Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:FFD

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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.

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

Examples of what you may request 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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
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 labelled given evidence presented on the file description page.

What not to list here[edit]

For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
6. {{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.
1. 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}}.
2. For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2; use {{db-nofile}}.
3. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
4. Any other deletion of a description page with no local file 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

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2015 November 24}}` 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. Also, add {{subst:ffd\|File:Name of the first file nominated}} 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:fdw\|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:fdw-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=2015 November 24}}` 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.
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 (often abbreviated OB)
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}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
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). (often abbreviated UE)
Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)
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.

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

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

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:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 1 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 2 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 7 - 18 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 8 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10 - 14 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11 - 15 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 12 - 7 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13 - 48 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 14 - 17 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 15 - 19 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16 - 30 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 17 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

Recent nominations[edit]

November 18[edit]

File:Trdkjlujd.jpg[edit]

Unused, No context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Tilari Project.jpeg[edit]

Seeemingly unused, No context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mohammad Nuruzzaman.jpeg[edit]

Orphaned, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 11:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:More global precedence joy.jpg[edit]

Orphaned, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 11:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Morsheda Choudhury.Hasanuzzaman Shemul.jpg[edit]

Orphaned, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:MOTOTAXIS-.jpg[edit]

Unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of RFCCM.png[edit]

Unused, No context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:RFCCM.png[edit]

Unused, No Context Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:RCCG.png[edit]

Unused, No Context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of RCCB.png[edit]

Unused, No Context Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:RCCB.png[edit]

Unused, No Context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Vadamattam.jpeg[edit]

Unused, Minimal Context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Foto tipo passe.jpg[edit]

Unused, profile photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

File:Arms-bark-dag.jpg[edit]

File was uploaded as non-free and it has non-free use rationales for the three articles where it being used, but not sure if this satisfies WP:NFCC#1. My understanding is that the heraldic elements in a typical coat of arms are considered to be capable of being recreated as a free equivalent to serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose. Looking through the old WP:NFCR archives seems to show that the consensus has always been that non-free COAs generally fail NFCC#1. If this is really the case, then all of the COAs used being used in the stand-alone articles for London's boroughs (SeeList of London boroughs#List of boroughs and local authorities) would also fail NFCC#1 and should be removed, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I notified the uploader per template instructions, but did not realize until after I posted that they died in 2010. I removed the notification template out of respect since their user talk seems to be being used as a memorial to them, but it's possible they may have also uploaded other similar files for the other boroughs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This low-resolution copy of the municipal coat of arms is being used for a very limited purpose in each article and is the best way to serve the purpose as used in each article. I don't know of any free images that would serve the purpose as used. It is certainly not interfering with anyone's commercial rights regarding the coat of arms. I am not even convinced that the image isn't free of copyright. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just for reference, the name at the top of this page should be "Files for Discussion", not "File for Deletion". WP:NFCR was merged into FFD a few weeks back and there are still some kinks being worked out with template links, etc. I am not nominating the image for deletion per se, I am only discussing whether it qualifies as non-free per WP:NFCC#1. What matters with respect to NFCC#1 is not whether we know of any free images which exist which would serve the same purpose, but rather whether such a free equivalent could be created. That is what I'm requesting clarification about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC); [Post Edited by Marchjuly to strikeout comment about NFCR merge and link problem because post was moved to proper page by another editor - 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)]

File:Musical canine freestyle.jpg[edit]

Unused file, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:MUSTARD.gif[edit]

Unused graph. Kelly ^hi! 16:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Gerrish-documents-500.jpg[edit]

Probably no encyclopedic use. Only used on old userpage. Kelly ^hi! 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Swann - Turner.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#3 and #8, there is a better image of the character in the infobox and no valid reason has been given for having two images. January (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Neurolysis, earlier.jpg[edit]

Personal photo of long-absent user. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

File:Peace for Paris fairuse 99px.jpg[edit]

Non-free image being used in Jean Jullien and Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Image has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but these are very basic rationales which are not really sufficient enough for WP:NFCC#10c or WP:NFCC#8. The image seems OK ~~at first~~ for "Jean Jullien" since he is the designer and the image is discussed in a bit of detail.; The problem, however, is that the I don't think Jullian is notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:BLP1E, and that the article is a likely candidate for an eventual merge or redirect into "Reactions to November 2015 Paris attacks". I think a better nfur is needed for the "Paris" article ~~and that the image should be removed from "Jean Jullian"~~. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments about notability of Jullian per the comments below. -- 08:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)]

It is a bit hard as a not-native speaker and totally new to the "fair use" uload to fully understand these issues. This request sounds to me like a deletion request for the article, not for the image? I regard this image a benefit for the articles, no matter if it will be used in one or more related lemmas. And am in contact with Jean Jullien an his agent who support this "fair use" (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for paris 2015.jpg). But if "we"(WP) don't want it let's kick it out and dont waste too much time on it, do we? --.js (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC) PS. what does nfur stand for?

I have improved the NFURs (non-free use rationales), Marchjuly. I agree with .js in that this is not the place to discuss the notability of the article on Jean Jullien and it has no relevance to the non-free use issues here. Given that we presently have an article on Jean Jullien, do you think the rationale holds? What about the rationale for November 2015 Paris attacks? I'm willing to improve them if you spot any problems still. Cheers, Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering that this image is specifically discussed in both articles it's used in, I'd say it meets WP:NFCC#8 in both articles. NFCC#10 wise the rationales need to point out that the whole size, not just a portion, are used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is cropped a bit, the original paper/photograph is exactly square 960x960 and has more (unpainted) paper frame around it, so I don't know if this still counts as whole size or cropped? --.js (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I was just trying to say that if the image was to be removed from one of the two articles that it would be best to do it from the Jullian article since that one seems ,IMO, to be a likely candidate for a merge or redirect. It sort of reminded me of the discussion for Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Gabon FA.png so I thought it was something worth pointing out. It wasn't my intention to turn this FFD into a AfD discussion about the Jullian article, so sorry if it came off as such. I think the nfurs are much better than before, so I think each usage is OK per NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FFD is not for discussing whether Jean Jullien is notable or not. If there is a dispute about the article's notability, then AFD is a better place to discuss this. This discussion should only concern the inclusion of the file, not the deletion or merging of any articles. There is some discussion about the picture in both articles, so it may be suitable for both of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

November 21[edit]

File:Rajaumarhassan.jpg[edit]

Clearly watermarked image suggesting a studio image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Rais Neza Boneza.jpeg[edit]

This seems to be an unused profile photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Makin' It (TV series)[edit]

I am now using the promo ad and the opening title images in the article just for discussion. Shall we keep the ad or the opening title? George Ho (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:What's the use of going through with the Election.JPG[edit]

File is being used in two articles: United States presidential election, 1948 and Emma Smith Kennedy. Usage appears WP:NFCC OK for the election article, but clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 for Emma Kennedy Smith. There's no critical discussion of the image itself within the article and it is definitely not needed "To demonstrate the significance of a prediction by Emma Smith Kennedy that Truman would win" when the same thing could be done and is done by the wikilink to aforementioned "United States presidential election, 1948". The image is certainly more relevant to the cartoonist Clifford K. Berryman, if the caption for the image in the Kennedy article is true, but it's not being used there. Image has no direct connection to Emma Smith Kennedy and the indirect association implied by using the image is WP:OR. Usage is purely decorative and it should be removed from the Kennedy article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the article Clifford K. Berryman, the artist worked for The Washington Star. Is this where the picture was first published? According to this page, no issues of The Washington Star were renewed, so pictures from that newspaper should normally be in the public domain if published before 1964 per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The page contains a warning: 'contributions renewed at least as far back as Sep. 23, 1923'. Therefore, some contributions to the newspaper were renewed, and even if we can show that this was first published in The Washington Star, we'd need to check if this is one of those contributions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. So, if it's "PD-US-not-renewed", then no problem with using it in "Emma Smith Kennedy". If it's non-free, then remove it from the Kennedy article. Is that about the gist of it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Ainu People.gif[edit]

Would this non-free flag image satisfy {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-USonly}} or something similar. It was being used in Ethnic flag, but I removed it per WP:NFG. If it's OK as public domain, then it could be re-added since WP:NFCC would no longer be applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The artwork on the flag seems too complex for PD-ineligble in USA. It could maybe be ineligible for copyright as a 'utilitarian object' in the source country. Japanese courts seem to slap {{PD-useful-object}} on some things which are considered to be non-utilitarian in the United States. That said, it would still be unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so it's not PD. Can a valid non-free rationale for it be written for Ethnic flag? It wasn't being discussed at all in the article; It was just displayed in the gallery Ethnic flag#East Asia with the caption "Ainu people[27] (Hokkaidō, Kuril Islands and Sakhalin)" and this cited as a source. There may be a way to incorporate it into "Ainu people", but I'm not sure how to best do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  - Ethnic flag is essentially a gallery of flags. I can't see any room for non-free flags in that article per WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    - I tend to agree with your assessment. Removing the flag will make it an orphan and this will eventually lead to its deletion per WP:F5 if it does not find another home. Do you think there's a way to write a valid non-free use rationale for "Ainu people"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg[edit]

Could this be licensed as public domain as {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-USonly}} or something similar. It's currently being used in a number of different article and has rationales for each. I removed it from Flag of Australia per WP:NFG, but wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg; The usage in Indigenous Australians, however, still seems problematic and was not resolved in that NFCR discussion. If this can be changed to public domain, then WP:NFCC would no longer be of any concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

File:Saf Patch.jpg[edit]

Non-free image used in Special Action Force. File has a non-free use rationale, but fails WP:NFCC#1 since it is essentially the same as the freely licensed File:Special Action Force Seal.svg used in the same article. Moreover, a non-free equivalent could be created using the freely licensed File:SAF Badge.png which is also used in the same article. There's no need for a non-free file when two freely licensed files exist which provide the same encyclopedic information, so the non-free version should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of The President Of The Philippines 1948-1981.png[edit]

Non-free files whose only usage is in Flag of the President of the Philippines# Historical Uses. Usage in gallery problematic per WP:NFG, but removing the files makes them orphans which means that it will likely be deleted per WP:F5, so I am wondering if a valid non-free use rationale can be written for this particular usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly, are you aware of the copyright problem? Commons has {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, but Wikipedia disagrees with Commons and calls the corresponding template {{Non-free Philippines government}}. That is, these files are only considered to be 'non-free' on Wikipedia but not on Commons. I'm not sure how to handle files like this, and both templates have survived deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background info Stefan2. No, I wasn't aware that Commons and Wikipedia treat these differently. How do you think the other two flag images used in the article should be handled? File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.svg is from Commons and File:Flag of The President Of The Philippines (1946).png has a non-free use rationale/pd-license? The latter has also been tagged for a move to Commons. Do you think all of these flag images should be strictly non-free per "Non-free Philippines government"? If so, then it seems that all four flag images being used in the gallery have WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  - I am not sure how to best handle files which are treated as free on Commons but as unfree on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue seems to be whether this is a copyright-based restriction or not. Commons tends to be more lenient with non-copyright restrictions and the deletion discussions have assumed that the restriction is not a copyright based one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. How do you think should we threat these then? Do we treat them as non-free since this is English Wikipedia and that's how they are currently listed? Does this usage comply with the NFCC? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  - This is part of a much bigger problem which needs a solution. For example, how do we treat files on Commons which have been tagged with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}? Are we to treat those files as 'unfree' on Wikipedia? Maybe better to discuss this at WT:NFC... --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Independence Missouri, New Flag 2014.jpeg[edit]

Non-free flag image used in Flags of cities of the United States; Each usage fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG since the article is just essentially one large gallery of flags without any sourced critical discussion at all. The article is the files only usage, so removing them will make them orphans and lead to their eventual deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The third one strikes me as not original enough to be copyrightable. With WP:NFCC#8 for the others though I must wonder if the non-free images on an article about images that strives to be comprehensible can meet that criterium; it seems to me that the lack of the non-frees would significantly degrade the understanding on the topic and thus the images could meet the NFCC#8 criterium. I am inclined to let NFG issues slide since the article seems to be mostly contain free images, or so it seems to me. Not sure if that is strictly correct under policy - I'll watch this discussion and see what happens.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Whether Flags of cities of the United States is striving to be comprehensive is a debatable since it only list cities from 43 of the 50 US states (I hope I didn't miscount) and then only certain cities from each state. The section on Missouri where these three images are displayed shows 10 flags, and I'm pretty sure there are way more than 10 cities in the entire state. Most of the flag images seem to be used in individual city articles, individual flag articles or both. These, however, are not being used in their respective city articles of Independence, Missouri, Grandview, Missouri or Lee's Summit, Missouri and they have no flag articles. I am not sure why that's the case, but if these are actually official city flags, it would make much more sense to use them in the city articles than a list article, wouldn't it? Since there are some states in the article with only one flag shown, I'm not sure how removing three non-free ones from a state which will have seven free images remaining is going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding that cities of the United States have official flags. If these are not PD, then removing them will make them orphans, unless new homes are found for them. Can valid non-free usage rationales be written for usage in the individual city articles? If they can then the images could be linked to in the "Flags" article like what is being done for Flags of cities of the United States#Kentucky and a few other of the states. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  
  I am pretty sure (after reading the NFCC policy) that non-frees are not limited to just one article. I am not sure if the completeness of the list matters much. Incidentally, I'd say that the images are better placed in the list article than the city articles, since the images are the whole point of the list while in the city articles they'd be more decorative than anything.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  
  I wasn't trying to say that non-free usage is limited to only a "single" article, so my bad if I gave that impression; However, I disagree with you about the decorative usage being in the individual city article. I think it's fair to say that the official flag of the city is considered to be a primary means of identifying said city, so using it in the infobox seems to satisfy NFCC#8, at least it does to me. It's also possible that the flag be the subject of sourced discussion within the article which means that using it outside of the infobox may be OK. I'm not sure if the same can be said for an article that is simply a list/table displaying various flags like in this case. I understand that seeing the flags is the whole point of the article, but I don't think that type of usage provides the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8. It seems mainly decorative to me, but the consensus may be that it is not. Just for reference, other non-free flags were linked to in the article with this edit by SiBr4 or removed for NFCC reasons like here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and here by Stefan2. If the consensus is that such non-free usage is acceptable for this article, then these could all be re-added if they are provided with appropriate non-free use rationales. It might even be possible to justify the non-free usage for File:City of Janesville Flag.png which was removed as a copyvio here by Cryptic or the three or four other ones deleted from Commons as copyvios. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif is below the threshold of originality. Does the town use that flag in the first place? A reverse Google search only found this page. If this is a real flag, then I'd expect to find thousands of pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just curious ... does File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright? To me, this just looks like rectangles and letters. The only ounce of originality I see in this is the location of the rectangles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif has be change from non-free to "PD-logo" so the NFCC no longer apply to its usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia app search.png[edit]

Contains non-free images. Is incorrectly tagged and does not attribute images used. Although in principle someone could clean up all the licensing and attribution, the non-free components make this a no-no. I don't think they are de minimis because they form an essential part of the functionality of the depicted app. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete It's only used in a policy discussion and not articles so there can be no fair-use. The uploader (@TheMagikCow:) should edit out the film and musical images if they want to continue using this file. All other images should be attributed (in case they are licensed BY) because this file is a derivative of them. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Improperly licensed, as it contains non-free content. Can't be used outside of mainspace, but not useable for mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete File:Titanic poster.jpg is obviously non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete as a file tagged as free that includes non-free images that are not critical to the context which the image is placed (and also fails WP:NFCC#9 as a non-free file due to being used in only non-article pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Aoc temp cover.jpg[edit]

This image is being used in the article Conan the Barbarian without a separate non-free use rationale (WP:NFCC#10). The existing, though unused, NFUR is for Age of Conan instead. This image fails contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) for Conan the Barbarian because it is a) not used to identify the subject of the article (another image already exists in the infobox to identify the subject of the article; the subject is "Conan the Barbarian", not "Age of Conan"), or b) the image itself is not the object of sourced critical commentary (only the release of the title is discussed, not the cover). (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion) This article already has six additional non-free items, which makes the inclusion of this file excessive use. (WP:NFCC#3a) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also at least one freely licensed image related to the release of the title File:Age of Conan promoters.jpg (WP:NFCC#1). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep - It is the most well known game associated with the topic. It has fair use rationale. The other image that is mentioned as a free use alternate is of scantily-clad women in front of the poster. This is not how fair use works, and it's not how Wikipedia works either. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Obvious delete: The image is being used in a section of the article that is purely a list of games. There is no indication that this particular image is somehow representative of the genre, thus making it important to this article. There is an article for the game itself at Age of Conan, where any person needing to see images of the game can feast their eyes. There is a complete failure of WP:NFCC #8 here. The article reads the same without the image, as there is no tie in to the prose of the article that requires the image in order to support that prose. In fact, there's but a single sentence referencing the game. Lastly, the fair use rationale is woefully inadequate doing nothing to explain why the image is needed, just that the uploader thinks there is no copyright burden, which is provably false. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Portrait-Davidfstr.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Orphaned image. This is old image of myself I have removed from my user page. There is no replacement. -Davidfstr

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

November 23[edit]

File:19and0pats.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCI No. 8. Image of a pre-release of a book that was ultimately never published (per The New York Times) can hardly be considered historical. Moreover, commentary in the articles are minimal, and mention of the title of the book without an image is sufficient to convey the minor event. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Goo Goo Dolls - Vol. 2 Limited Edition.jpg[edit]

Does not pass WP:NFUR, as it is very similar to the standard cover and not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nigel Holmes glasses icon.gif[edit]

Delete. Unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Crisul Oradea logo.png[edit]

All of these are displayed in FC Bihor Oradea "To identify the club and its crest." However, there is another file in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. These additional (WP:NFCC#3 violation) logos are not used for identification nor are they the object of sourced critical discussion, so they fail (WP:NFCC#8). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Bar Rafaeli SI 2009 Swimsuit Cover.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, used in the cover model's biography only. The fact that she appeared on a magazine cover does not need an image of the cover to explain it. January (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete I agreed then and I agree now; fails NFCC#8. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:N2H+ Destruction.png[edit]

Image of table of text, replaced at diazenylium by wikitext table. Also including:

File:N2H+ Formation.png

bundled in this nom. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Whatashort Main Page.jpg[edit]

Unless the advertisement banners are removed from the top and bottom of this file (and probably the social media company logos on the bottom left), this should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24[edit]

File:Nipissing Lakers logo.jpg[edit]

Original version uploaded on February 17, 2011 seems to be nothing but a text logo and, therefore, is a likely candidate for {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. The "new version" uploaded on November 24, 2015 by VitaleBaby seems to be a completely different logo, so I'm not sure if it should be treated as another version of the same file. Maybe it would be best to somehow split these into to separate files (if possible) because the "updated version" might just be above the threshold of originality and should remain as non-free. Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Xohm wimax from sprint.jpg[edit]

Delete - unused, possibly non-free. Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:WWTBAS2.jpg[edit]

Delete - unused, no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 02:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:We are TF16.JPG[edit]

Delete - unused, probably no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Ukrainian Patricia Band recording their new album.jpg[edit]

Delete, orphaned from deleted article. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Tomenko.jpg[edit]

Delete. Unused, no evidence for given license. Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Timea Margot wiki.jpg[edit]

image of Tímea Vágvölgyi, most such porn images are always copyrighted. we would need an OTRS. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is November 24 2015. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 24 -- (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 "===November 24===" 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.