Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	3	9	12
TfD	1	15	16
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	9	61	70
AfD	0	1	1

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 February 20}}` 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=2025 February 20}}` 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=2025 February 20}}` 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 1932, not 1926.
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 its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

February 12

File:Jewish weapons discovered.jpg

[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:British Forces in the Middle East, 1945-1947 E32045.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 01:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The proposed file on Commons shows the same image, which is higher quality and larger. - tucoxn\^talk 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forthwith per Tucoxn. Buffs (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:You Suck at Cooking (YouTube) logo.webp

[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:You Suck At Cooking title card.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 23:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused; superceded. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

File:SebastianSwissSchool.jpg

[edit]

Photo of a 3D image of unclear origin (and licensing status). The painting may be cut out. But why? — Ирука¹³ 10:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A painting is not a 3D image. Buffs (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

[edit]

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

[edit]

Replaceable with c:File:Peter Capaldi June 2014.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep picture of the actor not the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo of the actor in character, per the file description and the attached Actors in character category tag. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is mid-filming, he is not in-character, as can be seen from the source showing the other actors talking with each other out of character. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even per the description, it's the actor staring at a passerby during a break in filming. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace as the original uploader. Anyone familiar with the show knows that this is, indeed, the actor in-character. If free media is available, it should be used; NFCC is a undebatable policy. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep picture of the actor dressed as the character for filming, but not in-character at the moment. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Replace with a screengrab from Hell Bent (preferably around 0:06), per GLL. DWF91 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also for consistency with infobox pictures of other Doctors and companions. BTS photo in b&w would stick out like a sore thumb. Vicquemare (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep normally would not be opposed to this, but the black and white is making me feel it may be unwise, since it's hard to identify aspects of the character in the photo. Additionally, the headshot is largely unhelpful, since the costume is a large part of identifying the character. File:Peter Capaldi as Doctor Who filming in Cardiff June 2014 (cropped).jpg contains a full body shot, but the black and white makes it impossible to identify 3/4 of the costume. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is also holding a paper cup, which does break the immersion that it is the character, instead of the actor in a break during filming. Though if we are going with a caption "peter capaldi in costume, in a break during filming" instead of the current caption-then I'm fine with it being replaced per nfcc#1, instead of kept per my vote. DWF91 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The free alternatives adequately illustrate the character of the twelth doctor. Additionally, if other editors are concerned with the fact that Capaldi may not be in character, or that the paper cup breaks immersion, we could replace the non-free file with a screengrab from Commons:File:Doctor Who Hell Bent Clip.webm. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, had no clue we had that. I'm admittedly a bit unsure since Capaldi is nearly entirely in shadow in the video, meaning his face is nearly entirely unidentifiable. There's a few close-ups I'd be partial to, but I'm admittedly unsure here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreenLipstickLesbian. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

February 13

File:Sinfest 2024-12-20.png

Doesn't meet the NFCC. This specific strip hasn't been the subject of RS commentary Traumnovelle (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me to meet all of the WP:NFCCP criteria, particularly #8 (noting that WP:NFC#CS uses an "or"). Could you please identify exactly which of the ten you believe it to fail on? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Water (I know your name!!! ;-) ). If you could specify it would help. In general, I think it's ok to post a SINGLE image to get what the comic looks like. Not having it really leads the reader to wonder. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did images of the media that have no commentary meet NFCC? This is just another attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy to POV-push. Non-free content for media should have coverage to justify why this specific snippet is relevant to the reader's understanding, but this one doesn't and was selectively chosen not based on the reader's understanding but solely to POV-push. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, sourced commentary is only specifically required for non-free images or media from a press or photo agency (ref WP:NFCCE and WP:F7) and that doesn't apply here. You have also quoted WP:IMGCONTENT, but NFCCP#8 fulfils that. Would you please identify exactly which one or more of the ten NFCCP criteria you believe this image to fail on and how? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the description of the image 'It's perhaps worth noting that this image does not describe or represent the comic's writing and subject matter ten or twenty years ago', so how is it a representative image then if it only pertains to a specific timeline of the comic, one that is not discussed in much if any detail at all in the article. It'd make the most sense to show panels from the era with the most commentary. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sinfest has been noted for its shifting content/tone/style, I believe that four panels would actually be usefully representative (Daily Bruin, early 2000s webcomic, radfem shift, recent shift). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you're noting that has been referred to was from a more offensive/crude comic to a feminist one. This image does not illustrate that. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets every one of the WP:NFCCP criteria. EdgierEdgar (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: Unnecessary non-free scan of a newspaper. A scan of a newspaper article is not really needed to understand that the newspaper published a certain story at the time. Using texts and Wikipedia:Citing sources is enough. Wcam (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were no other photos (such as the only photo of an event), I'd reconsider this, but there are TONS of photos/video. The headline is enough. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newspaper isn't subject of commentary (although even if it were that wouldn't necessarily be justification for an image versus a link to it) Traumnovelle (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracie Abrams Secret of Us Deluxe.jpg

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject and there is no there is significant commentary about more than one cover. A single image of the most prominent cover is sufficient. Anything more than that fails WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete isn't subject of any commentary and is just an alternate cover Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin Jenkins Oakland Councilmember.png

File is uses the CA Gov PD tag which claims it's a work of the State of California and therefore in the public domain in the U.S. The stated author and the apparent source are the City of Oakland, not the State of California. I am not deeply familiar with this particular piece of copyright law, but I do know that there is a general legal difference between the two entities. If this ruling also applies to local government works (and not just state works), wonderful! ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

February 14

File:Taylor Swift – August lyric video title card.png

Not sure if this photo satisfies WP:NFCC and justifies its usage for Template:Infobox song. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is derived from the official lyric video for the song and is similar to what is currently used to illustrate "Word Crimes". I think they are similar to sheet music covers like those currently illustrating many Beatles songs, even though I feel that those fail the NFCC more than files like this due to the lack of international standardization. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binge (Bangladeshi OTT) logo.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Binge.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 13:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Salavat. Buffs (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphony Mobile logo.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Symphony Mobile.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 13:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per salavat Buffs (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

File:Bucher rolleiflex.jpg

There is no evidence that image was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука¹³ 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a photo governed by Italian law. Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This is pretty clearly the latter. As this was clearly created in the 50s or MAYBE early 60s (based on the publications at the time), this pretty clearly was in the public domain in 1989 in the US (though this photo doesn't claim that). If it isn't, it certainly is by now in Italy and should be kept with a FUR if you find otherwise. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication? No source is provided in the Italian Wikipedia upload.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of publication is irrelevant under Italian copyright protections. It's only protected from its creation date, not publication date. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dancing with Myself by Maren Morris.png

This file does not follow WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." Rather, a Billy Idol release artwork is at the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand but it does serve as the visual identification of the article dedicated to the a different version of the song. Might i suggest change the description?. Paradisetoshutdown (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how the image is important to the description of the cover song, how "its omission would be detrimental" to the understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep different version of the same song. It's appropriate to keep both. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp

Since the CSD was challenged: This file is replacable as I recently found a CCTV image of the tornado (File:Cullman tornado CCTV.jpg, rendering this useless. E_F⁵ 03:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quba Mosque.jpg

I'd say that File:Quba Mosque.JPG is a better alternative than this as it isn't tilted. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a need to have 2 files, which are tagged as {{PD-USonly}}, showing the same subject without any vast differences. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This file is currently being used. One file has higher resolution and shows more of the building and one is better framed. I do not see one as being unambiguously better than the other. I do not know exactly how many images we have of the Quba Mosque on en.wikipedia, but it is not an unreasonable number (far closer to a dozen than a hundred) considering that Commons will not host them and this is a super notable building in Islamic history. It is better to give future editors more editorial choice rather than less. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if unused currently, it's encyclopedic and useful. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

File:KUNA15.png

Speedy delete: Superceded by c:File:KUNA 2018.svg on Commons Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunflow eg.png

SunFlow is licensed under the MIT license (and so is its logo). Then why did the uploader copyright something that THEY made? 67.209.129.191 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can.

Delete bizarre upload. I'm guessing they meant to release it, but without clarification, it's copyrighted. Uploader hasn't contributed in ~6 years. I doubt they will hop in. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarahmiles.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC #8; there's no strong reason presented why an image of this person from a 1980s movie significantly contributes to readers' understanding of the subject. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KBLR Logo 2018.png

Speedy delete: Superceded by c:File:Telemundo Las Vegas 2018.webp Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

File:Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi.jpg

Replaceable with c:File:Luke Skywalker - Welcome Banner (Cropped).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is no free images of Luke from the Star Wars sequel trilogy. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that an image of Luke Skywalker from the sequel trilogy should be featured in the article, please consider adding a still of him with sufficient commentary (WP:NFCC#8) to the sequel trilogy section. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Someday - Glass Tiger.jpg

De-PRODding rationale was this: would appear to be the primary cover art for the release. Nonetheless, being the top cover art isn't an excuse for concerns about exceeding minimal number of NFC files needed and its contextual significance to Someday (Glass Tiger song). From what I learned, the band is Canadian, and the Canadian releases use the same alternative cover art (discogs) instead of this nominated one. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one & delete the other I have no preference. Buffs (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShaggyRogers.png

Replaceable with c:File:Shaggy MultiVersus.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current 2D image is the most common style used for the character, from the original series and numerous other incarnations. This would make it the ideal image to represent the character as a whole. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly the character in question + notable enough to have his own article. A computer generated 3D remake isn't even close to the same. Buffs (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

File:UNCG Julius Foust Building.jpg

The copyright statement on original web source/page of the page said the file can only used for "personal, educational or research purposes only", that is not a free licence and thus cannot upload to the Commons. Also, free licence files are available to the Julius Foust Building. Saimmx (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC criteria...practically all of 'em. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:If i could turn back time.ogg

Doubtful that the sample is needed just to hear what it sounds like. Doubtful such use exemplifies contextual significance, meaning deleting this sample wouldn't impact the understanding of the song, by any means. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hearing "just" what a song sounds like in an article dedicated specifically to said song is of uttermost importance. A brief clip to illustrate what the song sounds like is acceptable under fair use to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. People who come to Wikipedia aren't all music scholars who could understand the composition just by using text description. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This short sound clip of If I Could Turn Back Time is a portion of the song's refrain. It meets the contextual significance criterion defined in WP:NFC#CS because it allows the reader to identify the song that is the subject of discussion in the article. Literally, the title of the song, If I Could Turn Back Time, is sung throughout the clip. It is not simply a song demonstration — it is a portion of the song that defines the work. - tucoxn\^talk 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm perplexed by this nomination. If you want to remove all music samples, then I can see a justification. However, we've said such music samples are allowed and this fits the necessary criteria to a T...not sure what your point is. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

File:1928–29 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg

This file looks like it would have been published in the 1929 edition of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign yearbook. I think the hidden version can be undeleted and moved to Commons. Brought to FfD rather than requests for undeletion because a review thinks there is no evidence of publication before 1930. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & mark as PD I think it's pretty clear that it's a yearbook photo. Even if it was a standalone photo, it was clearly first published in 1929 in the US and that's clearly PD. AAAAAAAND even if it was 1930+, I see no evidence in copyright records of such a photo or yearbook registered & maintained as required. It's PD. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. No evidence of publication before 1930. No evidence that the photo was published after without copyright notice. — Ирука¹³ 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, this was very likely a yearbook photo. Lo and behold, that's exactly what it was. Clearly published before 1930. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Illio Yearbooks were published with a copyright prior to at least 1937 according to the US Copyright Office records. Buffs (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoJo-Too Little Too Late (2018).ogg

Lacking in any commentary in the prose of Too Little Too Late (doesn't appear to be mentioned at all in the article aside from the caption on the file placement), and is placed right below an excerpt of the same portion of the song from the original recording. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why a clip from the 2018 version of the song is needed in the article. This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8. Indeed, 2018 appears nowhere in the article, except the references. - tucoxn\^talk 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree w/ Nom. I see no need to include it. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bradley Cooper - Maybe It's Time.jpg

Don’t know what the uploader means by “official covert art”. This is an image from the album’s/movie’s promotional rollout, but it was not used as a cover for that song anywhere. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Buffs (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Oxford Reference.jpg

Replaced by public domain SVG logo at Oxforf Reference ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Oxford Reference ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superceded. Uncontroversial. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

File:Boney M. - Love Sale Sale (US).jpg

This (alternative) cover art was previously discussed in the now-defunct venue. Fast forward to eleven years later, I think I may have second thoughts about this image's contextual significance and ability to be not excessive and redundant. The (other) standard cover art has sourced critical commentary; this one may not, on the other hand. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary/redundant Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Misericorde Volume One screenshot.png

Gameplay screenshot without gameplay section (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 08:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say this nomination is borderline disruptive in the sense of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - why not just add in the section then? But given that I have now added a gameplay section, the rationale is entirely moot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is February 20 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 20 – (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 "===February 20===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

February 13

Recent nominations

February 14

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

Footer