Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0
TfD	6	6
MfD	1	1
FfD	1	1
RfD	27	27
AfD	0	0

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

What not to list here

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

Instructions for listing files for discussion

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 October 30}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 October 30}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 October 30}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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

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

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

October 21

File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png

[edit]

This non-free image of a tornado is being used in Tornadoes of 2022. The image is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It is the source of critical commentary, as the drone footage (which is what this screenshot was taken from) is the topic of several articles ([1][2][3][4][5][6]). The drone footage was also presented/used by the European Severe Storms Laboratory at the AMS 30th Conference on Severe Local Storms, where they used photogrammetry (basically near the time of this screenshot) to determine the tornado had winds up to 118.0 metres per second (264 mph). So no, this does indeed have commentary regarding this actual video/photo, which was taken by Reed Timmer, who also has their own Wikipedia article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment — As discussed over on the Wikimedia Commons amid a huge review of weather-related photos, photographs of tornadoes, especially notable ones with lots of lasting RS media coverage, almost always qualify under the NFF guidelines as they are historical events and photographs cannot be reproduced as that specific tornado cannot ever happen again. This idea was also confirmed by EN-Wiki administrator Rlandmann (no-pinged), who has spent months reviewing thousands of weather-related images to see if they are free to use or copyrighted. Switching tornado photos to NFFs was even recommended by Rlandmann. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: — Your nomination statement “the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado” is factually incorrect. The section this NFF is used in covers the tornado outbreak of April 29–30, 2022. The topic is that outbreak of 25 tornadoes, not “Tornadoes of 2022” in general. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I personally think it would suffice; at least in the relevant article dealing with the 2022 Andover tornado. There isn’t any known free alternatives. So I actually have to agree with @WeatherWriter (and disagree with @Whpq) on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that said; IF (and only if) a free alternative, even if it is at an absurdly poor resolution, were to ever become available; this image must be immediately deleted and replaced with the free one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a CC0 licensed photo of the damage/aftermath of the tornado; but that isn’t going to change my opinion since this deals with the tornado itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in an article for the 2022 Andover tornado. That is a redirect to the real article which is Tornadoes of 2022. The fact that there are no known free alternatives only means that it might satisfy WP:NFCC#1. But a non-free image must meet all of the non-free content criteria, and this image was nominated as not meeting WP:NFCC#8. None of the information in the section (not article) about the Andover tornado needs this image to be understood. -- Whpq (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @Whpq, FYI, the link you posted for the cover. Is a redirect to “Tornadoes of 2022”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction: supposed to ping @WeatherWriter, not the other. Wrong ping, oops!) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is a section on the Tornadoes of 2022 article. I interpret the sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics, given no sections related to each other besides the shear fact they cover tornadoes that occurred during 2022. Several sections (“outbreaks”) on the Tornadoes of 2022 article have their own stand-alone articles as one section covers one unique outbreak. In this circumstance, the section linked to specifically covers that outbreak and no other tornadoes during the year 2022. To me, I do not see it as a photo for “Tornadoes of 2022”, as the Andover tornado (and subsequent outbreak) is not mentioned in any other section in the entire article, as that section is specifically for that tornado/outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics is incorrect. The topic of the article is Tornadoes of 2022. -- Whpq (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've contacted Reed Timmer and asked if he's willing to release the image under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not get a response from Reed Timmer, so it is assumed no permission is given. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

October 23

File:Stadio Penzo Venice.jpg

Seems to be some sort of screen grab. Even ignoring the potential copyright issues, this image is not educationally useful due to its low quality. Currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PBS Wisconsin 2019 Logo.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, according to [7], the file should be deleted at Wikipedia. Instead, this file may be relicense as (PD-US-1978-89) and move into Wikimedia Commons. This is a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino, where the file acually became free through formalities (see also Commons deletion request regarding older PBS logo, which also resulting in kept). 103.111.100.82 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons per nom and affirmation. Nate • (chatter) 03:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This file should be placed at Wikimedia Commons. 2404:8000:1037:456:4994:F92A:E830:E3 (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About to do it now Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent nominations

October 24

File:2026 Winter Olympics logo.svg

Italy has a very high threshold for copyright protection of artistic designs, similar to how the AC Milan logo is not protected in Italy. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, so a work must also be free in the U.S. for us to consider it to be free. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Harold Schwartz.jpg

No freedom of panorama for public art works in USA. The statue's plaque indicates this person as the founder of "The Villages" and per the Wikipedia article on Harold Schwartz, the Villages naming happened in 1992 so this statue is still well within copyright. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until VRT permission to author of sculpture. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friends - Beach Boys.ogg

Usage in album and song articles may not contextually signify the respective article topics in question. George Ho (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busy Doin Nothin - Beach Boys.ogg

Usage in album and song articles may not contextually signify the respective article topics in question. George Ho (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

File:2028 Summer Olympics Logo.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file should be transferred as Wikimedia Commons, given that the logo itself was uncopyrightable. 2404:8000:1037:456:4994:F92A:E830:E3 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marathwada Kesar Mango Logo.jpg

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly let me know what is needed here. I had taken reference from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brass_broidered_coconut_shell_craft_of_Kerala_India_logo.png). Had dutifully added:

Description

Logo of "Marathwada Kesar Mango" which has been granted Registration in Part A of the Registration in Part A of the Register of MARATHWADA KESAR MANGO under Application No: 499 in respect of Mango falling in Class – 31 is hereby advertised as accepted under Subsection (1) of Section 13 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 with effect from 30/11/2016

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Source (WP:NFCC#4)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS JOURNAL NO.88 JULY 28, 2016, p. 47

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Use in article (WP:NFCC#7)

Marathwada Kesar Mango

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)

to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)

Any derivative work based upon the logo would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)

This will be used only in the article titled "Marathwada Kesar Mango"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)

The use of a low resolution image of an organization's logo in the article about that organization will not impact the commercial viability of the logo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks in advance

Vivek Vivo78 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logo to identify a craft, which passes NFCC1 as a free image would unlikely be produced. However, in your case, the plant/fruit can be photographed and licensed for free use. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhiwapur Chilli Logo.jpg

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harmal Chilli Logo.jpg

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khola Chilli Logo.jpg

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kari Ishad Mango Logo.png

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goa Mankurad Mango Logo.png

Don't think this fulfills WP:NFCC1 as image of the plant/fruit can be taken and licensed as a CC file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Under Pressure cover (The Used and MCR).jpg

Fails to contextually signify the song originally done by prior artists or one of subsequent recordings less successful than the original, despite being charted in only one country. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Houston MyLoveIsYourLove.ogg

Sample's ability to contextually signify the song and the whole album still questionable, despite the de-PRODding two years ago. Demonstrating the song ≠ "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian portrait of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.jpg

Possibly unfree - These files claim to have been uploaded under a cc-4.0 license, from here based on the site's copyright statement. However, these images look to have been taken from one of the photos here which states that: "The portraits cannot be used for commercial purposes and cannot be used in merchandising, advertising or for other non-editorial purposes." and "Where each portrait is used for editorial purposes they should be credited as follows: Photograph by Millie Pilkington 2024." So it appears that this image does not in fact have a cc-4.0 license. 161.29.216.215 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. While the original source website now gives a 404 error, the other site's copyright statement also indicates a Creative Commons license. The license does exclude the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the department logo and content from third parties, but this file doesn't fall under any of those categories. It is my understanding that if a work is under both a free license and a more restrictive license, then the free license still applies. I also think the restrictions are related to personality rights rather than copyrights. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete per evidence this is a third-party photograph that is not covered by the Creative Commons license. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the statement at pmc.gov.au which releases the images under a Creative Commons license. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't apply to images from third parties. Per that same page on the PMC website:

"Wherever a third party holds copyright in material presented on this website, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material.

This department has made all reasonable efforts to:

-clearly label material where the copyright is owned by a third party."

And on the page where the image is shown it says:

"The official Australian portraits of His Majesty King Charles III and Her Majesty Queen Camilla have been provided to the Australian Government by Buckingham Palace." (emphasis added)

"The portraits cannot be used for commercial purposes and cannot be used in merchandising, advertising or for other non-editorial purposes."

"Where each portrait is used for editorial purposes they should be credited as follows: Photograph by Millie Pilkington 2024." (emphasis added)

As such, it seems to me that the PMC has clearly attributed the photos to a third party (Millie Pilkington) and that a commercial CC license doesn't apply in this instance.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

File:Scrooge in KH2.jpg

I do not think we need an image of Scrooge in the Kingdom Hearts series. His design is not different within the series, and the page image serves that purpose better. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia Hawkins.png

It seems some editors are out to further prove that the objective is prettying up articles, not respect for copyright. This was added to the article a mere 32 hours after the article's creation, which itself was a reaction to news reports of her death. It's long been held that WP:BLP applies for 1½–2 years after a subject's death. FFD outcomes have usually shown that adding non-free images to BLPs is a no-no. Even so, it's plainly obvious that we haven't even come close to exhausting all opportunities to locate a free image. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I've been reading for years and years that AGF doesn't apply when it concerns copyright. Did that change while I was too busy to notice? WP:CCC shouldn't mean that our editorial direction becomes so inconsistent that even regulars can't keep up with all the shifts in direction. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to the policy that says you shouldn’t assume good faith on copyright, as I’ve not seen that. My understanding is the one found at the policy I linked: "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law." Innisfree987 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:CCC, WikiBlame indicates the above was added in this 2009 edit. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

File:Motors - Airport excerpt.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the rock band who performed the song heard in the file. Contextual significance ≠ music illustration. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DragonsWhateverShot1.PNG

Fails to contextually signify the song and the content depicted in the file. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

File:Balon.PNG

Definitely not a PD-textlogo as claimed. Unsure what FUR it qualifies to be. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man of Constant Sorrow by The Soggy Bottom Boys - single cover.jpg

The cover art itself is hardly needed to identify the release of the specific recording. Sure, the recording itself may be notable and may have won accolades, but the single release itself wasn't that successful. It charted in just two countries: flopped in France; modest on the genre-specific chart in the US. When the song hit one million copies by 2016, I think most of them were digital sales. Physical sales hardly contributed much, IMO.

Furthermore, the cover recording itself isn't the main topic of the article and doesn't need a cover art just to represent the recording. Indeed, some or plenty other song articles omit one or more cover arts belonging to later cover recordings, like Last Christmas, Ain't Nobody, Something's Got a Hold on Me, and The Way You Move.

If deleting this cover art doesn't detriment the understanding of the whole early 20th-century song (the article subject) or the subject of discussion, then this cover art would fail to contextually signify the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This file also fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) as it can be replaced with this image of the song's CD release sourced from Discogs (albeit cropped to show only the label of the disc). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a promo release. I'm unsure whether presenting just the CD itself can make any difference. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:24kGoldn all white.jpeg

Dubious own-work claim. According to the metadata, this is a screenshot from an unspecified source. ✗plicit 14:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

File:Shin Sang-ok.jpg

A Getty image, inviting NFCC#2 issues. Incomplete and inaccurate rationale. And we have a free image of this subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otto The Orange's Instagram Page, as of Oct 2024.jpg

non-free file; not in use Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 14:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is October 30 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 30 – (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 "===October 30===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

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

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

October 23

Recent nominations

October 24

October 25

October 26

October 27

October 28

October 29

October 30

Footer