This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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:
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}}.
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}}.
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:
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=2026 February 3}} 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=2026 February 3}} 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.
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.
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.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. 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.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Keep with non-free rationale. The license is clearly incorrect due to US FOP, but given the context of it's use, I recommend adding the necessary rationale as an WP:ATD. WidgetKidchat me06:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other cover art came first... Or, rather it was uploaded first before the other one. Tried to find single releases using this exact image; The Remixes release may not count (discogs). I can find IMDB using this to identify the music video. Spotify is using the other cover art to identify the single release. (Strangely, its app doesn't show the single in the artist's page.) Previously tagged for deletion, so listing it here.... George Ho (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? Then please show me reliable sources proving that this Bieber-only image is used for the official single release, not just the user-generated IMDB, mind ya. George Ho (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This audio sample does not satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria (NFCC). Most importantly, it fails NFCC#8, as its inclusion is not essential for readers to understand the article. The article’s prose already describes the lyric that was discussed by media sources; hearing it adds no encyclopedic value beyond what is conveyed in words.
The justification provided on the file description page (“Its lyrics… were noted by various websites. To help understand, this sample would like to be used…”) is unclear, grammatically incoherent, and does not constitute a valid contextual significance explanation under NFCC#10c. A non-free file must have a specific, sourced, critical reason for being included, not a vague statement that the lyrics were “noted by websites.”
Per WP:FILSAMPLE, song samples may be used only when they illustrate a musically or critically significant aspect of the song that cannot be adequately conveyed through text. That is not the case here; the sample is effectively decorative and nonessential. Sricsi (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Why should text reflecting (what is heard in) the audio sample be the primary reason to keep this file? Regardless, the Composition section itself is more about the lyrics themselves than the whole music. Furthermore, I'm doubtful that this (Cyrus's rich, gravelly vocals bolstered by features from Buckingham and Fleetwood) may reflect what is heard in the sample. I'm even doubtful that references to other influential artists, like David Byrne, reflect (the content of) the sample (itself). I would personally say Cyrus would sound almost like Stevie Nicks, but that's original thinking, isn't it? (Oops... The policy doesn't apply to talk pages and discussions like this, does it?) Another thing is whether free text should suffice, but that's 50/50 among general population (especially to those who would treat text and recording very differently), huh? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...her rich gravelly voice bolstered by features from Fleetwood Mac’s Lindsey Buckingham and Mick Fleetwood." - Harper's Bazaar. The sentence in article is fully supported by one of the reliable sources, thus I have no idea why you even are doubtful at this part; the lyrics in the audio sample is cited by OCC, not Harper's Bazaar. Also I cannot even further understand your comments: "I'm even doubtful that references to other influential artists, like David Byrne, reflect (the content of) the sample (itself). I would personally say Cyrus would sound almost like Stevie Nicks, but that's original thinking, isn't it? (Oops... The policy doesn't apply to talk pages and discussions like this, does it?)". Camilasdandelions (✉️) 08:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: does Miley really sound like Buckingham and Fleetwood combined or something? Hard to tell. Miley's voice is low-pitched (really assumed that hers is contralto until found out it is mezzo-soprano), while Buckingham's is more tenor-ish. What else am I missing? Or, maybe thatthe sample makes me wanna research the difference between Cyrus and Buckingham more than I have realized.
(Honestly, not thrilled with audio samples. IMO, they tend to make text look "useless" to especially lowest common denominator, but... that's my general opinion about them.) George Ho (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC); clarified, 08:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC); fixed, 08:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can open a discussion about that in the article's talk page, not here. Here is for discussing the file's rationale, not for determining nor discussing Cyrus' vocals. You are being against with irrelevant sentence by using your own original research, even though the reliable source supports it. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Verify if this is moveable to Commons. It's only a maple leaf, and a basic Telstar soccer ball. Were they able to copyright this in Canada, the United States or both? I think this is below the threshold of originality, and should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to be licensed correctly. Per the source, The University of California, as the Department of Energy contractor managing the historical image scanning project, has asserted a continuing legal interest in the digital versions of the images included in the NARA accession, and, accordingly, has stipulated that anyone intending to use any of these digital images for commercial purposes, including textbooks, commercial materials, and periodicals, must obtain prior permission from the University of California-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, through photo@lbl.gov.. WidgetKidchat me15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward moving to Commons – As I see, it was previously considered non-free (old id). Upon evaluation, I can see just plain colors, lines and a circle forming together, and simple(?) shapes. By the way, how about WP:Twinkle software next time for FFD listings? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This logo was included in a video by the NFL's official Brazilian YouTube channel which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (see here). It should thus be relicensed and moved to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a strong argument for this to be considered below the threshold of originality. The football shape is the only aspect which could even remotely be considered more complex than a simple shape or text. 42-BRT (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL logo would certainly be eligible for copyright in "sweat of the brow/skill and labour" countries, but the US is not one of them. It's uncertain whether the NFL logo is eligible for copyright or not, the only way to find out is seeing the US Copyright Office's records. By the way, I previously listed this file for discussion, and the result was no consensus. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the uploaded, I don't have a strong opinion. I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of book cover policy on wikipedia. Would seem to me that if this is the cover of the book, and the book is notable enough to have a page, then that page ought to have a photo. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As it turns out, the first edition uses the same image (eBay(1), eBay(2)). You're citing WP:GRATUITOUS to have this image deleted. However, this guideline you're citing says this:
Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
If I can replace this with the very first edition, then you should realize why omitting it (just because it offends you a lot) would deprive readers from learning how the (text?)book was marketed or designed when it was first published. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I question the notability of the book itself to be included on Wikipedia (separate question), as long as such an article exists, the cover should too. Buffs (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to no reasonable substitute and image is small enough to not be overly gruesome. With the higher resolution versions I've seen elsewhere, I could see a case, but not at such low resolution. WidgetKidchat me06:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is unknown and I cannot help that the link is now dead. That was where it was sourced. I have no problem using a different photo, but it will face similar problems.
As for improving the reader's comprehension, it literally shows a picture of what is described in the third paragraph of the body...it is immeasurably better than a written description.Buffs (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could have engaged with me before nominating and we could have resolved this prior to FFD... Buffs (talk)
Keep – I've updated the NFFU rationale and I've added information regarding the photographer and the provenance of the image. This image helps readers understand this section of the article: "Although the photographs suggest that the aircraft remained structurally intact, it was written off due to the severe damage to the underside of the fuselage." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As replaceable non-free media. Shame that all of the free options are significantly worse, but that's the way it is.–DMartin (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Vote redacted, see below[reply]
You could try contacting his legal team at https://www.luigimangioneinfo.com/ and see if they're willing to provide Wikipedia with a photograph of him. They might have better and more important things to do than send strangers copyright-free images of their client, but it's worth a try. Some1 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, see Talk:Luigi Mangione#Current photograph is bad. The remaining supposedly free image was removed from the page by another editor, and its deletion as well as that of all related images are currently being discussed on Commons. There are no other free pics available and none can be taken until he is released. So sorry but no, there aren’t “several free replacements” as you claim. Let’s at least wait until the Commons discussions are closed. Keep. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only advocate the removal of photos which are under deletion discussion at Commons here on the Wikipedia article if it really is an unambiguous copyvio. In this case, Howardcorn33 has provided evidence that the files on Commons are freely licensed which casts doubt on the deletion, but I won't litigate it further here. If the files are kept, then they are of just barely enough quality that I think a random person, if shown another image of Mangione, would be able to recognize him based on the freely licensed image(s) alone. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the perp walk files on Commons ends up getting deleted then this can always be uploaded again. There is no benefit in keeping this file just in case. --Trade (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per IvanScrooge98 (talk·contribs). The rationale for deletion rests on the claim that there are "several free replacements," but that doesn't appear to reflect the current situation. The only purported free image has already been removed from the article, and the remaining files are under active deletion discussion at Commons, meaning their licensing status is unresolved. In the absence of a clearly available, unquestionably free replacement, preemptive removal here is premature. Wikipedia generally defers to Commons outcomes rather than anticipating them, particularly on biographies of living persons where stability matters. Until the Commons discussions are closed and an unambiguous copyvio determination is made, the existing image should be retained. — HunterKahn14:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*:@Hunter Kahn Are you ignoring the part of WP:NFCC that says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created..."? Even if there were no freely licensed images, it would not mean that this image could be used. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC) Counterfeit Purses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point is he is under arrest and his only public appearances are in court, where one would assume the only photographers who are allowed are from press agencies. Or at least that’s what it has been for a whole year now. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*:::@IvanScrooge98 The policy doesn't say "if it's convenient and easy" just that it "could be created". That pretty much means as long as he is alive. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC) Counterfeit Purses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone could certainly break into MDC and create a free use image of Luigi. But I really don't think that should really qualify as 'an image could be created'. If someone is in prison, sequestered and unavailable to the public, I don't really think it reasonable or of any practical utility to claim that a free image could be produced. –Jdmvaawesome (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear violation of WP:NFCC. Even if we accept getting a new image of Mangione right now, in prison, is impossible rather than merely difficult, there's no such impossibility to obtaining a free use image from before he was in prison. Just because nobody has found a free equivalent yet doesn't mean that one can't be found. He was 26 when he was arrested and didn't spend the previous decade as a hermit living in a secluded forest. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*:@Voorts Maybe I don't understand the process here but why was this relisted? Since there is a freely licensed image available, this is a cut-and-dried violation of WP:NFCC. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Counterfeit Purses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*:::@Voorts Yes, I've read it. This image violates NFCC criterion 1 because File:Photo of Luigi Mangione.png is available. It could already have been speedy deleted as a replaceable non-free image and it will be deleted when this discussion is closed. I don't understand how it helps anyone to keep this discussion open. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Counterfeit Purses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*:::::@George Ho Nominated for deletion is nominated, not deleted. Why does this article inspire so many editors to ignore the rules that govern image use? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Counterfeit Purses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your question (probably rhetorical?) makes me think you're misinterpreting WP:IAR unfortunately. (Why not WP:ADHERENCE instead, which tells a user to use common sense? Oh wait... It's linking IAR.)
Using a Commons image whose copyright status has been contentious is... how else to describe this if it's not "very risky"? WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT addresses how to determine a file's copyright status accurately. I think WP:IUP#Fair-use/Non-free images applies to especially non-free files that are uploaded on Commons as "free", despite otherwise. Right?
Also, have you read c:COM:Licensing and c:COM:Fair use? Furthermore, the votes at that DR discussion are now split numerically. I'm thinking the result would be "deleted", though I can stand corrected on that prediction. BTW, Commons doesn't have its own IAR policy; indeed, c:COM:IAR redirects to an essay. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no free alternative exists or could be created, as evidenced by the fact that the article currently does not have a photo. While he has a category on Commons, it does not contain any useable photos of Mangione. I can't find any mughsots or booking photos that are verifiably created by the federal government(and they won't release them with a FOIA request, I've tried that before), and those created by local PDs are not considered free.–DMartin (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a regular photo of Mangione. It’s a photo of the shooter alleged to be Mangione and as such it doesn’t belong in the infobox about him. It belongs further down, where the investigation is mentioned, and/or at Killing of Brian Thompson. Plus, most of the subject’s face is covered. It’s not a viable option for a lead image. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a person is in prison, we cannot obtain a free photo. Commons photos of screenshots of YouTube NBC videos will be deleted. No free alternative is available or could be created at this time. When he's released from prison, possibly. This has been policy for some time. Pleas to appeal to "well, one might exist..." are unreasonable. What might exist is not in evidence. By that logic, almost no images would ever be approved. We cannot base a conclusion on what might exist. If a free photo exists, I will strike my !vote and put the photo up for removal. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The gif is 'moving' media (taken from a YouTube video); taking a random still from the gif/video (comparable to taking a screenshot from a video while the person is still in motion) doesn't mean its of the same quality. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Josve05a seems pretty adamant that the 3-4 second portion of the YT video is free, so I doubt they'll re-delete the files again. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-free image doesn't really solve the problem. It was CLEARLY taken from an NBC News feed (as stated by the uploader). While a fair use argument could be made, it's CLEARLY mislabeled and not "available under a free license". Buffs (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the song "Over You" was Oscar-nominated. Betty Buckley's version, featured in the film, can be heard in the sample, but I'm concerned about critical commentary being sufficient to justify use of this sample. Also, the sample itself makes me wonder whether it helps reader fully contextualize the whole film... or one of the film's themes or whatever (WP:NFCC#8). After all, the topic is the film itself, not the Oscar-nominated song featured in the film. Furthermore, there's already another music sample (of another song) (WP:NFCC#3a). Is one sample insufficient to help readers contextualize (the music... or soundtrack of) the film? George Ho (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the primary contributor who brought this article to FA status. The use of these clips was reviewed and approved by consensus during the FAC, where NFCC compliance is scrutinized more closely than at most other instances. (In fact, I don't believe the clips were on the page when I started the FAC, and in fact were added during that review in response to editor suggestions). While I know consensus can change, I would suggest removing long-standing, previously approved content requires a clear policy violation, not merely a different editorial judgment. In response to the policy arguments, the nominator cites WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), but I respectfully interpretation is narrower than policy requires. WP:NFCC#8 does not require the clip to contextualize the entire topic, but rather must represent a notable aspect of the topic, which significantly increases the readers' understanding of that topic. The topic here is the film Tender Mercies, and "Over You" as performed by Betty Buckley is not incidental to that topic. It is an Oscar-nominated song written for the film, not an existing song simply dropped into the movie. Buckley's performance is diegetic and central to the film’s emotional and thematic core (faith, grief, artistic expression, restraint). The clip illustrates the film's restrained and naturalistic approach to music, the way songs function narratively (not merely as soundtrack), and the performance style that critics singled out when discussing the film. I believe all this falls within what WP:NFCC#8 allows, illustrating a notable aspect of the film that cannot be conveyed adequately through text alone. With regard to WP:NFCC#3a, the policy requires "minimal use," not a specific restriction of "one per article," so the presence of another music sample doesn't automatically violate that policy. Each sample illustrates a different musical function in the film. The Duvall clip illustrates music as a form of internal self-expression and redemption for the protagonist, while the Buckley clip illustrates music as an external emotional and spiritual anchor, embodied through her voice (a key casting and thematic element of the film). Each clip demonstrates a distinct musical function within Tender Mercies, and together they significantly increase readers' understanding of how music operates narratively and thematically in the film. Removing either would materially reduce that understanding. (Apologies for the lengthy response. LOL) — HunterKahn14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about facts only: who sang, who wrote, award, who re-sang; information describing the musical composition — how it sounds, etc. — is completely absent. It's not even WP:NFCC#8, it's NFCC#1, since it's fully replaceable by text. Furthermore, the audio fragment exceeds the permitted length. — Ирука1308:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll just await the results of this discussion then. I was asking the latter because... well, the "Keep" vote by the uploader has the lengthier rationale. George Ho (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as there is significant discussion of the old team name and the new logo/nickname are significantly different, so argument could be made it's also helpful for identification. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under c:COM:PACKAGING. The name of the vineyard is just trademarked, but the logo is covered by copyright. Since the photo solely of the wine bottle, I don't think {{De minimis}} applies.
Keep Neither the bottle nor the text are copyrightable in the United States (see Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.). Only the logo is. However, this falls under COM:De minimis #3; we would like to photograph the bottle and the text on the label, but the logo is an element which cannot easily be avoided in trying to depict the non-copyrightable elements. Not sure on how this fares under French copyright law (or if we need to consider that at all) Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any other municipality in Denmark that has both its coat of arms and its logo in the infobox. Since a coat of arms already identifies the municipality, and often more so than its logo, I don't think the logo significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Hence delete per WP:NFC. Jonteemil (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, as they're different enough to independently identify the subject.
But per WP:NFC do you really think its usage is justified? The use of non-free content should really be minimal and here we already have a free file which identifies the subject perfectly. Jonteemil (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not uncommon to have more than one logo/seal/coat of arms for an organization. They're different enough to me. On the flip side, who would having both hurt? The municipality? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 21:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who it would hurt, if anyone, is irrelevant. And the fact that something has logo, a seal, a coat of arms and an emblem does not mean you can show them all in its article, even if they all four look nothing like each other and portray four different things. The copyright status matters. If they are free, then it's of course OK, but if they are copyrighted, then every file have to meet the US fair use criteria and the even stricter WP:NFCC to be included in the article. I don't think this logo meets WP:NFCCP#1 and also WP:NFCCP#8 since the logo just is a modernized version of the coat of arms with another color scheme. Jonteemil (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we have a consensus that we can use 2-3 non-free images to identify cities/regions/educational institutions/sports teams and some others. — Ирука1308:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the free image is enough for identification and the logo definitely does not 'only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes.' due to the castle. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 blurred tea leaves in the center, an uneven inner circle of predominantly white color when the original is , multiple watery-asphalt-like marks in the letters. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is the image probably 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. — Ирука1308:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. due to inferior svg quality. The artifacts are terrible. Use the .png.
Restore previous version and then transfer to Commons – The logo is now out of copyright in India. The SVG version renders better but at higher resolution, which the previous deleted version used. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding;
Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); — Ирука1310:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use rationale is pretty clear. No way of replacing this with free content, and a textual description is not sufficient. Not sure how a screenshot of the object of discussion on the article is "primarily for decorative purposes".–DMartin (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – On one hand, the screenshot may help readers visualize and contextualize what the video game is (supposed to be). On the other hand, this article is still in a "stub" mode, and there's a poster or cover art identifying the topic in question. Perhaps someone or others should expand the article Black Panther (video game) further. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WidgetKid. Nominator is blocked not banned and even if he were a user has already commented in support of deletion making a procedural close invalid. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regardless of whether or not Iruka's other nominations are valid, I see no valid reason why this image should be used in that article per NFCC #8 (and, if my interpretation is correct, #5 as well). Procedural closure is not appropriate here per Traumnovelle. Gommeh📖🎮17:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use image used in 4 places, of which 3 are blatantly incorrect. Bobby Orr and Noel Picard article uses don't have a proper fair use rationale template and also violate WP:NFCC#8- do not significantly enhance the articles- and WP:NFCC#1- as free images of both of them exist and in better quality. Use in History of the National Hockey League fails WP:NFCC#8, as one article of one event doesn't significantly improve an article on the entire history of the NHL. Use in 1970 Stanley Cup Final is probably okay unless other free images from that event are found (could not see any at the moment, if found, this would probably fail WP:NFCC#1). Therefore I am seeking removal from the first 3 articles and discussion/consensus on whether to keep on 4th article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally tagged with {{copyvio/core}} but I removed the template because the text does not seem to be in dispute, rather the image is. Allegedly it copies from somewhere in [1] but I don't know. Ping Gpkp about this. Aasim (話す) 01:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a lacking evidence of permission. The uploader has attributed this image to MindTree Ltd and based on their edits may have been an empployee or otherwise affiliated with the company but there is no evidence that Mindtree has released the image under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this logo is below the threshold of originality. I couldn't find any information on the US Copyright Office's website about whether this logo is copyrighted or not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is: I'm normally very liberal regarding TOO, but I would argue that since this is a depiction of something(a football), it's probably best to keep it here and using NFR.–DMartin (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The design of the football is novel; there's nothing close to it in, say, commons:Category:American football ball icons. Reminds me of how the Pac-12 logo was ruled copyrightable by the USCO because of the unique mountain design. It's possible the USCO would decline to register it, but it's by no means a certainty; Commons should not host it under commons:COM:PCP. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An editor mistakenly equates a film still with "simple photographs". Cinematographic works are entering the public domain in Italy 70 years after the death of their last creator. — Ирука1316:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Frames of films created in Italy before 2004 are considered public domain after 20 years. This has been in the public domain since 1981. It is also public domain in the united states as it was first published outside the US, was published before 1978, and it in the public domain in its home country.–DMartin (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@dmartin969: Please provide the source of your information, as well as any quotes from it that you believe are relevant to this situation. — Ирука1310:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not covered by text based on information from reliable sources and should be deleted for non-compliance with paragraph 8 of WP:NFCC. — Ирука1315:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is an example of how the game is played and is used where the gameplay and other features are discussed in the article. Specifically, the text says Super Street Fighter II features a new scoring system tracking combos as an example of one of the new features added to the game, and the screenshot shows what the combo tracking feature looks like. This is even mentioned in the caption too: A new scoring system was implemented that keeps track of the number of hits a player performs during a combo.Gommeh📖🎮18:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sure, scores can be well explained in text, but the screenshot itself improves readers' understanding (in context) of the video game itself and what is reflected in the text. Remove the screenshot, and people would wonder why SNES games, like Super Street Fighter II on SNES, have gotten high bids at eBay auction listings. George Ho (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a Holocaust memorial located in the Ukraine taken by the uploader. The licensing for the photo itself is fine, but the copyright status of the memorial isn't clear. After discussing this with the uploader at User talk:Mahtin#File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, the uploader added a {{PD-UA-exempt}} license for the monument, but I'm not sure that license applies in this case. There's only limited freedom of panorama in the Ukraine per c:COM:FOP Ukraine, which places restrictions on commerical reuse; so, I don't think this file that can be kept as currently licensed, at least with respect to the monument. Sometimes in cases like this a non-free license can be added for the photographed work, but that can't really be done here because of WP:NFCC#9 (the image is currently being used in a userspace draft). If others can figure out a way to keep this file, then great; othereise, I think it needs to be deleted if the consent of the copyright holder of the monument can't be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only thing that gives me pause is the 'M' - I don't think that's a standard font being used, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make it copyrightable. I'd err on the side of caution and leave it as-is. I am also going to find a better version, since the quality is making my eye twitch. WidgetKidchat me16:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image is from a website (beforemario.com, watermarked in the image) and is a likely copyright violation. Our fair use case is flimsy as we *could* have a free image. It's not something that's impossible to purchase. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The image is used to illustrate the historical relationship between Nintendo’s Game & Watch hardware and the Bassmate Computer, which reused similar LCD technology. No free alternative exists that can show this specific comparison. The image is used only for identification and critical commentary within a single article section. Wii505 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia’s policy is that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. A quick search on eBay shows you can still buy a Bassmate and a Game and Watch. So someone could create a similar image to this one. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. There are a lot of images on this article already. I don't think this additional non-free one is necessary to a reader's understanding of the subject, given the others above and below it. WidgetKidchat me22:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has never (at least to my knowledge) been a consensus that states cover art from another country can't be used. The above user George Ho has a LONG history of taking it upon himself to remove cover art and replace it with a generic piece of vinyl. I think most people would agree that the cover art is more recognizable than a generic piece of vinyl and a google search confirms as such being that the German / Dutch cover art appears much more frequently. Being that there is no such consensus as of now and being that both the cover art and the vinyl are both non-free images anyway, is there a way to stop Mr/ Ho's "aggressiveness" for lack of a better word when it comes to these?Beast from da East (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
think most people would agree that the cover art is more recognizable than a generic piece of vinyl and a google search confirms as such being that the German / Dutch cover art appears much more frequently. Did you use the "-wiki" to exclude results from Wikipedia? Most likely the German/Dutch cover art Wikipedia would appear on Google results. Or probably from MichaelJackson.com, managed by the Estate. Also, have you been referring to today's audience who have nowadays expected a cover art representing a single? Or which other audience? Honestly, I'm unsure whether "most people" you've been referring to have any history concept of how single releases had been manufactured and distributed in the pre-CD era. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there was a period of time where cover art for singles was not prevalent, especially in the United States. In that case, a piece of vinyl would suffice, but if there is legit, official cover art that has been officially been released by the record label, be it in the U.S. or some other country, then I feel that it should be used, as that is MOST commonly used to identify a single or album. Beast from da East (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One question: When you inserted cover arts you uploaded, why either have you removed or haven't you added captions identifying (a portion of) a specific edition? (see that diff I already provided and this diff.) George Ho (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly an oversight. Some singles/album articles have a caption but most don't and I'm kind of used to the latter. In the case you mentioned, a caption would probably have been best Beast from da East (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if this discussion is still ongoing or not, but that is my official vote. Even the artist's official website uses the German/Dutch cover art as the de facto image in regards to the single itself. I think it's best to keep the art when applicable regardless of country of origin as long as it's officially released by the label. Beast from da East (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work(s). — Ирука1307:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука1310:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука1310:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13 Is it a good idea to argue this while you are indefinitely blocked from editing filespace? Your block is precisely due to exactly this behavior by you.
Note: @Iruka13 might be technically allowed to comment here, but in my opinion her comment (and any !votes by her) should not be counted as votes while she is banned for this behavior. See the ANI in my previous reply. David10244 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no freedom of panorama in the US for 2d artworks, while yes images of this building appear on Commons they are on Commons per WP:DEMINIMIS, this image however does not meet that standard in my opinion as the angle primarily covers the artwork and not the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify deleting this and I'm having a really hard time. Leicester v. Warner Bros. clearly established that architectural details (which stained glass windows obviously are) are allowable under US freedom of panorama. You seem to agree with that. OK so far. But you think because pre-1990 buildings in the US had NO copyright protections that the windows (which we agree are an integral component of the building) somehow magically gain stricter copyright protections and lack the freedom of panorama than they would have had if they had been created if they were built post-1990 because of Leicester v. Warner Bros.? There is no case law, statute, or legal principle which would suggest such a thing. It defies all common sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle that is per Clindberg's insights on the undeletion request. But do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed). Thus, its US copyright was restored through Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Do note the Leicester ruling relied on AWCPA, which is not retroactive. Pre-1990 buildings are PD under US law, yes, but any associated architectural art embedded within (stained glass for example) are bound for the pre-1990 rules. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And again, US FoP only applies to post-1990 US buildings. All pre-1990 buildings are public domain. Concerning the attached artworks, only post-1990 architectural art elements can be freely reproduced through Leicester ruling, citing AWCPA. AWCPA does not cover pre-1990 ones, and therefore common pre-1990 US copyright rules cover those architectural elements. Foreign elements, like this Philippine stained glass, are unfree courtesy of URAA. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see you are extrapolating this bizarre theory from an offhand comment by Clindberg which does not have any supportive evidence behind it. I am well aware that it is not a US work, but we are following US law on English Wikipedia. You bring up URAA, but URAA does not restore copyright on this building (as buildings were not copyrightable in the US in 1954) and this window is an integral part of said building. Of course AWCPA is not retroactive. AWCPA is what gives post 1990 buildings their copyright protection. If AWCPA was retroactive, US buildings prior to 1990 would have copyright. The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re-license as non-free by default, especially if "no consensus" at the end – Without clearer and consistent interpretation, hard to tell whether the depicted subject is free to use at this time, despite the photo's copyright status (as the photo itself, not the building or stained window). The "Keep" votes probably assumed this is a deletion discussion somehow... right? George Ho (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. holds here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said this:
do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed).
Even if there's hesitancy to enforce URAA, being a non-US work plays a factor here. However, the stained windows have been still part of the building made before 1990. Perhaps an international law also plays factor in this. Oh... Realized just now that it's part of a Philippine church. In the Philippines, buildings may lack freedom of panorama (c:COM:FOP Philippines).
Unsure why you're citing the case, which the nom said:
The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.
@George Ho I base this on the non-applicability of the Leicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again, Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which is not applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of @Clindberg:'s reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate the non-applicability of Leicester for pre-1990 elements. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred before Leicester v. Warner Bros.IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice: Do not use this template on copyrighted public artworks (like statues, sculptures, and murals)! If you're gonna treat the stained glass windows like merely part of the building/ architecture, then I can't stop you. Nonetheless, hard to take the view into consideration when the windows have exquisite artwork with enough originality to garner some protection (as an artwork), especially in the Philippines.
Also, being tagged as "FOP-USonly" shouldn't prevent the file from being (re)licensed as non-free, should it, even when the photographer released the photo into the "public domain"? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what {{FoP-USonly}} and Leicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free because it is free under US law in its current 2D form. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resemble WP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.) George Ho (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mention WP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent to Leicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out with evidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright. I worry that [what I perceive to be] JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images (particularly from the Phillipines) may sometimes cross over into ownership tendencies and produce a tendency to latch onto any novel argument that would seemingly justify further opportunities to delete architectural images. The problem is that the argument here does not actually pass legal muster. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to the lex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that I framed the statement as being my interpretation of your behavior and my own personal opinions and worries. Maybe the first part of the statement was framed as being overly a statement of fact as opposed to just representing my opinion. I apologize for not framing it more as a statement of my opinion. To correct that, I have clarified the statement above with brackets. Given George Ho's query about I why I don't believe the opinion of multiple editors (after making clear that I did not disregard it out of hand), I did feel that the scope and history of your nominations of files I have uploaded was important to address, but in retrospect the statements you highlight are probably off-topic enough to not be helpful here. I have struck it. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a background, from the Leicester case text: [The district court] declined to construe the 1990 amendments as Leicester urged, to leave intact the previously authorized protection for sculptural works that were "conceptually separable" from the building of which they are a part, concluding instead that the intent of Congress was to substitute the new protection afforded architectural works for the previous protection sometimes provided under the conceptual separability test for nonutilitarian sculptures (such as gargoyles and stained glass windows) incorporated into a work of architecture. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Warner Bros. Leicester has timely appealed. Before 1990, architectural works were not given any protection at all. To allow some protection of artistic works attached to buildings, it was generally recognized that "conceptually separable" works did get protection. The 1990 law giving protection to architectural works changed that; Leicester was arguing that the older protections should still exist in addition to the new architectural work protection, but the courts decided that was not the case. However, since pre-1990 buildings are still not protected at all, so that "conceptually separable" logic should still hold for older buildings. That is a bit fuzzier for foreign buildings though -- the window would have been PD immediately due to publication without notice. The URAA could have restored that, but did it restore the architectural work too? The wording of U.S. law however does not seem to apply the architectural copyright to pre-1990 buildings anywhere, but rather gives restored works the protection they would have had in the U.S. had they not fallen into the public domain. For a "conceptually separable" stained glass window (the court even named that specifically as an example of conceptually separable) on a pre-1990 construction, it seems like it would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. The text of the court case has a lot of discussion, referencing the House Report on the 1990 law which recognized the previously-available conceptually separable protection -- with somewhat ambiguous discussion there, which the court had to decide. Not sure I can find a copy of that online. Note that there was another case where a mural was added to a building later on; that was not considered as part of the architectural work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protection replaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? The original law (section 706) towards the end, says: The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection was replaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states: Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states: If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. The House Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned: A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses are de minimis or incidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildings while still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted in Leicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found in Leicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was for all PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are still architectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you think might be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there is zero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted. Honestly, coat of arms isn't my expertise, especially as an average reader. Nonetheless, I can't help wonder how well participated this discussion has been, contrary to the more crowded DRV. This makes me think that omitting this actual logo would devastate readers and deprive readers from learning which coat of arms is real or fake. Really wish those DRV participants re-participate in this discussion... George Ho (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article Coat of arms of Canada goes into great detail about official renditions of the arms, and it seems clear to me that a user-generated rendition would not serve the same purpose. Nothing has really changed since the last discussion. MediaKyle (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by a comment at WT:VEX)Delete not that I think it will matter much. Despite some confusion above this is not a logo but a Coat of Arms that is defined by a Blazon, with any Emblazonment that conforms to that written description being equally heraldicly correct (and not in fact fake?).
I'm also not seeing any text at the Coat of arms of Canada that actually requires the presence of this NFCC, over the free content version (the only mention of the "official rendition" is in sentence like The leaves were later redrawn in official depictions in 1957 with the current colour to be in line with the official colours of Canada and with mantling of white and red, stylized in the official version to look like maple leaves both features in the sodacan emblazonment).
Finally, If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted [sic] is not, as far as I can remember, an actual reason to retain NFC (please correct me if I'm wrong). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to Glane23 the file has been lacking suitable VRT permission since March 2024, there has been more than enough time for this issue to be resolved. I'm not sure what a reasonable timeline for VRT issues is but with no backlog and this being almost 2 years unresolved it is longer overdue. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me, in English, what's the problem with ticket #2024031910003125? I know the photographer personally. Mr. Farver sent the email release to Wikimedia, and forwarded the number to me, which I attached to the upload. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some comparanda here: yes, all the individual elements are simple and geometric, but there are many of them and at first glance I'd say the arrangement represents creative work. I wouldn't be confident in saying it's below TOO. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to list more remaining screenshots of the Law & Order cast, but then, after deletion of two other images, I guess I don't mind deletion (of all the above) if no one else opposes such, especially per WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise, at least one shall remain if someone favors whichever. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one. I would leave the most representative one - maybe the most popular season?
Oh, and I've yet to list the cast of season one. I might... or might not after this discussion, but let's concentrate on the ones listed here first, especially to contrast with the very first season. —George Ho (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If at least one must be kept, I'm thinking season six cast and/or season twenty-five cast for now, though I'm unsure whether either of them has been popular amongst most viewers, especially casual and hardcore. Otherwise, (again) I don't mind all deleted. —George Ho (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the image is used to illustrate the cast but free images of the cast can be created and I think most of these actors have free images regardless. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: You're not thinking individual photos of cast members, are you? It's been attempted to death. Look at Friends: dunno who reintroduced a gallery of free photos, but a non-free image was pushed down some time after an FFD discussion on it. BTW, Jerry Orbach has been deceased since 2004, i.e. for at least twenty-one years. The least we can do is a group photo-op of surviving cast members, right? Otherwise, how do we place such free images of those cast members appearing on the series? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found no information that this photo "was published in the United States between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." — Ирука1315:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't transfer to Commons but rather re-license as non-free – The archived link doesn't indicate when the photo was first published and which source published the photo first. The editor who voted "keep" may have incorrectly assumed that lacking a copyright notice always automatically means no copyright (anymore?). Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Unless a better source proves it to be out of copyright, this image should be, by default, non-free. George Ho (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why listing this cover art rather than tag it for speedy deletion? Already did that on the other now-deleted image when I uploaded the label in 2021. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Verify the copyright status of these UK images. They're already Public Domain in the US.
I had listed it before, but it was speedy kept because one of these files was in the main page one day. He died in 1946. Verify if these works have other known authors. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She's dead, we shouldn't delete it unless we find a free image of her. It may be possible though, as many American images from that time had no copyright notice or the copyright wasn't renewed. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with free image. At minimum, the license is incorrect. There is no indication this was ever released under a CC license. The Yale source link indicates this image is copyrighted and property of "The Estate of Diane Arbus." WidgetKidchat me15:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is using this image on Wikipedia really necessary? I've seen other people listing screenshots of many music videos for discussion here (which in that case I think should be kept.). This is not the case for this promotional poster. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
fails NFCC #3 and #8, former logo of a rugby competition which which doesn't significantly contribute to article contents.. Fma12 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCCP#3a. Maybe a better fit in single series' infobox(es), but current infobox template doesn't support photo. Current usage in SVNS article not warranted due to main logo and no significant discussion of previous logos in article. WidgetKidchat me15:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCCP#3a. Maybe a better fit in single series' infobox(es), but current infobox template doesn't support photo. Current usage in SVNS article not warranted due to main logo and no significant discussion of previous logos in article. WidgetKidchat me15:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JayCubby, This was uploaded under non-free use out of caution as the archive does not explicitly state a public-domain licence. I agree it may qualify under PD-anon-70-EU, and I’m fine with it being relicensed and moved to Commons if that’s the consensus. Aeengath (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This image is of a person still alive. The person is serving a life sentence, still. The source link is dead. It has no fair use rationale and nothing to indicate a fair use license. Babin Mew (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of people who have life sentences are kept because the same rationale applies as to a dead person. Needs to have that added, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Falls below threshold of originality. Graph is a non-creative representation of the data generated by the pulsar. Color inversion and scaling are not enough to create new copyright. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement on the file page "Author: Natalie Heroux. I madet this picture. He belongs to me." may well explain how this picture uploaded here has been made. However artefacts in the upload suggest a scan or other reproduction of an original picture. This casts doubt on the ownership of the copyright which is easy enough to resolve - WP:VRT will work with the uploader to validate copyright ownership. I believe that, without VRT validation, this picture may not remain here, certainly under this licence. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The image provides fair use rationales but of no use. In the article it is used, it is nothing special and can be replaced by textual coverage. Also, the section it is used in describes the content of the image very well. The Pokemon logo is present in the infobox. Babin Mew (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NFCC8 contextual significance: This image doesn't convey significant insight - it's a dirt road, a similar free photo of a similar dirt road would have the same impact. There is a photo of a nearby area File:Mary_river_camp.jpg in the article which gives a sense of the area in question. Consigned (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NFCC1 "no free equivalent" - this image shows a smaller freighter and a larger freighter interacting. I'm sure this happens relatively often in many parts of the world, doesn't require a volunteer chartering a helicopter in a remote part of the world as the justification claims. Additionally, this can be fairly easily described in text - the image isn't crucial for understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC8 "contextual significance"). Consigned (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I couldn't find a Commons image of two ore freighters interacting like this. I can see how this illustrates what's described in the article, but linkage between text and supporting image could be stronger. WidgetKidchat me16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Doesn't seem like "poor quality" to me. But that's subjective. You clearly uploaded the same photo, and chose to remove the one I already had in its place. It's obvious you're being picky and making an issue out of nothing. SpinnDoctor (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually scaled down that image at the time from its original dimensions, to make it compliant with wikipedia logo sizes. The idea that you claim this image is terrible in quality is a clear exaggeration. Your complaint is minor in nature, when thousands of images on wikipedia has used and currently uses the PNG format perfectly fine for years. Should we put out a campaign to switch all of those to the SVG format as well? That'll be a slippery slope for the community to go down! Lets be honest this seems like a strange isolated issue on your part. SpinnDoctor (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward what would be the point for anyone to upload an image using the PNG format? As reviewing that article, it seems wikipedia has basically rendered it an inferior format. Interesting, that's news to me. SpinnDoctor (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2026 (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.
Shouldn't this file be exported to Commons as the sculpture appears to be a US work published in 1987 without a copyright notice nor registration within five years? ―Howard • 🌽3319:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 "===February 3===" 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.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
-20260126174700-File:Star_Tours_Logo.svg){kind=link}
-20260126174800-File:Spaceship_Earth_Epcot_Logo.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+January+8%23File%3ABobby+Orr+in+mid-air+%281970%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
WidgetKid chat me 06:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+January+19%23File%3ABob+Dylan+-+Triplicate+%28album+cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+January+27%23File%3APoster+-+Abie%26%2339%3Bs+Irish+Rose+%281928%29+01.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_alt_colours.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+January+29%23File%3AThe+Goddess+Bhairavi+Devi+with+Shiva+MET+DP257990+%28closer+crop%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-20260130161100-File:Pokemon_Eyecatch_14.jpg){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+February+3%23File%3AThis+Is+Acting+%28Deluxe+Edition%29+%28Official+Album+Cover%29+by+Sia.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png&action=history){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}