Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 6 78 0 84
TfD 0 0 5 0 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 5
FfD 0 0 30 0 30
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here [ edit ]

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

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2021 March 7}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2021 March 7}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2021 March 7}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1928, not 1922.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.



Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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

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

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation [ edit ]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format

* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~

where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions [ edit ]

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

Old discussions [ edit ]

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

February 26

File:Jay Neveloff Headshot.jpg

[edit]

File:Jay Neveloff Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NinaSpezz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is sourced to Flickr and it does have a CC-BY-SA listed there. However, that Flickr user's photostream has a grand total of this one single image. The EXIF on the image indicates the copyright holder as "(c)DavidBeyda". OTRS confirmation of permission would be required. Whpq (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Permission from copyright holder "(c)DavidBeyda" has been submitted to OTRS. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment: OTRS agent: Permission has been granted, ticket:2021022610007982. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Aardakh 1944.jpg

[edit]

File:Aardakh 1944.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Takhirgeran Umar with the reason "The photograph does not show the eviction of the Chechens and Ingush, perhaps it is Ukraine. I also admit that this is a picture from a movie." FASTILY 22:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a better source to challenge this claim than just a random post of some guy on Facebook.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

February 25

File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png

[edit]

File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IndianBio (notify | 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)

February 19

File:Dua Lipa - Future Nostalgia The Moonlight Edition.png

[edit]

File:Dua Lipa - Future Nostalgia The Moonlight Edition.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LOVI33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC - there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The original cover art, which is the primary visual image associated with the album, is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I thought we kept images for reissues. Glory (Britney Spears album), Fearless (Taylor's Version), etc. D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Moonlight Edition is a wide release on all platforms almost a year after Future Nostalgia came out, with a significantly different cover, infobox, and exclusive single releases of its own. Given the significance the reissue has garnered, the new artwork is likely to help readers.--NØ 03:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • the image is NOT significantly different. The stylings etc are the same and it looks like its from the same photoshoot. It's hardly groundbreaking. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Lipa's hair colour and costume being different is enough for me, personally. Hardworking as she is, I doubt she dyed her hair in the middle of the same photoshoot. There is also a lot of text on the reissue cover that isn't found on the standard version. They look substantially different and not really like close substitutes for each other.--NØ 11:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Stylistically the images look similar. They look like a continuation of the same theme/visual concept therefore that doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and WP:NFCC#8 "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". No one is going to be confused or fail to understand an infobox for the re-release if the cover is excluded. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I respect people's opinions, but I don't understand how you can say that the new image is similar to the original when in the new Lipa has a different type and color of hair, a different outfit, a different pose and a different scenery. The only thing that remains from the first image is the moon because they placed it larger. The image of Future Nostalgia: Moonlight Edition is different from Future Nostalgia as its material: "We're Good" is an exclusive single from Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition and that along with the other bonus songs escape from the original album concept and collaborations with Angèle, Miley Cyrus, JID, DaBaby, J Balvin, Bad Bunny and Tainy were added... which arguably will give more relevance or notability to this new edition. Alexismata7 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, let me quote - "WP:NFCC#3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and WP:NFCC#8 "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". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course the new cover is of significant information because it helps to distinguish how the new material is (visually) represented. If we talk about the image increasing the reader's understanding: if I am a person who does not know anything about music or Lipa and I go to a store wanting to buy The Moonlight Edition to be "fashionable", I would end up buying the standard edition because Wikipedia only shows one image (since you want to delete the new one) and I wouldn't realize that I'm buying the wrong edition since they are both similarly named ... 1. Future Nostalgia - 2. Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition. Alexismata7 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I might comment that actually the license rational specifically says "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone" - we have already established that the album has been re-released, it is mentioned several times in the article. We could easily say "the re-release features Dua Lipa ...." etc and describe the cover thus rendering the cover null and void. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alexismata7 and MaranoFan. DX!talk 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous arguments from above. DovahDuck (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

February 9

File:Trial Memorandum of President Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf

[edit]

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 (notify | 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)
  • 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:Music Week cover December 2020.jpeg

[edit]

File:Music Week cover December 2020.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by User:Alexismata7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Or to put it another way DFU (Disputing fair use), I'm disputing the claim that there is a good enough fair use reason to use this cover. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This article previously showed only the magazine logo and did not include a cover image. It is not clear that there is anything particularly notable about the cover image featuring Dua Lipa to justify its fair use, no commentary is being made. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is accepted as a standard to include a cover image from a magazine on the magazine's article. There is nothing particuarly special that would suggest the commercial opportunities for the image are being affected by its use here. It would, of course, be inappropriate for this image to be used in Dua Lipa. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Clash cover November 2016.jpeg

[edit]

File:Clash cover November 2016.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by User:Alexismata7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dua Lipa fan spamming magazine covers 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:27, 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 then I see no issue with it. Salavat (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I cannot tell what the previous cover image cover was because it seems to have been automatically deleted. Is the use of this cover image properly justified? Why not use just the [Logo image] from commons, as the Spanish language version of the page does? A cover image is not necessarily required at all. Alexismata7 has only stated the images are newer, not that there is anything special about the images that would justify their fair use.

      If you are saying the image is justified on the basis that is is better than nothing, then please restate that. I want it made clear that the next random editor can overwrite the images with more recent images for no real reason just as Alexismata7 has done. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Using the Wayback Machine I was able to see a version of the Clash Magazine page from August 2020. The cover image was Clash Magazine 2011, issue 69. There does not appear to be anything particularly notable about that cover image either, and the Dua Lupa cover image does not seem to be any better or worse than the previous image.

        The first issue of Clash magazine from March 2004 featured Franz Ferdinand on the cover[1] [2](includes cover image) The Clash magazine 100th cover featured Justin Bieber[3](includes cover image). I do not like Bieber but there would seem to be a better fair use argument for using the cover of the 100th issue. (If this was about my personal preference I'd go with the covers of issue #1 showing Franz Ferdinand.) There does not appear to be any special reason to include the cover of issue 102 featuring Dua Lipa[4]. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Commentary@Salavat: I don't see the problem with the images either, but since the IP claims that I uploaded them because I was a fan, I can commit to changing the other magazine covers illustrating other characters except for Rolling Stone. I also uploaded recent covers to Cosmopolitan and Glamour.-- Alexismata7 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple images from many different years all featuring Dua Lipa is more than a "coincidence"[5] (2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021). In the other cases Alexismata7 claims it is about having more recent covers but in this case wants a cover from 2016 that just happens to feature Dua Lipa, that's so very convenient. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg

[edit]

File:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexismata7 (notify | 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[6])
Alexismata7 unconvincingly claimed it is a merely "coincidence"[7] 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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). -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Cry Macho - Clint Eastwood - Filming During COVID-19.jpg

[edit]

File:Cry Macho - Clint Eastwood - Filming During COVID-19.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Some Dude From North Carolina (notify | 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)

Mentioned is not significant commentary. The use of the file is for a very minor point in the article and doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Life is good logo 2.png

[edit]

File:Life is good logo 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | 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.   — JeffG. 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @P,TO 19104 as OP.   — JeffG. ツ 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Katy Perry - Smile LP and Vinyl cover.png

[edit]

File:Katy Perry - Smile LP and Vinyl cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lil-unique1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Similar to previous FfD discussions regarding extra album covers, this cover does not satisfy WP:NFCC criterion 3, that is minimal use. Per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an extra cover is added only if it "is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original". This cover is different from the standard edition's, but it does not replace the original as it is limited to a DTC vinyl release. (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, the cover is significantly different and doesn't represent the DTC vinyl addition, it represents the widely available LP version of the album which has a slightly different tracklisting. Under NFCC3 it does satisfy minimal use as the cover is significantly different to the CD cover. LP/Vinyl versions of the album gained coverage as it was a key part of the album's rollout. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for deletion. While I generally support minimal use per the nominator's rational, I don't think it is as black and white as "there is never a valid relational for an additional cover". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lil-unique1: I don't pick a specific example of OTHERSTUFF. I just mentioned that there is a growing consensus of one cover only for album infoboxes. Vinyl releases are limited to certain retailers, so I do not think it is "widely distributed", and given an album is widely associated with one most specific cover (unless an alternate cover gains significant commentary), I do not see how this alternate cover for the album adds substance to the article's content, or the readers' understanding of the album (which is basically "minimal use"). I did not say, or imply, that "there is never a valid rationale for an additional cover" as you interpreted my words. I have not understood how, in your words, this cover satisfies "minimal use". (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @: Sorry I wasn't implying that you never think there's a good reason for additional covers - that wasn't my intention. I think I have explained why the rational has been satisfied. It's not for the original editor to convince the nominator or vice versa - that's not how deletion discussions work as I'm sure you already know. You have explained why you think it has not been satisfied - that's where these discussions are helpful for consensus. I do think the LP releases for this album where a significant part of the rollout and promotion for the release, that's why I think it was significant to include. If the consensus is established otherwise then I'll gladly accept that. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lil-unique1: Thank you for your clarification. As we have expressed different opinions on this matter, let us wait for other editors to chime in. Thank you for your civility and good faith, (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I normally support the idea of only one cover per album page (especially when there are similar art designs). This isn't one of those times when vastly different from the standard edition AND it was part of an exclusive version of the album. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the exclusive version be excluded from the infobox, which is supposed to cover something more universally known? (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the template documentation is not the most applicable policy. Under WP:NFCC#3 fair use images must be used minimally in an article. Also per the description of how WP:FU material is supposed to be used by Template:Non-free album cover, the album cover is supposed to "solely illustrate the audio recording in question". It does not necessarily matter whether the cover is substaintially different (and to be honest, I'm not totally sure that the album cover is all that different, anyway). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per P,TO 19104 and . D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, per sentiments expressed by Lil-unique1 and SNUGGUMS above. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - usage of copyrighted content should be kept at a minimum. ~90% of music consumption nowadays probably happens digitally, so a vinyl-exclusive cover isn't the primary representation for an album. Thus, this part of the non-free use rationale isn't being met in my opinion: to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.--NØ 05:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Message to coordinator@Fastily: Given that this discussion has stalled, should it be relisted to generate a clearer consensus? Thank you, (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whilst I'm generally not averse to having multiple covers in the case of differing versions of a single or album, this appears to just be a pre-order/DTC bonus with no other significance. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Dutch-Americans.png

[edit]

File:Dutch-Americans.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rex Germanus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dutch-Americans.png. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete[8] "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)
@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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

File:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Starmuseum1995 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:COM:TOO South Korea. Magog the Ogre (tc) 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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. (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)

File:Metal 2 Logo.png

[edit]

File:Metal 2 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17jiangz1 (notify | 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)
If it is a former logo then I don't think it accurately represents the product anymore. The infobox should contain the most up to date logo for identification. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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. (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In which article? George Ho (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • All of them. I don't think removing them from only one article is justified. (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Samples at Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

[edit]

File:JohnCaleHallelujahlive29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tartarus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:AllisonCroweHallelujah29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen original 1984.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | 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 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

File:Grimes and i o - Violence.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lk95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes and i o - Violence (Alternative cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anonpediann (notify | 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 whether archival value is enough to justify an extra cover art. Sometimes, in my personal experience, one out of two artworks with very 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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. (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Miss Anthropocene album covers

[edit]

File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ss112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Граймс (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (December 2020 cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mediafanatic17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (Deluxe December 2020 Cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theussfabulous (notify | 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)
    Which standard cover, the original or revised one? George Ho (talk) 20:36, 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg

[edit]

File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | 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)
    • It was television. As I said above, the event was inherently visual. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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. (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

[edit]

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:PromiscuousSample.ogg

[edit]

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)
@George Ho: Something must have gone very wrong with copy paste on my end, I apologize! Thanks for correcting that. I think the audio sample is more useful for identification than the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. Oh... I can suggest that you think the sample's more suitable for the song article than the album one, right? George Ho (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Right. Face-smile.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg

[edit]

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | 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 (notify | 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.
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

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ acousticguitar.com
  3. ^ 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Several Images of mass shooters

[edit]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | 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 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | 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)

  • 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 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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 be allowable, 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)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You may have a point about text and 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" and follow 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)
  • 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)
    You meant, "keep all", or which ones? George Ho (talk) 09:40, 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)
I hate to say this, but your vote will have remained unclear (not just to me) until you specify which image(s) shall be kept. Alternatively, you can strike your own vote out (but leave your comments as-is). George Ho (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (notify | 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Madonna - get together.ogg

[edit]

File:Madonna - get together.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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)
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)
Keep, per Alecsdaniel. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Aint Nobody.jpg

[edit]

File:Aint Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (notify | 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales (notify | 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

[edit]

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 (notify | 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)

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 that Excessively 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)
  • 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)

February 6

File:Hwaa Remix.jpg

[edit]

File:Hwaa Remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Perghhh (notify | 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

[edit]

File:The Arch - Spang.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RivetHeadCulture (notify | 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 [ edit ]

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

February 28 [ edit ]

File:CFN-CNBC logo.png [ edit ]

File:CFN-CNBC logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KevinAction (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Former logo who non-free use in Class CNBC completely fails WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFCC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 for more specifics). It should be noted that this file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020 August 14#File:CFN-CNBC logo.png and actually deleted by Fastily, but was later restored by RoySmith per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 5 for reasons more related to the behavior of the editor who nominated the file for deletion that to the actual non-free use of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Cathay Williams Only Woman Buffalo Soldier U.S. Army.jpg [ edit ]

File:Cathay Williams Only Woman Buffalo Soldier U.S. Army.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lucky For You (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An IP added a comment This information is incorrect. It was commissioned by a private committee and provided to the U.S. Army for public use on their website. It was not created by a public employee. It is not in the public domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Postal2-Jesus-Rank.png [ edit ]

File:Postal2-Jesus-Rank.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chargh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The article does not even mention this let alone have sourced critical commentary about it. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination since I'm not seeing anything in the article which might be considered to establish the contextual significance required by NFCC#8. In addition, there might also be a WP:FREER and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES problem even if sourced commentary about the screenshot is added to the article since it's bascially nothing more than text and text can be represented in other ways in the article (e.g. as a quote perhaps). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent nominations [ edit ]

March 1 [ edit ]

File:Atlantaterminal1.jpg [ edit ]

File:Atlantaterminal1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theguru320 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, limited information, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Strangelove-comfest.jpg [ edit ]

File:Strangelove-comfest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Radiojesus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, questionable licensing, only viewable edit by user. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Eyerafal.jpg [ edit ]

File:Eyerafal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skillz187 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unclear if licensing related to current or historical image, image is easily replaceable. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiefs-Away-Jersey.jpg [ edit ]

File:Chiefs-Away-Jersey.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thefeamgroup (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:HarlemLIVE Receives a United Federation of Teachers Award.JPG [ edit ]

File:HarlemLIVE Receives a United Federation of Teachers Award.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Student in HarlemLIVE Office.JPG [ edit ]

File:Student in HarlemLIVE Office.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Students at Work at HarlemLIVE.JPG [ edit ]

File:Students at Work at HarlemLIVE.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Students Taking Part in the HarlemLIVE Program.JPG [ edit ]

File:Students Taking Part in the HarlemLIVE Program.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarlemLIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, not encyclopedic, likely used on deleted article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Livingroom6.jpg [ edit ]

File:Livingroom6.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bloum3.jpg [ edit ]

File:Bloum3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unencyclopedic, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bloum.jpg [ edit ]

File:Bloum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greatartists210 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, unencyclopedic, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Dub Jones, American football halfback, on 1950 card.jpg [ edit ]

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 F8 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Dub Jones, American football halfback, on 1950 card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Batard0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Exported to the Commons. --Mhhossein talk 05:36, 1 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:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png [ edit ]

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | 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. (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)
If the cover on iTunes is the most notable, then I think this should be kept, while the other file should be deleted. (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment:@ResolutionsPerMinute, Infsai, and : 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)

File:Autobahn 2009.jpg [ edit ]

File:Autobahn 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SmokesQuantitys (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC there is no need for multiple non-free cover arts for alternative versions of the album. The original cover art suffices as the primary means of visualisation of the album. The main component of the additional coverarts is a symbol/iconography which appears on the main cover art anyway. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: other FFDs have determined so long that the image is different enough, than it can be kept. I would also be in favor of deleting this one and keeping the one above. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ƏXPLICIT 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:John Oliver SLAPP Suits.jpg [ edit ]

File:John Oliver SLAPP Suits.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theleekycauldron (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC. Unlike the one present at Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), this one does not serve any other purpose beyond the identification of the segment. (CC) Tbhotch 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:GetThumb 672.jpg [ edit ]

File:GetThumb 672.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shifa nizami (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, questionable license given file name, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Si tf show banner.png [ edit ]

File:Si tf show banner.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by James Arnhem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, sole visible upload by user, no encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Spunouthseaward.jpg [ edit ]

File:Spunouthseaward.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seanjb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, absent user, no encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Sandy Stadium (aerial).jpg [ edit ]

File:Sandy Stadium (aerial).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tnehren (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, source link does not take you to the image, main web address of source (https://www.medianewsgroup.com/terms-of-use/) terms of use does not match licence provided. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Slavonac.jpg [ edit ]

File:Slavonac.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Macar macar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, uploader only visible edit, low quality, no encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Visual distortion caused by curved mirror.jpg [ edit ]

File:Visual distortion caused by curved mirror.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Telluricfields (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, easily replaceable, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Spaceaid-auction.jpg [ edit ]

File:Spaceaid-auction.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Righteyecreative (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Spaceaid-reg-sam.jpg [ edit ]

File:Spaceaid-reg-sam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Righteyecreative (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Spaceaid-wall.jpg [ edit ]

File:Spaceaid-wall.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Righteyecreative (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Oldfaithful2.png [ edit ]

File:Oldfaithful2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nwstephens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, no source for data to validate, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Oldfaithful.png [ edit ]

File:Oldfaithful.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nwstephens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, no information on data source, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Kiteme.JPG [ edit ]

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

Orphaned image, absent user, low quality Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Story3.jpg [ edit ]

File:Story3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rsengage (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Panamafolder.jpg [ edit ]

File:Panamafolder.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GraceWest8092 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, low quality, absent uploader, no encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Lenin Ralph Stalin.jpg [ edit ]

File:Lenin Ralph Stalin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ralphybaby (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, no encyclopedic use, absent uploader Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2 [ edit ]

File:Citogenesis.png [ edit ]

File:Citogenesis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sj (notify | 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)

File:Sensodyne toothpaste.jpg [ edit ]

File:Sensodyne toothpaste.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SW1APolitico (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is the design of this packaging above the threshold of originality in the United States? It looks pretty complex to me. Wikiacc () 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Tenrikyo manga.jpg [ edit ]

File:Tenrikyo manga.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shadowlink1014 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a comic strip from the Tenrikyo church, which illustrates the religion's belief of "Joyous Life", and is used in the article of Tenrikyo. However, besides from the quote inside the comic strip, the file is generally useless in describing that belief, and can be easily replaced with quotes or even paraphrased information from proselytizing works. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#8 for having little contextual significance, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Also, the uploader's claim that "I'll be damned if I ever heard of a religion not wanting propagation materials spread wherever they can get it." is totally invalid as per Wikipedia:Precautionary principle, item 3.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Hiscock.tif [ edit ]

File:Hiscock.tif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cczollo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

professional portrait of a notable individual, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 22:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I chose the wrong copyright attribution option. I need help fixing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cczollo (talkcontribs) 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cczollo: you can edit the metadata on the file page directly. What is the correct attribution? – SJ + 15:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I might be able to figure out how to edit the medadata. What should it be changed to? The correct copyright holder is the Yale Office of Public Affairs & Communications. I'm in the process of getting an email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with an affirmation. This is the process I went through with the photo of uploaded of Dr. Kristaps Keggi. In that case the copyright holder was Terry Dagradi and I had her send an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cczollo (talkcontribs) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

File:WMLN-FM 91.5 logo.png [ edit ]

File:WMLN-FM 91.5 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wcquidditch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMLN-FM 91.5 logo.png Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:JohanLudvigHeibergOgJohanneLuiseHeibergPlaque.jpg [ edit ]

File:JohanLudvigHeibergOgJohanneLuiseHeibergPlaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mark Renier (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JohanLudvigHeibergOgJohanneLuiseHeibergPlaque.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

March 3 [ edit ]

File:John Giordano UN.jpg [ edit ]

File:John Giordano UN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tommybrae (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Although the image is published on a US government web site, the EXIF data shows this is a United Nations photo (UN Photo/Loey Felipe). As such the PD-USGov license is not valid. UN material is copyrighted. Whpq (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

File:2017 EBSL map of nations.png [ edit ]

File:2017 EBSL map of nations.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TurboGUY (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with TurboGUY map. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have left comments on the Commons link listed above. TurboGUY (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

File:EBSL host countries.svg [ edit ]

File:EBSL host countries.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TurboGUY (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with TurboGUY map. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have left comments on the Commons link listed above. TurboGUY (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

File:The Emancipation of Mimi Ultra Platinum.png [ edit ]

File:The Emancipation of Mimi Ultra Platinum.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The k nine 2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC - there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The original cover art, which is the primary visual image associated with the album, is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. The new cover is significantly similar to the existing one. Furthermore, it is of too high quality. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 4 [ edit ]

File:Joseph Papin drawing of himself in action.jpg [ edit ]

File:Joseph Papin drawing of himself in action.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jrptwins (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file was previously discussed back in 2015 at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Joseph Papin drawing of himself in action.jpg, but the discussion was closed as "no consensus" mainly because of a lack of participation and not because it's non-free use was deemed WP:NFCC-compliant. The situation has not changed since then in that this file still doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#4, There may be other WP:NFCCP issues as well, the main one is NFCC#4. The uploader has been notified, but they haven't edited since December 2019; so, it's clear they will be able to help resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:KbsBD [ edit ]

File:AM Amin Uddin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:A H M Mustafa Kamal (Bangladeshi Politician).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Barrister Rafique Ul Huq (Bangladeshi Lawyer).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KbsBD (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Government works are not in the public domain in Bangladesh. Dylsss(talk contribs) 11:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Dylsss: The images are taken from the Government website and from the webpages where they themselves disclosed the images for public access and use. Among the images, one belong to a deceased person. Moreover under Section 7 of the "Right to Information Act 2009" clearly identifies what are not allowed to be publicized/shared in Bangladesh. These images that you mentioned do not fall under any criteria mentioned in the provision neither break the law.
    Rights to information act >> https://dghs.gov.bd/index.php/en/mis-docs/important-documents/item/right-to-information-act-2009?category_id=116

    What is not open? – Section 7 Publication or providing certain types of information is not mandatory. None of the authorities will be obliged to give the citizens the following information: 1) Information disclosure of which would be a threat to the security, integrity and sovereignty of Bangladesh; 2 2) Information related to any foreign policy, the disclosure of which would lead to harming existing relationships with any foreign state, or international institution or any regional bloc or organization; 3) Information received in confidence from a foreign government; 4) Information related to commercial or business confidence, copyright or intellectual property right, the disclosure of which would harm the intellectual property rights of any third party; 5) Information the disclosure of which would either benefit or harm an individual or institution, such as : a) any advance information regarding income tax, customs, VAT and law relating to excise, budget or change in the tax rate; b) any advance information regarding changes related to exchange rate and interest rate ; c) any advance information regarding the management and supervision of financial institutions including banks; 6) Information the disclosure of which would obstruct the enforcement of law or incite any offence; 7) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the security of the people or would impede the due judicial process of a pending case; 8) Information the disclosure of which would harm the privacy of the personal life of an individual; 9) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person; 10) Information given in confidence by a person to help a law enforcement institution; 11) Information related to any matter pending in any court of law and which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; 12) Information related to any matter which is under investigation whose disclosure might impede the investigation process; 13) Information, the disclosure of which would affect any criminal investigation process and the arrest and prosecution of the offenders; 14) Information, which according to law is liable to be published only for a specified time period; 15) Information obtained through technical or scientific experiments which is expedient to be kept secret for strategic and commercial reasons; 16) Information related to any purchase processes before it is complete or before any decision is taken regarding the purchase or the processes involved; 17) Information whose release may lead to breach of privileges of National Parliament (Jatiya Sansad); 18) Information regarding any person which is to be kept in confidence by law; 3 19) Advance information regarding question papers of an examination or the marks obtained; 20) Documents including summaries to be placed before the Cabinet or as the case may be, in the meetings of the Council of Advisors and information relating to deliberations and decisions made, provided that the decisions of the Cabinet or the Council of Advisors, the reasons and material basis upon which the decisions were taken shall be made public, Provided as per this section if information is not to be disclosed then the related authority must take prior approval from the Information Commission.

    Rather Section 6 of the same act provides that:

    "Each authority has to publish and publicise all information in an indexed manner which is easily accessible to the citizens regarding any decision taken, proceeding or activity executed or proposed. In disclosing this information, no authority shall conceal or limit access to any information"

    And these are what told to be disclosed:

    Each authority must publish a report each year which will contain the following information: 1) The particulars of an authority’s organizational framework, functions and duties and responsibilities of its officers and employees and the description of decision-making processes; 2) List of all laws, acts, ordinances, rules, regulations, notifications, directives, and manuals etc. of authorities and classification of all information available with the authorities. 3) Description of the terms and conditions under which any person can obtain from an authority, license, permit, grant, allocation, consent, approval or the description of any other facilities and description of such terms and conditions, that require the authority to make transactions or enter into agreements with him; 4) Description of all facilities in order to ensure the right to information of the citizens and the name, designation, address, and where applicable fax number and e-mail address of the Responsible Officer.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by KbsBD (talkcontribs) 22:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Having right to access information is not the same as being in the public domain. See also c:COM:CRT/Bangladesh. Government works are copyright for 60 years after piublication. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all, the copyright holder (government of Bangladesh) still retains certain rights under the copyright law of Bangladesh. Wikiacc () 02:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:32 Signal Regiment ARms.jpg [ edit ]

File:32 Signal Regiment ARms.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Porcelain katana (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Government works are not in the public domain in Canada. Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicensed to non-free symbol and added a fairuse. Should be good to keep now. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bima Bharti.png [ edit ]

File:Bima Bharti.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tayi Arajakate (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Government works are not in the public domain in India. Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, not public domain and not freely licensed (see source website's copyright notice). Wikiacc () 02:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside.jpg [ edit ]

File:I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Request change in license as it was originally published in 1907, so it should be public domain in the United States. Eyesnore 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Eyesnore: You should notify the uploader of this discussion per the instructions given at WP:FFD, even if it's only done as a courtesy. They might be able to clarify why they uploaded the file as non-free instead of uploading it to Commons as {{PD-US}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: My apologies, as the uploader - do I need to upload it to Commons or does that happen automatically at this stage? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:DukeEllington TakeTheATrain.ogg [ edit ]

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)

File:Mikl123456.jpg [ edit ]

File:Mikl123456.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miklib (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unencyclopaedic/unused personal photo. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: The uploader hasn't edited since 2007 (at least not with the account they used to upload the file) and there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value in moving the file to Commons per c:COM:SCOPE; so, there's no reason to keep a local copy on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

March 5 [ edit ]

File:Papal insignia.jpg [ edit ]

File:Papal insignia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rmhermen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Papal insignia.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:BattleRockOregonCoast.jpg [ edit ]

File:BattleRockOregonCoast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jazela (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BattleRockOregonCoast.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Afusa plaque.jpg [ edit ]

File:Afusa plaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mojah99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afusa plaque.jpgMagog the Ogre (tc) 01:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:RAF Spilsby Memorial (1943-1945).jpg [ edit ]

File:RAF Spilsby Memorial (1943-1945).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ivor the driver (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAF Spilsby Memorial (1943-1945).jpgMagog the Ogre (tc) 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ramondi nod.jpg [ edit ]

File:Ramondi nod.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ruthsarian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramondi nod.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Sign for Bradbury Fields, Bradbury Centre, Guide Dogs mobility centre.png [ edit ]

File:Sign for Bradbury Fields, Bradbury Centre, Guide Dogs mobility centre.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonathan Deamer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sign for Bradbury Fields, Bradbury Centre, Guide Dogs mobility centre.png Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:IMG 8600 lores.jpg [ edit ]

File:IMG 8600 lores.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dantediciolli (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Personal photo, no educational/encyclopaedic value. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:IMG 20190726 BlackMariaChevy.jpg [ edit ]

File:IMG 20190726 BlackMariaChevy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhodesh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per description, "Photo by Rhodes Hileman of art by Rose Simpson." Derivative work, no evidence of permission. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:D Purrazzo 2019.png [ edit ]

File:D Purrazzo 2019.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vjmlhds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a modified version of File:Deonna Purazzo 2019.jpg. The file is unused and it looks bad. The original is much better. MGA73 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Isaf-placemat-16April2010-gunnmap-percentages.JPG [ edit ]

File:Isaf-placemat-16April2010-gunnmap-percentages.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Citizen-of-wiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. Not updated. MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Collect-C-S.jpg [ edit ]

File:Collect-C-S.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Collect-Ikip.jpg [ edit ]

File:Collect-Ikip.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Collect-Rklawton.jpg [ edit ]

File:Collect-Rklawton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Collect-THF.jpg [ edit ]

File:Collect-THF.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Collect-WebHamster.jpg [ edit ]

File:Collect-WebHamster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bahay-kubo.jpg [ edit ]

File:Bahay-kubo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ednhil1102 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. Uploader blocked for spam. MGA73 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Foreign relations of Serbia, Mirko Cvetkovic visits.png [ edit ]

File:Foreign relations of Serbia, Mirko Cvetkovic visits.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Avala (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused. MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Sophie Ann.jpg [ edit ]

File:Sophie Ann.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DefyingGravityForGood (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused. Personal photo. MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Comando Reggiment.JPG [ edit ]

File:Comando Reggiment.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gerd 72 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused. MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Seventhwoods.jpeg [ edit ]

File:Seventhwoods.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by UNC2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, low res. And also its GFDL only so it can't be moved to Commons. MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Dick Stuart.jpg [ edit ]

File:Dick Stuart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pennsylvania Penguin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of a photo. No proof that the original photo is free. The file is unused. MGA73 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:FRONT-LUMI-NOTE.png [ edit ]

File:FRONT-LUMI-NOTE.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spiddyock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I do not see any evidence that this currency is freely licensed, the cited dead link can be seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20210112075055/https://www.accompong-gov.org/bank-of-accompong. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

March 6 [ edit ]

Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song) [ edit ]

File:Show Me the Way cover 1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rlendog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Showmethewayps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piriczki (notify | 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 (notify | 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:NAIA-AIRPORT-parking.jpg [ edit ]

File:NAIA-AIRPORT-parking.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CreativExplorer101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Author ("John Paul Solis") doesn't seem to be the uploader User:CreativExplorer101. Are they the same person or not? This might fail at WikiCommons because of this, even if FOP is finally introduced in the Philippines. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 07:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg [ edit ]

File:Notes from the Second Year cover, New York Radical Women.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carwil (notify | 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)

File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg [ edit ]

File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ibne.adhi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is unused. I can't read the text so I do not know if it is useful. But my guess is no since it is not in use. MGA73 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Would have been better if it was WP:PRODed. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 02:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: The uploader of this file hasn't edited since 2010, but this file was once used in Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui as shown here, but was removed here the very next day after it was added to the article. While I can't read this, there's a chance that it's protected by copyright which means it would need to be treated as non-free content and meet WP:NFCCP, which is something I don't see as currently being acceptable per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#8. Even if the image itself isn't eligible for copyright protection, it still seems unnecessary per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

File:LarryDimarzio 01.jpg [ edit ]

File:LarryDimarzio 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LarryDiMarzio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file. Derivative work. User name matches the person claimed to be on the photo but it does not look like a selfie. MGA73 (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

File:TommySotomayor-on-LouderWithCrowder-Sept2016.png [ edit ]

File:TommySotomayor-on-LouderWithCrowder-Sept2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sburns90 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unless I am missing something, or the license was changed later, this does not appear to be licensed under a Creative Commons license. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Natural la1.gif [ edit ]

File:Natural la1.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevey7788 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused except for in uploaders gallery. Uploader is blocked. MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to Commons: if this file's licensing is correct, this could be moved to Commons because it most likely would meet c:COM:SCOPE. The fact that the uploader has been blocked, doesn't necessarily means someone else might not be able to find an encyclopedic use for the image. I agree though that there's no need for this local version on Wikipedia and most of the other map files on User:Stevey7788/Maps seem to bee Commons files; so, this one should be moved to Commons and then the local version deleted per WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved the other uploads of the user to Commons because they were in use. The file is from 2005 and if anyone would like to use a file about naturalized citizens in Los Angeles my guess is that it would be more relevant to use newer data. Also I think it will be hard to use the file when there is no information about what the colors mean. So we do not know if a the darkest color means 10 percent or 0.1 percent. But IF it is relevant then I agree that Commons is the right place for it. --MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

March 7 [ edit ]

File:Matter Life Death Hunter Niven.jpg [ edit ]

File:Matter Life Death Hunter Niven.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot is used in the Cast section of A Matter of Life and Death (film). The fair use rationale states its purpose is "The image is being used to illustrate an article about the film depicted in the image." The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - The image shows the film's two stars, David Niven and Kim Hunter, in character, and is useful for that reason. It's exclusion would indeed make the article less valuable than it is. This nomination is an example of pure WP:BURO, without the least bit of consideration given to what's good for our readers or for the article itself. As such, approving it would damage Wikipedia rather than enhance it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

File:IPG Oxford MA HQ building.jpg [ edit ]

File:IPG Oxford MA HQ building.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shakermittens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have doubts about this freedom of this file. It illustrates the subject better than my original photo, and I want to transfer to Commons. However, the low resolution and lack of metadata (especially considering that the uploader claims to have taken it on an iPhone) suggests he copied it from somewhere. Also, the uploader is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppet abuse, so it's not like I can ask him to upload a higher resolution version. The only saving grace is that I did not get any hits using reverse image searches. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Footer [ edit ]

Today is March 7 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 7 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===March 7===" 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.

What is this?