3 (erroneous nomination). FHSIG13 TALK 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all of the points made just above by Fhsig13. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

File:RCA Studio II Logo.png[edit]

File:RCA Studio II Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Talkkaris (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An svg of the RCA Records logo is in the public domain for not meeting the threshold of originality. Since the Studio II logo consists only of the same Records logo with two generic fonts, would it meet the TOO as well? Carlinal (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relicense and Move to Commons: I believe that the nominator is correct, in that as the image in question consists of simple text in two fonts, one of which has already been proven to be below the threshold of originality, the image in question is below that threshold as well. As such, I recommend relicensing the image as {{PD-textlogo}}, then moving it to Commons. FHSIG13 TALK 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is March 28 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 28 – (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 28===" 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.