Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total CfD 0 1 47 22 70 TfD 0 0 13 6 19 MfD 0 0 0 0 0 FfD 0 0 7 2 9 RfD 0 0 47 20 67 AfD 0 0 0 15 15 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 for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually: 1 Edit the file page. Add {{Ffd|log=2025 September 11}} 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 September 11}} 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 September 11}} 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

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

September 2

File:Eransom.jpg

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

Not used, no source, misspelled name, and there's a good chance that this is a fake (compare the uploader's history as a hoaxer, involving an article with a fake biography of Ransom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tjproechel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Upper_Peninsula_War). Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Move to Commons. This appears to be genuine. Please see page 122 of File:Portrait and biographical album of Lenawee County, Mich. (IA portraitbiograph02chapman).pdf and the files in c:Category:Epaphroditus Ransom. - Eureka Lott 03:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

September 1

File:Metro Observatorio pictogram.svg

File:Metro Observatorio pictogram.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cocu15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this file "original enough" to label it as copyrighted? Note that the Mexico City Metro logos are registered at the Mexican copyright institution. However, three logos are at Commons as simple shapes: the Olympic rings, the Red Cross logo, and a crescent moon. The most relevant entry in the Mexican law indicates that copyrights shall not apply to: "Letters, digits or isolated colors, unless their stylization is such that they become original drawings".

I'm asking because there are files at Commons using the pictogram. Should we keep it as it is, tag it as {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}, or move it directly to Commons? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• If the copyright was registered in Mexico, then it can't be moved to Commons as it is non-free in its home country. A combination of simple shapes can cross the threshold of originality in the United States, though I'm not sure that's the case here. {{PD-textlogo-USonly}} might be the way to go. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

August 30

File:Isawheragain.jpg

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

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:I Saw Her Again - Even If I Could - ad 1966.jpg (already in use at I Saw Her Again) per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – The German cover art's "irreplaceability" isn't my concern but rather its contextual significance to the song recorded by the Mamas and the Papas, an American band. Well, the American single release (45cat) didn't use a picture sleeve when initially released. However, I'm unconvinced that deleting this German cover art would affect how the song is understood when reading the article. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – If it weren't obvious, given the arguments I make below for the Elton John "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" sleeve. Template:Non-free album cover applies to single picture sleeves as clearly as it does album covers. This is an established practice for picture sleeves, album covers, posters, book covers, and so on. Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. Tkbrett (✉) 03:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. We can't be certain for sure. Other FFD discussions have resulted in deletion, sometimes. Even other deletion templates were unchallenged. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Elton John Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.jpg

File:Elton John Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tkbrett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. The advertisement was determined to be PD per c:COM:DR/File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, consensus varies in different forms. If neither WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS nor WP:CONBUILD is applicable, then how do you determine the level of consensus from that discussion? George Ho (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CONLEVEL, there is no consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors (eg. a back-and-forth of two users with a couple others chiming in), at one place and time (eg. within 21 hours), cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject (eg. WikiProject Songs) cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline (eg. the non-free content criteria) does not apply to articles within its scope. (comments and interpretation added) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Non-free album cover is already understood to apply to album covers, but you have done nothing to show that single cover art is any different. The template's page even specifies that "this template should be used for covers from all types of audio recording releases, not just albums, despite the name of the template." This is because single cover art, or even EP cover art, is no different from an album cover as far as this discussion is concerned. In that discussion, JG66 makes a convincing rebuttal to what you are doing here. Tkbrett (✉) 11:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete I wouldn't say I agree fully with John... or Tkbrett here. Well, the cover art itself might be irreplaceable by a free image of the singer who rendered this Beatles song, but my main concern is its contextual significance to one of the Beatles' songs. To one, words may not suffice alone. However, the readers would already know that the song is one of the Beatles' songs ever made and that others have covered it numerous times. How the cover art is perceived to improve such understanding to the point where omitting this cover art would impact such understanding is beyond me. George Ho (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete It is the exact same image with slightly different text so you can edit it and use the high quality version

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   05:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

August 26

File:SimpsonsEatMyShorts.ogg

File:SimpsonsEatMyShorts.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wadewitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this file could be replaced with a different file:

• The rational for Lisa's Sax appears incomplete (and could be in the article mostly because the file is already there)
• This sample may not be accurate enough for Nancy Cartwright, as the audio sample is from an episode flashback where Bart Simpson is a kindergartener, and may be slightly more higher-pitched than Cartwright's regular voice for him.

If this does get replaced, I think an audio sample from either Do the Bartman or Deep, Deep Trouble could be used which could be used in which article it comes from (if the latter, it could replace the quote box in one of the paragraphs). Xeroctic (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

August 25

File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg

File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I feel as if this is under the threshold for originality for the United States, though I am unsure about its origin country of Finland. Also, its used twice in the same article and I am unsure of what usage to keep. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

One of the usages of the image has been removed, so that part of the discussion is no longer a concern. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about moving to commons, but it shouldn't be used in both the infobox and article. WP:VG suggests only having package art or similar things for the infobox, not screenshots of photos of the game, so I've removed it from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and retag as PD-US. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:SHPSFlexcard.jpg

File:SHPSFlexcard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by M-BMor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Are we sure this isn't above the WP:TOO? The bird looks quite original. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 10:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

August 24

File:The Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg

File:The Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crispybeatle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is not in the public domain in the UK per discussion both here, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 6#File:Dark Side of the Moon.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 23#File:Dark Side of the Moon.png, and at WikiCommons where it was deleted, [1]. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That's why it has a US only tag

Crispybeatle (talk)

14:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The FFD discussion in July 2023 resulted in "no consensus", defaulting to "non-free" instead. Without much consensus to consider the album cover free in only English Wikipedia, the JPEG version should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

alright then

Crispybeatle (talk)

23:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Enwiki only requires images to be free in the USA, which this is. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

August 21

File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg

File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J. Avanzado (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid copyright notice: the left part is a fancy drawing, rather than "simple shapes". --Altenmann >talk 23:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I am pretty certain it is just Arabic text arranged in a triangular shape. The US has a high threshold of originality, particularly for logos composed of text. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No it is not "just Arabic text", just as ASCII art is not just "English text". It definitely involves a considerable degree of creativity, hence copyrightable. --Altenmann >talk 02:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• P.S. Since nontrivial copyright issues are not for to a J.Random Wikipedian to decide, I suggest consulting Wikimedia lawyers to make their worth. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  ASCII characters arranged in a simple triangle (like this) would definitely be below the threshold of originality in the US. If you set aside your snarky, uncivil name-calling of me ("J.Random Wikipedian"? WTF?) and actually took the time to read the Wikimedia Commons page on US threshold of originality, which I deal with every day as a Commons administrator, you might become better informed. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  JRW was a generic reference to !voters and I see nothing insulting. If you claim you are not a random Wikipedian, but rather someone special, then why are you so excited? OK, my comparison with ASCII art was not good indeed. Still, there is an art of arabic calligraphy, and, e.g. File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg is much simpler yet labelled non-free, and c:COM:TOO US does not consider this category. --Altenmann >talk 03:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure you know what you were doing with the comment. While the Foundation does have lawyers, I think you can agree that it would be ridiculous for them to be brought in for every discussion involving a copyright issue. We discuss things as a community based on evidence. Anyone, a lawyer, layperson, admin, or an ordinary editor are all welcome to chime in to these discussions. While you are correct that c:COM:TOO US does not discuss calligraphy, the section below it (c:COM:SIG US) certainly does. It highlights the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) which notes that calligraphy is not generally protected under US copyright law. The files you cite may certainly have been mis-tagged as non-free by someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of this regulation. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Convert to non-free/delete: @IronGargoyle: I struggle to see your viewpoint. Even if caligraphy by itself isn't protected, the arrangement of it in a tower shape definitely is, since that is a conscious creative decision. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: The profile of building is just an isosceles triangle. Shapes don't get much simpler than that. Compare this to File:JeetKuneDo.svg (an example of a non-copyrightable logo from c:COM:TOO US). The characters are arranged in a circle and yet the copyright office would not register it (see also File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg). I am not saying that characters in the shape of something could never be copyrighted. Arrange Arabic characters in the shape of Donald Duck, and I would agree that would be copyrightable in the US. This is just a simple triangle though. I think we are getting caught up on the aesthetics of Arabic calligraphy. It has an evocative look, certainly, but the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices is very clear when it comes to calligraphy and we need to apply US standards, not UAE standards. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

September 4

File:SuwanneeCrest.jpg

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

This image, being of the school's crest/logo, was used to illustrate Suwannee High School, in the absence of a photograph of the school itself. As an image of the school, freely licensed, is now available and in use on the page, I believe that this image fails WP:NFCC#1; a free equivalent is now available that serves the same encyclopedic purpose, and thus this image is no longer suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Andrea Kimi Antonelli FIA Motorsport Games.jpeg

File:Andrea Kimi Antonelli FIA Motorsport Games.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mb2437 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. We have more than enough free images in this article (including other F4 cars), and do not require an image of every car ever driven by Antonelli. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2022 FIA Motorsport Games F4 Cup Podium.jpeg

File:2022 FIA Motorsport Games F4 Cup Podium.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mb2437 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. We have more than enough free images in this article (including a podium in another series in the same year), there is no need for this specific podium image. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Recent nominations

September 5

File:General Mahbubur Rahman.png

File:General Mahbubur Rahman.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Saakibrahman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC1. Subject is still alive so a free image can still be recreated. Being in command for a short stint isn't a valid reason to use a non-free file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File:General ASM Nasim.jpg

File:General ASM Nasim.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Saakibrahman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC1. Subject is still alive so a free image can still be recreated. Being in command for a short stint isn't a valid reason to use a non-free file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Koshlands.jpg

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

File:Lock-and-Key.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TWUChemLS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Generic reaction pathway.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TWUChemLS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

Orphaned, low-quality diagrams. Superseded by alternatives in c:Category:Active site. ✗plicit 04:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

File:DELTARUNE Chapter 3-4 OST - Dark Sanctuary.ogg

File:DELTARUNE Chapter 3-4 OST - Dark Sanctuary.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lividowly64 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not meet WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8, as a non-free file used only for decorative purposes. While some video game articles that may have a sample of a song in it, this one does not. There is nothing that highlights Dark Sanctuary in particular on the page, meaning that the file has no contextual significance. It is not essential to a readers understanding of the subject either. Furthermore, the file rationale "Deltarune's soundtrack is widely praised, and of one of the songs: Dark Sanctuary is listed as one of the highlights for the game in reviews. It also has 2 million views on YouTube as of the making of this file page" seems to be fully based on fan popularity, and not actual analysis from reliable sources. It also does not meet WP:SAMPLE; a 30 second sample of a 1:47 song is about a third of the entire song and is not in any way acceptable per that guideline. Other video game articles that include a song sample (or just articles with audio samples in general) typically do so for something that is widely discussed or has sources backing up how the song is relevant. For example, two reviews of "Hopes and Dreams" from Undertale exists, hence a sample of that song being included on that page. But that is not the case with "Dark Sanctuary". Therefore, this file is not encyclopedic, does not meet our standards, and should be deleted. λ NegativeMP1 21:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: educational commentary on the track in the article is necessary for this file to be kept ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Trollhattan killer.jpg

File:Trollhattan killer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Almightey Drill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Security camera video has been uploaded. I no longer think that this file meet the non-free media criteria because the perpetrator is featured on these videos. Kakan spelar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

September 6

File:Foundingm.jpg

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

photo was taken in 1989, so not PD-US-1989. No evidence of permission. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: file info says uploader is the copyright holder. What makes it possible that someone other than Damnitlivia took the photo? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Test tspan.svg

File:Test tspan.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Future Perfect at Sunrise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused test file. c:File:Test.svg available for use. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 15:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I would consider the Phabricator ticket a use of this image, and c:File:Test.svg isn't a suitable alternative since it doesn't have the nested tspan elements that caused the issue. hinnk (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:John Neville Keynes portrait by Gerald Kelly 1926.jpg

File:John Neville Keynes portrait by Gerald Kelly 1926.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Howardcorn33 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to https://artuk.org/visit/venues/the-old-schools-university-of-cambridge-7182 , the Old Schools gallery are not open to the public, so its doubtful if this painting could be considered to have been "published" in 1926, thus not making it public domain in the US. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

September 7

File:Shamrock houston.jpg

File:Shamrock houston.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gwen Gale (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There are several free images of the building in the article that can be used instead of this non-free image. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

September 8

File:Long family Madbury NH.jpg

File:Long family Madbury NH.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FromNH (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo, a personal family photo taken in what appears to be a private residence, shows at least one living person (the three-year-old son who survived the murder-suicide that resulted in the deaths of everyone else in photo). It thus violates the privacy provisions of WP:IUP: Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named.... Examples of private places: Inside any private residence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Additionally, the photo was uploaded with the purpose of it being used as a historical photo of deceased individuals in a now deleted article, so with that reason now void I see no reason why it should remain. Raskuly (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

September 9

File:1960 RSB Spa.JPG

File:1960 RSB Spa.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CSHEPB (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader reports "permission granted to his son to upload for this wikipedia page." That's nowhere near free enough for WP, and is not evidence of the claimed CC-BY-SA-4.0. The use-case is a declined draft, so this is also not usable as fair-use. DMacks (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: VRT confirmation would probably be needed. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - There are multiple issues. There is no evidence that son was given any permission. There is no evidence that there is a free license. There is no evidence the father is the copyright holder. The father is the subject of the photo which is clearly not a selfie. We would need the permission to come from the photographer. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Popstars-Logo.png

File:Popstars-Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Below TOO in Germany JayCubby 13:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep and Export to the Commons: If you believe the logo is Below TOO in Germany, you should attach {{PD-textlogo}} on the file page, and export it into the Commons. Saimmx (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: I think you can close the discussion if you want to export the file to the Commons. Saimmx (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Relicense as PD-Textlogo and export to Commons. The image is below TOO for both USA and Germany. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Tannenberg Bold.png

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

Plain & unoriginal text JayCubby 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep and Export to the Commons: Attach the {{PD-text}} template and export it into the Commons instead. By the way, you need to request undeleting revisions that were deleted by admins in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before exporting to the Commons. Saimmx (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Relicense (I see Saimmx has already donse so). -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• The reason it is on en Wikipedia is that it would be a copyvio on Commons (and has already been rejected there for that reason). The version on here is a limited size, for use only on the Tannenberg (typeface) article under the fair use exemption. More info to follow when I find it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • See discussion on Commons Help (a diff, but should be enough). FWIW, it is for exactly the same reason that pretty much the same file is on de.wikipedia. and not on Commons --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Bros Members.jpg

File:Bros Members.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lucygeejones8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fair use is not in the public domain, and all the Bros Members are living persons, thus cannot be fair use. Saimmx (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Conflicting license claims. Claimed to be public domain with no explanation why. That licensing is not credible. Also claiming fair use but with no explanation how WP:NFCC are all satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Vukota Govedarica CIN.jpg

File:Vukota Govedarica CIN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bakir123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Licensing is insufficiently free. The statement from their about page indicates that CIN work is available for free to all partner organizations that credit CIN as their source. That reads like it is available to some organisations at no cost. The footer on the page states Downloading of the content of the CIN is permitted with the mandatory reference to the source at www.cin.ba.. There is no statement about derivative works, and commercial usage. Whpq (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

September 10

File:Lockheed-logo Winnie-Mae.png

File:Lockheed-logo Winnie-Mae.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logawi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly below TOO JayCubby 15:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Diet Pepsi Wild Cherry.png

File:Diet Pepsi Wild Cherry.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Plasamas (notify |contribs| uploads | upload log). 

Not needed being a stock copyrighted image, it gets borderline advertisement. There already exists an free photo of the main product on that page so this is not necessary. 3marish (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Charlie Kirk onstage at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah; moments before being shot.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 F9 by Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Charlie Kirk onstage at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah; moments before being shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:User:PublicDomainFan08#File:Charlie Kirk onstage at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah; moments before being shot.jpg listed for discussion|User:PublicDomainFan08]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:User:PublicDomainFan08|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=File%3ACharlie+Kirk+onstage+at+Utah+Valley+University+in+Orem%2C+Utah%26%2359%3B+moments+before+being+shot.jpg&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/User:PublicDomainFan08|contribs]] | [[Special:ListFiles/User:PublicDomainFan08|uploads]] | [[Special:Log/upload/User:PublicDomainFan08|upload log]]). 

Not necessary to keep, free images can easily replace this when they come out.

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:Hauptmannmugshot2.jpg

File:Hauptmannmugshot2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JJstroker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I can't find any evidence that this photo (or any by the Flemington Police Department) ever had a copyright registration filed. JayCubby 23:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm

File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sylvarien (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCCP number 8 states: 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. I think it's fair to say that we don't need a literal video for readers to understand that he was shot in the neck and died. I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED, but I don't think that really applies here because the video is definitely not necessary and its inclusion is just gratuitous for its own sake. See also WP:GRATUITOUS. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:GRATUITOUS. This really does not add much to the article beyond shock content. It is also too early to say that a freely licensed photo or video won't become available, particularly given there were thousands of people there with phones and cameras. (That's not to say I'd support a free version being used in the article, either, but it's relevant to the fair use conversation.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't meet fair use rationale, it's too soon to say "no free equivalent is possible". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Nice4What. McRandy1958 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Gratuitous, yes. However, it does very clearly depict the event, which does help reader understanding. JayCubby 23:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I am voting to keep, but would prefer a blurred version if made available by a news outlet. JayCubby 23:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, no chance this can be called fair use. Disregarding even NFCCP criterion 8 (which I believe it also goes against), we still don't know if there's a free equivalent, and I strongly disagree with the idea that this is somehow "encyclopedic" (criterion five). Also, see WP:GRATUITOUS etc etc. Perryprog (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, note that the additional restrictions in Wikipedia:Non-free content § Video clips also apply. The video should have a length that's the shorter of thirty seconds and 10% of the originally published video length. (I have not and am not going to check if that's the case, but I suspect it isn't.) This is also not at all a case that justifies minimal use, because even if every criterion was met, a still frame image would be a suitable replacement, meaning at best the video as a whole isn't acceptable to host. Perryprog (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's five seconds. (Everything else still applies.) DS (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, that is an unbelievably shocking video for the top of the page and a better non free file would be a still image of the moments after, maybe showing first responders, if one becomes available 3df (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per my reason at the talk page Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Perryprog and GorillaWarfare. Nubzor [T][C] 00:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, it's mostly there for shock value and a better photo/video that isn't as graphic might be available soon. I might be willing to keep if there were a blurred version but that should only be after a free use alternative is unable to be found. IzzySwag (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Perryprog and GorillaWarfare. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, beyond any content considerations, the video plainly doesn't meet the non-free use rationale as we cannot yet know for sure that there exists no equivalent free photo/video. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:NFCC1, but without prejudice to a free equivalent being added in its place. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete as an unnecessary copyrighted depiction of graphic violence which we do not need to keep and which violates several NFCC criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per the NFCC concerns, and like others, even if a free-use version were available I'd likely oppose per WP:GRATUITOUS. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 September 11 § File:Charlie Kirk shooting zoomed out 2025-09-10.webm. Perryprog (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCCP and WP:GRATUITOUS. Promethean (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: fails under WP:NFCC 2, 5, 8. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm

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.

Withdrawing my deletion request, didn't see other deletion discussion started right before. Apologies. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sylvarien (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't appear to meet fair-use criteria also violates Wikipedia:Offensive material. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC):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.

September 11

File:Charlie Kirk shooting zoomed out 2025-09-10.webm

File:Charlie Kirk shooting zoomed out 2025-09-10.webm (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GroovyHusky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

For same reasons as mentioned in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 September 10 § File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm. This is not 10% the length of the original video, it does not significantly increase the understanding of the shooting to a reader, it is presumably (I have not and will not watch it) WP:GRATUITOUS, and it is not known that there is no free equivalent. The guidelines on fair use of video media is much stronger than that of still images per Wikipedia:Non-free content § Video clips. Even if all the mentioned NFCC violations were met, a still image would be sufficient in helping a reader understand the event, and that would then be a preferred replacement. Perryprog (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per the same rationale as for the other video. Noting that this one additionally lacks an identifiable copyright holder. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:GRATUITOUS. This really does not add much to the article beyond shock content. It is also too early to say that a freely licensed photo or video won't become available, particularly given there were thousands of people there with phones and cameras. (That's not to say I'd support a free version being used in the article, either, but it's relevant to the fair use conversation.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Sorry to make you do this, @Perryprog: I was going to, but I got distracted. Anyway, I've laid out my reasoning prior:

"[Some questions:] (1) the Reddit source provided is almost certainly not the original source—Reddit is a content aggregator, just like any other, not the original source (also, I believe I saw the video before it was posted to Reddit on other social media channels, though that's OR on my part); (2) an unknown author really doesn't bolster the case, as one might be trampling on (3) the commercial opportunities of the original uploader, who can sell and allow others to use the video, with attribution, and almost certainly has not given permission (yet!) for us to use the video. (As an aside, I believe NFC is truly meant for encyclopedic, historical matters of great import, such as the assassination of RFK, for which we use a still image of his murder, not a video or audio recording—after all, we don't upload most horror film stills to this site, as they are not encyclopedic.) In short, it fails WP:NFCC of 2, 4, 5, and 8.

— Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per same reasons stated for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 September 10 § File:Shooting of Charlie Kirk.webm, that is: Doesn't meet fair use rationale, it's too soon to say "no free equivalent is possible". Uploading new angles of the killing doesn't change the fact that these videos (for now) do not meet fair use! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Footer

Today is September 11 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 September 11 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===September 11===" 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.