Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	136	35	171
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	20	40	60
AfD	0	10	10

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.

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

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

What not to list here[edit]

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:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
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 an OTRS 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.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
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=2022 April 16}}` 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=2022 April 16}}` 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=2022 April 16}}` 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 1929, not 1923.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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

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[edit]

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

Old discussions[edit]

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

April 8

File:Nintendo DSi Home Menu.png

[edit]

It has a weak rationale. Fails WP:NFCCP#8. Sourced text adequately describes this image.

Image description: The top display shows photos taken using Nintendo DSi Camera, the bottom display shows apps and games on the system as selectable icons.

Its use at Nintendo DSi system software: "The DSi's user interface is a single row of icons which can be navigated by sliding the stylus across them."

Its use at Nintendo DSi: Like the Wii, the DSi has upgradeable firmware, and features a menu interface that displays applications as selectable icons. [...] Icons are set in a single-row grid navigable with the stylus or D-pad, and may be re-arranged via drag-and-drop.

« Ryūkotsusei » 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Does not justify AfD. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Text could describe plenty of images, but that alone is not a reason to delete them. All other system software articles have similar images. Being sized at low resolution, it falls under fair use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: It boils down to adequacy for this specific image as further explained here: WP:FREER. It looks basic enough to satisfy point A or B. Hope this helps. « Ryūkotsusei » 14:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could say the same about things like the desktop in Windows 11, but it has some level of artistic layout that cannot be perfectly described by text.

Either way, starting with a single picture is not proper Wikipedia policy. If you believe this is the case it should be discussed on an all or nothing basis as it is clearly policy to allow fair use images of user interfaces even when they are fairly basic. Procedural oppose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

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

April 9[edit]

File:MelinaPaez.jpg[edit]

Uploader is the subject depicted in both revisions. WP:VRT permission is required from the original photographer(s). ✗plicit 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blamelss - PR poster-1.jpg[edit]

Appears to be an official band poster, needs evidence of permission. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

April 10[edit]

File:MaferChavanaArtist.jpg[edit]

invalid NFU rationale, subject is still living, supposedly a public figure and thus a new free image can still be created. CUPIDICAE💕 18:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AcrazePromotional.jpg[edit]

invalid rationale, it's not an image of "a work", it's an image of a person, the subject of an article, who is still living and producing music for which he is supposedly notable and thus a free image can still be created CUPIDICAE💕 18:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Top2004 4.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Author and source unknown according to description. Looks far too modern to be in public domain as the license claims. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is familiar but I don't recall uploading it nor the reason why. Can be deleted. OtakuMegane (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 11[edit]

File:Sextoy.com revenue chart 2008.png[edit]

Unused graph for Sextoy.com, which was deleted in 2009 as promotion. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 00:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FirstCanes.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United States. Image is unused. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puyo North Skyline.JPG[edit]

Unused blurry photo of Puyo. ✗plicit 06:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Identitarians in Scotland.png[edit]

No evidence that the photo is freely licensed as claimed, or indeed, who the author is. Storkk (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:PicassoGuernica.jpg[edit]

One of the most used non-free images on the project that's not a logo. Specifically, I'm questioning its use on Modernism (good example of it, but so are a lot of other works), Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía (it's located there, but there's no discussion of it, and it's an easy direct link to the article about the painting), and Works of art in The Aesthetics of Resistance (essentially just a giant gallery). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

File:Charlie Hebdo Tout est pardonné.jpg[edit]

I believe the use of this image on Murder of Samuel Paty to be in violation of WP:NFCC#8, since there is no analysis of this non-free image and it does not otherwise contribute to the understanding of the murder. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Murder of Samuel Paty per nomination, but don't delete without questioning its purpose on the other five articles it appears on first. If there are similar violations on all of those then feel free to scrap it. QuietHere (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was never proposing deletion, although I guess I could have been clearer in my nomination. I just thought it should be removed from that article, and per the discussion that closed WP:NFCR files should be sent here for review on these and similar matters. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image from the Samuel Paty page, as the nom could've done (and is free to do elsewhere of course)—although in a couple of cases a discussion would be needed, I'd imagine—but there's one place where it will always satisfy NFC: it's here. SN54129 14:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove it from there; it was reverted, and so I brought it here for input from additional editors. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Keep on the Murder of Samuel Paty article OP says it does not otherwise contribute to the understanding of the murder... How does the image not contribute to the understanding of the murder? The caption of the image on the article says: One of the Charlie Hebdo drawings of Muhammad shown by Samuel Paty to his students.[41] Depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous in Islam, and readers are curious, and will want to know/see what cartoons were shown by Paty to the students that made the killer so angry; this specific cartoon was one that was shown. The OP also says: in violation of WP:NFCC#8, since there is no analysis of this non-free image. Unless I'm looking at the wrong file or something, the image information page has a "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box at the bottom with the Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) stating: Samuel Paty was a French middle-school teacher who was beheaded and murdered by an Islamic terrorist for showing Charlie Hebdo's 2012 cartoons depicting Muhammad as part of a class discussion on freedom of speech. This particular image was one of the cartoons shown to his students. (emphasis mine) I've added to the WP:NFCC#8 rationale: As depictions of Muhammad are considered blasphemous in Islam, the cartoons were seen as "offensive", and the murderer used this as justification for the murder. Religious groups and apologists used the perceived offensiveness of the cartoons as justification for showing support and sympathy for the murderer. This image aids in the readers' understanding by illustrating to them what exactly was shown to the students; the image shown is the front cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine issued after the shooting and was widely spread by the French and international media, not a random pornographic image of Muhammad that was claimed by some apologists. [1] Some1 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) add, Some1 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that explanation in the FUR on the Image's page doesn't actually support its inclusion on the article. It's sourced commentary on the article that matters, where it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" WP:NFCC#8. The page does say that it is one of the images he showed to his students, so that's a point in favor of keeping it. The simple fact that a reader would be curious about it is not a valid supporting reason to include it per WP:NFCC, and that could be easily dealt with by linking Depictions_of_Muhammad#Charlie Hebdo, so that's a point against it. The sourced commentary in the article is almost entirely about the alleged "random pornographic image," as you put it, and is referred to in the article text as "one of which portrayed Muhammad naked with his genitals exposed", which is clearly not this image. As far as I can see that is another pretty big mark against the inclusion of this image, since that would clearly be the more relevant image regarding the news coverage and outrage which led to the entire incident. In fact, upon re-reading that section, I would even say that the inclusion of this image rather than the more explicit one (if it exists) is a violation of WP:NPOV, since it seems to me to give a misleading impression that the images displayed were entirely tame when sources apparently differ. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The murder wasn't over some alleged "pornographic cartoon". That's a red herring. The whole outrage happened and Paty was murdered because he showed cartoons depicting Muhammad (specifically Charlie Hebdo ones, such as the one that's being discussed right now) in a class about freedom of expression and, as I've mentioned before, depictions of Muhammad (naked or not) are considered blasphemous in Islam. The majority of the article content talks about freedom of expression regarding depictions of Muhammad, not about the alleged "naked image". And that's another reason to keep the image, because it illustrates to the reader what exactly Paty had showed to the students and they can see for themselves whether the image he had shown is "offensive" or not. Some1 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I linked to it immediately above, I believe you can safely assume I'm aware of the controversy surrounding Depictions of Muhammad. You say that the other image is a red herring, and yet many of the (presumably reliable) sources in the article support its existence. It is not our place to reach a conclusion not supported by those sources.

How would you compare this use of this image in this article to the unacceptable use of a non-free image to illustrate an article passage when an image has its own article? Obviously, in this case, the image does not have its own article, but the entirety of the controversy at large is certainly treated in more detail in the Depections article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Keep per Some1's logic. There is an obvious 'fair use' argument for keeping at least a low-resolution copy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fair use" is not the standard we need to use to evaluate the image. It's the non-free content guideline and policy which is substantially more restrictive. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing. It is entirely reasonable and indeed a widespread practice (that IMO should be mandatory) to note on associated articles talk pages that there is a discussion underway elsewhere that may reasonably be expected to have an implication for that article. Frankly, this whinge just reads as amateur wikilawyering. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how this message came after I've already explained to you on my talk page (i.e. User talk:Some1#Murder of Samuel Paty non-free image) why I've notified those articles' talk pages after you didn't bother to notify the Murder of Samuel Paty talk page for whatever reasons. My notifications were neutral and appropriate per WP:APPNOTE, and the list of articles notified were the ones that directly include the image. Also, "votestacking"?[7]? You need to re-read what Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking is, because I didn't post any notifications on any user talk pages about the discussion. Some1 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny. Intentional. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite funny that you threw around baseless claims of canvassing/votestacking because you apparently didn't like the response on my talk page. Anyway, cheers. Some1 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aida at Chadwick.jpg[edit]

Dubious claim of own work because the image could be found at another website prior to the upload to Wikipedia. [8] Source website's metadata indicates that this image was published in July 2010. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPL2022Logo.png[edit]

It's basically the same logo that was deleted yesterday, so all the evidence at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 4#File:IPL 2022 logo.webp still applies- it's still a generic logo being used for a specific sports season article Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Pretty much the same as the one deleted yesterday. If there's a SALTing equivalent for files then I would approve that as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 13[edit]

File:DislocatedIsland.jpg[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:DislocatedIsland.png on Commons. Not eligible for F8 due to differing file extensions. ✗plicit 13:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rădăşeni Pregatirea de iarna-3.jpg[edit]

Doubtful own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]