Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog
  Jun Jul Aug Sep TOTAL
CfD 4 16 21 28 69
TfD 0 0 1 11 12
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 25 25

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 here[edit]

  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 17}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {} ~~~~

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 {} for each additional file. Also, add {} 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 {}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ffdc|File_name.ext|log=2019 September 17}} 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 participation[edit]

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 discussions[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

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


For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

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

File:Grey Wiese free.jpg[edit]

File:Grey Wiese free.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Olga2323 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

allegedly a free file, but unclear if the licensing terms actually make it free enough for use on Wikipedia FASTILY 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent nominations[edit]

September 11[edit]

File:Richard D. Johnson smiling.jpg[edit]

File:Richard D. Johnson smiling.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scporter3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obviously professional photograph, no permission from the photographer; claim of "own work" is improbable at best – the image was used here one day after it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Daud arsala campaign.JPG[edit]

File:Daud arsala campaign.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by People4u42 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Incorrect copyright status. It's claimed as "CC/own work", but appears to be a screenshot of copyrighted web content rather than genuinely original work. It was also uploaded solely to offer technical verification of the article subject's candidacy in an election he did not win, which is not a notability claim in and of itself and has resulted in the article being up for AFD, so the image will be left completely unused and unrepurposable anywhere else as soon as the article gets deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Although the author may have created this screenshot, that does not transfer any copyrights on the original material -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Daud arsala.JPG[edit]

File:Daud arsala.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by People4u42 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As with File:Daud arsala campaign.JPG, this is claimed as CC/own work, but in fact it's just an even tighter crop of the same screenshot down to a very low-quality and low resolution focus on the subject's face itself — but since cropping somebody else's work does not magically turn it into your own new work, this still isn't really a legitimately CC-licensed image. And as with the election table screenshot, this will be unused and unrepurposable as soon as the article gets deleted. (No, it isn't on track to survive.) Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Although the author may have created this screenshot, that does not transfer any copyrights on the original material -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 12[edit]

File:Schematic Fencing Response.jpg[edit]

File:Schematic Fencing Response.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A.H.Hoss (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is not free. It says "Permission granted for internet use by Lippincott Williams". damiens.rf 01:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg[edit]

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)

File:Black Dog45.jpg[edit]

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)

File:The Unknown Comic.jpg[edit]

File:The Unknown Comic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neptune's Trident (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of The Unknown Comic. Despite the article's title, the article is a BLP article about Murray Langston, who goes by stage name "The Unknown Comic" when performing. Since Langston is still living and since non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:FREER for more), there's no reasonable reason to expect that a free image of Langston (without the bag over his head) can neither be found nor created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary indentification as this non-free one; moreover, there really doesn't seem to be much of a need per both NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS for more on the latter) to use this non-free photo anywhere else in the article as well. This is basically a picture of Langston with a brown paper grocery bag over his head, which is something that seems to be more than sufficiently understood from the text in the article about the character; so, I don't think this would really qualify as an exemptions to NFCC#1 for living person per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. The fact that Langston is still living and possibly may even still be performing/making appearances as "The Unknown Comic" makes it reasonable to assume that a new photo of him with a bag over his head could also be created or found; in other words, there's no real need to use a non-free publicity shot like this file or any other non-free file from the same period just for identification purposes of the character.

Just for reference, before nominating this file for discussion at FFD, I did seek out other opinions at WT:NFC#Fictional character images in BLPs and User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#File:The Unknown Comic.jpg where concerns about the file's compliance with WP:NFCCP were also raised by others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - My understanding is that Langston is no longer making appearances as the Unknown Comic, so creating a free image of Langston with the paper bag over his head is not currently possible. There may be possibility of him reprising that role as he is living, but that is supposition so I disagree with that line of reasoning as reason for failing WP:NFCC#1. So what remains is whether a photo of Langston who is a living person, with a text description of wearing a paper bag on his head would be a suitable replacement for a non-free image. I say no. And I base this reasoning on the excpetions mention in WP:NFC. "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." (emphasis added). The paper bag on the head is an essential element of the visual appearance. As such, it's use as the primary means of visual identification meets WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Loren MacIver fair use.jpg[edit]

File:Loren MacIver fair use.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Free portrait now available and added to her biography, this no longer required as fair use. File:Portrait of Loren MacIver LCCN2004663253.jpg. Deadstar (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FREER. This probably didn't need to be discussed at FFD; it could've been tagged for speedy deletion with {{rfu}} instead per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg[edit]

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)

File:Barrackpore tci.JPG[edit]

File:Barrackpore tci.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is a collage without specific information about the source for the constituent images. A vague wave to wikimedia.com is not a proper source and mediapo.in does not even resolve for me. Whpq (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

File:D&d Box1st.jpg[edit]

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)

File:Barrackpore tci2.JPG[edit]

File:Barrackpore tci2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Collage with no information on source images. This image uses the same base files as File:Barrackpore tci.JPG but with additional images. The other file makes a vague statement of where the files came from. This file doesn't even bother with the vague statement. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13#File:Barrackpore tci.JPG. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby single releases[edit]

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.jpeg[edit]

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)

File:NSPCC logo.png[edit]

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.jpg[edit]

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)

September 15[edit]

File:Golden Lion size.jpg[edit]

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)

File:Armen Sevada Gharabegian, Industrial Designer, 2013.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.jpg[edit]

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.jpg[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.png[edit]

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.jpg[edit]

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 16[edit]

File:Four ladies of Binahian, Camarines Sur.jpg[edit]

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)

September 17[edit]

File:Flag of Johor Military Forces.svg[edit]

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)


Footer[edit]

Today is September 17 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 17 -- (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 17===" 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.