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 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: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 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.
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.
Non-free file may actually be free. From what the uploader provided, this painting is likely 18th century, so {{PD-old-assumed}} would apply even though the author is unknown.
Wikiacc (
¶) 03:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The image was earlier discussed
here, where
Kusma wrote: "as it was first published in 1979, it may be protected by copyright". Note also that the 1979 publication was in the United Kingdom, not the United States. So I doubt this work was eligible for restoration under the URAA, but this is worth discussing.
Wikiacc (
¶) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikimedia Commons would probably accept this image based on sloppy interpretation of rules, but I see no evidence that it is PD. From
c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom, it seems to be in copyright in the UK until 2029 or 2049, and it was not PD in 1996. —
Kusma (
talk) 05:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, unless we can establish either that the painting was in fact published before 1979, or the identity of the artist, under the UK's bizarre copyright rules it remains in copyright until 2049 here.
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The other alternative would be that it was never published at all; This is because publication requires the consent of the copyright holder. So it is unlikely that it having been made available to the public in 1979 counts as publication. This would render it {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
Felix QW (
talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This reasoning only applies to the US, of course, but that is good enough for a local file.
Felix QW (
talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The painting was (and I think still is) owned by relatives of Alexander Buchan, who appear to have been involved in the 1979 publication and are also the most likely potential copyright holders. —
Kusma (
talk) 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Doesn't
contextually signify the song. Doesn't justify reason that omitting this file would detriment understanding of the whole song.
George Ho (
talk) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I uploaded a sheet music cover of
Unchained Melody as the lead/infobox image, but I've wondered recently whether it's needed and compliant with NFCC, especially
"contextual significance" criterion. If not, then I won't object its deletion.
George Ho (
talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-free file being used as fair use, but missing fair use rationale box (not completely required) and the rationale provided is incomplete (missing
WP:NFCCP#10c). This file does not meet
WP:NFCCP#8 "Contextual Significance" - it is not necessary to enhance the reader's understanding of the versions of the
SpaceX Starship; the different sized rockets can be visualized based on the article's content and the data could be
summarized without needing to show this slide.
Consigned (
talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on
Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_24#File:4-cube_4^4.png that files are deleted via a PROD. But
the file was proposed for deletion in 2009 so I can’t do a PROD. Back then it was suggested to delete because it was obsolete and replaced by an svg. It was kept because uploader requested and it was used as a source for the svg. Now the file is moved to Commons so there is no longer any issue in deleting the file.
MGA73 (
talk) 19:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on
Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_24#File:4-cube_4^4.png that files are deleted via a PROD. But
the file was proposed for deletion in 2009 so I can’t do a PROD. Back then it was suggested to delete because it was obsolete and replaced by an svg. It was kept because uploader requested and it was used as a source for the svg. Now the file is moved to Commons so there is no longer any issue in deleting the file.
MGA73 (
talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The front sleeve of the 1978 single release looks similar to the Beatles' parent album
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but it's no longer used in the
song article. It's currently used in
With a Little Help from My Friends, but to me, its ability to
contextually signify the whole song isn't clear. More convincing images would've been ones associated with the song, like the song title itself: e.g. a back cover or a side label of the release itself (
45cat), or a side label of another (
45cat).
George Ho (
talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As I'm beginning to believe, the whole side label may have elements that aren't "original" enough for US copyright. Nonetheless, it may or may not be "original" enough for the (longtime) UK copyright. Should be "PD-ineligible-USonly" if no consensus has yet decided to transfer it to Commons.
George Ho (
talk) 07:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-fee logo claimed to be used for identification in the infobox at the top of the article but is instead in a secondary infobox at the bottom of the article. The logo is not the subject of any sourced significant critical commentary. Fails
WP:NFCC#8.
Whpq (
talk) 17:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NFCCP criterion 8, specifically the article does not need a photo for the reader to be able to understand that when captured Rudolph had dyed hair and a moustache, since text alone does that perfectly well. Article already contains a free imasge of Rudolph
Kathleen's bike (
talk) 20:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the logo of the
Canadian Soccer Association, not the national soccer teams themselves, thus this image cannot be used on the team articles. We have had many similar FFDs for sports association logos with consensus that they can't be used on team articles (
WP:GETTY point 17). The CSA page is using a different version of this image, thus this version does not need to be kept, as it has no valid uses
Joseph2302 (
talk) 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and restore to Canadian Soccer Association page per above.
Idiosincrático (
talk) 07:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment am fine with it being added back to
Canadian Soccer Association if the mess of the non free content on there is fixed, and as long as there is a clear note that it's only allowed to be used there (and any changes to try and use it in Canada teams articles are reverted).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So, you are saying that you only accept keeping fair use media if Wikipedia bans all once and future vandals, and vet all editors with a test for their media use behavior limits? That would be equivalent to banning all fair-use media on Wikipedia, and turning Wikipedia into the gated community of
Citizendium. There is only 1 image at
Canadian Soccer Association currently, and it is from COMMONS. Last year there were only two images, this logo and the image from COMMONS. So I don't see what you mean by mess of non-free media. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 20:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I'm saying we can keep it if the correct information is on the file page, and we need to monitor it so that people don't change this with invalid non free claims. The mess is that people keep changing the file page to try and add it to
Canada men's soccer team and that causes bot to remove this image from
Canadian Soccer Association.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 09:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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.