Open main menu

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FfD)
XFD backlog
  Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL
CfD 2 10 60 57 129
TfD 0 0 0 18 18
MfD 0 3 1 6 10
FfD 0 0 2 3 5
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 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.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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

What not to list hereEdit

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

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2019 June 25}} 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 {{ffd|log=2019 June 25}} 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=2019 June 25}} 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 1926, not 1920.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

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

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Contents

Instructions for discussion participationEdit

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 discussionsEdit

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

Old discussionsEdit

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

June 12

File:American Airlines logo 2013.svg

File:American Airlines logo 2013.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AxG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo is in public domain as stated in article due to it not meeting threshold of originality. This was officially stated by US Copyright Office here. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 03:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and attached US Copyright Office decision.--Vulphere 05:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Vulphere and Atomicdragon136: I am a little unclear if this is a request to relicense or to delete the file.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I am requesting to relicense and move to Commons. I actually don’t know, does this require discussion if there’s already proof? --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, the Commons file was deleted due to another decision and the !vote here wasn't clear on what it wanted to accomplish, so a clarification was needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as non-free. For bacground, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Airlines logo 2013.svg. The US Copyright Office's new letter was quite clear about the fact that it did not think of a low and high resolution version of the logo as two separate images. Instead, they really changed their mind and decided that the logo is a work afterall. But the letter also goes on to identify the elements that make it a work, and stating that "the resulting protection is thin, protecting only the Work’s original and creative elements 'against only virtually identical copying.'" This makes me conclude that it's possible to create a near-identical version at one's leisure by removing those elements (and we've done something like that, e.g. File:InfoboxHez.PNG). I don't, however, want to say that this possibility makes the non-free logo fail WP:NFCC#1; such a near-identical version might not be a a "free equivalent", because it's not authentic. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as non-free per Finnusertop and the Copyright Office's latest letter (dated December 2018). The reasons this image meets TOO start at the bottom of page 5 (starting with "Upon careful re-evaluation of the record as a whole"). Wikiacc () 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 9

File:Craig-airport-logo.PNG

File:Craig-airport-logo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free. These logos 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}}. this file was uploaded to commons via de.wiki as {{PD-logo}}. User:Huon requested deletion as a precaution. Do kindly provide your comments below. -- 大诺史 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


File:Herlong-airport-logo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Cecil-airport-logo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Jacksonville Aviation Authority (logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: It might be best to wait to see what happens over on Commons. If Commons won't keep them as {{PD-logo}} then it would make no sense to re-license them as PD-logo just for local use on English Wikipedia; {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is sometimes considered an option when files originating outside of the US are not PD in their country of origin, but are PD in the US. That license, however, as far as I have seen is never applied to files whose country of origin is the US. Now, if the files are kept by Commons as "PD-logo", then there's no really reason for them to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; they will either end up deleted per WP:F8 or eventually moved to Commons. In either of those two cases, it might be best to simply upload higher resolution files to Commons and let the local files be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Cricket kit files uploaded by User:XrysD

File:GlamorganCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:DerbyshireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:DurhamCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:EssexCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:GloucestershireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:HampshireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:LancashireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:NottinghamshireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SurreyCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:YorkshireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:LeicestershireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:NorthamptonshireCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SomersetCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MiddlesexCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:SussexCCCFirstClassKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WarwickshireCCCKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WorcestershireCCCKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:BedfordshireCCCChampionshipKit.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XrysD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

All the kit files uploaded are tagged with {{non-free no reduce}}. A smaller resolution does not detract from the usefulness of the file, the tag should be removed and the resolution of the files lowered in line with W:NFCC#3b. There is also no evidence of prior publication or that these are derivatives of published works as required by WP:NFCC#4. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nthep, the non-free use justification is adapted from that used with this file which is also the uniform of a sports team and has been accepted and published on wikipedia. I accept that the relative size is larger than that file so will reduce the sizes, but the graphics must remain legible as the use criteria allows. The only non-free use items in the images are the team and company logos which have been published in multiple locations and publications - they are not unique items. I will find other individual examples if necessary, but surely the links to the entities listed in Author/Copyright section which contain examples of the logos are sufficient? I hope this addresses the the issues with these files. Please let me know if this is acceptable and I will make the changes. XrysD TALK 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@XrysD: Ok I strike the bit about prior publication as it's only the logos and those are published. However I'm not sure about the legibility point, the county logos appear in most of the articles so I don't see the need for them to be as large as they are. Nthep (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: thanks for the quick response. To address your remaining point: firstly purely in size terms, the logos as displayed on the graphics are only tens of pixels wide. Much smaller than the images used to display them in isolation for each team, so well below acceptable upper size limit. And it is the logo where the issue is as I understand it? Secondly, the reason for the logo's presence is to show the team's uniform in a recognisable manner. Apart from the logo, there is nothing to distinguish them as they are not unique - they are all off-the-shelf clothing designs produced by Adidas or Gray-Nicolls etc. If the logos were illegible or absent it would be impossible to distinguish between two teams with the same clothing design - then the graphic has not achieved its purpose. Thirdly, the graphic is not just to show the team's logo - that is already displayed elsewhere as you note. It is the logo combined with the clothing that is important. This is where the cricket uniforms differ from baseball ones where for each team the whole design is unique. However, I understand your concerns and as I say I think they can stand some reduction, to 60% say, without losing legibility completely, but beyond that would be make them unusable in my view. So to summarise, even at their current size I don't think the logos themselves actually break the size issue criteria, but the graphics could take some reduction if this is still a concern to you. XrysD TALK 22:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Even at 240 x 240px there is enough resolution, imo, to pick out the detail and that is all that is required. I'm only using 240 as an example as it's an available size on the files as they currently are. 300 x 300px would more than suffice is my contention - hence the listing here to gain input from others. Nthep (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks @Nthep: for clarifying your views are more precisely. My view is that if the issue is with the logo size (not the whole image size) which I believe it is, then the logos themselves are already way below any reasonable size limit mandated by WP policy - as demonstrated by the use of club logos in infoboxes at sizes many times larger. So then it just comes down to subjective opinion as to what to reduce them to, to remain credible and useful. I think a reduction to 60% (which is 600x600px) is a reasonable compromise between the current 1000x1000px and your 300x300px that maintains the graphical integrity of the image while not breaking any WP policies. XrysD TALK 13:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Reasoning : Files do not violate WP:NFCC#3 reasonable image size use criteria as logo size on them is well below established size limits used with use of other similar logos. However happy to reduce them to 60% current size as will still be legible at that resolution XrysD TALK 09:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The logo itself on these images gains the "infinite resolution" aspect of SVG/vector graphics, and that's not acceptable. --Masem (t) 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reduce to <= 0.1 MP per WP:NFCC#3b. These are entirely too large. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Comment @JJMC89: - at the moment the size of the logos on the images is already below this limit. And as has been established, it is the logos that are the issue. WP:NFCC#3b refers to the copyrighted images and only the logos come under this XrysD TALK 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    The kits are derivatives of non-free works, making them non-free works. The entire works must comply with WP:NFCC. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Reduce to <= 0.1 MP @JJMC89: Ah OK, it wasn't clear to me from WP:NFCC that a derivative work's free parts could not be considered separately from the non-free parts. Will reduce size to 0.1MP as required for all images and all subsequent images in this series. XrysD TALK 16:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While we're here, these need a free license for XrysD's work per WP:FREER and sources for the incorporated works (logos). — JJMC89(T·C) 01:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    @JJMC89: all cricket counties have logos on their wiki pages which is what I used. For maker logos, where these exist on WP I used them, where they don't I sourced them from the company websites. Both of these are already linked under the author section for each work - do I need to add them to the sources section too? Also how do I add a free license for my work - do I just append it? And what license would be appropriate in this case? XrysD TALK 07:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's fine for the source. For the license you can use any of the Creative Commons licenses at WP:CC-BY. Example:
    Logo(s): {{non-free logo|image has rationale=yes}}
    Other work: {{CC0|dw=yes}}
    I am assuming that you created everything that is not the logos. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    @JJMC89: Yes I confirm that I created everything in the images that is not the logos. Have added Creative Commons license to all images as requested. XrysD TALK 10:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    @JJMC89: Thanks for updating the licensing details - I'd misunderstood what you said. It makes much more sense now! XrysD TALK 14:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The application of WP:NFCC#3b to SVG files has always been a bit of a problem as we've never reached a consensus on what it means for the resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Jo-Jo Eumerus: perhaps the general issue of the use of SVG graphics for non-free images should be raised elsewhere if that is the only remaining concern to you. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of files that fall into this category so it has implications for every one of those files too. In the meantime may I suggest that the consensus for my files is that they now satisfy WP:NFCC#3 as it is currently understood. This is why they were originally listed. XrysD TALK 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    I was thinking that as well, but I don't remember any of the past discussions on the topic coming to a conclusion. Pinging Marchjuly and Masem as they did participate in the conversations on this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    The only acceptable allowance of non-free vector images is for logo images that have been acquired directly from works of the company/group represented by the logo. This does not mean that logo can be reused for other purposes in its vector format. There is no reason that these uniform images cannot be made in a raster format, the logo still visible but small enough to not trip up anything. --Masem (t) 14:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Firstly I am happy to produce PNG versions instead. I created SVGs because as far as I understand it, Wikipedia promotes the use of SVG over PNG. So would not converting to PNG from SVG be a backwards step? As far as logo size goes, as I understood it WP:Logos requirements for SVG state this image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary. It seems the de-facto accepted upper limit for logos is 0.1MP or 300x300px - about 10x the size they are currently rendered at. So I'm interested to know why you think the 300x300px size limit doesn't apply to logos in derivative works. Surely if you think logos are recognisable at that kind of rendered size, should not the same should apply to all logos in all forms? What makes their use in derivative works different? I'm not trying to dispute your judgement, just trying to understand it XrysD TALK 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    One possible problem with what your suggesting is WP:NFCC#3a. If there's already a non-free logo being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox, then there is really no reason for the same file or something basically equivalent to the same file to be used in another part of the article. In other words, if the primary logo can be seen in the main infobox, there's no real reason for it to be seen (at least not with the same degree of clarity) as part of another file such as the team's uniform. The same basic encyclopedic information could be provided simply showing the team's uniform without the logo or with a blurred or much smaller, less clearer version of the logo.
    As for svg vs. png, I believe that Masem's comment has to do with the logo files themselves. Per WP:FREER, it's generally preferred that only official vector versions of copyrighted content released by the original copyright holder be uploaded. Assuming that you aren't the original creator of the logos, you shouldn't really take a png file of the logo released by the copyright holder and convert it to an svg version you create. Lots of people do this kind of thing for sure, but i don't think it's really policy-compliant. At the same time, if you are 100% the original creator of the uniform files and want to release svg versions of them under a free license, then you can. They only really become derivative works once you start incorporating other copyrighted elements into them and even one non-free element would, in principle, make the entire file subject to WP:NFCC. A possible exception to this, however, might be the way you incorporate the logos into the uniform files; for example, if the logos are considered incidental or otherwise de minimis (see c:COM:DM for more details), then copyright status of the logo shouldn't be much of an issue. It's only when the logos start to become clearly distinguishable elements in their own right that I think NFCCP starts to come into play. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input @Marchjuly:. I think the position for logos in isolation is now clear to me from what you and Masem have said. I also now understand the reason that the rule for the max size of isolated logos doesn't apply to their use in derivative works. So it comes down to whether at the size they are presented at in my files they satisfy the De-Minimis criteria. I believe that at the resolution they are currently rendered at, they do satisfy this. At most they represent 3% of the whole image size (3x20x20px+2x30x30px in 300x300pix). If you didn't have the team logos at the top of the infobox to refer to it would be impossible to recognise them at all at that size. So the remaining issue I guess is whether they should be PNG format or whether the rule that covers the size that SVGs are rendered at is sufficient. XrysD TALK 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

May 31

File:Rovio Entertainment logo.svg

File:Rovio Entertainment logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carniolus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Might be under the TOO in Finland and thus free. See c:COM:TOO Finland AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it probably is unoriginal by US standards but that "Silmu" logo that was deemed original enough for Finnish standards seems to be a little too similar, originality-wise, to the logo here. So I would recommend {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

May 29

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carl savich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus PD-US claim, was published in 1941. Also ineligible for fair-use, would fail WP:NFCC#8 if converted. FASTILY 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: The song itself is still under copyright, but the image just has text and a company logo which might either be below ToO or old enough to be public domain. (Nipper image is public domain by age) Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: the song isn’t PD as it was published in 1941 (less than 95 years old). The text on the record label isn’t really eligible for copyright. But would the image/logo be considered de minimis and therefore acceptable for Commons? --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusionEdit

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

File:Personal Kemetic shrine.jpgEdit

File:Personal Kemetic shrine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IanCheesman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

possible derivative of non-free content (photograph) FASTILY 01:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Schoharie limousine crash memorial rendering.pngEdit

File:Schoharie limousine crash memorial rendering.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daniel Case (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free rendering of a memorial is used to illustrate a minor part of the Schoharie limousine crash article. It's removal would not adversely affect a reader's understanding of the topic which is the crash. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • It accompanies sourced text which discusses in detail the appearance of the proposed memorial to the crash victims. Passes WP:NFCC#8; I wouldn't have uploaded it if I hadn't believed that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic (the crash, not the memorial). (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89(T·C) 00:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    Articles about most disasters usually include sections about memorials, actual or proposed. It's part of the topic. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    That doesn't make it the topic of the article. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent nominationsEdit

June 19Edit

File:Afua's Diary poster.jpgEdit

File:Afua's Diary poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bibishadbolt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file tagged as own work. Image resolution will also need to be reduced to comply with guidelines. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 02:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Files on Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 filesEdit

Unused personal files --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 03:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Stowaways on the Ark scene.pngEdit

File:Stowaways on the Ark scene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NickBlamp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot which is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. The only commentary is the image caption sourced to a blog. The removal of this image form the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 20Edit

File:City hall model.jpgEdit

File:City hall model.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmdrbond (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed PD-USGov, because it was obtained from the City of Beverly Hills website. I am not sure if {{PD-CAGov}} applies to works by city governments. The city government claims copyright (see source website). Wikiacc () 00:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Convair Fish .jpgEdit

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

Uploader claims US government authorship, without providing evidence. Wikiacc () 00:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Criser High School (1959-1966).jpgEdit

File:Criser High School (1959-1966).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cookieluke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tagged US federal government, without any claim of federal government authorship Wikiacc () 00:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:CT Veteran Wartime Service Medal.PNGEdit

File:CT Veteran Wartime Service Medal.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wrstanton3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tagged PD-USGov, but given source is a State of Connecticut website. Wikiacc () 00:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:DEGLOPPERFATHER.JPGEdit

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

Tagged PD-USGov, but no evidence of authorship by the US federal government. Wikiacc () 01:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:DEGLOPPERPAINTING.JPGEdit

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

Tagged PD-USGov, but copyright belongs either to the artist or to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, a private organization Wikiacc () 01:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Demographics Logo.pngEdit

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

Retag as PD-logo. Tagged PD-USGov, but stated author and source are the University of Virginia. I'd like to confirm that this logo falls below TOO; otherwise WP:NFCC applies. Wikiacc () 01:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's above TOO. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:ElectionDistricts ISLAND OF HAWAII.pdfEdit

File:ElectionDistricts ISLAND OF HAWAII.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gbower314 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tagged PD-USGov, but given source is the State of Hawaii, and text in the image credits the Office of Elections of the State of Hawaii. Wikiacc () 01:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Thanksgiving Orphans food fight.gifEdit

File:Thanksgiving Orphans food fight.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
  • WP:IUP says "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page." The file is 3.23 Mb which, while not huge, is 17 times larger than File:Thanksgiving Orphans Cheers food fight.png (189 KB), the equivalent still image.
  • It would not really be fair use to provide "a static image with a link to the animation", since that would entail the use of 2 non-free images where 1 would suffice.
  • In effect, at 60 frames, an animated GIF is, technically 60 images (or, in any event, that number of still images can be extracted from it). To that extent, it is comparable to a short video clip - so, and here I'm asking because I'm unsure, would a video clip of this scene in this article be fair use when a still image can suffice?
  • It's not necessary, and doesn't really significantly add to any "understanding" provided by the still image.
  • It's also distracting to readers, possibly print incompatible, and I think it's just not a particularly encyclopedic thing to do to encourage addition of this type of non-free animation to articles, or really within the spirit of our non-free policies. Begoon 01:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I changed the image back to the PNG version, i.e. previous status quo, for now. I am very undecided about whether the GIF file I made exceeds "fair use", but if it's too excessive, then the still image would pose less risk of infringement. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Another update - The previous GIF version may have been excessive, so I eliminated about 90% of frames into just six, reducing the size to 360+ kb. -- George Ho (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Another update - I reduced amount of frames to three, reducing the size to 186kb. I also reinserted the GIF file into Production section as temporary until the matter is resolved. Honestly, I am unsure whether the six or three frames would suffice, but I wanted to capture everyone in the scene. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Shaadicom.gifEdit

File:Shaadicom.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fairly simple logo but claimed to be not copyable to commons because not free enough, but not in use here on en.wp because the company doesn't use this logo. Current logo is on commons as (commons:File:Shaadilogo.gif, so if we do have reason to keep the one here, need to rename it to unmask commons (or rename commons' version). DMacks (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The one on Commons was uploaded by User:Peopleactive on 9 December 2015, the only contribution that user made on Commons, with a cc4.0 claim. It should probably be deleted. User:Peopleactive did make a number of edits on Wikipedia between 2013 and 2015, mostly to Shaadi.com, so may have been associated with that company. The website shaadi.com uses a variant of the Commons logo. Perhaps after this one and the Commons one have been deleted, we could upload the current logo to Wikipedia on a fair use claim. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Their website does appear to be to use exactly the commons one ([1]). I wonder if it is about TOO for commons? Regardless, I agree with keeping only the current one, and locally if not on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lighter than light.jpgEdit

File:Lighter than light.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury & wife.jpgEdit

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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury & wife.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, dubious self-work claim (derivative of non-free content?) FASTILY 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Fastily: the question is, should I maintain WP:CIVIL to the same degree you have maintained WP:AGF? "Dubious" indeed. The image is a) now used, and b) from the 15th century: PD-scan applies. ——SerialNumber54129 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lighthouse in dark.jpgEdit

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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lighthouse in dark.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, dark/blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a hosting space for unused images, particularly those of low-photographic quality. -FASTILY 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Low quality? It's an exceptionally high-quality image of a lighthouse in the dark; some would argue that that's the best time to see them. In any case, I refer you to Anthony Sher's Richard III. ——SerialNumber54129 11:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of quality or whether it's being used, Fastily's right about Wikipedia not being the right place to host this. The file is freely licensed so there's doesn't seem to be any reason not to move it to Commons if you want it kept. Commons is better suited for hosting images like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unused. If someone think it has educational value, it can be transferred to Commons. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Astana collage.pngEdit

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

unused, not eligible for commons, no obvious use FASTILY 05:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Farhan Pearl 2016.jpgEdit

File:Farhan Pearl 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sharadbob (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

promotional/professional image of some sort, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Abish Pearl.jpgEdit

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

promotional/professional image of some sort, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:"Mushrooms and The Testing of Colors" (Artwork) David S. Soriano (Artist).pdfEdit

File:"Mushrooms and The Testing of Colors" (Artwork) David S. Soriano (Artist).pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David S. Soriano (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - as noted, the image is essentially being hosted here Wikipedia with no other use. The uploader has huge number of similar images of his artwork being hosted here. Is there a way to bulk nominate them? Can an admin just do an WP:IAR and delete tham as obvious being in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST? -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Whpq: Multiple files can be nominated at FFD in a single discussion using {{ffd2a}} as explained in the instructions at the top of WP:FFD; each file, however, does seem to need to be added and logged individually. I don't think IAR would be applied in this way; it might, however, be acceptable to WP:PROD the other files, or tag them per speedy deletion per WP:CSD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svgEdit

File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This a file is currently used as the logo of the Brazilian Football Confederation in Brazilian Football Confederation. A previous discussion regarding this file decided that it should only be used in the confederation's article, per WP:NFC#UUI #17. However, that discussion failed to notice that the crest presented in this file is not the general logo of the CFB. This particular variant of this logo is the men's national team's specific variant identified by the presence of five stars commemorating the men's team's five World Cup wins. The logo of the CFB is only the shield, as can be seen on their site. The starless logo is also used as the crest of the women's team. Other teams (e.g. Beach Soccer, Futsal,...) use different logo's or even different logo's altogether. Therefore WP:NFC#UUI 17 doesn't even come into question, as this is the men's teams branding. Thus, I suggest that this file is removed from the CFB article, renamed to something like "File:Brazil national football team crest.svg" and added to the Brazil national football team article instead with the Fair Use Rationale being updated. A similar file containing only the shield could be uploaded to be included in the CFB article if desired.Tvx1 12:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support suggestion and rationale by nom. GiantSnowman 10:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Add to Brazil national football team and remove from Brazilian Football Confederation per nominator. The stars didn't specifically come up in the pervious FFD and I agree that they seems to be more of a primary identifier for the men's team itself than confederation. So, it seems reasonable per the NFCC for this logo to be used in the men's team though I think the star argument would only make sense if non-free use is limited to only the main men's team (i.e. the one that won the five World Cups) and not any of the other individual Brazilian national teams. Even though using the file in other articles is not being suggested above, it might be worth clarifying in any close for the future reference of others. A file name change as suggested above might also help avoid any confusion, particularly if a starless version of the badge is uploaded for non-free use in the article about the confederation; the name change would seem to be justifiable per WP:FNC#6 or WP:FNC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Files from AndrewBasumataryEdit

File:Jamuna Boro with her childhood friend.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AndrewBasumatary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Jamuna Boro performing bhumi pujan with her mother and brother.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AndrewBasumatary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Mary Kom with Jamuna Boro.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AndrewBasumatary (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader has a long string of copyright violations. No good reason to believe these are own work as claimed. Whpq (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete the two remaining files. The photo of Boro and her mother is sourced to Facebook and I couldn't see a free license for it. Facebook's standard licensing is not compatible with WP:COPY which means either the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder needs to be verified by WP:OTRS or the file is a copyvio which should be deleted per WP:F9. The other file of Boro and her friend has no EXIF data or source to indicate it was "own work". It might be own work if the uploader is the friend given that it looks like he is taking a selfie of the two together, but perhaps OTRS verification is needed in that case; however, even if copyright ownership can be verified, there's doesn't seem to be any real encyclopedic value in re-adding the photo to Jamuna Boro and there's no reason to host an unused photo locally on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 21Edit

File:Bio Pic Of PeriasamyThooran.jpegEdit

File:Bio Pic Of PeriasamyThooran.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Corbett.jim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deletion discussion occurring on Commons: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bio Pic Of PeriasamyThooran.jpeg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Floyd Dominy Birthday Invite.pdfEdit

File:Floyd Dominy Birthday Invite.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ddjgarrett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tagged PD-USGov. Contains a recent personal photo, which is unlikely to be a federal government work. Wikiacc () 01:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 22Edit

File:Descent 3 combat.jpgEdit

File:Descent 3 combat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niwi3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I see that the file is over 5 years old, but I think that can change.

The file's rationale is that "The image relays information that words cannot as it illustrates the game's distinctive art style and combat." Descent 3, for which the screenshot is used, is notable for vastly advanced and enhanced graphics, but then again, the same could be said about almost every new title. Across the Descent articles, we use one to demonstrate the innovations and what the original Descent looked like, and another for featuring the Guide-Bot. The Guide-Bot was a notable addition to Descent 2, but here in the case of the Descent 3 screenshot, it seems that we are using it for the exact reason as the original, and I could argue that since not every video game article needs a screenshot, we do not need this one here.

A more ideal alternative would be to use a screenshot where the player is outdoors (a notably unique and defining component of Descent 3) and the graphics are full of atmospheric effects (e.g. rain, snow, whatever), while also demonstrating the gameplay and the player attacking enemy robots as the premise of the series. That would make the file and the article more informative. Otherwise, I can only see a little more use out of this file than purely for decoration. I started this FfD to generate a consensus. Gamingforfun365 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't think it's an issue because the image illustrates the game's art style and how the gameplay is presented, regardless of whether the same could be said about previous titles or not. Gameplay images don't necessarily need to illustrate new features. In fact, the more generic the image is, the better it illustrates the gameplay. In any case, I can always replace it with an image where the player travels over the surface of a planet if it's really an issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or replace there is sourced discussion about the gameplay features depicted by this image in the caption and, to a lesser extent, in the body of the relevant section. This image seems fully NFCC-compliant, but sure, it could be replced with another equally compliant one showing one more feature as suggested by the nomination. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpgEdit

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carl savich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus PD-US claim, was published in 1941. Also ineligible for fair-use, would fail WP:NFCC#8 if converted. FASTILY 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: The song itself is still under copyright, but the image just has text and a company logo which might either be below ToO or old enough to be public domain. (Nipper image is public domain by age) Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: the song isn’t PD as it was published in 1941 (less than 95 years old). The text on the record label isn’t really eligible for copyright. But would the image/logo be considered de minimis and therefore acceptable for Commons? --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is over 11 days old and has not received s clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It might be acceptable for Commons. Pinging @Magog the Ogre for their thoughts. Abzeronow (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The illustration is a derivative of a the famous public domain photograph of Nipper. However, the illustration gains its own copyright when drawn. It can't immediately tell if this version of the illustration was registered with the copyright office; probably not. The text is certainly not copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

June 23Edit

June 24Edit

File:Radmila Lolly black dress.jpgEdit

File:Radmila Lolly black dress.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by M3diaguide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License laundering. Uploader is almost certainly also the same person behind the flickr page. Image EXIF shows this is from Facebook. See this Commons deletion nomination. Whpq (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 25Edit

File:Frenum ring.jpgEdit

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

Unused low-quality image. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Stuck.jpgEdit

File:Stuck.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SonnyCrockett88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Assuming the file is indeed self-made, it has been unused for over 10 years and might not be used for any purpose. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:PW-Allison 578-DX (on MD-80).pngEdit

File:PW-Allison 578-DX (on MD-80).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by D271l (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unclear if this is actually under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. Assuming this cannot be proven, the file should be deleted because it would not satisfy NFCC if converted FASTILY 01:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:NationalArtsTheatre.jpgEdit

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

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NationalArtsTheatreNigeria.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:NATIONAL ART THEATRE.jpgEdit

File:NATIONAL ART THEATRE.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CallieRyan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NationalArtsTheatreNigeria.jpg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


FooterEdit

Today is June 25 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 25 -- (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 "===June 25===" 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.