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:
If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion To list a file:
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:
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. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
March 13
File:Pollack - ID with Gestapo Stamp.jpg
- File:Pollack - ID with Gestapo Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ophirbaer ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is an identification card created by the German government in 1939 currently in the public domain? (I am not sure.) Wikiacc (¶) 16:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is what I was told by a member of the OTRS team for the Hebrew Wiki. That was his/her statement and hence his/her license template to clear the issue: "The certificate is probably owned by Herbert Pollack's son but the copyright is owned by the German government. Since this is a work of the German government, it is in the public domain. I added a suitable license template." Stated by Giz Zoh [Ticket#2021031010007143] קובץ:Pollack - ID with Gestapo Stamp - 13 1.jpg. Hebrew - Wikimedia commons <permissions-he@wikimedia.org>. --Ophirbaer (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
March 7
Duplicate screenshots
- File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Word for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Word 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silvergoat ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jlin ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:MS Word 2007.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stephenchou0722 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#3a, only one screenshot is required to identify the software. It is simply the same software running on different operating systems, they both serve the same purpose. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Added 3 more which are not used for identification, nor are they being used to illustrate anything in particular and where its omission would be detrimental to any sort of understanding. Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Not really. They're different versions, not just running on different versions of operating systems. I do agree with WP:NFCC#3, though - but these are vital to show the history of Office for Mac. Also, compare File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png, File:Screenshot of Microsoft Office Excel 95, an application part of Microsoft Office system.png, and File:FileScreenshot_of_Microsoft_Office_Excel_2000.png. Again, all non-free licences, but used to show the history of a particular piece of software. This qualifies under minimal use in my opinion and are not, in any way, duplicate, as you mentioned. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed you initially only added three screenshots, and all are the ones I uploaded. Office for Mac and Office for Windows have almost always, in the history of Office, been independent releases and almost completely different, so these screenshots qualify for minimal use. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- And, as I quote from WP:NFCC#3, minimal use, not only one as you said. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Silikonz. These aren't duplicate screenshots, they are being used to illustrate the history and evolution of Office for the Mac. Jlin (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello? Dylsss, are you here? I think this discussion is worthy of being closed with no action taken, unless you have something to say... any comments? Silikonz (alternate account) (💬│🖋) 07:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
March 6
Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song)
- File:Show Me the Way cover 1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rlendog ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Showmethewayps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piriczki ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Show Me the Way by Peter Frampton UK vinyl side-A.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
If picture sleeve is preferred more, then let's keep the 1976 live single, which was more successful than the original 1975 studio one. If the singer's nationality and song's origin matter more for representation, then let's go for the vinyl label of UK live single, which I uploaded and preferred more than the sleeves. Well, then why not keep them both? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg
- File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carwil ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally prodded for deletion, but that was contested; so, I’m bringing this up for discussion here. This is non-free cover art whose non-free use in The personal is political#The Carol Hanisch essay fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3). While the essay may be Wikipedia notable, there's no reason to show the cover of the publication it appeared in unless the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary; so, basically this file's non-free use in WP:DECORATIVE in the article about the essay and removing the file from the article is not going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article per WP:NFC#CS. For reference, the file was also being used in New York Radical Women and Shulamith Firestone, but these uses didn't have the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c; so, the file was removed from those articles per WP:NFCCE. The file's use in those other two articles also doesn't seem to satisfy NFCC#8 and simply adding a rationale for each would not make the file's non-free use in each policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Because the cover contains identifying context and content relating to the article, the use satisfies NFCI#1. NFCI#1 "relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys." Those familiar with the work would certainly concur that the cover is important to context and identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B014:7CF8:3E90:6514:247C:72BC (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The non-free use you're referring to above would make sense if the file was used for primary identification purposes at the top of a stand-alone article about the publication itself, but that's not the case here (at least it doesn't seem to be the case). The personal is political is an article is about a "political argument" and the particular section where the file is used is about an "essay" defending or expounding upon said argument that appeared in a publication; moreover, the title of the essay doesn't even seem to be listed on the cover of the publication (not that it really would matter if it did). If the essay was published as a separate work on its own (e.g. a pamphlet, a short book) and this was cover art used for that publication, then it could be argued that it would be a type of use given as one of the examples in the guideline WP:NFCI, but that's not really the case here.NFCI just lists some examples of non-free use generally considered to be OK to use, but it doesn't mean that WP:NFCCP compliance is automatic for each of these examples. I don't think the non-free content use policy and the consensus about using non-free cover art extends to separate works that appeared within the primary published work the cover art represents. Non-free album covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes of songs that appear on albums; non-free book covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in Wikipedia articles about chapters or excepts from books; and non-free magazine or newspaper covers aren't really allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in Wikipedia articles about articles or other pieces that appear in magazines or newspapers. The article where this file is being used also states "It [The essay] has since been reprinted in Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader." yet there isn't a non-free image of the cover art of that publication and one isn't really needed for that sentence to be understood. Maybe you could clarify why you think omitting this file would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article content corresponding to it ("The essay was published under the title, "The Personal Is Political", in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation in 1970.), and how omitting it is different from omitting the cover for Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader.Just a final note about your account. The IP address you used to post here is different from the one used to contest the proposed deletion at File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg. Assuming that you made both posts, it might be easier and help avoid confusion if you either used a static IP account or registered for an account. A new IP showing up each time to post something might give the mistaken impression of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. If you've previously edited Wikipedia using some other account, it might be best for you to log in and use that account instead of a different IP address each time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I uploaded and posted this image, intended as an illustration for the essay, much as one might have cover art for a song (regardless of whether or not the song is named on the front page of an album). Substantively, I think that situating the article within a underground newspaper publication of second-wave feminism is highly illustrative of the context of its production. While there's a lot of disavowing of ownership for this phrase, it remains the case that it is popularized by this particular article by Carol Hanisch, whose naming was the responsibility of New York Radical Women and the those who produced this particular publication. Currently, no other images serve to illustrate the context in which this term was popularized and this seems like a strong candidate to do so.
- Re the criteria… We're debating whether the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, "The ‘personal is political’ has long been recognised as the definitive slogan of second-wave feminism." (Rogan, Frances; Budgeon, Shelley (2018). "The Personal is Political: Assessing Feminist Fundamentals in the Digital Age". Social Sciences. 7 (8): 132. doi:10.3390/socsci7080132. Retrieved 2021-03-07.) This image places it within the context of 2nd wave feminism, of samizdat-style feminist newspapers, and of examination of women's personal lives through consciousness raising circles. At least four of the seven headlines represent the kind of "personal issues" that Hanisch is drawing attention to.
- Re the placement of the image / the section on the Hanisch article. Carol Hanisch's essay undoubtedly meets the notability criteria. See the previous quote and follow-up literature such as this and this, but (as the editor involved) I saw little benefit in separating the article into two and it isn't currently long enough to split off per WP:SUMMARY. This stylistic choice serves the reader, as does keeping the image.--Carwil (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
March 4
File:DukeEllington TakeTheATrain.ogg
- File:DukeEllington TakeTheATrain.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The audio sample is used currently at Jazz, Take the "A" Train, and Voice of America Jazz Hour. For the same reason I PRODded it, I have wondered whether the sample has met WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. One said that it fits well at "Voice of America Jazz Hour" (well, I wonder about the radio show's notability). However, I'm unconvinced that a theme music is needed to understand or identify the context (or critical commentary) of the (defunct) radio show. As I believe, readers may understand already what the radio show would be about by reading the whole article without the sample. Same may be said about the "jazz" genre article. Unsure whether the sample, which has only music and no lyrics, is needed for the song article. George Ho (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in the article about the song and remove from the other two per WP:NFCC#8 as well as item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. This is really no different from a non-free file that's a book cover, album cover, painting, photo, sculpture, etc. in that such a file's non-free use in a stand-alone article about a book, album, painting, photograph, sculpture could possibly be justified, but the non-free use in other articles (particularly one's broader in scope like genre articles) are much harder to justify and I'm not really seeing how this is justified in Jazz or the Voice of America Jazz Hour. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in the article about the song and in Voice of America Jazz Hour - the latter was famous around the world (but actually not in the US because of the Smith–Mundt Act), and many foreign readers of en.wiki identify the song with the program and vice versa. If removed from Jazz, there are other samples there, too - should they also be removed, then? That would make the article a lot poorer. --Janke | Talk 11:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2
File:Citogenesis.png
- File:Citogenesis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sj ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Doesn't meet WP:NFCC; its omission wouldn't be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic. Those who wish to use it in the article should ask Munroe to release it under a license that allows commercial use, which he has done for other Wikipedia-related strips. Nardog (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as uploader. I have mailed the author a request. In the meantime, it is certainly fair use, and seems to meet NFCC for the reasons noted on the image page -- this comic is responsible for the attention to citogenesis on WP, which is the longest section on the page; the comic itself is discussed there in context and responsible for the coinage for this subclass of circular citation. Its inclusion adds clarity and detail about this origin, and it is used on the page where the comic is being discussed.
which does seem to enlarge a reader's understanding of that section if not the article– SJ + 06:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The use here is to describe the term "citogenesis", however, this can be done with text and/or free media alone. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- For clarity: the primary use in the article is to illustrate the comic that coined the term, in the section about the use of that term, next to the paragraph discussing the comic. Edited to make that clearer. – SJ + 16:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am slightly leaning delete based on the fact that the comic itself is not discussed in significant sourced commentary in my opinion. In my view, the comic is briefly mentioned as where the term was what brought the term into use and how circular reporting is typically developed in Wikipedia, but not in detail where the inclusion of the topic would significantly help the reader understand the commentary of the citogenesis comic in particular. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- For clarity: the primary use in the article is to illustrate the comic that coined the term, in the section about the use of that term, next to the paragraph discussing the comic. Edited to make that clearer. – SJ + 16:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
March 1
File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png
- File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Dubious according to WP:NFCC criterion 3 ("minimal usage") and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. The original cover (as published onto iTunes) is already included in the infobox. I do not see why this is needed, as it does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject. HĐ (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion this file actually meet criteria, since it's much different than original one and use photo took from music video and if you search for "Eh, Eh" on iTunes or Spotify you'd rather get this artwork, rather the original one. But like in "Salt" I think both artworks are worth including. infsai (dyskusja) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the artwork of the most notable release should be the main image. Taking a quick glance at this article, the remix EP only seems to be mentioned in the Track listings section, so it is clearly not the more important one. Including an extra image, such as the one in "Salt", is okay in cases like that, but I'm not so sure about "Eh, Eh". I also agree that it does not significantly increase my understanding of the article's topic. Why include the artwork for a specific remix when there are tens or hundreds of others out there that also did not experience notable success? I don't see the point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: @ResolutionsPerMinute, Infsai, and HĐ: Also, from the comments here I am sometimes a little unsure which file folks are talking about when they say "this" or "it" and that makes it hard to tell what should be kept and what should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- My final comment is to keep this file (File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png) and delete the original release file (File:Lady Gaga - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).png). iTunes has replaced the cover [1], so the recently uploaded cover represents a widespread release. HĐ (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
February 25
File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png
- File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IndianBio ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Almost similar to the JPEG version deleted per previous FFD discussion. However, I asked deleting admin about the two. In response, as I was told, WP:G4 isn't applicable due to different color saturation and different brightness/contrast.
I wanted to nominate the image for deletion when it was uploaded in November 2017. However, I initially feared backlash from either the uploader or the Madonna fanbase. Nonetheless, non-free sleeves/covers have been deleted per previous FFD discussions for failing either WP:NFCC#1 and/or WP:NFCC#8. Freer alternatives have been available for use, and deleting a sleeve when a free alternative is available would not affect understanding of songs.
In this case, there are freer images of the single "Holiday" at Commons, like File:Holiday by Madonna US vinyl.png. An overseas picture sleeve would then be replaceable and/or no longer be "contextually significant", even when attractive (or exciting) to readers. Also, freer images of Madonna, especially in concerts, are used in the article. I don't think a non-free sleeve is necessary to identify the singer who recorded the song or the single release (in context), is it? George Ho (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC); oops, 19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The vinyl label is not the same as artwork cover. If it's the case, then all of other singles artwork should be deleted and substituted with their vinyl labels. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you disagree with the outcomes of past FFD discussions (one, two), then please use the DRV process. Anyways, I'm not arguing about the general matter of vinyl labels vs covers; just this image, and I'll nominate other similar images in another time. As I can predict, the outcome of this discussion will be similar to those discussions, but then I could be wrong. --George Ho (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Almost forgot, the understanding of the song "Lucky Star" (mistaken previously as "Holiday") is already understood by free textual content, and the free vinyl label (File:Lucky star by madonna US 7-inch vinyl.png) is already sufficient enough to identify the release itself. How can deleting the picture sleeve affect the understanding of what can be already understood by reading the whole article? George Ho (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. One cover image is acceptable per article by long-standing consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:NFCI (or WP:NFCCEG), even an "acceptable" non-free image may still fail NFCC, and even failure to comply with NFCC and the spirit of it may override
any acceptable allowance here
. Also, the replaceable (non-free) cover image may still be unacceptable, but then... Well, it's a guideline that can be best treated with common sense and allow applicable exceptions, but copyright laws can't be ignored, can they?Back to the image itself (again), I don't know why the deletion of an overseas picture sleeve would affect the understanding of the song and its single release(s). The song can be still understood by reading the whole article without the non-free cover image. One free vinyl label of the US single release, which lacked picture sleeve at the time, should be sufficient enough for me... and others if they can handle it well. George Ho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:NFCI (or WP:NFCCEG), even an "acceptable" non-free image may still fail NFCC, and even failure to comply with NFCC and the spirit of it may override
- You compare apple to orange. Sorry, but vinyl label is not a substitute of artwork cover (unless the latter is unavailable). And the U.S. statistically is not even Madonna's biggest market, she's a global recording artist, so the overseas cover does matter. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- An overseas cover may matter to overseas fans (maybe because... it's appealing?), but it also is subject to NFCC. An image being deleted wouldn't affect the understanding of the song itself and its status as one of Madonna's global hits, would it? And I don't think NFCC has considered an image's appeal to readers as one of criteria, has it? George Ho (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- You compare apple to orange. Sorry, but vinyl label is not a substitute of artwork cover (unless the latter is unavailable). And the U.S. statistically is not even Madonna's biggest market, she's a global recording artist, so the overseas cover does matter. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
February 9
File:Trial Memorandum of President Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf
- File:Trial Memorandum of President Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phillip Samuel ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Similar to Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_February_7#File:Answer_of_President_Trump_to_the_Trial_Memorandum_Of_The_United_States_House_Of_Representatives_In_The_Second_Impeachment_Trial_Of_President_Donald_John_Trump.pdf this is a 78 page PDF, we are not a non-free host for the sake of convenience. Specifically fails WP:NFCC#3. How can we allow this 78 page plain text PDF, but disallow excessive quotations? From WP:NFC, Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.
is unacceptable, Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited
. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I presumed that we were going to continue on the purpose discussion on the other file's entry for Files for Discussion about Trump's answer, then apply similar consensus for Trump's brief so we were clear as it relates to Trump's sole 2 files. Or are we going to argue on this file individually separate from the other one? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind really, but this file is much larger, and I don't think it's common to merge two deletion dicussions from different users. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dylsss I understand your concerns, and I want to propose a solution. I do think that we should not compromise WP:NPOV and have both sides represented, though you have legitimate issues over global polices of fair use that must be followed. For specifically this file, if I uploaded a compressed file in low-resolution, and only included the first 3 pages of the file (which is the cover page and the table of contents, and none of the actual content of his brief), and then in the WP article, I inserted the media and cited the source of the file, whether it be CNN/NYT/etc, would that alleviate your concerns? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind really, but this file is much larger, and I don't think it's common to merge two deletion dicussions from different users. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NFCC#3b states: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." Therefore, by its plain terms, we may meet NFCC 3(b) by demonstrating that "a portion will [not] suffice". In this matter, a portion will not suffice because the entirety of the work is necessary to educate readers of Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Additionally, a portion will not suffice because it would not match the complete coverage of the arguments of the House of Representatives, the opposing side in this matter. (See example of House coverage.) A "delete" outcome in this discussion would violate WP:NPOV, a core policy of this project. That policy states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis added). In fact, the NPOV policy is so crucial to this project that it has been enshrined in WP:Five pillars, meta:Founding principles, and meta:Neutral point of view. It must not be taken lightly. The NPOV policy does not contain an exception in regards to NFCC or any other policy. If the Wikipedia community intended there to be an exception to the NPOV policy, we would have so stated. Therefore, using "a portion will [not] suffice", by the clear and unambiguous language of our policies, and NFCC 3(b) is met. Edge3 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC 3b and 8. The entire work is not necessary (3b), and readers can understand the article's subject without having the work present (8). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
February 8
File:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg
- File:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexismata7 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Attitude_(magazine)#Cover_Image_2021 This was the worst instance, editor replaced an anniversary edition cover featuring Ricky Martin with a recent cover featuring Dua lipa. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, currently used as the articles primary image in the infobox. Unless the plan is to replace it with something newer (or re-upload the previous cover) then I see no issue with it. Salavat (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's only the primary image because when Alexismata7 changed the image the old image got deleted automatically, maybe admins can restore the previous image? The previous cover was far more appropriate to the subject matter of the magazine. Alexismata7 does not see that older anniversary cover was more notable than a more recent cover. (Read his comment[2])
- Alexismata7 unconvincingly claimed it is a merely "coincidence"[3] that the images he chose happened to feature Dua Lipa. That's a big coincidence for more than 5 images, variously taken from 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Template:Non-free magazine cover "Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." and that's exactly what he's doing. His claim of fair use is entirely disingenuous. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Using the Wayback Machine I was able to see a version of the Attitude magazine Wikipedia page from August 2020. The cover image was Attitude (200th issue) featuring Rick Martin. I'm asking for the 200th anniversary cover to be restored. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Just want to note that I'm still checking this discussion when I have time, and hoping for more comments on this. I still believe the arbitrary change of cover image to one featuring Dua Lipa fails WP:NFCC#8 (and is also WP:FANCRUFT). -- 109.79.162.227 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Cry Macho - Clint Eastwood - Filming During COVID-19.jpg
- File:Cry Macho - Clint Eastwood - Filming During COVID-19.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Some Dude From North Carolina ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free image claimed to be used "For visual identification of the object of the article." but is not being used in that way, nor is it a logo, poster, title card or other form of identification that would be useful in that way. There is no significant sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - the image is featured in this reference which is mentioned in the article. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Special:Diff/1003193471 changed the commentary into a minor way, which I moved this image to the Filming section, and Special:Diff/1003212596 changed the uses of this image. Chompy Ace 21:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 per nom. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Life is good logo 2.png
- File:Life is good logo 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image is a former logo used in one article, and it is not used in the lead. As such, as WP:FU the file violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. I also have a suspicion that this image may be below the WP:TOO; and if it is, it should be relicensed. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, I added {{PD-logo}}. This is the only visualization of Jake on the whole page, a subject of discussion in the History section. — Jeff G. ツ 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I have removed Jeff's incorrectly-added PD-logo (it is generally past WP:TOO if it's a character, and the template also conflicted with the non-free one), but agree with his rationale for the keep. AtomCrusher (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @P,TO 19104 as OP. — Jeff G. ツ 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Dutch-Americans.png
- File:Dutch-Americans.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rex Germanus ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dutch-Americans.png. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete [4] "Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990, Maps Created by: Land Management Information Center. Datanet". The Land Management Information Center (now MnGeo) seems to be specific to Minnesota, so not federal. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep as {{PD-ineligible}}. Map is purely a representation of data, with no creative element. See references at c:COM:TOO#Maps. Wikiacc (¶) 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wikiacc: maps in general are eligible for copyright protection. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: only if there is a creative element, which there isn't here. Wikiacc (¶) 01:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wikiacc: maps in general are eligible for copyright protection. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above rationale. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The closing admin on Commons points out that this work is a derivative work of the base map, which could be considered copyrightable. Since the origin of the base map is unclear, I'd err on the side of deleting and replacing with a graphic that uses an unquestionably free base map. Wikiacc (¶) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
File:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png
- File:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Starmuseum1995 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
see c:COM:TOO South Korea. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Wikiacc (¶) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)- Convert to fair use. I wouldn't classify the bit on the left as a font. It's more of a complex shape. ƏXPLICIT 00:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I say Keep because the South Korean TOO is very lenient on what kind of logo is considered original so I doubt that this logo in subject would go past the threshold, plus most graphic designers can make a logo similar to this one. —beetricks ~ talk · email 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: to determine whether the file is fair use or eligible for
{{PD-ineligible-USonly}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or convert to fair use. The logo does not contain merely "simple geometric shapes". "most graphic designers can create something like this" is trivializing. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to fair use per above rationale. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Change to fair use or delete. The logo on the left cannot in any way be said to be a simple shape or text. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Relicense to fair use, as others here have noted, the stylized "SM" is actually quite creatively designed, and probably above TOO. Wikiacc (¶) 00:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I don't know what TOO South Korea is like, but on English Wikipedia we follow only c:COM:TOO US per lex loci protectionis (see File:Burj Khalifa.jpg or File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg). By comparison to logos such as File:Best Western logo.svg, it is pretty clear that stylized letters fall below the US TOO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Metal 2 Logo.png
- File:Metal 2 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17jiangz1 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free logo that could be replaced with commons image per WP:NFCC. It should only be kept if doesn't meet the Threshold of Originality (which I think it does). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, not sure how you could replace a copyrighted software logo with a free image. I think it has enough going on to not fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Salavat: The commons image is a former logo of Apple Metal that doesn't meet the TOO. That's why I think this fair use image should be replaced by it. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep; the logo is just a stylized letter and is marked improperly as nonfree. It should be marked properly as {{pd-textlogo}}, which would solve the concern here as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There is disagreement about where or not the logo is above or below TOO.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and relicense as PD-textlogo. It falls well within that, as far as I'm concerned. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The rotation, stylization, choice of colour gradient, etc. raise it above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Phuture - Acid Tracks.ogg
- File:Phuture - Acid Tracks.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The sample might or might not belong at Acid Tracks, but it should also comply with WP:NFCC#8, especially if there is sufficient critical commentary. Same for usages at Acid house, Chicago house, Electronic dance music, House music, and Phuture. Otherwise, the sample should be removed from at least one of the articles. George Ho (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete yeah let's really stick the knife in re:not letting readers significantly increase their understanding of the article topic, in no way is the omission of this crappy sample detrimental to their understanding of the subject, terminate with extreme prejudice! Good job bro, keep up the good work. Acousmana (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as the 1819 word Acid Tracks article establishes, this is one of the most seminal recordings of the last 40 years, and is responsible for naming the Acid house movement. I find the nom rather speciously worded and it seems that not even the most basic research (ie a google search) was completed eg he says..."might or might not belong at Acid Tracks", and then, and especially "should be removed from at least one of the articles"...ie lets pick a sacrificial lamb? Also, agree with every word written by Acousmana. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- You mean keep in "Acid Tracks" and "acid house", or in which articles? George Ho (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, though I had been clear. I mean keep in Acid house, Chicago house, Electronic dance music, House music and Phuture. Its fundamental to the genesis and evolution of each of these. Per Acousmana, it's removal would contribute to "not letting readers significantly increase their understanding of the article topic". Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would suggest that the sample is further added to the Roland TB-303 article, as it transformed this then moribund device into one of the most important and widely used drum machines of all time. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, though I had been clear. I mean keep in Acid house, Chicago house, Electronic dance music, House music and Phuture. Its fundamental to the genesis and evolution of each of these. Per Acousmana, it's removal would contribute to "not letting readers significantly increase their understanding of the article topic". Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- You mean keep in "Acid Tracks" and "acid house", or in which articles? George Ho (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The sample does enhance readers' understanding of the subject, if not to a great extent. HĐ (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Samples at Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)
- File:JohnCaleHallelujahlive29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Hallelujah.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tartarus ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:AllisonCroweHallelujah29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen original 1984.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The samples of "Hallelujah" cover recordings are used in the article. I PRODded them for my concerns: Either too many samples or files, or critical commentary of the article insufficient/inadequate to support the specific recording sample. May fail WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8
. The song was written and originally recorded by the late Leonard Cohen and then covered by later artists. The "Musical composition and lyrical interpretation" section (titled to this date), which uses the samples, already provides sufficient information about original and cover versions, and I've become uncertain about the necessity of the samples. Indeed, I've been no longer either certain or confident about the samples given to readers, so I assumed the samples were easy deletion cases. However, the samples are then de-PRODded, asserting that there should be a discussion of which one(s) to have in the article instead of deleting all of them
.
To my current eyes, the samples are presented just to differentiate and merely identify who sang which recording, yet I am not yet convinced that the samples have increased the understanding of critical commentary. However, I may stand corrected if at least one of the cover recording samples shall be kept. Well, the Wainwright sample isn't necessary for me just to illustrate the single mirroring Cole's recording (or something like that), and I don't think Allison Crowe sample is needed just to illustrate Crowe's interpretation as a "very sexual" composition that discussed relationships
, is it? Still unsure about samples of John Cole and Jeff Buckley versions, both of which have been more favored. BTW, I wonder whether a sample of the original Cohen recording would be necessary for better understanding and comparison. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the original by Cohen, delete else per nom, so that the others can be compared the original. The non-Cohen recordings are barely discussed in the article. Note: the TimedText page that goes along with File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg will also have to be deleted as well, per this nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I uploaded the original Cohen sample (File:Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen original 1984.mp3) moments ago. Now I'm listing the sample here in this discussion, which you assumed it was. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the original by Cohen and Buckley's version, delete others - Buckley's version is independently notable and is the basis for a plenty of covers, so it serves as a good point of contrast. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the original, Buckley and Cale. The Cale version is the model used by pretty much all of the later covers, lyrically and musically, including Buckley's. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Doctorhawkes: I recently uploaded and am listing here File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3. If you would like one of the Cale versions kept, shall you prefer the studio or live recording? George Ho (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Much of a muchness, but I think the studio I'm Your Fan version was first. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep original and Buckley, delete others. As per 181.115.61.86. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Violence (song) cover arts
- File:Grimes and i o - Violence.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lk95 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Grimes and i o - Violence (Alternative cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anonpediann ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We have one original cover and one alternative cover. The original is more graphic and seemingly offensive (but hopefully, encyclopedic... unless I'm wrong): it shows a drawing of a woman apparently killing someone with a sword... unless I stand corrected. The alternative is less offensive, showing pink background and some being facing up the air with some kind of "X" on the left eye. Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Number of items, either one or both covers may be kept. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both: I don't really see a need to remove one of them. As above, many music-related articles feature both the original and alternate cover art of a song or album. It being "offensive" - hmm, I don't know about that. It's a drawing, and Wikipedia is not censored anyway... Граймс (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete alternative cover per nom - since it was uploaded second, and per 3a only one should stay. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both: Although 3a states that only one artwork should be used, this is an exception as one is the original cover and the other is the current cover. See Torn (Ava Max song) for instance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there are exceptions to "#3a". If either one fails 3a, then that one fails 3a. Same thing I can say about #8. Also, per another FFD discussion, making exceptions to or ignoring this project's copyright policies is the last thing we wanna do. Furthermore, per WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines, the project sets higher standards on "fair use" (or non-free) content than the US copyright law yet still strongly encourages free content. BTW, I might wanna list both cover arts of "Torn" by Ava Max for discussion... right after results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, almost forgot, per WP:NFCCEG, how non-free (or "fair use") content is used and included shall be
based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording.
George Ho (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)- @George Ho: From my understanding, 3a is used for artworks that won't have much significance on the article, for instance deluxe edition covers that are hardly any different from the standard edition cover. However, these two artworks have very stark differences, and since there is two artworks that were released with the song, they both should be kept. 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", but the original artwork helps to convey equivalent significant information by informing readers that the artwork has changed since the release date, which in my opinion, is encyclopaedic due to its archival value. I notice that you were also the same user who nominated the artworks with Miss Anthropocene, and my arguments are the same with the users who think the revised standard album cover should be kept. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see your point about #3a, and your use of phrase
archival value
may be imply that you believe both pass #8 also. Right? Honestly, I'm unsure whetherarchival value
is enough to justify an extra cover art. Sometimes, in my personal experience, one out of two artworks withvery stark differences
is kept, but that's a case-by-case basis: e.g. Should I Stay or Should I Go (FFD discussion), which was physically released and re-released long before the digital streaming era. Moreover, sometimes two covers with (somewhat) possibly similar elements can be also kept (especially by default); e.g. I Should Be So Lucky (FFD discussion where visual dissimilarity and wide recognition triumphed) and Hanging on the Telephone (FFD discussion). George Ho (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see your point about #3a, and your use of phrase
- @George Ho: From my understanding, 3a is used for artworks that won't have much significance on the article, for instance deluxe edition covers that are hardly any different from the standard edition cover. However, these two artworks have very stark differences, and since there is two artworks that were released with the song, they both should be kept. 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", but the original artwork helps to convey equivalent significant information by informing readers that the artwork has changed since the release date, which in my opinion, is encyclopaedic due to its archival value. I notice that you were also the same user who nominated the artworks with Miss Anthropocene, and my arguments are the same with the users who think the revised standard album cover should be kept. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there are exceptions to "#3a". If either one fails 3a, then that one fails 3a. Same thing I can say about #8. Also, per another FFD discussion, making exceptions to or ignoring this project's copyright policies is the last thing we wanna do. Furthermore, per WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines, the project sets higher standards on "fair use" (or non-free) content than the US copyright law yet still strongly encourages free content. BTW, I might wanna list both cover arts of "Torn" by Ava Max for discussion... right after results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the original. If a new cover has replaced the original, I don't see why both should be kept. If, however, there is significant commentary on the original, then I'd think otherwise. HĐ (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Miss Anthropocene album covers
- File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ss112 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Граймс ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (December 2020 cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mediafanatic17 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (Deluxe December 2020 Cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theussfabulous ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Four album covers are used at "Miss Anthropocene" uploaded by different editors: original standard and original deluxe using variants of artwork #1 (a gallery of drawings, including a winged woman doing a selfie), and revised standard and revised deluxe using variants of artwork #2 (some statue of woman stabbing a globe with a sword). Honestly, I think deluxe edition covers are unneeded and too extraneous. I would prefer either standard edition, but I don't mind having both standard editions... unless having more than one cover art goes against WP:NFCC, especially #3a and #8. No opinion for now on which standard edition, but (again) deluxe editions have to go. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC); corrected, 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep original standard and revised standard cover. The deluxe editions are variants of these. The original deluxe cover is the standard edition cover on some kind of device's screen, and the deluxe revised cover is just a shading difference from the standard revised cover. I had no idea until just now that there even was a revised cover. (I created the article and uploaded the original cover, but other editors greatly expanded the article and now have obviously posted a multitude of covers there.) Ss112 02:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Original Standard cover only Admittadely, I was actually going to nominate one of these images for violating WP:NFCC, but I think I decided not to. I think only one cover is needed to illustrate the article per WP:NFCC. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the original standard and new standard: plenty of articles have both the standard and deluxe album covers featured on their page. I don't believe the original deluxe cover is super necessary. The original cover is the one featured on every CD and most people know the album by that cover art. The new cover arts only came out recently and indeed, until I logged on and saw a message in my inbox about files being deleted, I didn't even know new cover arts came out... either way, I think at least the standard revised cover art should be featured as an alternative cover. Граймс (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- You can tag the original deluxe cover (File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png), which you uploaded, with {{db-g7}}. Can you do that? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the original standard and revised standard: Most people know the album by its original cover, but streaming services and iTunes now have replaced the original covers. Both of the standard covers are necessary. No need for the deluxe covers, they are just variations of the standard covers. - Whitevenom187 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep original standard and revised standard cover. Most people identify the album by its original cover, though streaming services have replaced it. For effective visual identification of the topic, both covers must be kept. feminist (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg
- File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per WP:FREER: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.
Yes, I think so; the subject's article is rated C-Class and refers to a verbal exchange. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said on talk, there is no way to describe the appearance of these three women, two of them very well-known in the UK, one of them running the country (first female PM), without showing them. And there's no reason not to show them. The exchange, with Diana Gould not letting Margaret Thatcher speak, was widely discussed and remembered. A glance at that image will bring back memories to everyone who saw it. SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Neveselbert, I see that you've made 1,367 edits to Margaret Thatcher since 2015, more than to any other article (see edit counter). Do you want to see it deleted because you think it shows her in a negative light? Part of the interview arguably does, but she rallied toward the end, pointing out to Gould that she, as PM, was in a position to know the facts, and that in 30 years those facts would show that she was right to give the order to sink the ship. And indeed, it does appear that the ship was going to sail toward the Falklands, as the article, Gould–Thatcher exchange, explains.The point is that this is an iconic image of a highly unusual interview, where the PM was confronted on live television by a member of the public who had some relevant expertise in the topic as a former meteorological officer. The event was inherently visual, voted in 1999 as one of Britain's top 20 most memorable television spots. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 04:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC))
- Keep The file is part of the exchange used for identification purposes in the article about the exchange, thereby passing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8. The exchange is notable and subject to commentary, but this particular item is not, as required by WP:NFC#CS. ƏXPLICIT 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as a historic image providing independent visual use. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator. The image use is inevitably decorative and its removal would not impair readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep--As a reader I do think this image adds substance to my understanding of the topic. Objectively speaking it does satisfy WP:NFCC. HĐ (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The picture encapsulates the whole article and it reminds me (as a Brit) of a TV event I saw >35 years ago, although it is so iconic that it has been repeated. The TV event justifies a) the article and b) this fair use image Victuallers (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Maneater sample.ogg
- File:Maneater sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). Looking at those articles, I don't think critical commentary is adequate enough to support this sample, no matter how much text is there. Speaking of text, I suspect primary sources are used more than secondary ones in the sections where the sample is placed. May fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I see no critical commentary on File:Maneater (Nelly Furtado single - cover art).png. WP:NFC#CS:
where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article
. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)- "Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article? BTW, quoting one of
most common circumstances
from WP:NFC#CS, eh? That's not the only circumstance in mind. I'll quote what the guideline says also:In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance.
Those shortcuts are part of WP:NPOV. And this one as well:To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.
To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion. Meanwhile, the sample is used in "Music structure and composition" section, cited by MTV article that covers interviews transcript (actually, where MTV interviewed primary source, Furtado herself), Furtado's quote from the song's music distributor website, The Age article covering an interview with Furtado (but in prose form), and a sheet music. Well, being primary sources doesn't prevent themselves from being just as reliable as secondary/non-primary ones, though careful and strict interpretation is encouraged strongly. However, (re-)listening the sample, I don't see the sources discussing the specific lyrics used in the sample, and the sources briefly described the song without going too much detail. Furthermore, per WP:FREER (which supports WP:NFCC#1), the synopsis of the song can be adequately explained by free text without needing a non-free content, like an audio sample.
Now about using the sample in the "Music and lyrics" section of the album article, the section itself mentions lyrical and musical content of what the album itself contains. However, I'm still unsure whether the "Maneater" sample is necessary there for readers to understand/identify the subject of discussion. I also am struggling to figure how and why the sample is too significant to be removed from the album article. The album article already describes Furtado's approach and (change of?) direction from her previous albums. Also, the song itself is briefly and adequately described in other sections of the album article. Also, the album cover adequately identifies the album already, so why need samples there?
If you especially disagree with me, I welcome your response. Seems that I made a long reply, didn't I? George Ho (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article?
- Keep the file, for the song article.
And this one as well: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.
To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion.
- If we must pick only one, I'd argue in favor of keeping the sample and removing the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article? BTW, quoting one of
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
File:PromiscuousSample.ogg
- File:PromiscuousSample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album), not Promiscuous (song). If there's not enough critical commentary in either article to support this sample, and if not enough secondary sources can support this, then the sample would fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I see no critical commentary on the cover: File:Promiscuous.png. WP:NFC#CS:
where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article
. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)- I see that you inserted the wrong sample as part of a lead infobox, which I corrected for you. I may still have doubts about its compliance with "contextual significance" and WP:NFC#CS in either article, especially Promiscuous (song). I also have doubts about using the sample as part of the lead itself. Not just that, the sample still contains mostly the chorus of the song, which is not specifically subject to critical commentary in either article. Furthermore, either (per WP:FREER) the lyrics can be briefly described in text without needing a non-free content for further understanding, or readers can already understand what the song is about by reading the whole article without needing an audio sample. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg
- File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Leonard Cohen, The Partisan, 1968 - 28.5 second excerpt of English transition to French.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally nominated for deletion as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "The article only uses this for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation, which can be portrayed by text alone." Both were disputed on the files' respective talk pages. Listing here for further discussion as a neutral party. Pinging Fred Gandt and Buidhe. ƏXPLICIT 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current fair use rationale is, "Anna Marly's original version of this song is starkly different than Cohen's, the version that is most well known. To properly understand how Hy Zaret's interpretation altered the song, the excerpt is of a particularly significant verse compared by sources, which will feature in the article along with an excerpt of Cohen's version for reader comparison, while reading the sourced textual comparison." If there is any musical, contextual value based on sourced commentary, it needs to have that on both the file description and in the article. Otherwise this should be delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's currently 3:30am for me, and I am heading to sleep very shortly: Anna Marly didn't record her performance until 1963 (around 20 years after live performance on the radio and subsequent publication as sheet music) and whilst much has been said about Cohen's version, little has been said about Marly's, with most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts. I have included as much relevant sourced discussion of the musical style Marly and Cohen applied to their respective performances as seemed appropriate in the article, but am limited in what can be said about Marly's, as the only recording is somewhat out of time from most source's focus; Marly's recording stands more as an example of what would have been heard 20 years earlier on the radio, with few sources having anything to say about it, because they're more often talking about the broadcasts 20 years hence.
- I applied a great deal of effort to avoid cruft and original research while working on the improvements to the article (every statement is sourced, most sources are high quality, and almost nothing is relatively trivial) and may have previously dismissed, as useless or from a poor source, some further discussion of the style Marly applied in her performances and recording, and request some time (at least a few days) to go through all my research again.
- I must also request that if the greater concern regarding the fair use of these excerpts is how they're documented (how I filled out the declaration) and not their application, please simply correct the documentation; this is a collaborative project after all, and although I tried my best, if improvements can or must be made, I welcome them.
[I]t needs to have that on both the file description and in the article
strikes me as a problem with the declaration more than with the files' use or existance; please help correct the issue instead of calling for deletion for technical reasons.Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
03:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)- If, as you say,
most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts
, that would indicate that the musical qualities are not as significant and that text alone could convey the same information. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)- It should come as no surprise that a song with words written by one of the most prominent members of the French Resistance, composed and mostly broadcast during World War II, with a subject matter entirely about the circumstances of the time, should have most interest in it be focussed on the circumstances and message of the words. For sources to deconstruct the sound of the recording (as an example of the live broadcast performances) would be to trivialize the importance of the song. Much has been said about Cohen's musical interpretation of Zaret's adaptation, because it is fundamentally a pop song, and the musicality of pop songs is respectively a lot less trivial. The article contains sourced commentary about Cohen's sound, because sources consider the weight of the musicality to be high enough to discuss, but I am not at all surprised that sources don't go into detail about Marley's musicality much (although, as said, I will reexamine this) as it was far from what would normally be called a pop song, and its message and raison d'etre are rightly given far greater weight. This state of one version being considered differently than the other by the sources that examine the songs, and to an understandable degree, that the sources are themselves quite different in nature, does not change the fact that both are musical, and by that measure, substantially different. Many sources compare Cohen's to Marly's versions, demonstrating a wide interest in how they differ; the difference between the songs is clearly considered important by those who've examined them, but it should be expected that whilst Cohen's is discussed as a pop song, Marly's is not.
- A significant problem I personally had and have in fleshing out the article, is that a vast amount of the sources that might be useful for Anna Marly are in the French language, and although Google Translate helps with some I found online, there are many books, including one I bought for research, that I cannot translate; there may be vast amounts of information about Marly's musicality in the book stacked only metres away from me, but I can't understand it. I did reach out for help, but was quite disappointed by the far from enthusiastic response. Even more difficult to understand/translate for me, are the multiple radio broadcasts still available to listen to online, that are also in the French language; this for example was easy to find, appears to be focussed on her musicality and role in the Resistance, and is entirely in the French language, so I have almost no idea what is being said.
- I will need time to see what I can find, but strongly disagree that any further information about her musicality is required to satisfy the requirements for fair use of these excerpts. I wasn't flippant in my uploading of the excerpts, and am sure the points of WP:NFCCP are satisfied; please confirm if it is only point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" that you're concerned about?
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC) - In case you missed it @Buidhe:, could you please answer my question above? Cheers.
- If, as you say,
- I have found some references with more specific focus on Marly's musicality, including a German university resource (luckily in English) which directly states exactly what the comparable excerpts are intended to demonstrate: "The melody and chord structure is considerably different from the original."[1] Another article with a focus on acoustic guitar states Cohen "re-worked" the song,[2] but there's really not much else, so it's a bit junky, and a reference already in use (the Independent obit.) mentions "she learnt to play with feeling and invention"[3] which is also a bit lame with this discussion's specific regard IMO.
- Please continue to bear with me while I work on this.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)
- ^ acousticguitar.com
- ^ the Independent Marly obit.
I don't find any of this convincing so far. Contextual significance is not met if there is only brief mentions of aspects of the song that are not lyrics, because it has to significantly increase understanding. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- How would a reader understand that the by far most well known version is significantly different to the original it is based on, in more ways than just the language, without describing that difference? They clearly wouldn't, which would be a disservice to the readers and actually misleading. Without making clear that the version widely acknowledged as definitive is musically unlike the original, no reader could be expected to guess.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) - I can't add anything more to my side of this dispute; it's sadly not a discussion. It was never the intention that
[t]he article only uses [these two files] for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation
; honestly there would be little point to that beyond some kind of "told ya so" demonstration of the facts as described in the nearby text. The files were always intended to enlighten readers to the huge difference in sound/texture/feeling "musicality" (I dunno) that became the effective default after Cohen's Zaret's, compared with the true original. The musicality of Marly and Cohen (in particular) are (and were before my recent addition of extra details) discussed as and where appropriate, to what degree is reasonable and within the scope of what good sources are currently available; Marly's artistic talents, including her guitar playing and whistling are described where fitting, and the musicality of Cohen's cover is discussed to a greater degree, also where fitting. This dispute did help to highlight that the article was lacking sourced textual discussion of that difference, but I have (at least to a fair degree) solved that omission. Thanks to Explicit (talk · contribs) for recognising that the files' use is linked and listing them here together. I can see no way that the use of these files, in the capacity they are currently used, is a violation of fair use, or any current alternative way to make clear how utterly different the original is to everything post-Zaret. I was about to go on, and on, but I feel as if I'm barking at a wall, so that's that unless some discussion or a decision is forthcoming.Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like we have a consensus right here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both. It seems there is "sourced commentary" on the music, but not very much. However the musical differences seem to me very considerable (by my listening to the clips) and the reason that the lyrics are remarked on more than the music is likely to be that books can't address the musical aspects without using technical commentary that may be inaccessible to the reader. The lyrics can be directly discussed in words. My understanding of the musical differences is significantly (indeed greatly) increased by the clips in a way that would not (for me) be possible with textual discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Several Images of mass shooters
- File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The use of fair use images of mass shooters who are not notable enough to support their own articles fails WP:NFCC#8. Similar deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 5#File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg have all resulted in delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png in 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers and File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png in 2019 El Paso shooting and Delete all others since these four clearly having enough article prose/sources in their respective articles to have their own articles, thus passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator made zero notifications about this discussion as required by WP:FFD: The uploaders of the file were not nominated, deteleable file captions were not added to the files in use in articles, no article talk page notifications and no related WikiProject notifications were made. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep nominator needs to follow the rules. Also the file File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png has previously been reviewed and nominated for discussion and was subsequently kept. Keep for all listed images as per above and below. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 6#File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the four images listed above by Aspects. There does appear to be enough coverage of the individuals in question to warrant a stand alone article be written about them. Ideally that would seem to be the best thing to do, but perhaps for editorial reasons the relevant content has not been WP:SPLIT off into separate articles about each person. If someday individual articles are created, then the image should be removed from the corresponding event articles. Delete the remaining images for essentially the same rationale. The physical appearance of none of the individuals involved seem to be relevant to the actual event or seem to be something that actually requires the reader see a non-free image to understand what is written about the events. Three of the photos are being used in the main infobox of the event article (101 California Street shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids mass murder and Hartford Distributors shooting) which is not appropriate at all for such an article. The other photos are used in "Perpetrator" type of sections which really don't require a non-free image to be used any more than a "Victims" section would require non-free images of individual victims to be used. Moreover, some of the photos have nothing to do with the event at all and were taken years prior to the event which makes their contextual relevance per WP:NFC#CS even more suspect. Out of the remaing photos, File:Clarence Bertucci.png and File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg might be possible to convert to WP:PD (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}), either because of their age and lack of copyright notice or because real provenance since it seems unlikely either of the sources cited for those images are the original sources of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the surveillance screenshot of the perpetrator with a gun as lead image of 2019 El Paso shooting. Even as an offensive material, it's still encyclopedic. Furthermore, it well illustrates the topic and the perpetrator's involvement. Deleting the image would deprive readers from primarily visualizing his involvement in the Walmart incident.
On the other hand, delete image of Micah Xavier Johnson from 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. The split proposal failed (Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section), and I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image, no matter how large or enormous the "Perpetrator" section is. His ethnicity/race is briefly described. The article is more about one event than about the perpetrator himself. Deleting the image wouldn't affect how the article can adequately tell readers about the whole event.
For the same rationale above, also delete the one used at 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers#Perpetrator, which merely illustrates the perpetrator's appearance in a video.
Also, delete all others, including (especially) File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg, whose appearances wouldn't impact the understanding of the tragic 1984 massacre and all other incidents. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)*Keep File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png in 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers and File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png in 2019 El Paso shooting and Delete all others since these four clearly having enough article prose/sources in their respective articles to have their own articles, thus passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly keep all images: "Not notable enough to support their own articles"? OK, (1) WP:NFCC#8 doesn't bring up anything about people that are or are not the main subject of the article. (2) Most of these "shooting of" or "death of" articles involve the killers and those that died being the starring roles in these stories, which is why they satisfy the "Contextual significance" part if anything. Simply put, invalid deletion nomination with rationale that misreads non-free policy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even with the lettering of the policy, per WP:NFCCEG,
the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording
, matters as well. Also, WP:NFC#CS clarifies the meaning of criterion #8. I don't see how, except the surveillance screenshot, all biographical-looking images comply with the spirit of the policy (or policy's spirit?). The images are merely there to show readers visual appearance of the perpetrators, but I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events, especially when stand-alone articles of the perpetrators haven't yet existed. NFCC guarantees allowance of non-free content, but even following the NFCC doesn't prevent those images from failing to beallowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used
.To put this another way, free content has been always expected to provide adequate information about article subjects, but non-free content can be allowed if most likely free content isn't adequate enough. Sadly, in this case, I fail to see how those images qualify as "allowable" per rules, and I fail to see how free (text) content (about a tragic event, most likely) is inadequate. Furthermore, many other images of other perpetrators have been deleted, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used... or deleted into question. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- "I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events" I'll tell you how they do; those articles aren't only about those tragic events; the parts around them and combine them together are major topics as well; it's just the tragedy is the primary topic and what the article is named after.
- "many other images of other perpetrators, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used." (1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (2) They probably shouldn't have been deleted if they're like the ones in this discussion. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- To me, open/free content already suffices, and a tragic event is already tragic enough while reading open content. I don't think a non-free image of a perpetrator would make any difference to how I can understand a tragic event. I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events. Almost every "Perpetrator" section (or similar) already tells me and most other readers as much about a perpetrator as it could/can. The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary). How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted? Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- "I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events".... Wuuuuuuuuut??????? With all due respect, I don't think you're most readers, then. The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.
- "The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary)." Double Wuuuuuuuut??????? George, text alone doesn't do a good job of presenting the full picture. That's why we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.
- "How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted?" You've clearly never heard of things that speak for themselves. He's the effin perpetrator! You know, the cause of the tragic event the article is about. That alone makes it too significant for deletion.
- "Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles?" This should go without saying; text can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
That would be true for non-free images that are used in existing biographical articles of perpetrators, who I predict will have been (already?) condemned or resented for their crimes for years and years (if not centuries or millennia). That would be also true for a perpetrator image that is either licensed as free (to share, distribute, commercialize, and use) or released into public domain, like the one at Orlando nightclub shooting#Perpetrator and a biographical article about him. No matter how you argue, I'm still remain unconvinced that a non-free image of the perpetrator is needed for a tragic incident article, but a free image may be more suitable if found.The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.
"we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.
best picture
" is not the same as a more allowable, appropriate, and suitable image, and even a "best picture
" may not meet the project's standards and would be potentially deleted.
You may have a point about text andtext can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them.
visuals of the event
and the difference between them. However... well, if I want to provide direct visual of the incident, either I have to use the least offensive but suitable image of the incident that occurred, or if I use an offensive image, I must prove the usage as "encyclopedic" andfollow the "principle of least astonishment"
(see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). Otherwise, I think omission of an image (in a lead or anywhere else in the article) would be most suitable status quo... right until a more suitable image of the incident is found. Also, a perpetrator and an event can be... well... related but are not similar to each other physically and obviously. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- To me, open/free content already suffices, and a tragic event is already tragic enough while reading open content. I don't think a non-free image of a perpetrator would make any difference to how I can understand a tragic event. I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events. Almost every "Perpetrator" section (or similar) already tells me and most other readers as much about a perpetrator as it could/can. The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary). How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted? Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even with the lettering of the policy, per WP:NFCCEG,
- Comment: Due to lack of clear consensus. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysticair667537: I undid your NAC closure/withdrawal. Please be patient with an upcoming decision by an admin, who has tools to delete any one of them. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be a certain amount of overzealousness here. Properly tagged fair use images are not a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't got time to debate them all individually, but was notified because I uploaded Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg. Personally, I'm not seeing a huge WP:NFCC problem here, and this image seems to have survived previous debates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I couldn't find past FFD discussions on the Scott Evans Dekraai mugshot. The only FFD discussion about the mugshot is this mass-nomination listing. And I couldn't find the past discussions about the image at Talk:2011 Seal Beach shooting. When and at where was the image last discussed? Or which image you were referring if not the one you uploaded? George Ho (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it wasn't the Dekraai mugshot but I do remember having similar debates about this in the past. It's clear that some people don't like having images of perpetrators with fair use rationales.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I couldn't find past FFD discussions on the Scott Evans Dekraai mugshot. The only FFD discussion about the mugshot is this mass-nomination listing. And I couldn't find the past discussions about the image at Talk:2011 Seal Beach shooting. When and at where was the image last discussed? Or which image you were referring if not the one you uploaded? George Ho (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't got time to debate them all individually, but was notified because I uploaded Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg. Personally, I'm not seeing a huge WP:NFCC problem here, and this image seems to have survived previous debates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete most, unless files have been previously subjected to a deletion discussion & were kept. Non-free photos of nn perpetrators or victims certainly do not meet WP:NFCC#8, which requires that an omission of the image be detrimental to understanding. Some of the above files are of subjects still alive, so do not meet the "irreplaceable" criterion either. Such images are routinely deleted, e.g. here are some that I nominated myself, in similar circumstances:
- The images appear to be used in related articles for decorative purposes only. I'm surprised at the overwhelming "keep" votes here, honestly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg
- File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the very detailed fair use rationale on the image description page - that should cover the nom's concerns. schetm (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: It's the article content which the non-free use should reflect, not what's written in the nfur. This file is being used in three articles and the problem with this nomination is that it's not clear whether only some or all of those uses are problems, and I think it's important to asses each use separately. History of BBC television idents has 25 non-free files being used in it, which I think is the most of any current article. To me it seems like a sort of a "discography for BBC news indents" with lots of redundant content that can be found in individual articles. To problem with non-free files being used in multiple articles is that not all the uses are equivalent so just !voting delete or keep without specifying which uses implies that all the uses are equivalent. There's nothing in relevant policy that states that a file can only be used in one article or one time; policy does, however, require us to minimize non-free use as much as we can and that might be something worth discussing with respect to not only this file, but all the files used in the ident history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- It might not be, but your original post doesn't distinguish between the different uses in different articles; this is another problem with the kind of mass nomination of files that you did. It's not clear whether you're suggesting that all of the file's non-free uses aren't compliant or just some aren't compliant. For example, the use in BBC Two '1991–2001' idents might actually be OK since the article itself seems to be particularly about this former ident or the series of idents it was part of, i.e. it's used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in a sense; so, that's not really a case of WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The uses in the other two articles are not so clear, but the one in BBC 2#Presentation seems like it could be OK depending how redundant you think the content in that section is to the 1991-2001 history article. The use in the more broader BBC indent history, on the other hand, article seems unnecessary in my opinion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Anyway, the point is that this is a file with three uses and some of these uses might be OK. This makes this particular discussion a bit more complex than perhaps some of the other files you nominated and thus this file shouldn't have been bunched in with all the others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, but remove from BBC Two '1991–2001' idents where it lacks sufficient critical commentary. The rest are fine. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Madonna - get together.ogg
- File:Madonna - get together.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The article "Get Together (Madonna song)" was de-listed as Good Article. Particularly, one commented that the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. I PRODded the sample for that reason, but then the uploader de-PRODded it, so I'm taking it here. Furthermore, the "Composition" section of the article, even with improvement on caption, even neither sufficiently supports the sample nor is difficult to understand without the sample. I struggle to figure out why the sample is necessary for illustration unless it's about either recognition or trying to compete with websites providing music samples, like Amazon, AllMusic, and iTunes/Apple Music. IMHO, neither mere sample recognition nor competition with third-party websites would help the sample adequately comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8). Furthermore, IMHO even references to other songs (explicit or implicit) don't make the sample necessary and significant. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The sample illustrates how the song sounds like, which is its main purpose. I doubt one can imagine how a "tripping vocal melody" sounds like without help from an audio file. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Stating a lyric and an offhand remark about the song from the Pitchfork citation, as well as limited sourced information about the composition, does not warrant the sample nor meet the criteria for WP:NFCC, as it would not
significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic
. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)- So your argument is that there isn't enough information on the composition, but deleting the audio file (which clearly adds to the understanding of the composition), would actually help somehow? Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- The audio file cannot just merely identify the song or the composition, and it cannot serve as just a sample for anyone to try out and just walk away as customers do in stores. Instead, the information provided by the clip must be also too valuable or too significant for deletion and well supported and emphasized by reliable sources. The chorus clip, however, doesn't provide any info with any value or significance to the article. Rather it distracts readers from learning what the article says about the song. (My further reply below. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)) Furthermore, the caption can be suitable as prose, or maybe the caption doesn't increase understanding. Moreover, the sample also would be more suitable at a music-oriented website. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I now realize that I should have cited WP:FREER as another reason for deletion. The image may also be replaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- You could never convince me that "[the clip] distracts readers from learning that the article says about the song" since it is by far the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard on Wikipedia for something to be deleted or kept and I can't actually believe it you are thinking that is a real argument. I'm almost at a loss of words. No audio can be replaced by text, no matter how well you would explain the composition, since the vast majority of people don't know music theory and it is, actually, the audio segment that proves to be the most helpful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If the clip doesn't distract, then the clip may have attracted users, especially those not willing to read the whole article but rather try out the sample themselves as if it is provided by any music website. I'm pretty sure that free text content is adequate enough, and "music theory" isn't the subject of discussion, is it? Furthermore, I don't think an audio file is necessary to identify either the critical commentary or the article subject. If any of my arguments sound ridiculous to you (or anyone else), then I don't know how else to convince you. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, you didn't know @George Ho:? You can let an admin know this conversation started 2 months ago and nobody's brought any new arguments in over a month. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Very) long patience would be my best suggestion. If you want, please request closure at WP:ANRFC. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are already two votes to keep and one to delete [a vote which, I might add, never got a response from the actual voter following my question], I think you have a moral duty to let an admin know, since you've started the whole "conversation". Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't (try to) push the deadline, all right? A long wait is no big deal to me. In my experience, it often happens to other FFD listings of cover arts and music samples. I don't wanna rush things further to admins. BTW, the other "keep" cited you basically without any other rationale. Whether the argument holds weight is up to closing admin. We should both wait and wait and wait... and so on. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Push" the deadline when the conversation was started in November 2020? Maybe There is a deadline. Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't (try to) push the deadline, all right? A long wait is no big deal to me. In my experience, it often happens to other FFD listings of cover arts and music samples. I don't wanna rush things further to admins. BTW, the other "keep" cited you basically without any other rationale. Whether the argument holds weight is up to closing admin. We should both wait and wait and wait... and so on. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are already two votes to keep and one to delete [a vote which, I might add, never got a response from the actual voter following my question], I think you have a moral duty to let an admin know, since you've started the whole "conversation". Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Very) long patience would be my best suggestion. If you want, please request closure at WP:ANRFC. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, you didn't know @George Ho:? You can let an admin know this conversation started 2 months ago and nobody's brought any new arguments in over a month. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- If the clip doesn't distract, then the clip may have attracted users, especially those not willing to read the whole article but rather try out the sample themselves as if it is provided by any music website. I'm pretty sure that free text content is adequate enough, and "music theory" isn't the subject of discussion, is it? Furthermore, I don't think an audio file is necessary to identify either the critical commentary or the article subject. If any of my arguments sound ridiculous to you (or anyone else), then I don't know how else to convince you. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- You could never convince me that "[the clip] distracts readers from learning that the article says about the song" since it is by far the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard on Wikipedia for something to be deleted or kept and I can't actually believe it you are thinking that is a real argument. I'm almost at a loss of words. No audio can be replaced by text, no matter how well you would explain the composition, since the vast majority of people don't know music theory and it is, actually, the audio segment that proves to be the most helpful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm wary about demand more from admins who spend their own lives doing other things besides the project. Also, replying to your further demands is increasingly tiring. I (again) insist you go to WP:ANRFC to make a request already. BTW, that essay you were citing refers to collection of knowledge; Wikipedia:There is a deadline refers to sourcing and verification. How about either Wikipedia:Don't panic (essay), Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress (essay) or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service (explanatory supplement to WP:NOT)? George Ho (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Tiring"? I would think it's more tiring going around trying to delete everything you lay your eyes on. Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- So your argument is that there isn't enough information on the composition, but deleting the audio file (which clearly adds to the understanding of the composition), would actually help somehow? Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per Alecsdaniel. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A brief clip to illustrate what the song sounds like is acceptable under fair use to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. P-K3 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Aint Nobody.jpg
- File:Aint Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I originally PRODded the cover art early this year because I didn't think it would meet WP:NFCC#8. However, it was de-PRODded under an assertion that it passes NFCC and that the notability of LL Cool J's interpolation of "Ain't Nobody" wouldn't be well understood without the cover art. On the contrary, I thought a free image of the artist who did the interpolation would be adequate enough.
This cover art displays primarily the eponymous characters of Beavis and Butt-Head but as part of virtue of the branding, marketing, and identification information
conveyed by the cover art. I appreciate the graphic artist and distributor's efforts, but I'm unsure whether the cover art is necessary to help me understand the original song by Rufus and Chaka Khan and the hip-hop interpolation.
I can already understand what critical commentary about the interpolation conveys without the cover art. Furthermore, I can adequately understand the interpolation's chart performance in some areas of Western Europe, upper North America, and New Zealand. Even I can already understand the hip-hop interpolation's potential notability, despite not having its own stand-alone article. I still don't understand why the notability of LL Cool J's cover version would be lost without the cover art. There have been already other cover versions since versions by Rufus and Chaka Khan, so I don't understand why the Beavis & Butt-Head cover art is necessary... unless it's merely about visual identification of the product? --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Further note: The cover art also contains song title and artist's name, but those don't ease my concerns about the cover's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. There are six notable versions of the song with seven files in use in the article, with the original version having two files. By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions, I feel that all of the files pass WP:NFCC. I also have never seen someone argue that a free picture of the artist could replace a fair use of a song/album cover in the article about the song/album, so I do not think this is a valid argument for the cover's deletion. Aspects (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Quoting Aspects:
By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions[...]
Actually, this is a test nomination out of cover arts of notable cover versions. For consistency, I plan to nominate other non-free cover arts afterwards if this cover art gets deleted. (File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is US-only free per another FFD discussion, so I won't touch that for now.) Regarding notability of cover versions, I commented at another FFD discussion where cover arts and notability may or may not connect well. To rephrase what I said there, using a very, very minimal amount of fair-use cover art has been strongly encouraged. The matter is not whether a cover version is notable but rather whether a cover art (or rather visual identification) is necessary and whether deleting a cover art would impact the understanding of the cover version, even when notable (and the notable original version).Furthermore, I'm not gonna put a free image as part of the section's infobox but rather underneath/below the infobox. In one case, after a cover art was deleted per another FFD discussion, I then added a free image of the artist at Something's Got a Hold on Me#Jessica Mauboy version... just underneath the infobox out of respect for the infobox itself. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC); forgot something, 21:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- If one example isn't enough, then what about another FFD discussion, where a section of an article no longer uses the cover art? George Ho (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Quoting Aspects:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails NFCC3a as multiple images are used when 1 would suffice. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm okay with Stifle, Fails admissibility, plus bad file. --Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg
- File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Similar images using the symbols of Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (aka Led Zeppelin IV) are used at Commons, like File:Zoso-square-layout.svg and File:Zoso.svg. Local copies (File:Zzzp.JPG and File:Zzzp2.JPG) were deleted on the common assumption that those hand-drawn symbols are automatically in the PD. However, I can't be certain about its copyright status, which I shall primarily discuss.
Before transferring the vinyl's side label to Commons, we shall discuss whether the hand-drawn symbols are either no different from (i.e. inspired by or exact copies of) the symbols taken (or extracted) from centuries-old original publications or something that I find hard to describe (besides being possibly eligible for copyright). If the former, then they should be in the public domain in both countries. If the latter, then the symbols mixed with the side label must comply with both c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO UK. The logo of Edge (magazine) has been found by UK's lower court to be original enough for copyright, setting the standard bar very low and causing other UK logos to no longer be eligible. If this image is to be deemed ineligible for Commons, then other images of those symbols will be affected. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- The reason for the image is to demonstrate that the "four symbols" was the actual title of the album as marketed by Atlantic at the time. The other images only show what the images are. This does not help the reader at all. SethWhales talk 06:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- What about the copyright status of the side label? I can assume that you view the image as non-free in the US, right? George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. 100% non-free. SethWhales talk 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would keep File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg and File:Zoso.svg. Delete File:Zoso-square-layout.svg, as it is just a square layout and not even what was printed on the... is that a vinyl or a cd? — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @WinnerWolf99: File:Zoso.svg and File:Zoso-square-layout.svg are at Commons right now, but I'll undelete the local copies of those files (if they available) once we're done with the vinyl label then. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would keep File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg and File:Zoso.svg. Delete File:Zoso-square-layout.svg, as it is just a square layout and not even what was printed on the... is that a vinyl or a cd? — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. 100% non-free. SethWhales talk 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- What about the copyright status of the side label? I can assume that you view the image as non-free in the US, right? George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
February 7
File:Answer of President Trump to the Trial Memorandum Of The United States House Of Representatives In The Second Impeachment Trial Of President Donald John Trump.pdf
- File:Answer of President Trump to the Trial Memorandum Of The United States House Of Representatives In The Second Impeachment Trial Of President Donald John Trump.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phillip Samuel ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Delete per WP:NFCC 3b and 8. The entire work is not necessary (3b), and readers can understand the article's subject without having the work present (8). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per NFCC#8, and nom; the article will be perfectly fine without the document. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as an allowable use under WP:NFCC#8. The Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article includes extensive commentary of Trump's legal arguments, and a copy of the memorandum "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Without access to the memorandum, we would not know the full extent of the arguments that Trump is presenting at the trial. Additionally, the article includes a copy of the House memorandum. (See: File:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf). The legal briefs of both sides must be presented, otherwise it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Removing this file, but not the other, would provide WP:UNDUE weight to the House memorandum. Edge3 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This PDF is plain text and should treated as such.
Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.
is unacceptable per WP:NFC, brief quotes are appropriate. This file as such does not meet WP:NFCC#3 b. Edge3's rationale above regards WP:NFCC#8, but all of the criteria must be met, and the argument about WP:NPOV is irrelevant to this discussion, this policy does not override WP:NFCC which is a legal policy and completly unrelated to NPOV. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)- @Dylsss: I think the uploader, Phillip Samuel, was attempting to upload a smaller file size, which might help with the 3b concerns, but I'd have to check again. As for your second point, NPOV is not a mere policy. It is a fundamental principle that is enshrined in WP:Five pillars and meta:Founding principles. Furthermore, WP:NPOV itself states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis added). Decisions at FFD (or any other place) do not occur in a vacuum; the consensus may have implications elsewhere on the wiki. In this case, a "delete" outcome on this thread would lead to an NPOV violation at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which is expressly forbidden by policy. Edge3 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Edge3 and Phillip Samuel: The issue with the file is its application of fair use, WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV. And compressing the file will not meet that concern either, the purpose of compressing the file is so that less of the work is used and so that it reduces the likelihood that it could be used for deliberate copyright infrigement, which is used for images and videos, but the work here is the text and the text is still viewable in its whole. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dylsss You stated 'WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV,' are you saying that WP:NFCC does not override WP:NPOV? If you are concerned that the readable text can still be used for deliberate copyright infringement, and the current resolution will not adequately mitigate that problem, would compressing it to the point where the text is barely legible suffice? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Phillip Samuel. Yes that is what I am implying, specifically wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires that projects hosting non-free content must have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) which is limited, and that it must be enforced by deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. This does not override local project's policies, by using local policies as a reason for keeping a file, we are ignoring our EDP, which is why arguments unrelated to WP:NFCC or its copyright should be disregarded in this discussion. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- If the EDP doesn't override local policies, then that means that local policies still apply. Not sure if that's what you're intending to conclude. In any case, NPOV is actually a global policy that's posted on meta (meta:Founding principles), and it's a core policy on this project, therefore it's highly relevant to this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- meta:Founding principles is not a global policy, and as I've said, the EDP is required to be enforced, WP:NPOV is not related to enwiki's EDP WP:NFCC. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dylsss Ya didn't answer my second question Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- meta:Founding principles is not a global policy, and as I've said, the EDP is required to be enforced, WP:NPOV is not related to enwiki's EDP WP:NFCC. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- If the EDP doesn't override local policies, then that means that local policies still apply. Not sure if that's what you're intending to conclude. In any case, NPOV is actually a global policy that's posted on meta (meta:Founding principles), and it's a core policy on this project, therefore it's highly relevant to this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Phillip Samuel. Yes that is what I am implying, specifically wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires that projects hosting non-free content must have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) which is limited, and that it must be enforced by deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. This does not override local project's policies, by using local policies as a reason for keeping a file, we are ignoring our EDP, which is why arguments unrelated to WP:NFCC or its copyright should be disregarded in this discussion. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dylsss You stated 'WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV,' are you saying that WP:NFCC does not override WP:NPOV? If you are concerned that the readable text can still be used for deliberate copyright infringement, and the current resolution will not adequately mitigate that problem, would compressing it to the point where the text is barely legible suffice? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Edge3 and Phillip Samuel: The issue with the file is its application of fair use, WP:NFCC is a legal policy based off a global WMF policy, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which does not override local policy, such as WP:NPOV. And compressing the file will not meet that concern either, the purpose of compressing the file is so that less of the work is used and so that it reduces the likelihood that it could be used for deliberate copyright infrigement, which is used for images and videos, but the work here is the text and the text is still viewable in its whole. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Dylsss: I think the uploader, Phillip Samuel, was attempting to upload a smaller file size, which might help with the 3b concerns, but I'd have to check again. As for your second point, NPOV is not a mere policy. It is a fundamental principle that is enshrined in WP:Five pillars and meta:Founding principles. Furthermore, WP:NPOV itself states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis added). Decisions at FFD (or any other place) do not occur in a vacuum; the consensus may have implications elsewhere on the wiki. In this case, a "delete" outcome on this thread would lead to an NPOV violation at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which is expressly forbidden by policy. Edge3 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I think compressing it is irrelevant and should be deleted because this is a literary work, it is not an image or video. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
meta:Founding principles is not a global policy.
I disagree. We don't put stuff on meta if the information is of purely local concern, therefore it's a policy with global reach. See also meta:Neutral point of view, a global page. Plus, your interpretation doesn't square with the express language of WP:NPOV, which states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:NPOV refers to "other policies", making no exception for the EDP or "global" policies. Therefore, as long as we're on Wikipedia, we must respect NPOV. Plus, I don't think the WP:NFCC and WP:NPOV are mutually exclusive. Even foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy states "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events" (emphasis added). Our usage falls well within the NFCC and complies with NPOV. Edge3 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)- Global scope =! Global policy/guidelines. It's an informative page, it would be like calling a page in the Help: namespace a policy or guideline, some projects (but not all) have NPOV policies which is why there is a page on meta. Global policies are located at meta:Meta:Policies and guidelines under 'All Wikimedia projects'. As said at the top of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy,
This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project.
NPOV being a local policy. I don't think it is necessary to get this technical, I am not saying we shouldn't respect NPOV, but that isn't the issue with the file and it does not address the issue with it, its fair use rationale, so it seems pointless to mention it. None of the keep arguments seem to address the issue of the text just being too much, because the file specifically contravenes WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. As I've said in my original delete !vote, WP:NFC says thatExcessively long copyrighted excerpts.
are unacceptable, which this file meets. It is important to note that files are not articles, we cannot keep files which meet some of WP:NFCC, all of the criteria have to be met. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy states, "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events". An impeachment of a US president is a historically significant event. Further, WP:NFCC#3 uses the term "minimal extent of use" as: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." In this case, "a portion will [not] suffice" because it will violate WP:NPOV. Further, "a portion will [not] suffice" because readers of Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump will lack understanding of the topic at the same level as the arguments of the House of Representatives, the opposing side on that trial. Notice that "suffice" is a term that is not defined in our policy, so we may determine what "suffices" based on editorial judgment. Therefore, we are compliant with both our local and global policies. Edge3 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Global scope =! Global policy/guidelines. It's an informative page, it would be like calling a page in the Help: namespace a policy or guideline, some projects (but not all) have NPOV policies which is why there is a page on meta. Global policies are located at meta:Meta:Policies and guidelines under 'All Wikimedia projects'. As said at the top of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy,
- Keep I support Edge3's statement. The WP article must describe at length Trump's legal arguments in defence of the historic article of impeachment against him to satisfy WP:NPOV. Trump's answer to the House's brief significantly increases readers' understanding (and harm in the case of omission), since readers get an in-depth understanding of the arguments and rebuttals Trump presents. Furthermore, like the WP article for the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the trial memoranda and responses of both sides must be included in the WP article. With the opposing logic, no legal documents should be uploaded and inserted at all for the WP articles for both impeachment trials. Removing the legal documents from Trump would provide undue weight to the Houe's arguments and provide a biased view of all arguments presented, violatingWP:NPOV, which is a foundational and non-negotiable principle on Wikipedia. I have been uploading smaller file sizes with lower resolution to comply with criteron 3b, but Trump's complete legal documents in defense of the article of impeachment do satisfy criteron 8 to purposefully illuminate Trump's arguments extremely relevant to this article as established in the other trial. Like Edge3 said, WP:NPOV is explicitly stated as non-negotiable and can neither be superseded by WP:NFC or any other policies, nor any result from this editor consensus. Accordingly, I move to keep the file. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't a question of resolution, it's a question of quantity. As per NFCC#3b, an entire work is not used when a portion would suffice; at most, the first page should be displayed. The entire statement can be linked to if it is desirable. NFCC cannot be deviated from by a local consensus. Invoking WP:NPOV is a red herring; we can and should describe the arguments of both sides in the article, but that does not require having the document in question uploaded to Wikipedia. Without waiving this point, even if NPOV did require that, it yields to NFCC as a matter of law. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- NPOV applies because we're already publishing the document from the opposing side in its entirety (see File:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf), and WP:NPOV expressly states,
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
. Edge3 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- NPOV applies because we're already publishing the document from the opposing side in its entirety (see File:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf), and WP:NPOV expressly states,
February 6
File:Hwaa Remix.jpg
- File:Hwaa Remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Perghhh ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#3a as the article already has a different cover for the same album and WP:NFCC#8 as this non-free album art is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Wcam (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. A section does exist further down the page for this remix, and perhaps the cover should be moved there. But there are multiple articles that set precedent with remix covers visible. AtomCrusher (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom – one image is sufficient, there is wide consensus that the bar for including alternate/remix/other version covers is very high and depends on there being specific sourced commentary on them. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
File:The Arch - Spang.ogg
- File:The Arch - Spang.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RivetHeadCulture ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The sample werewas de-PRODded without rationale, so I'm taking them it here. They are It is used at currently Electronic body music#Precursors Electronic body music#Characteristics. However, critical commentary associated with the sample seems to be lacking or insufficient there. They It may likely fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC); edited, 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC), 23:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Illustrative of the genre in question, generic enough to prove useful, and short in length. AtomCrusher (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why you people remove all these audio files from Wikipedia. It's not very useful (especially not for readers). For example the techno article has no representative audio sample anymore. It's completely naked while the punk rock article includes 13 audio files. Doesn't look rational to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.231.215 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
March 18
File:Danggan Balun - QC2017-007 Claim Area.png
- File:Danggan Balun - QC2017-007 Claim Area.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlackfullaLinguist ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Map apparently created by Queensland South Native Title Services in 2017. According to c:COM:Australia, government works in Australia are subject to crown copyright for 50 years after publication. Wikiacc (¶) 01:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Honor Our Female Veterans Proclamation.jpg
- File:Honor Our Female Veterans Proclamation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LBA2017 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Works by the City of Raleigh, North Carolina are probably copyrighted unless otherwise indicated. See [5]. Wikiacc (¶) 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
File:John Dring c1935.jpg
- File:John Dring c1935.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cathyday ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This photo was taken around 1935, author unknown, and (seemingly) first published in The Daily Telegraph (UK) in 1991. If the photo had not been made available to the public before 1991, the photo is copyrighted in the US until 2087 2048 and UK until 2062. The uploader seems to claim that the subject's daughter released the work into the public domain, but it's unlikely she had the authority to do so (since the photographer might still hold copyright). As the subject is deceased and photos of him are hard to find, I suggest relicense to non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC), edited 03:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes his daughter said to me (not in writing unfortunately) that she was happy for it to be released into the public domain. She noted that it had already been published in his obituary. The photo was taken by a professional photographer but I'm unclear how the laws about copyright worked in 1935. I have no opinion on relicensing to free, but if the experts feel that's the right thing, then by all means go for it.Cathyday (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Recent nominations
March 19
File:Aslam Pahalwan.jpg
- File:Aslam Pahalwan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Faridzenger ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Photo from 1967, source country either UK or Pakistan. The author is unclear and it's hard to say if it was ever published. (Pakistan uses 50 years from publication for all photographs, and UK copyright depends on date of creation and publication.) US copyright was likely restored by the URAA, but it's hard to be sure. Without evidence of publication, WP:NFCC#4 is hard to prove. I suggest delete. Wikiacc (¶) 00:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe @LM2000: has something to say. He is good with old pictures. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
File:EdmontonFlag2019.jpg
- File:EdmontonFlag2019.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Natster101 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Works of Canadian city governments are not public domain. Delete since File:Flag of Edmonton.svg exists. Wikiacc (¶) 00:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Flag of Pembrokeshire.png
- File:Flag of Pembrokeshire.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Poiuytre ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Flag of Pembrokeshire, Wales, designed 1970s by Peter Stock. Claimed to be in the public domain, but without evidence. Even if it's a government work, it's under Crown Copyright until sometime later in the decade. See c:COM:United Kingdom. (It might qualify for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but the design is somewhat complex.) Wikiacc (¶) 00:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- The the UK Flag Registry page on the Flag Institute website states "The flags of modern administrative entities (e.g. local authorities) and flags subject to copyright restrictions are excluded." The Flag of Pembrokeshire is included in the registry suggesting that it is free of copyright restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:George Bernard Shaw's speech about what to do with the unproductive.ogv
- File:George Bernard Shaw's speech about what to do with the unproductive.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Modern Major General ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This video clip appears to come from a 1931 British newsreel. (It contains video and audio of Shaw speaking and music of unknown origin.) It's unclear exactly how UK copyright applies to films, but UK copyright likely expired in 2002. Therefore US copyright was likely restored by the URAA, making it copyrighted in the US until 2027. Wikiacc (¶) 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Xbox Series S Logo.png
- File:Xbox Series S Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nakita Kelley ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Copyrighted image (from Microsoft) of a released console, which we already have free images of, so we cannot have non-free images per NFCC#1. Masem (t) 16:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Note also this is not a logo and the logo rationale is wrong. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Xbox SeriesX Logo.png
- File:Xbox SeriesX Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nakita Kelley ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Copyrighted image (from Microsoft) of a released console, which we already have free images of, so we cannot have non-free images per NFCC#1. Masem (t) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Note also this is not a logo and the logo rationale is wrong. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Xbox Series XS Logo.jpg
- File:Xbox Series XS Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nakita Kelley ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Copying Masem's rationale for the other two that the user uploaded: Copyrighted image (from Microsoft) of a released console, which we already have free images of, so we cannot have non-free images per NFCC#1. Note additonally that the name and rationale provided, that this is a "logo", is incorrect. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Ap munich905 t.jpg
- File:Ap munich905 t.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Contrary to the purported non-free use rationale, the image is *NOT* used to complement a discussion about the impact the image itself had, but it *IS* used to illustrate the event depicted (the Munich massacre). This does not appear to justify the use of a non-free image. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I concur with the nominator. This is an Associated Press image that has a caption, but no discussion about the image in the body of the article. The two sources for the cation seem superfluous as they include the image but do not discuss the image beyond also having captions. Fails WP:NFCC#2 as this is an image from a commercial photo agency. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
March 20
File:Mesta logo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. See WP:F8. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- File:Mesta logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arsenikk ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Folks on Commons think that there isn't enough evidence that the identical file there is copyrighted, so the local copy is probably redundant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Lerøy logo.svg
- File:Lerøy logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KarimKoueider ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
A near-identical file on Commons was kept on the grounds that even by Commons standards there isn't enough of a reason to believe that it's copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Wva 736 1999 mike sunset.jpg
- File:Wva 736 1999 mike sunset.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grithfang ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wva 736 1999 mike sunset.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
File:All The Small Things.ogg
- File:All The Small Things.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Currently used at punk rock (genre) and All the Small Things (song). The usages in those articles either must comply with or may fail WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Furthermore, there have been one too many samples, making this sample possibly conflict with WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items), but I'm nominating just this sample for now. Sure, the sourced caption at the genre article may help the justification of using the sample, but I'm unsure whether the sample improves the understanding of the genre and whether removing the sample would affect the understanding of the genre. It may belong to the song article, but I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The usage in the article about the song is unambiguous and I think the usage in the article about the song easily passes the NFCC --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- What about the usage in the genre article? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- The last clause was supposed to say I think the usage in the article about the genre easily passes the NFCC. Gah -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- What about the usage in the genre article? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
March 21
File:Television-Blank Gen (Live).ogg
- File:Television-Blank Gen (Live).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The sample was recently removed from "punk rock" but is still used in "Blank Generation (song)". The song lasts two minutes and 45 seconds. The sample should have been 10% of the song's length per MOS:SAMPLE, but it exceeds the limit. Even when the sample is shortened, I'm unsure that a 17-second sample is needed other than for mere identification and to rival other music websites. Furthermore, the understanding of the song (by reading the whole article) wouldn't be affected by removal of the sample (WP:NFCC#8), would it? George Ho (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Pay to Cum.ogg
- File:Pay to Cum.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peter G Werner ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The sample was recently removed from "punk rock" but is still used in "Hardcore punk" and "Pay to Cum". The song lasts 93 seconds. Per MOS:SAMPLE, the sample should have been 10% of the song's length but then exceeds the limit. Even when shortened, I'm unsure that a nine- or ten-second sample would clearly comply with WP:NFCC#8 and make sense to readers. George Ho (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Italian immigrants to Canada via Pier 21.jpg
- File:Italian immigrants to Canada via Pier 21.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vaselineeeeeeee ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
It doesn't seem to me that this image satisfies WP:NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
If there's more to this image I'd love to hear to it though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. As I wrote in the purpose file description (and recently expanded), the image is necessary "to illustrate transatlantic Italian immigration to Canada through its most popular port of entry Pier 21 (1928–1971)." The history section at Italian Canadians goes into great depth of the immigration process of this demographic through the most popular port of entry, Pier 21. This image is vital to understand the full scope of that fundamental process in their first steps to their new country. I hope this is now enough to assume good faith and withdraw the nom. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: I assume good faith but I'm no history expert. I don't feel like the image is really needed to understand the subject at hand (it can be sufficiently conveyed by just text) but that's just my opinion. It seems any historical photo of Italian immigrants on any boat in the period and location would work? Hopefully some more people will weigh in. There are some historical photos in c:Category:Pier 21. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on the text vs image part. The article details the voyage by text, but what it can't convey is the conditions and atmosphere of the voyage, which the image does. The importance of this part of the history also holds tremendous importance being the first steps of those immigrants in beginning a new life, that gives rise to the very topic that this article is about. That being said, I definitely would've opted for an earlier photo from the 30s or something if such an image existed on the Pier 21 website, but it didn't (only had 1965), and so to be accurate (making sure the image is actually of Italian immigrants to Canada going to Pier 21). The images in the link you provided are not about Italian Canadians. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I looked at the licensing though from those images. Perhaps this is a free image since it is from the same cultural heritage site in Canada. You have more experience in these licenses, can you see if it fits this? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: Photos from Canada taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. Also if the creator died more than 50 years ago. On English Wikipedia these are not allowed (unless also PD in the US) and on Commons.. it's a long story m'kay? This particular photo is from 1965 so it's not taken before 1949 and the creator probably hasn't kicked the bucket more than 50 years ago yet. Ideally you'd find something from Canada taken before 1949 and published in a U.S. newspaper within 30 days, that would likely be {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-Canada}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just found that the people in this image were on route to New Jersey anyway. [6]. So if you wanna get rid of it get rid of it. Unfortunately there are on pictures before 1949 on the Pier 21 site and can't find any good ones that capture the immigration voyage in Canada collection. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: Too bad. Well, regardless of my opinion (which no longer matters now) that means the image no longer has a fair use rationale. I'll just leave this here, an admin will delete the file eventually. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just found that the people in this image were on route to New Jersey anyway. [6]. So if you wanna get rid of it get rid of it. Unfortunately there are on pictures before 1949 on the Pier 21 site and can't find any good ones that capture the immigration voyage in Canada collection. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: Photos from Canada taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. Also if the creator died more than 50 years ago. On English Wikipedia these are not allowed (unless also PD in the US) and on Commons.. it's a long story m'kay? This particular photo is from 1965 so it's not taken before 1949 and the creator probably hasn't kicked the bucket more than 50 years ago yet. Ideally you'd find something from Canada taken before 1949 and published in a U.S. newspaper within 30 days, that would likely be {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-Canada}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: I assume good faith but I'm no history expert. I don't feel like the image is really needed to understand the subject at hand (it can be sufficiently conveyed by just text) but that's just my opinion. It seems any historical photo of Italian immigrants on any boat in the period and location would work? Hopefully some more people will weigh in. There are some historical photos in c:Category:Pier 21. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Bios etienne brule.gif
- File:Bios etienne brule.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Monster1234567890 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused and no good info about author or age. MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Markethillsudbury.jpg
- File:Markethillsudbury.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user dfghtjd64 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused photo. Low res. MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @MGA73: Any reason this can't be exported to Commons? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: No it could be moved to Commons if someone thinks it is useful. But it is low res and blurry and it is only licensed GFDL and that license makes it harder to reuse. --MGA73 (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Fet481bus.JPG
- File:Fet481bus.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user dfghtjd64 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused photo. MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @MGA73: Any reason this can't be exported to Commons? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: No it could be moved to Commons if someone thinks it is useful. If is to illustrate an article about the bus model I would suggest that the picture showed the entire bus. If it is to illustrate bus 481 I would suggest that someone took a photo where it said 481 on the sign. --MGA73 (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
March 22
File:060803b chaotic time series prediction.png
- File:060803b chaotic time series prediction.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CommodiCast ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 6#File:060803b chaotic time series prediction.png in 2010 and then undeleted per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 355#File:060803b chaotic time series prediction.png in January 2021. The original rationale for deletion, Orphaned file, superseded by c:File:Chaotic Time Series Prediction.svg
, continues to apply. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I personally don't mind if this file is deleted again, since I still have a local copy saved. (I'll probably get around to completing that SVG version one of these days.) LegionMammal978 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:NewRibenaDesign.jpg
- File:NewRibenaDesign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cabe6403 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Exceeds c:COM:De minimis. Because of it's use in Ribena, it could possibly be kept with an appropriate fair use tag and rationale added, but it cannot be transferred to Commons and should not be kept here as it is. ★ Bigr Tex 00:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Pyatizvyozdnaya vodka.jpg
- File:Pyatizvyozdnaya vodka.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tarrou ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Exceeds c:COM:De minimis. Because of it's use in Pyatizvyozdnaya, it could possibly be kept with an appropriate fair use tag and rationale added, but it cannot be transferred to Commons and should not be kept here as it is. ★ Bigr Tex 00:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Pjati.jpg
- File:Pjati.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tarrou ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Exceeds c:COM:De minimis. If it was used in an article, it could possibly be kept with an appropriate fair use tag and rationale added, but it cannot be transferred to Commons and should not be kept here as it is. ★ Bigr Tex 00:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Norm Provan 1965 portrait.jpg
- File:Norm Provan 1965 portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vox3000 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per Template:PD-Australia, this image is not Public domain as it was not published before 1946. With Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia, Australia's copyright is 70 years after publication for anonymous works. As this image claims to be from 1965, it won't be free until 2036. Finally, as Norm Provan is alive, this image can't be used as a non-free image either. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:FRANCESCO MUTTI.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- File:FRANCESCO MUTTI.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pastelli ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder and releasing into the public domain. The uploader being the copyright holder seems unlikely. This image is used all over the internet and on pizza boxes. For example here (scroll down) and somebody selling prints. This may be public domain, but more specific information about its history and publication would be needed to establish that. Whpq (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Director Selvendran during the shoot of his latest independent tamil album.jpg
- File:Director Selvendran during the shoot of his latest independent tamil album.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Selvendran.selva85 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Fiddle Faddle 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Pattie.jpg
- File:Pattie.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by El mondo2000 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Possible copyright violation due to low resolution. Uploader has no other files. Can be replaced with File:Potato patties 1.PNG if needed. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
File:GITS SAC 1stGIG Operator.jpg
- File:GITS SAC 1stGIG Operator.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Biwamasa ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screenshots of copyrighted TV shows, not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
March 23
File:George H. W. Bush presidential portrait (cropped).jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- File:George H. W. Bush presidential portrait (cropped).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wow ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I am not sure whether or not this image is actually free. The image is being used as the primary photo at the page George H. W. Bush and many other prominent locations. The immediate source is from this 2018 obituary written by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis; the website does not identify the photo as being either taken by a government official (as labeled on the file description page) or as being released into the public domain. I felt this at least worth discussion here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Nat Falk How to Make Animated Cartoons-1941.jpg
- File:Nat Falk How to Make Animated Cartoons-1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bookworm-ce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a book cover used in a section of the article about the book's author. Although the book is discussed in the article, the book cover is not. The cover is not needed to understand teh material written about the book. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Vida y costumbres de los indígenas araucanos en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX.png
- File:Vida y costumbres de los indígenas araucanos en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bookworm-ce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a book cover used in a section of the article about the book's author. Although the book is discussed in the article, the book cover is not. The cover is not needed to understand the material written about the book. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
File:TheWire59.jpg
- File:TheWire59.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opark 77 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free screenshot is claimed to be used "[t]o identify an episode" but is not a poster, logo, title card or similar type of image that is used for identification. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary from reliable sources. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
March 24
March 25
File:Dopetrackz logo.png
- File:Dopetrackz logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OakridgeMakaveli ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Claims PD-self, also found on https://twitter.com/RadioDopetrackz and https://www.amazon.com/Online-Radio-Dopetrackz/dp/B08G59LC2W. WP:OTRS permission needed. Used on Draft:Dopetrackz Radio. Side note: may indicate a WP:COI issue for that draft. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Today is March 25 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 25 – ()
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 "===March 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.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.