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:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{
db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{
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}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under
criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
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}}.
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:
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 June 25}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{
subst: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 June 25}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
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.
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.
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, notvoting. 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.
We already have multiple free image equivalents of Eastern Airlines Boeing 727s that can be used to show what the aircraft involved looked like. These images can be used to show what the aircraft looked like without having the need to use a copyrighted image.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 13:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
I have my doubts that the one on Commons is in the public domain. The uploader of the Commons image is indeffed here for being a sock.
SWinxy (
talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought that account name looked familiar. Regardless, the image seems to simply be a combination of already PD Simple assets and
this image, which seems to be a derivative work of
this NASA image with very little changed about it.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep At least for now, as the copyright status of the Commons version is unclear and was uploaded by a known disruptive editor. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. If there is consensus to keep the Commons version, I would have no problem with a new discussion leading to deletion.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Pending result of Commons file. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:50, 18 June 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.
This looks to be a generic logo, not a logo specifically for the 2023 event, and thus violates
WP:GETTY point 14 and
WP:NFCC#8. Nothing on this logo is 2023 specific as it has no reference to the year 2023 on it.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No, it's a generic logo used in 2023 that could be used again should the ICC choose to, as nothing ties it to 2023 only (even the sponsor could be the same in 2025, so they could use this logo again). Many similar logos with no year references have been deleted too.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: We don't know what will happen in 2025 for sure (
WP:CRYSTAL); If the same logo is used in 2025, then only we should delete it; otherwise it should be kept. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK) 13:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Pavlov's_Dog_-_Julia.mp3 is a lower-quality version of
File:Pavlov's_Dog_-_Julia.opus(same file base name, .opus extension). The original MP3 was so badly compressed (not only low bitrate, inadequate encoder or encoder configuration) that the point of illustrating what the Song/Album/Artist "sounds like" was completely missed. A re-encoding from the original file with a less catastrophic coder was inevitable to justify its inclusion. Sadly, that can't be done using the "new version of this file" dialog.
The one Wikipedia usage,
Pampered Menial, has been updated to use the non-catastrophic version of the snippet (all 19.8s of it). So, the original MP3 is redundant and can only not be nominated for speedy deletion because it's not the same file format. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MüllerMarcus (
talk •
contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Cover art of modestly or less successful (or lesser known) cover recording, despite being charted, of an
Elton John song. Unconvinced that the cover art improves understanding of the previously recorded song or the cover recording itself. Unconvinced that omitting this image would impact such understanding. May not
contextually signify the song at all.
George Ho (
talk) 05:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep since this is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass
WP:GNG and
WP:NSONG, charting on five national charts and two national subcharts, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes
WP:NFCC#8.
Aspects (
talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair use album cover. Text on arrows is likely between pretty high US and wery low UK TOO (Franz Ferdinand is British band.)
Michalg95 (
talk) 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Re-license as "PD-ineligible-USonly" – Doesn't appear to meet the US's originality standards for copyright. Nonetheless, uncertain whether it meets UK's (low) standards, but I'll treat it as such by default. —
George Ho (
talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per a discussion at a previously deleted screen shot,
here, I would be hesitant to include this on commons per the discussion of simple graphics and a court case Atari won through Breakout. This can be read
here. Not sure if this applies, but something to consider before uploading screenshots, even of simple graphics.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 17:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The court case seems to be about calling the video game as a whole copyrightable, not just a screenshot. The DR seems to be about it not being used on-wiki (obviously not a problem here) and the screenshot being not from the actual game (which I am presuming this one is).
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure, but it seems to apply similar logic as we have for it not being within copyright. This is a weird grey area as I've said so I'm not saying its not the case here, Its just sort of a muddy area to be able to upload it here with confidence.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Remain as non-free – If a similar screenshot was deleted on Commons, then ineligibility for Commons transfer is assumed. Furthermore, the brown background has shades all over the edges and/or corners, making it original enough for copyright. --
George Ho (
talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as is per the uncertainty above.
Neocorelight (
Talk) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense as {{PD-simple}} + {{Esoteric file}}: This screenshot is below
c:COM:TOO US, which AFAICT is the country of origin. It is very simple, the shading too. The deletion request on Commons didn't have to do with copyright questions, rather if it was within Common's scope or not, so the fact that it was deleted om Commons shouldn't affect this file's license on Wikipedia at all. Even if it isn't suitable for Commons, its license on Wikipedia should still be correct, that's why we have the {{Esoteric file}} template. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jonteemil (
talk •
contribs) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Uploaded the sheet music cover in the past. Uncertain now whether it
contextually signifies the song. Don't mind it deleted if no one else opposes.
George Ho (
talk) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reading the article, the song was a national hit at the time... but an international flop outside North America. I don't think non-free photos of two singers seen in the cover art would improve the topic understanding much.
George Ho (
talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Screenshot showing Cher in a TV set is already easy to summarize in text and may
not be irreplaceable. May not
contextually signify the music video that is already easy to understand in text or the whole song. Rather it merely identifies the singer in the music video, IMO.
George Ho (
talk) 21:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
De-PRODding rationale from an editor was this: I might agree that having the “Portugese EP” cover is a bit unnecessary but the single should still have visual representation in some form. However, if visual representation is necessary, then the UK vinyl single (
45cat,
discogs) should be used instead of the Portuguese EP release (
45cat,
discogs). Furthermore, the Elton John version itself wasn't that successful, and the article may need cleanup and rewrite and/or reorganization. I'm uncertain whether visual representation of an unsuccessful version is necessary, but I still doubt it.
George Ho (
talk) 02:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I’d agree that the UK single label would be the best choice.
Is there a guideline which states that whether or not single art should be included is dependent on the success of said single? As far as I can tell the notability guidelines only really apply to whether or not a song should have an article dedicated to it in the first place.
Elephantranges (
talk) 16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The use of a non-free content isn't based on notability. Rather it's based on impact toward
readers' understanding of the article topic, i.e. an Elton John song made a Canadian successful later by a Canadian band. Being contextually significant depends on significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, determined by
due weight and
balance, as described in
WP:NFC#CS. In my view, as readers would already figure out, the Elton John version didn't chart at all, another version under different title fared a little bit better in one country, and any visual representation of the Elton John version wouldn't make much difference, especially when such representation is omitted... or deleted. Even illustrating critical commentary, an
acceptable use, still wouldn't override the file's non-compliance with NFCC.
George Ho (
talk) 17:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Makes sense. In any case I’d definitely agree that the current imagine there is pretty unneccesary.
Elephantranges (
talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is just the Chinese flag +
File:China national football team.svg below it. The articles that use this file are child entities of the men's and women's national team, respectively, which use the logo without the flag. Under
WP:NFC#UUI17, non-free logos of child entities may only be used if they have a seperate logo to the parent entity. I have a hard time seing that the addition of the Chinese flag above the logo would make this a seperate logo, hence I think it should be deleted per UUI17.
Jonteemil (
talk) 17:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Insufficient fair use rationale. The subject is alive and is used on a video game developer page he is associated with.
Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per
WP:NFCC#1 and
WP:NFCC#8. Subject of image is alive - so would not be impossible for free image to be taken. Subject of image (person) is not subject of article (company) - so omission would not be detrimental to understanding of article on company. (Note: Rationale given speaks to "use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website" that won't "impact the commercial viability of the software or [web]site". This rationale doesn't fit the image or its use.)
Guliolopez (
talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{
subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===June 25===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
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.