Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog v t e V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total CfD 0 0 18 95 113 TfD 0 0 4 42 46 MfD 0 0 10 30 40 FfD 0 0 6 5 11 RfD 0 0 3 53 56 AfD 0 0 0 16 16 Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

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

Instructions To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually: How to list a file for discussion manually Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps: 1 Edit the file page. Add {{Ffd|log=2025 December 18}} 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=2025 December 18}} 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=2025 December 18}} 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 1932, not 1926. 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}}. Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here: Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright. Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin. NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements. Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page. Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise. These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

• Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
• Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
• Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

• WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

December 10

File:Kurdish Peshmerga.GIF

[edit]

File:Kurdish Peshmerga.GIF (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhamed~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Kurdish Peshmerga Iraq.GIF (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhamed~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:PeschmergiraqeKurdistan.GIF (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhamed~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Kurdishe Peschmerg of Iraqi Kurdistan.GIF (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhamed~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Tank.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhamed~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious own-work claims. Low resolution, no EXIF, and three of these are clearly pictures of a monitor. ✗plicit 00:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with assessment. Dubiousnessssss.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg

[edit]

File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Feoffer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We don't have an article on the book and the two paragraphs about it at the source aren't enough to justify a non-free image. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The upload to the Luis Elizondo biography appears to have been done in good faith, but unfortunately, non-free book covers, movie posters, etc, are only allowed in their dedicated articles. Author Stephen King has no book covers in his article. Neither do UFO book authors Jacques Vallée, Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, Leslie Kean, Whitley Strieber, Erich von Däniken, etc. Relevant policies: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:NFCC#8. However, if someone were to take and donate to Wikipedia an original photo of Elizondo holding his book, that should qualify imo, but the emphasis in the photo has to be Elizondo the author not the book cover. 5Q5|^✉ 12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah yeah. I can make an article on the book itself -- it's gotten lots of coverage. But it's so silly to have to do that just to satisfy NFCC. Feoffer (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would defend it if it was a larger portion of the biography, equivalent to a full sized page in another article. But two paragraphs is not that. And that photo wouldn't help, if it was enough of the focus it wouldn't be de minimis and if it wasn't it wouldn't show enough to be useful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  okay, that's fair -- there's definitely enough RSing out there to make a whole article. Feoffer (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's free anyway so now that's not even necessary. I do think it would be interesting so I'd say go for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's great for his particular case! Thank you! But what about the policy in general?

  I don't really know how to explain our aversion to notable, irreplaceable fair use imagery. Obviously, image usage way back in 2001 was far more restrictive, but in 2025, nobody is going to sue the Wikimedia foundation for hosting an image of a book cover, and there is no "free alternative" to the cover of an author's memoir. Remind me -- what good does it serve to limit the usage of such images? When an author writes a memoir and agrees on a cover, that's probably something readers are going to want to see, right? What am I missing? Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the question is, to me, how much of the article discusses it. Per WP:NFCC, "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." In certain circumstances I would argue it could be justified, but others may not and say it is only warranted in a full article alone. I think the per-article understanding is overly pedantic and not focusing on what the policy actual means, but it just depends on what you can argue here, really. I would not have brought this to a deletion discussion if the way the article was written suggested the book was a key aspect of him or the book devoted a large portion to it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Is there any we could "evolve" the rules somehow? Showing a memoir cover on author's bio doesn't feel like something that should be forbidden. The cover might not even meet the threshold of originality for copyright, given that the image featured on the cover is public domain. Feoffer (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Feoffer Is the image actually public domain? If so, the rest is just text with no real creative design, so this would be PD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is, relicensing is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense as PD. The image is definitely a US government work. See this news article which identifies it as "U.S. Department of Defence". The rest of the cover is simple text which is not eligible for copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relicense - Agreed that nothing on the cover seems copyrightable - certainly not the text and likely not the government image.

   ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: HarperCollins Publishers (William Morrow imprint) owns the copyright to the cover art of Imminent but not the public domain image within it. Elizondo owns the book's text. Here are some examples of past FfDs concerning use of book covers in non-book articles, including author articles, all delete: 1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10. 5Q5|^✉ 13:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't own copyright to text this simple. It is words and beige, far, far, far below the american threshold of originality. The Cyberpunk 2077 logo was ruled by the copyright office too simple for copyright. And yes, sometimes they delete, sometimes they do not, NFCC#8 does not say must have a dedicated article but contextual relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I encourage the reading of this expert article "Book Covers And Copyrights" before placing a bestselling book cover in the public domain. 5Q5|^✉ 13:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A book being bestselling doesn't make the threshold of originality not exist, or put an image in copyright that was public domain. You cannot copyright the word "Imminent" or the phrase "Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs". Cyberpunk 2077 was a bestselling game, and its text only logo was explicitly declared uncopyrightable by the copyright office because it was just text and minor styling, despite being far more stylized than this cover. That article is unrelated to this situation, it is about derivative works of copyrighted works, e.g. a photo of Obama that was copyrighted, not a photo from the American government, which cannot be copyrighted, reproduced exactly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two templates available are Template:PD-ineligible-USonly and Template:PD-ineligible. According to WP:IUPC, the uploader has to be able to "prove that the image is in the public domain". Since no such publisher or other official PD declaration exists, the publisher could, if they want to, challenge the PD designation. 5Q5|^✉ 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official declaration" because none is needed, nor would one be expected. A publisher is not going to issue explicit declarations for their covers. The image is verified to be a US Federal government work. The rest of the cover is just simple text. Neither is copyrightable and the combination of the two does not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they cannot, because they don't own the image. It would be PD-Ineligible and PD-USGov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be clear, my delete vote is only to remove the image from the Luis Elizondo article. I am fine with it being used in an article dedicated to the book, if such an article qualifies. Amazon UK has a different color scheme for the cover with additional wording. Once a book cover is in the public domain it can be sold on posters, shirts, mugs, and such without any payment to the publisher or author. I couldn't find any examples of Imminent book cover merchandise as of this writing. As a matter of principle to protect the business model of the publishing industry and the thousands of book covers in its past and future catalog, the publisher may decide to challenge the PD status, but if it doesn't, that's on them. 5Q5|^✉ 13:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That no one has done it yet does not mean that (why would people sell merchandise of this terrible book cover, and why would that matter? most merchandise like that is illegal, that would prove nothing). The image is public domain. There is no creative content on this cover that was not created by the US Government, who cannot claim copyright. You cannot own copyright to simple text, because there is a threshold of originality! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't need to declare it's PD, they can't copyright simple text mixed with a public domain image. And there's absolutely no chance of running afoul of fair use by showing a book cover next to a discussion of the book in question. Feoffer (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isaiah Kenen.jpg

[edit]

File:Isaiah Kenen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Verify the copyright status of this photo, as well as the others. If there's no free image that would serve the same purpose here, keep this image as a fair use image. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Candidyeoman55: You are the uploader of the file. It is part of your responsibility to do a search for free alternatives before uploading non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png

[edit]

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Logo below the threshold of originality that must be moved to Commons. Brazil has a high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Secondary images of Miss Moneypenny

[edit]

File:Miss Moneypenny by Caroline Bliss.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insomniacpuppy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Miss Moneypenny by Samantha Bond.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insomniacpuppy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

Images of other actresses portraying Miss Moneypenny may not contextually signify much about this fictional character. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They may be very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film with a particular actress portraying the character.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film. "Contextual significance" (WP:NFC#CS) doesn't limit to such demographic but applies to everyone else, especially those who've yet to see the films. Well, it says that screenshots should significantly increase readers' understanding of the fictional character herself enough to make omitting such screenshots detrimental to understanding this character.

As I see, this character has been just a secretary to "M". I'm afraid I have found images of portrayers not much of improvement but rather.... decorative perhaps. How do the screenshots (of actresses portraying the same role) improve your understanding of the character... besides what she looks like differently? George Ho (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The images are obviously purely decorative. Less than one sentence describes each image. — Ирука¹³ 01:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These images are worth keeping if you've only seen one run of Bond, for example (Casino Royale is more on the public mind than Octopussy, after all). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Moneypenny didn't appear in the 2006 film adaptation of the novel, unfortunately. Did you mean perhaps the 1960s spoof (of the same name)?

if you've only seen one run of Bond: This is pandering to Bond-fandom, isn't it? Honestly, I've yet to see you explain (further) why deleting the screenshots would impact the understanding of the character. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

File:Melanie C - I Don't Know How to Love Him.png

[edit]

File:Melanie C - I Don't Know How to Love Him.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Patricia CV (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded (by non-admin user) due to assumptions that, if the first version of the song, the content about the version itself is large enough to justify usage of this cover art. (see Explicit's explanation here) However, I'm doubtful that's the case here.

As shown in the article (old ID link), the section barely covers essential content that would've made omission of this cover art unjust Rather I've seen info about her performance and recording of the song. If the section were a standalone article, I would've redirected the page to the parent album article as potentially a less notable topic in question. Furthermore, I would've orphaned the whole cover art.

The matter isn't about the section itself but rather the cover art's contextually significance to the previously recorded/performed song made for an off-Broadway musical. If no objections, then the cover art may have failed to contextually signify the song after all. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added just now this free alternative (File:Mel C arriving at the Royal Albert Hall.jpg) neither as intended replacement nor for the section's infobox but for the section itself. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Section about the Melanie C cover could be it's own small article - there is significant discussion and sourcing for it. Since it could be it's own article, the cover is warranted for contextual significance.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

1967–1970 Beatles album covers

[edit]

File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Magical Mystery Tour US Cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KAYTRA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:TheBeatles-YellowSubmarinealbumcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paulisdead (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ozmosis82 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:The Beatles - Let It Be.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miklogfeather (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These album covers were published in the United States without an attached copyright notice (sources: Heritage Auctions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [the "notice" on the back cover appears to apply only to the lyrics], eBay for Magical Mystery Tour, eBay for Yellow Submarine, eBay for Abbey Road, eBay for Let It Be) within thirty days of their publication in the United Kingdom. Per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, Wikimedia Commons treats works published "simultaneously" (within thirty days) in the US as first published in the US. They should thus be transferred to Commons and tagged {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Simultaneous US publication|country1=United Kingdom|publication year=1967/1969/1970}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don’t delete it I’m a big Beatles fan plz don’t Neoogai (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are kept as-is or transferred to Commons, they are not being deleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Neoogai. There is no doubt about your good intentions, but please understand that the basis of such discussions are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Agreed with the logic of moving to Commons.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Commons, per above rationale. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg

[edit]

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

This is below the threshold of originality, so it should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  23:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg

[edit]

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

It's below the threshold of originality. Move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  23:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}. There is no information regarding Serbia's threshold of originality. ✗plicit 00:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg

[edit]

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I uploaded this logo and now I think this is Public Domain actually. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below t.o.o., therefore pd. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. The design is too complex. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the home country of it is Brazil, and it has a high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And you have not produced a single example of what Brazilian courts have deemed too simple for copyright. ✗plicit 13:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This logo is simpler than a 3D logo by Paes Mendonça which was ruled ineligible for copyright by Brazilian courts. For more information, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil#Threshold_of_originality Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're kidding, right? The nominated file is significantly more complex than the Paes Mendonça logo. ✗plicit 00:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, below T.O.O. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

File:Estonian Football Association logo.svg

[edit]

File:Estonian Football Association logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Below the threshold of originality, move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}. There is no information regarding Estonia's threshold of originality. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|Estonia}} - Unclear if meets TOO in home country.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  23:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

December 11

File:Helen Keller & Anne Sullivan issue of 1980.jpg

File:Helen Keller & Anne Sullivan issue of 1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gwillhickers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC1 -- there are other depictions of her in the section which work just as well JayCubby 00:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree — The file in question is listed under Posthumous honors to show that a Commemorative US postage stamp was issued in Keller's honor. In regards to NFCC 1: As a unique image of a commemorative postage stamp, there is no free equivalent available anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's point one, but probably point eight. The image only confirms the fact that such a stamp was issued. This is not enough to place a non-free image in an article. — Ирука¹³ 12:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image depicts the national honor that was given to Keller by the USPS in 1980 and as such merits inclusion in the article.
In regards to NFCC 8 — Contextual significance. The image is listed under Posthumous honors, and in that context has significance and is appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with cancelled version (see example here). The Postal Service prohibits full color photographs of uncancelled post-1978s stamps. The image is relevant to the article content and likely within fair use if a cancelled version is used.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about "previously published" criterion? After all, this version was cancelled, right? George Ho (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The stamp is widely published - see the source.

The current version is not cancelled, unless I'm missing some markings. [rubs eyes]  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as-is – There are free images of Keller herself, undoubtedly. The usage of this stamp, nevertheless, is well justified, and replacing it with one of cancelled or unreleased versions would mislead readers into assuming that the published version isn't that significant. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I think I see the misunderstanding. I didn't mean cancelled as in no longer made but as in mail cancellation.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FDNY Engine 81 Ladder 33 on Bailey Avenue.jpg

File:FDNY Engine 81 Ladder 33 on Bailey Avenue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bisettes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Judging by the Flickr account (photos description and photo of the account owner), the photos were taken from a family archive. It's not even certain that they were taken by a family member. — Ирука¹³ 03:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Little Farmer Ad.jpg

File:The Little Farmer Ad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quxyz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

One of the frames of the advertisement that does not reflect its main idea (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука¹³ 22:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, the image isn't critical but without it there is no depiction of the add besides the description in the article, which can only do so much. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to note that the frame is one of the most common depictions of the advert that I have seen and I pulled it from an article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a bit more consideration, I am moving to slight keep. I think that the nominator nominated this assuming that a random frame had been chosen, but in addition to Variety, as listed on the file page, a few other articles and the YouTube video use this image as their thumbnail. Their are a couple other thumbnails floating, but this is certainly one of them. I'm pinging @Iruka13 to ask for their opinion on the matter. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video has no official cover, no unofficial cover, and no "special" frame. In such cases, even the presence of a free image in the infobox, according to WP:LEADIMAGE, can easily be questioned. — Ирука¹³ 04:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – critical commentary inadequate to support this frame (of a girl, a man holding a potato chip product, and a woman). Furthermore, reading the synopsis, the commercial is more about the girl herself raising a potato (seed?) as a future plant, and the synopsis itself is easy to understand (in text) without this frame. For better example, see When Harry Met Santa (Christmas example). George Ho (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace - agreed that the image isn't representative of the commercial, but not that an image isn't warranted. I propose to use the frame at 0:26, which shows the girl guarding the potato plant.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The frame you're proposing can be well described already in brief text. How does it add much to understanding the whole ad? (Oh wait, I'm intersecting, if not interchanging, replaceability and significance now, am I?) George Ho (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed. I find it very contextually significant as a way to identify the ad for readers.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess your proposed frame is... to put this another way, replaceable then by text, huh? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not at all what I said.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  23:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would like to note that I have not ever seen that used as a thumbnail. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a screenshot of the ad by using GIMP, Microsoft Snipping Tool, or any other image editor. There's also a "Print Screen" key on your keyboard. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the image version of Lmgtfy? #kindness  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to imply that it would be another random frame, which is an issue presented with the current image. I obviously know how to take a screenshot. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Still, I'm unconvinced that even other sources using the screenshot you uploaded would sufficiently justify keeping the screenshot. George Ho (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sia - Fame Won't Love You cover art.jpg

File:Sia - Fame Won't Love You cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by YasserMeddour (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File available on Commons as File:Sia – Fame Won't Love You cover art.png. Listed here due to uploader's reversion of {{Di-replaceable non-free use}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated the Commons copy itself for deletion (DR discussion). --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dependent on Commons deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons DR discussion resulted in keeping that Commons copy per precedent. —George Ho (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nobo71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be replaced by a poster (Facebook), which I think is more significant than the title card itself. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No reason to delete. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is my nomination unreasonable? The logo itself is a nice change from that of the preceding season, but I still wonder why it has been perceived to clearly signify Big Brother 26 (American season). It hasn't used a number after Big Brother 10 (American season). It doesn't use other elements that can help reader clearly identify a season, like All Stars seasons and Big Brother 11 (American season). George Ho (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wanderer in Genshin Impact.jpg

File:Wanderer in Genshin Impact.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gommeh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Updated version uploaded at File:Wanderer in Genshin Impact.png Gommeh 📖   🎮 12:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion. Uploader of both images is the same, one just with more detail (but same low resolution), so nothing to discuss.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIFA Intercontinental Cup logo.svg

File:FIFA Intercontinental Cup logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Below the threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below the threshold of originality of which country? — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree - no indication this is below the TOO in Switzerland (or the US). Leave as-is and don't move to Commons.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CESC Limited Logo.svg

File:CESC Limited Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VNC200 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader of this image states on the file description page that the image was taken from the company's official website. On the company's official website, this image was only available in .png format, never in .svg.

The image contains multiple distortions relative to the original image, which are more common when images are automatically converted to .svg. In this case, these are watery-looking artifacts along the edges, turning the headlights into a blurry mess. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is the original .png image from the official website.

I believe that given the availability of an official, high-quality .png and its poor-quality reproduction in the "slightly better" .svg format, we should give preference to the former, as recommended by MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука¹³ 01:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at FFD. @Pppery, Buffs, and Isla: Pinging previous participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is a horribly crappy autotrace. Delete to replace. JayCubby 14:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [shudders at the quality 😄] - definitely replace with higher quality image. Eww.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

December 12

File:Gareth Mallory Profile.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gareth Mallory Profile.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SchroCat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I question the contextual significance of this non-free screenshot(?) of Ralph Fiennes as "M" (real name Gareth Mallory). Sure, Fiennes (as "M") appears face- and clean-shaven and well and professionally dressed, but I'm skeptical about the image's impact on readers, especially general ones, of the article about this "M" character of the James Bond franchise.

Actually, I'm questioning more about its "irreplaceability" factor. I may want to use a free pic of Fiennes himself, like one from 2018, another from 2013, or one from last year. George Ho (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been replaced.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  15:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that SchroCat (uploader) switched the images. Regardless, changed back for now per Iruka13. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The uploader re-reversed back to one of free images (diff). Thinking about tagging this non-free screenshot soon with "db-author"... George Ho (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what the character looked like in all three films, but the replacement photos provided are too different from the non-free image. — Ирука¹³ 12:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your reply, I switched a free image back to this non-free one for now. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader then re-reversed back to the free image (diff). Shall I tag the screenshot with "db-author" then? –George Ho (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Iranian football badge.svg

File:Iranian football badge.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

It's just the flag, a simple ball which is below the threshold of originality, and text, which is also below it. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they decide not to move to Commons, they'll make it PD-US. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tata IPL 2026 Auction Logo.png

File:Tata IPL 2026 Auction Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neeelzzz20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The article isn't about the auction alone make it unsuitable for the page for NFCC Vestrian24Bio 14:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFCC#8. Vestrian24Bio 16:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is the logo of the auction, which is only one part of the article on signings (and does not require a separate article). Thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:K2 new logo.svg

File:K2 new logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Speedy move to Commons. The country of origin of this logo is Italy, a country with a very high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some Italian logos

File:Sky Sport - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport 24 - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport 24 HD - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport Uno - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport Arena - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport Max 2023 logo (television channel).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport F1 - 2020 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport MotoGP - 2024 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Sky Sport 4K 2021 logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Speedy move them to Commons. These images are Italian works, a country with a very high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also move File:Sky Cinema Due +24 - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Due +24 HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Due HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno +24 - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno +24 HD - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Uno HD - 2021 logo.svg , and File:Sky Sport Uno HD - 2020 logo.svg to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, do not transfer all to Commons – Sky Italia was/is a subsidiary of Sky Group, a British company. Huh... Either forgot or didn't realize that Sky Group is now part of Comcast. The logos you wanted to transfer are still subject to c:COM:TOO UK as they have been still part of the British company, regardless of Sky Italia's HQ location. George Ho (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked to move the Italy-specific logos, not all logos used by Sky Italia, as some of them may be or are identical to the ones used by Sky UK. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones are not made by Sky Italia then? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, "Sky Sport" is the Italian branch, while "Sky Sports" is the British one. Some words like "Uno" and "Due" are clearly Italian, so these would be Italian works. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those logos are still of British property, despite being used for Italian channels. Most likely, the Sky Group, the British entity, must have used "Uno" and "Due" to appeal Italian senses, huh? Also, the Sky logo still has some graphic effects that may guarantee protection from the British law. (some of them may be or are identical to the ones used by Sky UK) Your own words. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With "only the potentially identical" I meant these logos: File:Sky Atlantic - Logo 2020 (TV channel).svg , File:Sky Investigation (television channel).svg , File:Sky Cinema Collection - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Family - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Action - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Suspense - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Romance - 2021 logo.svg , File:Sky Cinema Drama - 2021 logo.svg and File:Sky Cinema Comedy - 2021 logo.svg . These I just mentioned are probably or possibly identical to those used by Sky UK and therefore shouldn't be moved to Commons. The others I mentioned previously above are not likely to be, or more certainly, not used, by Sky UK. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh... Still, both Sky Italia and Sky UK are still part of Sky Group. Why should Sky Italia be treated like a mere Italian entity to be subject to c:COM:TOO Italy, not one belonging to the British company subject to "COM:TOO UK"? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The ones only used by Sky Italia should be treated as Italian works, respecting Wikipedia precedents. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which Wikipedia precedents? George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, the logos of British subsidiaries of American companies. The logo of Lay's is below the threshold of originality in the United States, but the logo of Walker's is possibly above the United Kingdom's threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that the precedent you cited is corrected. Actually, was hoping you find other "Italian" logos that are of British properties. I've just now listed the Walkers logo (File:Walkers logo.png) for discussion. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with George here, the logo's for the Sky channels should not be moved to the Commons because Sky Italia is a subsidiary of Sky UK, which is in turn owned by Comcast, George, you should probably get an Admin to close this discussion. CorrectDialogue43 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Candidy, I got a Compromise for it, how about you move only the +24, and HD along with all of the other channels, and keep the HD and +24 along with the main channel logos for Sky Uno, Sky Cinema Uno, and Sky Sport Uno on this site, now you might or might not agree with it, but think of it this way as the Sky Analogue Switchoff in the UK where they slowly turned off the channels all the way up until the Sky channels were left, and so maybe unlike that switchoff which got rid of all the channels, maybe you could spare the logos for the Main channels procured by Sky on the platform, could that work? Could you also maybe spare the logos for Rai 1 and Canale 5, as those channels are also considered to be main networks in Italy as well? Anyways, I'll leave it up to you if you want to accept this Compromise. CorrectDialogue43 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

December 14

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Plrk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFC#UUI#6 this image should be removed from all articles except Drowning Girl. — Ирука¹³ 09:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plrk (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is arguably Lichtenstein's second most important work after Whaam!. Are there any PD examples of his work. I am not convinced that the other content on his bio page is any more free or any more important. I.e., if he is allowed one or two FURs in his bio maybe this should be one. Regarding Pop Art, it is not one of the two most important examples of Pop art so definitely remove it from there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSI Tirunelveli Diocese Logo.png

File:CSI Tirunelveli Diocese Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CHURCHIL JERIN (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clearly, the uploader is not the copyright holder. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion but given that the Diocese of Tirunelveli of the Church of South India was established in 1859, there is the possibility that this logo is in the public domain. What is needed is information on when this logo came into use. Whpq (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

File:DHYB video.jpeg

File:DHYB video.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lil-unique1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Same case as with all the other recently deleted Nicole Scherzinger photos here. Sricsi (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just FYI, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for deletion. As for whether NFCC applied, I uploaded the file originally so clearly disagree, the nominator agrees that makes is 1:1 - happy to go with majority/expert opinion >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed from {{outdent}} to a bullet for you if that's all right. --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It supports the section about the video's content.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately – I can see a screenshot of just the singer in the music video's setting. "OTHERSTUFF" concerns aside, I couldn't fathom how and why omitting this file would harm the understanding of the song itself. Sure, the synopsis of the music video may be detail-y and all, but this doesn't justify the use of the screenshot, despite the rationale by the one who voted "Keep". Furthermore, is the use intended to improve the understanding of (what) the song or the music video (is all about) or to just merely identify the singer [performing(?) in the video]? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident. ~2025-40752-07 (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of vote made by this editor on an unrelated image (diff). ...Wait, is this vote intended on a music video screenshot or an unrelated screenshot (of a horrible shooting incident)? George Ho (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not intended for this thread. I struck it out.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LADbible-logo.jpg

File:LADbible-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Clevered (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable by File:LADBible Group.svg, whose author has given permission via verified email to use the copy. Also, currently orphaned and previously taken to FFD eight years ago. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. and move to Commons. Logo is just text, so not copyrightable.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  17:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about c:COM:TOO UK? The publisher that made the logo (in SVG format) gave everyone the permission to use the logo under Creative Commons license. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? If the more complex one is permissible, why wouldn't the less complex one be?  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The complex one you're referring to is the Commons copy (in SVG format), right? If so, well..... George Ho (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  20:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the logo could be transferred to Commons, I don't see the point. — Ирука¹³ 06:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ~2025-41061-93 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ~2025-41061-93 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC) (Struck out anon. editor's double vote. George Ho (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

File:Walkers logo.png

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

May be very similar to other logos seen in Lay's. Indeed, this logo alongside the Walkers brand itself most likely belongs to PepsiCo, an American conglomerate. [For more Britishness, here is the collection pic of old 1970s Walkers crisps/chips (permalink)]

This logo was mentioned at another FFD discussion as attempt to exemplify some "precedent" that may be, IMO, questionable (link). I get the concerns about c:COM:TOO UK, despite one 2020s case that may have raised originality standards guaranteeing a UK work some protection under British law. Nevertheless, most likely, the logo is more.... American-ish[?] (despite "Walkers" in place of "Lay's")? and should be transferred to Commons. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC); edited, 19:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Keep and move to Commons. - Graphical elements of logo are clearly the same as Lay's, created first and in the US. I'd be shocked if it met the threshold for originality in the UK, even with the latest ruling.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  20:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G10 by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion moved down below for the same image, under a different file name

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bondi Beach gunmen.jpg

File:Bondi Beach gunmen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Green Montanan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural nomination, with no opinion at this time on the deletion or retention of the image. This image was nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg, but FFD rather than MFD is the proper venue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the nomination appears to be Delete: Low quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

procedural question

Question - Why is this at MFD? This appears to be an image, and I thought that the XFD forum for images was Files for Discussion. Have I missed something, or has the nominator missed the forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry about that, I'm not familiar with deletion discussions for images not on commons. Can the conversation be moved? orangesclub 🍊 17:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg

I don't believe this image fulfils WP:NFCC#8. The image doesn't add anything to the article, nor is it such a high quality visual aid to warrant it's use. orangesclub 🍊 16:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's an image of unique historical significance showing in real time a terrorist attack in progress. The image cannot be recreated. The article that incorporates the image is about the attack. Green Montanan (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're explaining compliance with WP:NFCC#1, not WP:NFCC#8 ie how the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. The grainy image of two men with guns on a footbridge (which we have a better, free photo of anyway) does not add anything that cannot be described with words. orangesclub 🍊 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. A picture is worth 1000 words. Seeing the terrorists with the guns in their hands on the footbridge is not the same as the description in words. Green Montanan (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re mischaracterising both the purpose of the image and the application of WP:NFCC#8. The image is not included merely to show “two men with guns”, but to visually document the perpetrators during the attack itself, which is a defining and historically significant aspect of the event. That contemporaneous visual evidence materially enhances reader understanding in a way that prose alone cannot, particularly with respect to the attackers’ positioning, armament, and the immediacy of the incident. ~2025-40752-07 (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - low quality and doesn't add to the article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This image of the bridge illustrates the site of the attack perfectly fine. I'd say this one would be even better in illustrating the scenario, but it's pretty low quality. Hsnkn (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The user that uploaded this image has filled out the non-free content criteria very well so there is no doubt as to whether the image can be used. This is a significant event in Australian history and deserves to be illustrated with any kind of image. The image being of low-quality does not matter for this article's use, a high-quality one would be nice but they would be difficult to find due to how quickly the circumstances were changing. If there are better ones, I might advocate using one of those but in the absence of an alternative, this should remain online. I disagree with the image not meeting criterion 8, I think the image also meets the majority of the other parts of that guideline. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We have a free image. Fair use images are only used if free files don't exist. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the free "image" in question is extremely grainy. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 15:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of disagreement that image is very poor quality and its function is usurped by this file from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 06:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the wrong person just pretend I didn't mess up from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 06:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This adds significantly to the article. Seeing this is far more appropriate than trying to explain it in words. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The image of the bridge was perfectly fine, and there is an external video linked in the article too. Also, the current free use rationale falsely asserts that the image is an artwork being discussed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The summary clearly states "For visual identification of the object of the article." The article is about the shooting, and that is what is depicted in the image. Green Montanan (talk) Green Montanan (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Green Montanan: Please read what's attached to the file again. "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work" This is incorrect, as the article is about the mass shooting, not "this work" (the photograph). Also "Any derivative work based upon the artwork..." and "The use of a low resolution image of the artwork will not impact the commercial viability of the art" are other errors with the fair use rationale. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess we should replace "this work" with "what is depicted in this work". Green Montanan (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what your other issues are. Are you saying that photography is not artwork? Green Montanan (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it possible that when uploading this photo, you used the template for "This image is the object of discussion in an article", which states in bold "The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows"? It'd likely be better to redo the fair use rationale as a "Historic photograph" under "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember what buttons I pressed to upload the image. Green Montanan (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Lede photo of terrorists in the very act –and offhand, I don't recall such. Provides excellent geographic and spatial orientation. Dynamic, with excellent composition. Doesn't display gore, as opposed to, say, the Zapruder film. Which was also grainy. What this photo adds to the reader's understanding is the visceral, grim determination of the terrorists. kencf0618 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Self-evidently illustrates subject of article. Ericoides (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: illustrates article subject and provides spatial context for readers. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 15:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - irreplaceable with free version.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  19:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's extremely encyclopedic to show what the attack looked like as it was happening, not merely the setting where it happened devoid of the people involved. The grainy images of the attackers elsewhere near the time of the attack are not comparable. This image is emotionally striking and also shows details about the attackers that cannot be derived from a textual description. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep-This image is important and depicts the event in a way an encyclopedia couldn’t otherwise describe. Cooldood5555 (let's talk) 02:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep First, WP:NOTCENSORED, and as disturbing as the image may be, disturbing images like these are needed for historical events like these, and are a very important part of an encyclopaedia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: uploader has not shown proof of permission to use. Sardaka (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what "fair use" is for PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though low-resolution it provides a unique visual reference to setup the scene  staglol   ctbs
  talk 14:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: An image simply of the footbridge wouldn't suffice in my opinion. This image shows the event as it unfolded which I believe helps the readers understanding since it shows the two gunmen and where they shot from. WhatADrag07 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the image clearly meets the requirements of MOS:PERTINENCE and therefore by extension fulfills WP:NFCC#8. TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyrighted banner extends beyond the c:COM:De minimis: it is large and centered. The banner should be blurred/squared, or the image should be removed completely. — Ирука¹³ 02:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per c:COM:De minimis point 2: The "Copyrighted work X is identifiable but is an unwanted intrusion to the subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed." The example of the painting in this section is a very comparable example in terms of size relative to the entire image frame (this is less than 10%). In the present image, it is very clear that capturing the poster was not the primary intent of the photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second point doesn't apply here. The copyrighted images are much smaller and located in the corners. The only thing that even vaguely resembles this image is the image of the scarlet-yellow painting. However, unlike the image in question, this painting is obscured by people.

Next, "cannot be easily removed." I believe the exact opposite. Even with my rudimentary image editing skills, I was able to easily remove the adv. portion without losing the image's encyclopedic value. And if you say that even a gram of this value was lost, you'll confirm that the inclusion of the advertising image was an intentional act on the part of the photographer.

This image is most similar in size and location to the third image from point 6. Moreover, in the second image, the copyrighted fragment took up even less space, and, nevertheless, was removed.

And I'm more than sure that even if the sixth image had just the smallest (square) fragment of the three, it would have been retouched too. Wdwd, please comment.

P. S. The copyrighted fragment takes up 1/7 of the image in question (15%), I measured it. — Ирука¹³ 09:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input on applicability of de minimis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Bangladesh Press Council.png

File:Logo of Bangladesh Press Council.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by রিষাদ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks well above TOO DMacks (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg

File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lingzhi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be PD-India due to time period of publication JayCubby 15:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe this image is in the public domain in the United States? — Ирука¹³ 01:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Isaidnoway (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the image was officially published (WP:NFCC#4). There is no evidence that it is Edmond de Goeyse in the image (WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL) – written from him personally, and not from a description. We can just as easily get a free image by drawing a new portrait and publishing it under a free license (WP:FREER). — Ирука¹³ 03:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 24#File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg. Pinging previous participant Isaidnoway.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

File:Blue Beetle LAW.png

File:Blue Beetle LAW.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Charlton Comics did not put valid copyright notices in many of their comic books around 1966-1967, for example in Captain Atom #82, the debut of this character, it can be seen on the 2nd page that the copyright notice is not valid because it does not contain any claimant. Here is the Copyright Office document on copyright notice requirements before 1978: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap2100/doc/appendixA-noticerequirements.pdf

Digital Comic Museum and Comic Book Plus used to be hosting the entire line of Whiz Comics and other Fawcett Comics series incorrectly assuming they were all not renewed, Warner Bros made them take down the ones that were renewed, in 2019, they never did the same for the Charlton series, Charlton/DC/Warner Bros have never been able to register copyrights on these issues published with invalid notices, because they don't have valid copyrights.

So, the character is public domain, this image should be replaced by c:File:Blue_Beetle_-_Cover_of_Captain_Atom_85.webp or another public domain image from the Charlton Captain Atom series.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   02:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are there any legitimate sources that clearly state Ted Kord is in the public domain? ie, here's an article about Mickey Mouse being public domain. --DrBat (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support replacement - Logic above makes sense. The issue/version of Blue Beetle proposed is Ted Kord, so PD image appropriate for use in that article.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  16:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

except there arent any sources that specifically say its public domain. DrBat (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Captain Atom #85 is not available on the Digital Comics Museum website. furthermore, in their Carlton section they specifically say not to upload any comics past 1959, CA #85 came out in 1967. DrBat (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DCM says they do not allow any post 1959 comics at all  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if they're not hosting the Ted Kord issue why are they being used to argue it's public domain? --DrBat (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are on Comic Book Plus, Warner Bros had sent the same request to them  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's still a legally murky situation and you haven't given any hard proof that specifically says Ted Kord is in public domain (here's an article about it).

and im not going to fight it but I see you've also uploaded images of gorilla grodd and pied piper as being in the public domain, which I'm pretty sure is not accurate even if their first issue can't be found on the publicrecords website. The only thing I'm seeing about them being public domain is a post on reddit/twitter that was made yesterday. --DrBat (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CA Paulistano.svg

File:CA Paulistano.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Below threshold of originality. Move to Commons. The country of origin of this work is Brazil. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the center is just C.A.P, just text. Not above threshold of originality. Therefore PD. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond TOO. But there may be a PD based on the time of publication. This needs to be proven, of course.. — Ирука¹³ 03:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's PD, because it's just vintage text. Brazil's threshold of originality is high Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just text in a vintage font. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with existing Commons image.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  16:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Footer

Today is December 18 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 18 – (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 "===December 18===" 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.