Open main menu
XFD backlog
  Jun Jul Aug Sep TOTAL
CfD 2 5 14 18 39
TfD 0 0 0 9 9
MfD 0 0 0 8 8
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
AfD 0 0 0 26 26

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 September 21}} 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 September 21}} 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 September 21}} 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:

September 13

File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg

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

My PRODding on the screenshot with brief reasoning was contested, so I decided to take this here. I don't believe that the screenshot of Married... with Children character Steve Rhoades (portrayed by David Garrison) boring the whole courtroom in "I'll See You in Court" improves readers' understanding of the episode. Also, I believe that, even without the screenshot, readers would already understand the whole episode's plot and the controversy preventing the episode from being aired in the US.

WP:NFCC#8 requires that removing an acceptable non-free image would affect or detriment readers' understanding of a topic (and probably its article quality?). MOS:TVIMAGE says that a screenshot "may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary, and where that commentary is in need of a visual support to be understood." However, the scene is briefly mentioned in the Plot section. Furthermore, (almost?) none of the reliable sources (including books and articles) discussing the scene itself has been found. I tried finding reliable sources discussing the use of "Perry Mason" theme in that scene without avail. Showing the scene might help readers merely identify the episode, but not one source has identified the scene as the iconic part of the episode. Regardless of broadcasting and content controversy, without adequate critical commentary of any specific, I think not one non-free screenshot of any scene is iconic well enough to be displayed to readers. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC); edited, 03:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The image is not claimed to be used for identification, but rather to illustrate a key part of the episode. However, there is no significant sourced commentary about the image or claimed key point. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that this is one of the very rare cases where WP:IAR actually applies. While I acknowledge the legitimacy of the policy argument here, I believe that there is a general trend on Wikipedia towards gearing articles towards editors rather than readers, and while this one picture is certainly not going to make or break the project, it benefits the project to have a visual depiction of a "lost episode" that summarizes the general idea of the plot (I was unable to think of a particular scene that would be considered "iconic" or overall be obviously better than any other scene). The picture would therefore generally improve the project and is not an egregious violation of the project's perspective on non-free content (it's not easily replaceable, it's not part of an excessive amount of non-free content on the page, it's not high quality etc.). I respect and understand the other perspectives, I simply disagree and wish to record my disagreement. Canadian Paul 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're concerned that deleting the image would affect everyone's understanding of the episodes, there's one other image found at Allmovie. However, I'm still unsure whether a screenshot of four characters as main plaintiffs of the case would help much and whether omitting the image affects what readers and editors would already understand via mere CC-BY-SA text content. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Or the screenshot of the characters watching the tape in the Bundy living room. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png

File:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RJHall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The book covers are not used as the primary means of visual identification and are not the subject of sourced critical commentary in Dungeons & Dragons or Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. (recent discussion) — JJMC89(T·C) 05:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, see my comment below. These should be bundled. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

File:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Frecklefoot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89(T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, comments below. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove from the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per nom. This file is being used for primary identification purposes in Player's Handbook and this seems fine per seems item 1 of WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. It also seems OK in the article about the artist who created the cover as a representative example of his work. The use in the "Editions" article, however, is a problem because there's no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself in the relevant subsection (WP:NFC#CS) of the article, and primary identification is not really necessary per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. A hatnote can be provided to the stand-alone article where the cover can be seen, and this seems to be more than sufficient as alternative to using the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:D&d original.jpg

File:D&d original.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gracefool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89(T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • NFCC#8 doesn't discuss primary means, it discusses contextual content, and in this case it is contextual. This applies to your other nominations here. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Those are references to points made in WP:NFC#CS, which explains how to satisfy the criterion. Removing the cover would not be detrimental to reader's understanding of the article subject – a reader can easily understand D&D editions without seeing this cover (or any of the others). — JJMC89(T·C) 00:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I can see your original argument for these are they aren't the subject of critical commentary, and that somehow the pictures are not a primary means of visual identification. Visual identfication is the primary means of distinguishing which edition you have and I see sources supplied for critical commentary. You then moved the goal posts by suggesting it doesn't satisfy contextual significance, which it clearly does. It's used as a visual identifier for the editions that are discussed and sourced with critical commentary. It may be your opinion that a person can easily understand the different editions, but on the flip side of the coin, it was not for me, which is also a valid opinion. Determining which edition I have, can easily, and most easily be deduced visually - which is what these pictures are aiding with. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    I haven't moved anything; it is the same criterion/point being rephrased in different ways. It is not the primary means of visual identification (of the article subject). Criterion 8 deals with with the relationship to the article subject. This book (and the others) is not the subject of the article, the D&D editions are. WP:NFCI#1 explains acceptable cover art uses and the footnote (WP:NFC#cite note-3) explains how this type of use doesn't fit. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is pure gold. First it was #8, then it's #1, now it's a footnote we're arguing about. You can keep moving the goalposts and cite numbers all day long, but you also need to interpret them and relay what parts they're not meeting. I see the footnote says "usually" and in reference to musicians and authors, it sounds like exceptions may apply. And as far as I can tell, the photos meets the footnote requirements as well, though you would have to explicitly show how they're not. Purely citing policy won't get you anywhere - it doesn't demonstrate you understand the policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCCE, the burden is upon the person wanting to use a non-free file in a certain way to provide a valid non-free use rationale for it's use, and providing such a valid rationale involves more than simply adding text or a template to the file's page per WP:JUSTONE. The concerns raised by JJMC89 are legitimate and this type of non-free use has not really been allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 over the years absent any sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself. If you feel this use is an exception to that, then perhaps you can better clarify how. How is the reader's understanding of the content of the section about the book in the edition significantly improved by seeing this particular cover and how is omitting that cover image detrimental to that understanding? The file is being used for primary identification in Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set which seems OK. There's nothing in the WP:NFCC which says that a non-free file can only be used once, but additional uses tend to be harder to justify per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 and some kind of alternative way of presenting the content per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI should be used instead (even if this means not showing the image) whenever possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: You raise valid points. I'm aware of the burden, however in JJMC89's reasoning for deletion, they haven't adequately explained their case, to say the least. Do I feel they have a case? Yes I do. But I didn't learn it from the defense of their nominations, I got it from your comments. I still feel they may not understand it themself based on their unclear and poorly worded reasoning. Anyway, I see your reasoning, and perhaps it is an excessive use of images under our policy. Especially since I am reperceiving "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons" from your description of it as a list. You may be on to something there. However, I think the only thing I dislike about all of this, is that there were no notices on those articles that the imagery would be deleted. I think that could have been handled better. I know the file uploader gets a notice, but what about the article that uses them? A courtesy notice would have been nice. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
There is template {{ffdc}} which can be added to the captions of files nominated for discussion, but it's not required. To be fair though, many times a file doesn't have a caption so it can be confusing on where or how to use such a template. For reference, I tend to use "ffdc" templates whenever possible, but on more than one occasion these have been removed by other editors who didn't like the appearance of the template in the image's caption or wanted the file kept; so, even this doesn't guarantee anything. As for a more general notification about a file being nominated, some files have WikiProject banners added to their talk pages and, like an article nominated at AFD, a file nominated at FFD is usually added somewhere to a list on the WikiProject's page where pages under its scope which are flagged for problem can be found. Not all WikiProjects, however, have set up their pages to receive such notifications just like many WikiProjects don't have delsort templates; so, I guess it depends upon the project. Even that, however, is no guarantee since not everyone editing an article belongs to the relevant WikiProjects. Unlike with files being nominated for deletion from Commons, there's no automated way of adding an FFD notification to an article's talk page and I don't think there ever has been. Perhaps this would be something worth discussing at Talk:FFD, but at the same time AFD notifications aren't added to the pages of files used in articles which are being discussed at AFD; so, maybe this additional notification was once tried, but deemed to be not necessary. The surest way to be "warned" about anything such as this is to add the file to your watchlist and try and keep track of it that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your measured responses. I will begin watching file pages per your recommendation. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all. As the pictures are used in the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article, these are permissible non-free use as the images are used for identification of the respective editions, which is the very subject of the article, making their inclusion a matter of commentary. In short I dispute the claim that these fail the WP:NFCC. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Adendum: there are other files simply tagged for speedy that are part and parcel of this motion. The speedy tags should be removed while this discussion is ongoing, as the conclusions decided here also apply equally to those files. oknazevad (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    While the editions are the subject of the article, a book cover identifies an individual book, none of which are the subject of the article. (See more above.) — JJMC89(T·C) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a disingenuous argument. The article is Editions of D&D (plural), of which all the pictures you nominated are exactly editions of D&D - one picture per edition. Exactly how are they not the subject of the article titled "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons"? I think what you want to argue is that an article should only have 1 primary picture to help the reader with the article, but since the article title is literally describing a plurality, one picture will not suffice, unless you do a spread of all the books in one shot and is likely unfeasible. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all – Book covers, in low resolution, are useful for readers to identify various editions of the game manuals, which are the subject matter of the article. — JFG talk 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all Dungeons and Dragons nominations. Nominator has repeatedly moved the goal posts on their reasoning for nominating them and can't quite determine why they should be deleted. The pictures meet all requirements. The nominator hasn't notified the articles on their respective talk pages that the pictures would be deleted, which would have been a nice courtesy. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • JJMC89, may you or I please switch from "di-fail NFCC" to "FFD" template for other images? Looks like the images don't meet the "speedy deletion" criteria. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thise images have now been deleted despite this ongoing discussion. oknazevad (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:D&d Box1st.jpg

File:D&d Box1st.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gracefool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Dungeons & Dragons and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89(T·C) 06:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise see above. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove from the two articles per nom. This file is being used for primary identification purposes in Dungeons & Dragons (1974) which seems fine per item 1 of WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. There's no real need to use this cover in the other articles since there's no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself in the relevant subsections (WP:NFC#CS), and primary identification is not really necessary per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since there's a hatnote provided to the stand-alone article where the cover can be seen. A single non-free use is already allowed seen as being an exception to WP:COPY by the WP:NFCC (which is based upon the EDP), so any additional uses tend to be much harder to justify. The "Editions" article, moreover, is essentially a WP:SAL written out in prose and non-free cover art is generally not used to "illustrate" individual sections of such articles absent of some pretty strong justification, which I'm don't think is being provided for this particular use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 15 September 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.

I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby single releasesEdit

File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby45.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb26554 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:I'm gonna love you just a little more baby (dutch cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JohnMalisianos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby by Barry White US vinyl.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded a side label of the "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby" US release, intending to replace both the German and Dutch covers. However, my effort was reverted and then discussed at article talk page, which I felt is not the best venue to discuss non-free images, especially if no compromise is made there. I think that taking the images to FFD would meet the scope of the FFD, especially when WP:NFCC comes into play.

I interpret WP:NFCC#3a saying that an acceptable image must be substantially different from another pre-existing image that is already used. Also, I interpret WP:NFCC#8 saying that removing and then omitting an acceptable image would severely and detrimentally affect readers' understanding of the topic, i.e. article subject. In other words, an irreplaceable non-free image may be acceptable if omitting that image harms their understanding of the topic. (BTW, Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover provides details about what to do with extra images, especially non-free ones.)

Although editorial discretion on which images to keep and which to delete comes to play, the policies on non-free content also apply. IMO, the German and Dutch covers should be deleted. The German one is partially extract from the front cover of Barry White's parent album I've Got So Much to Give. Also, I could not find reliable sources proving that the song charted in Germany. On the other hand, the Dutch release was charted, and the release has a picture sleeve, which many editors would prefer because... Barry's face and the song title are included. However, the song title is already recognizable by most readers without the image, and there are available freely-licensed images of Barry White to use.

I prefer the US side label because the US single release, despite lacking a picture sleeve, was successful in music charts and possibly sales in the US, where White was born and where the song was produced. Also, the release was part of White's successful US musical career. If at least one sleeve were also to be kept, probably the Dutch one, despite the image coloring making the song title less visible than intended (maybe because of digital scanning?), because the single there was charted in the Netherlands. However, I don't think more than one image is needed to increase readers' understanding of the single releases of the song, right? Also, certain readers can go to other sites, like discogs or 45cat or eBay, without needing to upload extra images, like sleeves. –George Ho (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot. If deleting the sleeves would harm readers' understanding of the single/song, I would point commonality of digital artworks in the prominent digital/streaming age as the factor of harm done by omission. We have lived in the era where we listeners have used to artworks so much since the CDs became popular in the 1990s, yet how vinyl singles were variously released in different regions have become obscure to many, right? Maybe having a label and a sleeve concurrently in one article is a compromise, yet the method is criticized sometimes primarily for affecting article layout; see Template talk:Extra album cover#Adding generic record labels, which is just about mostly the labels themselves. Still, to me, without a label, most readers would not realize how sparse or rare picture sleeves were in the United States before the CDs became popular in 1990s (or the United Kingdom until mid- or late-1970s, where UK record labels increasingly preferred picture sleeves). George Ho (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Also almost forgot, I anticipate other editors to disagree with me, especially since the majority (or consensus) has been favoring artworks (or picture sleeves) for years and since the sleeves and labels have been discussed before. George Ho (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Anna Brosche.jpegEdit

File:Anna Brosche.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dbjax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See it's metadata, the author is Agnes Lopez. All rights are reserved. It is clearly copyrighted. Masum Reza📞 11:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:NSPCC logo.pngEdit

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

Unused logo, replaced by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete You could have proded it you know. Masum Reza📞 13:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Cleanup. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Capt John Treasure Jones, Queen Mary.jpgEdit

File:Capt John Treasure Jones, Queen Mary.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Tennant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is unclear. Just because it was posted in a wikidot.com, doesn't mean it is licensed under CC 3.0. The website explicitly stated that no images are created by them. By posting to their site, "one agrees to license it to them". But there is no information about the author on the site. It could be that somebody took it from elsewhere and posted it on the site. Masum Reza📞 13:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A. Whilst the author is unknown, it is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. The image is in the family archives of Capt Treasure Jones. It is used in his autobiography 'Tramp to Queen' as the colour illustration on page 52 and as the basis for the cover. "Tramp to Queen". The History Press.
I have been identified as the Author of this work in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. As such, I would assume that it should qualify under fair use rationale under United States copyright law.

B. The image is posted on a page of the website Sotonopedia. It website describes itself as being ‘’the a-z of Southampton’s history’’. Sotonopedia is developed and maintained by the Local Studies Department of Southampton Central Library.
This reference was used simply to assert that the image is ‘in the public domain’.

Not being conversant with the various licencing and copyright provisions of Wikipedia perhaps it should be covered by another classification such as licensed under the 'Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic' license. Since the book cover itself has not been used, I did not think that it would qualify as a 'non-free book cover'. Perhaps it should be identified as 'non-free promotional'. Many thanks Richard Tennant (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent nominationsEdit

September 15Edit

File:Golden Lion size.jpgEdit

File:Golden Lion size.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ramòn DeLa Porta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Wikipedia:NFCC#1. There is a free copyright and similar topic image. SCP-2000 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Also, please use{{ping}} when you talk to me. Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The nominated image is the three-dimensional artwork of the prize. The one at Italian Wikipedia (it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png) is the drawing (two-dimensional) derivative of the copyrighted sculptural work; someone at it-wiki should either re-categorize it as non-free (but fair use) or nominate it for deletion. The "free" one shan't be transferred to Commons. -- George Ho (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Just for the note, Italy lacks freedom of panorama especially for buildings and three-dimensional artworks (c:COM:FOP Italy). George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Is a picture of Oshri Cohen holding the award acceptable per Commons rules and copyright law? George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@George Ho:I think the image acceptable per rule.--SCP-2000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Armen Sevada Gharabegian, Industrial Designer, 2013.pngEdit

File:Armen Sevada Gharabegian, Industrial Designer, 2013.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Socialstardom (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete as promotional content. Content uploaded to support article that has since been deleted for that reason; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Sevada Gharabegian. Image uploaded by same user who created and performed majority of the edits on that article (User:Socialstardom, apparently a digital marketing company in India). More details here if they're needed(!)

Ubcule (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - Come Along with Me.pngEdit

File:Adventure Time - Come Along with Me.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - Fionna and Cake.pngEdit

File:Adventure Time - Fionna and Cake.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - Princess Cookie.pngEdit

File:Adventure Time - Princess Cookie.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - I Remember You.pngEdit

File:Adventure Time - I Remember You.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - Simon & Marcy.pngEdit

File:Adventure Time - Simon & Marcy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:JamesBaxterHorse.jpgEdit

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

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would argue Keep because the image is being used to illustrate a guest animator's unique style and design aesthetic, which contrasts somewhat with the show's usual look.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Adventure Time - Jake the Brick.jpgEdit

File:Adventure Time - Jake the Brick.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyliad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is a pretty bare reference to the design but I don't think this is really enhancing readers' knowledge. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Astral Plane title card.pngEdit

File:Astral Plane title card.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 23W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Jermaine title card.pngEdit

File:Jermaine title card.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 23W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Slowdance marcyhunson.jpgEdit

File:Slowdance marcyhunson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gen. Quon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used for education or critical commentary but decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16Edit

File:Four ladies of Binahian, Camarines Sur.jpgEdit

File:Four ladies of Binahian, Camarines Sur.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyleve02 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete as file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. P 1 9 9   14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17Edit

File:Flag of Johor Military Forces.svgEdit

File:Flag of Johor Military Forces.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quickbar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

(Malaysian Military?) flag, possible derivative of non-free content; no evidence that this is freely licensed FASTILY 07:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fastily: Hello there. The Johor Military Force, or JMF, is a military unit falls under the jurisdiction of Sultan of Johor. Established in 1886, you can say they are sort of Malaysian Army, however, under the control of the Sultan. Regarding the flag, the JMF has two flags, one for the JMF's Commanding officer and another one is for the soldier. The file above is the later. During the Sultan of Johor's coronation in 2015, both of the flags along with a bunch of other flags (e.g. districts in Johor's flags) was introduced to the public as one of the state's flags <see here>. A state flag is not copyrighted. Quickbar (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia, works by the Malaysian government are copyrighted for 50 years. If this flag was introduced in 2015, then it is still copyrighted, and therefore non-free. -FASTILY 22:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fastily: Hi again. Yes at first, I share same views as you. You can see from the history of the file which at first I set the flag as a 'non-free use' image. On 1 November 2017, the government of Johor has put all the 'State Flags' under public domain, however, it still need to follow the protocols (i.e. flag size, how/when/where to display the flag etc.) <See here: Official document (PDF) Ref #: SUKJ.BKP.100-2/1/4 (23)>. Hope this helps. Quickbar (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpgEdit

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pricejb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was previously deleted at FfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 8 concluded that the copyrightability of the image and/or any fair use claim should be discussed in more depth here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per same reasons of previous FfD. Unused and unusable. -- P 1 9 9   12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete low-resolution, very blurry, would be a detriment to any article it is forced into -FASTILY 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value as the file is of terrible quality. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the file's low resolution, but there's no other file out there which actually shows the subject of the article. Originally brought up as a copyright violation, but I'm still not sure why. Only orphaned because it was previously deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the one who initiated the deletion review. Copying from my proposal there: One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the image, in its original context in the article (Veil of Veronica):
There are at least six images in existence which bear a marked resemblance to each other and which are claimed to be the original Veil, a direct copy of it or, in two cases, the Mandylion. Each member of this group is enclosed in an elaborate outer frame with a gilded metal sheet (or riza in Russian) within, in which is cut an aperture where the face appears; at the lower extreme of the face there are three points which correspond to the shape of the hair and beard.
  • Veil of Veronica
  • The Vatican Veronica.

  • The Holy Face of Vienna.

  • The Holy Face of Alicante.

  • The Holy Face of Jaén.

  • File:Jesus Garcia.jpgEdit

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

    Uploader apears to also be the subject of the photo. He is claiming to be the copyright holder but the EXIF shows the author to be Bill Sawhney and the photographer is normally the copyright holder. We would need WP:OTRS confirmation of copyright. Whpq (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:SoldCover1995.jpgEdit

    File:SoldCover1995.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pyraminxsolver (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    album cover, probable copyvio/derivative of non-free content FASTILY 22:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    September 18Edit

    File:Grand Central Solari.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: speedily replaced with different image from different source. This discussion related to a previous version derived from an AP photo. Two derivative versions of that have now been deleted. (The latest version is from solari, manufacturers of the display. I suspect they would release it under a CC licence if we asked them since it is a bit of free advertising for them.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

    This is a crop from an AP photo. WP:NFCC#UUI point 7 identifies AP photos as not allowed unless the photo itself is the subject of the commentary. The WP:NFUR credits AP but the photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. The subject is the Solari departure board captured in the photo and not the photo itself. Whpq (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Note - Solari (the makers of the board) have an image of the board on their history page. That would be usable as non-free content without violating WP:NFCC#2 which is the issue with using commercial agency images. -- Whpq (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Okay - so when I read WP:NFCCP it meets all criteria listed. When I read WP:NFCI I initially believed it meant that the image needed to relate to commentary in the article, not the exact file itself (I think it needs better clarification). I truly believe that blocking AP images on Wikipedia is a harsh overstep of fair use laws. This image has no market role, nobody's making mugs out of this, and there are dozens of non-commercial images that show nearly the same thing (I chose this one due to legibility, color, and a firm date). Nearly all online media websites simply borrow images, attributing their sources. The fact that we have such stern requirements while no other resource feels the need to limit themselves whatsoever is something that will forever keep Wikipedia mediocre.
    Anyway, aside from that annoyance, I'll replace the photo with the Solari website image or something similar. ɱ (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    NFCI refers to "image itself" and "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." Itself and themselves would seem to indicate that it is the image itself, but if you can suggest better wording to make it clearer, then you could post on the NFC talk page. Wikipedia's policy on use of non-free content is deliberately stricter than the legal doctrine of fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Explanation of policy and guidelines. Finally, with respect to commercial opportunity, AP licenses their images for money, so there is in fact a market role for this image. By the way, the image is available at AP. The price varies but a license for use on a web site with a single static placement for one month would be $260. (registration is needed to explore pricing). -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, you don't need to reclarify. As stated above, I get that now. And I know it's deliberate, that doesn't mean it makes logical sense. Libertarian idealists like Wales set Wikipedia up for eternal mediocrity. And no, just because someone puts a (stupidly high) price tag on something doesn't automatically make it marketable, sellable. It's useless especially in cropped form, and images like this one are in general even better (though not for my encyclopedic purpose). ɱ (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    And okay I swapped in the Solari.it image. Should not have problems now... ɱ (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Requesting close - the original issue of WP:NFCC#2 compliance is now moot with the upload of an image from the mnufacturer's web site rather than the AP photo. I've tagged the image for orphaned non-free revisions to remove the AP photo from the history. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 18 September 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:BROWN1thumb.jpgEdit

    File:BROWN1thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Merlynne6 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Elise face shot2.jpgEdit

    File:Elise face shot2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stuartbrainerd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Peopleinaline1922 - Cornelia Ramondt-Hirschmann.jpgEdit

    File:Peopleinaline1922 - Cornelia Ramondt-Hirschmann.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PawełMM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    low-res, unused (?) crop of File:Peopleinaline1922.jpg, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:BRIG2-1athumb.jpgEdit

    File:BRIG2-1athumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Merlynne6 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Iron Tail - 83d40m - model for indian head nickel SarasotaHistoryCenter crop.jpgEdit

    File:Iron Tail - 83d40m - model for indian head nickel SarasotaHistoryCenter crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused locally, already on Commons, no reason to retain local copy FASTILY 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Nancy segoe script.pngEdit

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

    unused personal image, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Ali Kalkan at courthouse.jpgEdit

    File:Ali Kalkan at courthouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Uyarici (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Kit body Ahly09Away.pngEdit

    File:Kit body Ahly09Away.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ebsawy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Kit left arm Ahly09home.pngEdit

    File:Kit left arm Ahly09home.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ebsawy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Kit left arm Ahly09away.pngEdit

    File:Kit left arm Ahly09away.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ebsawy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    unused, low-res, no obvious use FASTILY 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    September 19Edit

    File:MJSuiteEP.jpgEdit

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

    There's way too much non-free media on this page. The main cover is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:MichaelSuiteII.jpgEdit

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

    There's way too much non-free media on this page. The main cover is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:MichaelSuiteIII.jpgEdit

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

    There's way too much non-free media on this page. The main cover is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:MJackson4.gifEdit

    File:MJackson4.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MaJic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    There's way too much non-free media on this page. The main cover is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Jules Dialect from Dragon Quest Builders 2.pngEdit

    File:Jules Dialect from Dragon Quest Builders 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Duncanstibs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Non-free image used to accompany text which describes the use of slang and non-standard capitalization. The text already provides this information and so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    Have added further justification for including this image in the article.Duncanstibs (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    Have also amended caption so in-article text is not replicatedDuncanstibs (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    Expanded reasoning for inclusion: "No other verifiable source beyond a screenshot. Adds actual depiction of Polari [a cant dialect] in recent use, which is missing elsewhere in the Polari page. Illustrates the correct use of two polari words: varda and zhooshy, along with a straightforward standard received English clarification for non-polari speakers." Duncanstibs (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    None of that requires the use of a non-free image to illustrate it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    Yes it does - there are no other comparable and clear examples of polari in mainstream media over the last five years. The purpose of the image is to illustrate polari in popular culture. The alternative image (a picture of a shop front) doesn't actually do this. If using the current screenshot isn't necessary to illustrate recent uses of polari in popular culture, then please supply an alternative recent/contemporary free-use image of polari in popular media to illustrate this section instead. This is a dying cant language so recent illustrations of its use are both important and hard to find. It serves an absolutely legitimate encyclopedic purpose and you have not demonstrated that a free equivalent is available WP:NFCC#1. Duncanstibs (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC) [[

    File:FasterTV Logo.pngEdit

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

    unused company logo with dubious self-work claim FASTILY 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    September 20Edit

    File:Terminator 6 first poster.jpgEdit

    File:Terminator 6 first poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Панн (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    There is already non-free media on this page and it includes these characters. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Mary Jo Kopechne.jpgEdit

    File:Mary Jo Kopechne.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasted Time R (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    The use of this file in Mary Jo Kopechne seems fine, but I don't think the same can be said for the file's use in Ted Kennedy#Chappaquiddick incident per WP:NFCC#8. There's a hatnote to Chappaquiddick incident where reader's can find out more about the event, but a bit surprisingly there are no pictures of either Kennedy or Kopechne being used in that article. The biography about Kopechne is wikilinked in the both the lead and relevant section of the Kennedy article, so the reader can go to that article to find out more about her. I don't think there's any real loss of understanding of the relevant article cause by not seeing this photo and I don't think the reader's understanding is significantly increased by seeing a photo of her taken seven years before the incident; so, its non-free use seems more decorative than contextual to me per WP:NFC#CS. Suggest keep for the Kopechne article, but remove from the Kennedy article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Keep for Kopechne, remove from Kennedy, add to Chappaquiddick incident. I agree her yearbook photo doesn't increase understanding of Kennedy's bio, and would be better replaced with another photo more illustrative of the incident (such as Kennedy's car after it was pulled from the pond). However, it is the only photo we have to illustrate Kopechne, and the incident was about her death and not all about Kennedy's political career, therefore it belongs there. From your remarks above, I take it you agree. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpgEdit

    File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GabeMc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Unnecessary non-free image. Seeing one of the last photos of Jimi Hendrix does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the Death of Jimi Hendrix. damiens.rf 03:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Keep Text in the article describes the circumstances: "By around 2 p.m., he was sitting in a garden area outside the apartment enjoying some tea while she took photographs of him holding his favorite Fender Stratocaster guitar that he called the "black beauty".[19] In the opinion of author Tony Brown, "Jimi doesn't look particularly healthy in these photographs: his face seems a little puffy and on only a few of the pictures does he attempt to smile."[20][nb 4]" The photo allows readers to see if they agree with Brown's opinion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Delete. The points the image illustrates are sufficiently conveyed by text alone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep per Ojorojo. If Tony Brown's opinion is important enough to be quoted in the article, we also need to show a representative example of these photos for the quotation to be useful. Both "doesn't look particularly healthy" and "his face seems a little puffy" are subjective to the point that they need to be accompanied by the photo in order to be understood. One couldn't imagine the appearance of the photo or Hendrix in them on the basis of those quotations alone. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 08:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:Black Dog45.jpgEdit

    File:Black Dog45.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb26554 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    The image is the front cover of the French single release "Black Dog". It is currently used at both the "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Black Dog (song)" articles. However, I'm concerned about whether the usage in "Misty Mountain Hop" article complies with WP:NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion (#8). I'm also concerned about whether the usage also complies with MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, including rules #1.2 (disallowing decorative use) and #1.4 (being specific, unique, and irreplaceable to the article). If the usage doesn't comply with either of the rules, then the image should be removed from "Misty Mountain Hop".

    "Misty Mountain Hop" was released as an album track of Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album (officially untitled but had official logos identifying the album) and as the B-side track of "Black Dog". Many single releases put "Misty Mountain Hop" underneath "Black Dog", indicating that B-side track is below the A-side one.

    I tried removing the image, but the edit was reverted. I don't know why "Misty Mountain Hop" is included in those front covers when, in fact, it's been released as B-side. Maybe the band requested it, I guess? However, the record label (or company) still released the song that way. Some other single releases by other artists have two songs in their front covers; I don't know whether that's a coincidence. Also, I don't know why the song is classified/categorized as "single", despite multiple sources treating it as a "song". "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" is listed as a single, but I don't think sources list the release as "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog" (unless I missed one). However, I think the "single or song" debate, which is discussed at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop (where somehow B-side tracks by Led Zeppelin are treated as "singles"), is probably separate from the image issue.

    Single or song, I don't think the image helps readers understand the song "Misty Mountain Hop" in any way, and I don't think removing it would affect their understanding of the song... or "single"(?). The readers would already know that the song/single "Misty Mountain Hop" is released as a B-side, especially without the French sleeve. Also, it wouldn't affect the categorization/classification, would it?

    There are alternatives to the French sleeve: back cover of the Italian release, or a B-side label of the US release, which I may upload at Commons eventually. I may more likely choose the US one because it's free to use and the expression of facts isn't original enough for US copyright protection anyways. The Italian image is non-free and wouldn't improve the article quality or readers' understanding in any way. Also, the Italian release puts "Led Zeppelin" above "Black Dog" but didn't do the same for "Misty Mountain Hop". Also, the Italian release takes images from the parent album. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

    Almost forgot, the song "Misty Mountain Hop" was never individually charted in music charts. If the song were listed, a chart would list the single release as "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" instead of "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog". George Ho (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Keep George is again on his campaign to remove single picture sleeves from song infoboxes. However, the discussions don't favor his view (see this, this, this, etc.), so he's trying it again here. Most picture sleeves give a much better idea of the artist, the song title is usually prominent, the accompanying graphics often reflect the time and style, and how it may have been promoted. I don't see that there is a "free equivalent"; a photo of the single label (which George favors) simply does not convey the same information. Also, they aren't "purely for decoration" and are only used in infoboxes (isn't the "Images and notation" section of MOS:MUSIC more geared to images that appear in the main body?) —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:ScottNearing.jpegEdit

    File:ScottNearing.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hephaestos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    fails WP:NFCC#1 (free equivalents are available - e.g. File:Nearing-scott-c1917.jpg) and WP:NFCC#8 (decorative non-free content) FASTILY 07:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:SunRecord45.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 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    File:SunRecord45.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infrogmation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 07:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    Keep As a record collector and discographer, there is little that provides more context than a record label, so I feel #8 is satisfied. However, I think the licencing should be changed to PD-Pre1978, as it is from 1957 (file is of an original pressing) and there is no copyright notice for the label. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:39, 20 September 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.

    September 21Edit

    FooterEdit

    Today is September 21 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 21 -- (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 "===September 21===" 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.