Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	3	89	92
TfD	0	19	19
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	2	11	13
RfD	0	44	44
AfD	0	20	20

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

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
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 a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
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

To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:

How to list a file for discussion manually

Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 January 6}}` 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=2026 January 6}}` 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 January 6}}` 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 1933, not 1927.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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

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

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

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.

December 29

File:Party of the Brazilian Women logo.png

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move to Commons. Political party logos are protected under trademark law, not copyright.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 03:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preserved body of Maria Elena Milagro de Hoyos.jpg

[edit]

A free photo illustrating Milagro already exists at File:Elena Milagro Hoyos.jpg invalidating WP:NFCC1 claim. The also is no article about her and this is used in Carl Tanzler instead, it is not necessary to have a non-free image about another person other than what the article is about. Should be deleted. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 23:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are two other images of her (File:Elena Milagro Hoyos.jpg and File:Elena Milagro Hoyos body.jpg). This image is also poorly sourced, with no link to the page showing the uploaded image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted for the content regardless in my opinion. Restore some dignity to the diseased. ~2026-15504 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean deceased? Rockfang (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

File:Elgar Heath.jpg

[edit]

Previously at FFD.
File marked as {{Non-free album cover}}, but this template prohibits using such images outside articles about audio recording:
This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers:

solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, — Ирука¹³ 10:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are we rehashing this again? You tried to delete this a year ago and the result was keep (Which was my !vote last time and the same again now, given there have been no changes in the intervening period). If the policies and guidelines have not changed in the intervening period, why is this being attempted again? Pinging the commenters at the previous FfD: Ssilvers, This0k, Whpq, Tim riley and Stefan2 - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was not closed as keep. Rockfang (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer, I'd say. Tim riley talk 10:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image, previously used on an album cover, illustrates a particularly appropriate 1971 performance of the subject overture, the focus of which is London, because Edward Heath is a public figure who served as a Member of Parliament from Greater London, shown here conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. I have not seen another photo that would more helpfully illustrate the article, and no one else has found one. The image satisfies all the other criteria, and as to criterion #1, No free content has been found that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, as image is likely copyrighted and not contextually significant. There is no significant discussion of Heath in the article, just a bullet for one recording amongst many. The image seems like decoration. It's unclear to me how not including it would harm the reader's understanding of the subject. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 21:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This was part of an old 1972 classical album L.S.O. Gala Concert (discogs). André Previn is also top-billed on the album. Such portion as-is still fails to contextually signify a 1909 composition, and the whole album cover still wouldn't signify the composition in any way. The image shows just Heath conducting an orchestra. Pinging ssilvers, tim riley, and SchroCat about this. George Ho (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the keep !votes in this discussion or the previous one actually address WP:NFCC, particularly the contextual significance criterion. While album covers used in articles about the albums themselves implicitly satisfy the criterion, use of album covers in articles about other subjects do not. ✗plicit 00:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

File:Tea Board of India logo.svg

[edit]

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. — Ирука¹³ 08:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. due to inferior svg quality. The artifacts are terrible. Use the .png.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

File:Daniel Craig as James Bond.jpg

[edit]

Unnecessary non-free depiction of the Daniel Craig version of James Bond, which fails WP:NFCC#1, due to the existence of free photographs of wax figures of the character at Madame Tussauds, which are sufficient to illustrate the character in the infobox. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace, but not with a picture of a wax figurine. I think we can do better. :) How about this free picture of Daniel Craig from Commons? Or a different one?

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A free image of Commons should not be the lead/infobox image of the article, and a 2015 image is already used for the Casting section. George Ho (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in character in those images so it's not suitable to use those. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the pictures more carefully, I think File:Daniel Craig – Film Premiere "Spectre".JPG or File:Daniel Craig - Film Premiere "Spectre" 007 - on the Red Carpet in Berlin (22387409720).jpg could possibly be suitable. The question is, I suppose, what specific elements need to be present in a given image for it to be suitable to illustrate the character, other than Craig himself. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Daniel Craig – Film Premiere "Spectre".JPG is a good pick. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If used as the lead (or infobox) image, this free image you picked still wouldn't reflect the character accurately, would it? It should replace the 2015 one used in the Casting section, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would reflect the character accurately? You could say that it should be a screenshot from the film, but there are other live action film characters that have free images of actors photographed in costume to represent the character- for example Jack Sparrow and Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Granted, both of those characters have more distinctive costumes that make them sufficiently recognizable in those photos, making them unambiguously equivalent free substitutes for film screenshots even if the actors were not necessarily performing in character at the time the photos were taken, which Bond does not- it's just Craig in a suit. There may thus be some case to be made that additional distinguishing characteristics are required, though I'm not at present convinced this is the case.

So the question is, what is needed for a photo to be recognized by readers as Craig's Bond? Does he need to be in character, holding a gun, wearing the outfit, in a recognizable scene from the films? I personally think that as long as he's dressed as he is in the films it's sufficient, and therefore either the Spectre premiere photos or wax figure images are fine, but I'd be open to hearing a stronger counterargument against this. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep as-is or a film screenshot. Aside from a wax statue that was replaced by this non-free image not too long ago, no free alternative is suitable as a lead image, especially to represent Craig's version of Bond. BTW, Craig holding a pistol isn't really enough? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho Do you have any specific thoughts about what would be enough for the infobox, or any examples of better non-free depictions that you might prefer to replace this one with? silviaASH (inquire within) 02:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't use ones belonging to the Everett Collection (GQ article) per WP:GETTY. Can't use this one either; seen on Getty Images. Unsure about Craig clasping his hands and just wearing a watch. Phew! Found a photo of him holding a gun and wearing a tuxedo suit. Another one as well but in different non-suit clothes. Another one in casual clothes. George Ho (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a strong case that a non free photo is necessary, any of these images would probably be suitable, though I think I'd prefer one with the gun and the suit. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with waxwork images. This is pretty common practice, and a decent enough representation of the character. I see no reason not to swap. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aalborg Kommunes logo.svg

[edit]

Too complex for PD-textlogo. Coat of arms is already in the article so this is not needed as a non-free file. Jonteemil (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo differs from the coat of arms, so both images are needed. If it's too complex for PD-textlogo, then it can qualify for fair use. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 23:30, 27 December 2025 (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.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

December 25

File:Blue Beetle LAW.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCM says they do not allow any post 1959 comics at all

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are on Comic Book Plus, Warner Bros had sent the same request to them

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 23:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dutch Clark (Pueblo Chieftan photo).png

[edit]

No evidence that this photo "was published in the United States between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." — Ирука¹³ 15:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is at least one publication

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The given source shows that the portrait was published in 1941. So it hinges on the copyright claim "without a copyright notice". I can not check the given article itself. The Banner talk 16:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source appears to show the image published in the timeframe.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 02:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without a copyright notice? — Ирука¹³ 09:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes front page masthead article

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football - Paris 2024.webp

[edit]

Not in the given source The Banner talk 20:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the archive source. Appears legit. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 03:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, appears in the amended source but seems to be copyrighted. One for the experts. The Banner talk 03:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football 5-a-side - Paris 2024.webp

[edit]

Not in the given source The Banner talk 20:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the archive source. Appears legit. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 03:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To do some hair splitting: "Football 5-a-side" does not appear in that source, only "Blind football" does. But more problematic is that the icons seem to be copyrighted. One for the experts. The Banner talk 03:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

File:Turkishvowels.jpg

[edit]

No longer in use, and somewhere between imprecise and just wrong. Compare to Turkish language#Vowels. Apocheir (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apocheir: Does File:Turkishvowels.svg also require deletion? Since attribution is required, the nominated file would need to be move to Commons unless the vector file is also deleted. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this diagram is below the threshold of originality, and both versions should be tagged as PD-something instead of the current licenses. That said, File:Turkishvowels.svg is in the "Vowel charts that are phonetically imprecise" category on Commons and unused, so I don't think Commons would balk about deleting it. Apocheir (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg

[edit]

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

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

Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

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

Keep This does not look like "basic shapes and text" to me; there's a football, stylized spikes, etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg

[edit]

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

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

Support move to Commons. Basic shapes & text.

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

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

December 30

File:Dbx live at ground zero tiny.jpeg

Too small for intended use in Album Infobox; see Live from Ground Zero. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also likely will resolve itself if article is deleted.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

December 31

File:Tanora bottle by Stifle.jpg

Per c:COM:PACKAGE FUR should be restored. — Ирука¹³ 10:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the decision at s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., the bottle is not deemed to be copyrightable in the US. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a link to a section of the rules with a dozen sentences outlining my position. Please copy and paste from the text you provided the sentences that support why bottle labels automatically enter the public domain in the US. — Ирука¹³ 06:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the decision cited by @Stifle. My read of the case was that a copyrighted item, like a bottle's unique artwork, is protected and that derivative works (like a photo of it) can't be copyrighted.

In its analysis of the photographs as derivative works, the court found that Ets-Hokin did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to either prong of the ERG test, concluding that (1) the photos were insufficiently original to warrant copyright because the differences between the photos and the bottle were not "more than trivial"; and (2) a copyright in the photos would interfere with Skyy's right to create works based upon its own bottle. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to fair use ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Widgetkid: If you're saying copyright applies then the image should be changed (back) to fair use, per nom, rather than deleted. Would appreciate if you could update your !vote accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

File:PinkFloydAnotherBrickCover.jpg

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

This is either Pd-ineligible or PD-US. Not a fair use case. Relicense or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is - seems in line with normal fair use of covers in singles articles. Why is this one different?

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's geometric shapes and text. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a standard font, but rather artistically done by illustrator Gerald Scarfe.

I would be genuinely shocked if it was PD in the US. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 11:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i feel like all parts should have a separate article ~2025-38907-49 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should only be fair use if they somehow were able to copyright it at the US Copyright Office.

Otherwise relicense as PD-US or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now – This is a British work most likely, but simultaneous worldwide release may be possible, making it a US work technically. Nonetheless, can't be certain for sure (c:COM:PCP). Indeed, the UK law's threshold for originality is still low, despite allowing very simple logos (c:COM:TOO UK). George Ho (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Potter character poster.jpg

Replaceable with c:File:Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is, since existing photo is much more characteristic of the character's appearance than the free file.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 09:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if you believe this is a drop in quality, a drop in quality is preferable to a non-free file. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If image quality is an issue, a higher resolution version of the uncropped photo was uploaded to the photographer's Flickr account (although it is marked there as All Rights Reserved despite it being relicensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via VRT). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a free altnernative exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the time is spent describing the events that take place at Hogwarts. That's why I think the robe is a mandatory attribute. Besides, the photo itself isn't the best. However, even what we have now could be improved (see Ron and Hermione's articles). — Ирука¹³ 07:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Better Late Than Never (Alternate Cover).jpg

The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 08:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the second non-free image (the collector's edition) does not have independent significant coverage from the original release in the article. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 09:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album cover does qualify under the non-free content policy. It is an alternative cover of the Better Late Than Never album by Romeo Santos and Prince Royce. I added the correct non-free tag to it and the description mentions it. I even just made sure to specifies which edition of the album it is. I have uploaded album covers before. I have experience with this. I have uploaded original and alternative covers and I never had an issue with the covers uploaded, unless the the alternative cover looked similar tot eh original. Which in this case, it don't look the same. Which is another reason why this cover should not be deleted. I know what are the requirements for an album to be accepted on Wikipedia.DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, as alternative covers with no significant coverage don't warrant inclusion in an article. WP:OTHERSTUFF you've added doesn't change the policy application for this article. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is still a double vote ("discussion" this editor calls it). My attempt to strike it out was reverted (diff). George Ho (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho - do "votes" matter? I thought results were based on discussion and consensus? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 16:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This non-free content significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic. As mentioned in the article, the collector's edition CD is limited to four units per customer. It has alternate cover artwork, which makes it a collector's item. Furthermore, it follows all 10 NFCC criteria: 1) there is no free equivalent; 2) respect for commercial opportunities has been followed because the image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material; 3) it follows minimal usage because only one version of the collector's edition cover art is used; 4) it follows the previous publication restriction; 5) the image meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic; 6) the image meets Wikipedia's Image use policy; 7) the image is used in at least one article; 8) the image provides contextual significance because it shows the collector's edition alternate cover art; 9) the image follows the restrictions on location; and 10) the Image description page is compliant.

Note: the NFCC restrictions on location (WP:NFCCP#8) do not require non-free content to be located at the top of the article in the infobox. - tucoxn\^talk 22:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1970 Masters Tournament Guide.jpg

This is a non-free image of the magazine and may be used solely for magazine article illustration or if there is a sourced commentary about that image. — Ирука¹³ 10:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Commons image - perhaps this one of Billy Casper and Gene Littler on the last day of the tournament? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 07:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know how to wikilink an image, don't you? George Ho (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho Indeed I do. Care to contribute to the discussion? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is completely in line with fair use wikipedia policy. It is the best way to provide a visual identifier of the tournament, and there is no reasonable alternative available. The picture suggested in no way identifies the tournament, no one looking at the picture would know it is reflecting the tournament without reading the text underneath.

Jopal22 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is more a programme and symbol for the tournament than a real magazine. Every single article on each Masters tournament 1949-2025 and 1934-1935, is illustrated with the front cover of respective programme/guide/journal. As there is no unique logo for each year, as there is for the U.S. Open or The Open Championship, the programme cover is placed there instead. Regards, EEJB (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the event organizers didn't choose a logo for the event, who are we to do it ourselves? — Ирука¹³ 07:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are other ways to illustrate the subject with free materials, can't say a programme guide is what I'd think of when I hear of a golf tournament. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – As a lead image, its "contextual significance" to the tournament is.... well... Without arguing the "historic" and the consistency with the 2025 Masters Tournament and other articles about annual Masters tournaments also using the Masters Guide, which would argue WP:OTHERIMAGE (right?), how else would I strongly favor keeping the image? I thought about "delete" if it weren't for consistency with other articles and the guide being over fifty years old. Any other clear way to identify the tournament (as a whole especially)? George Ho (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sporting history is not just results and statistics. The guide - even if not as much as the guides of more recent years - represents the tournament and act as a historical symbol for it, in line with all other years of the tournament. It's common at sport events that the cover of the programme is the same as the official poster of the event. The photo of the winner walking of the last green could well fit besides the last round coverage in the article, but not in the info box, where the programme cover fits. Regards, EEJB (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Tom gymnast.jpeg

I found no information that this photo "was published in the United States between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." — Ирука¹³ 15:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: here is the archive url. Sahaib (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per archive source - indicates active career fell in the period, and was published on USA Gymnastics site with no copyright.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what year photo was published on the USA Gymnastics site. — Ирука¹³ 09:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archived version of the page is from 2021, but clearly the picture was taken in the 50's. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:40, 1 January 2026 (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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rasputin (Turisas).jpg

Cover art of subsequent version by another band unneeded to contextually signify the already previously recorded hit song. Furthermore, critical commentary inadequate to justify usage of this cover art. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Critical commentary adequate enough to separate out cover into separate article, so warrants including image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm leaning toward "removing" it from the article. The section's text suggests the remix is somewhat popular, but the next section, Majestic, provides very detailed metrics in table format that can be compared with the original song. Yes, the remix is less popular on the charts, but its sales are only slightly lower. — Ирука¹³ 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow submarine songtrack.jpg

This album cover consists of the submarine from the PD cover of the 1969 album Yellow Submarine, simple text, and a blue gradient. It is likely too simple to attract copyright protection and should thus be transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:White album front2.jpg

The photographs were included on the fold of the original 1968 double album in both the UK and the US (see both original UK release and original US release on Discogs). The 1968 US release did not contain a copyright notice and was published within 30 days of publication in the UK, so the photographs are in the public domain per {{PD-US-no notice}} and ‹The template Template link interwiki is being considered for merging.› {{Simultaneous US publication}}. Thus, this album cover should be transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC) (edited 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PSY single covers

These YG Entertainment single covers were published before October 25, 2013. Ergo, Ticket:2013102510001373 should apply; and, they should be relicensed as CC BY 2.0 and transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please refer to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg and Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket:2013102510001373. There is no consensus yet on accepting this VRT ticket. -Namoroka (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that there was no consensus for covers released after October 25, 2013; while, those released on or before that date are definitely covered by the ticket. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Church of the Creator.svg

Non free file, supposedly used for identification at the top of the article, but is not. It is redundant to the emblem, which is already being used on the article. This is simply decoration and violates the NFCC rule to not use more non free media than necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA The flag seems like a very important symbol in the context of this topic. Originally, I wanted to include it in the infobox, but it required a long description that cluttered the infobox, so I created an emblem. I don't see a problem with including two symbols in the article, but if you think it's untenable, remove the emblem and keep the flag, which already has the emblem. Do it however you like to make it readable. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and use flag instead of emblem as primary image. I added in a draft and think it looks just fine.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me as long as we are only using one file for identification. I don’t think the caption is overly long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribute collage to MLPFIM.png

Fails NFCC#8 - Not critical to the understanding of the article Art of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom.
Fails NFCC#1 - Could be replaced by a freely licensed work of fan art, of which I am sure there are some out there.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there must be at least one brony willing to post something to Commons. :)

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Widgetkid: There is plenty of MLP fan art uploaded to Commons, but none of them are close to the quality of the current image in both passion and dedication that explains why the article is notable to begin with. For example, I doubt that this work of fan art that is currently already being used on a few articles would be considered on the same level as the one being nominated for deletion, and replacing the current image with something of that caliber would only cause the reader to wonder why this article would be considered notable. –G M 07:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Respectfully, I very much disagree. This is one of the most celebrated and elaborate works of fan art the brony fandom has ever created, so it would be remiss to use a freely licensed work of fan art that doesn't truly represent the passion and dedication of the fandom. It is currently the ninth-most upvoted image on Derpibooru and I do not believe this image is replaceable or non-critical to the understanding of the article, as it demonstrates just how passionate and dedicated the fandom is; the whole reason this article is notable to begin with is because it has attracted a large amount of academic analysis due to the passion and dedication of the show's fans. –GM 07:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @GregariousMadness, if this work is an essential representation, then it should be discussed in the article.
⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 07:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the image can be replaced with any other free image not discussed in the article. — Ирука¹³ 09:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this specific image isn't required. GregariousMadness I advise you to more thoroughly go over the guidelines for non-free content. On Derpy Hooves you uploaded 4 non-free images and on mlp you have uploaded 5 (technically 4) non-free images. That clearly goes against NFCC 3. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Derpy Hooves article relevant in this discussion? Every single one of the non-free images used in that article is explicitly discussed in the article itself. –G M 19:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

File:Puttin' On the Ritz US sheet music circa 1930.png

I thought about transferring this cover art to Commons. Nonetheless, actually, dunno when this sheet music was exactly published. I checked one of eBay listings (link), and I see the sheet music being "made in U.S.A."... or maybe it is intended for the song itself, whose copyright has expired today. George Ho (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, as it was published before January 1, 1931.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons: If it was published in the US in 1930, is in the PD. Fma12 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selbstverteidigung logo.png

Non-free logo (1, 2) must be marked accordingly or deleted. — Ирука¹³ 08:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilsudski carricature by Szwajcer.PNG

The article mentions three earlier carricatures - from 1918 and 1928, and 1928. They are already in the public domain in the United States (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука¹³ 13:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. This is the only caricature mentioned in the text. I have added refs and clarifications. Having a caricature is important to illustrate that Piłsudski, despite being a dictator, tolerated this kind of dissent. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't read the text carefully. However, the article doesn't mention a specific author of the caricature, so any free one could have been used. I found more than five of them, three of them on Commons.

I found the source of this image and changed the license. I don't mind if any participant closes the nomination. — Ирука¹³ 11:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabriele Ferzetti.jpg

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. — Ирука¹³ 16:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kantzow.gif

There is no evidence that this image was published before 1931. — Ирука¹³ 17:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady anne.jpg

I see no reason to believe that this image is in the public domain. — Ирука¹³ 17:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dalhousie Tigers Logo.png

Former logo of a Canadian athletics team with no significative or historic relevance. Doesn't significantly contribute to article contents. The current Tigers logo is placed on the infobox. Fma12 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since old logo not discussed in article and is a second non-free image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

File:Blythe Loves The Littlest Pet Shop dolls.jpg

Doesn't significantly contribute to article contents, where there is already a nfcc image (file:Blythe_doll-en.jpg) on it. The company has launched several doll lines so to include all of them would infringe NFCC criteria. One depiction is enough for this article. Fma12 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since minimal discussion of toy line is primary sourced (e.g. Hasbro), so not independently significantly covered, so doesn't warrant second non-free image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Powers Collection Video Ad.jpg

Promotional image for an action figure line. There is already a nfcc image at the article (file:Superpowersad.jpeg) which focuses on the toys better. Fma12 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an ad for a figure line. Rockfang (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not related to the topic, the image is out of scope. Fma12 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The image is related to the topic of the article. Rockfang (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three nfcc images (four, if we count the logo at the infobox) are too many. Fma12 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the four images were all depicting roughly the same thing, I'd probably agree. I don't believe they are. I could understand if the image of the foreign made figures was removed though. You might even be able to crop out the logo on the Series One image since the logo is already in the infobox. Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only image that represents the topic adequately is File:Superpowersad.jpeg. The rest (with the exception of the logo on infobox) fails WP:Nfcc #3 and do not provide meaningful additional information to justify keeping them there. Fma12 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep File:Superpowersad.jpeg instead.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super-powers-collection-riddler-captain-ray-abominable-snowman-500x.jpg

File:Super-powers-collection-riddler-captain-ray-abominable-snowman-500x.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Depicts some secondary villains for a toy line which has a huge number of figures. The article has a nfcc image (file:Superpowersad.jpeg) which depicts the main subject better. Fma12 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep File:Superpowersad.jpeg instead.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. File:Superpowersad.jpeg is the only image that should be kept. Fma12 (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

File:Eric Pollard (1986–2016).jpg

The purpose claim this "image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject" but that is false as primary visual identification is being provided in the infobox by File:Eric Pollard.jpg. Additionally, there is claim that this collage of images is needed to illustrate the longevity of the character, but there is no sourced critical commentary about the appearance of the character over the time. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Whpq. Analysis looks spot-on.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Eric Pollard is Emmerdale's longest serving character. Such as Ian Beale portrayed by Adam Woodyatt in EastEnders, is their longest serving character. Having been portrayed by the actor since 1985 respectively. Also on the Ian Beale article, there is also a decade image very like this one on that article. There also appears to be no issues there regarding the Ian Beale article. RyTellyFan91 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your response here really doesn't address the issues raised in the nomination. That the Ian Beale article also does this has no bearing on this discussion. But in any event, its usage also does not meet the on-free content criteria and I have made a separate nomination for it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alas Pilipinas logo.png

Remove from alla articles except Philippines women's national volleyball team and Philippines men's national volleyball team per WP:NFC#UUI17. I've repeatedly removed FURs from the file page only to see them added again. Jonteemil (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as proposed, per WP:NFC#UUI17

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all volleyball teams including the beach and sitting volleyball team are called Alas Pilipinas by the federation. It's just appropriate to use the logo for all articles under the Philippine volleyball team program under the PNVF, which has a logo of its own. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All child entities do use the Alas Pilipinas logo, the sitting volleyball team literally wears tshirts with the Alas Pilipinas logo on it as per PNVF's Instagram account. The same goes for the beach volleyball source. Again the federation (the parent organization) use a different logo. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If these teams are children of Philippines men's national volleyball team...

... and this team is a child of Philippines women's national volleyball team...

Philippines women's national beach volleyball team

then WP:NFC#UUI17 applies and the logo should not be used for the child teams.

If not, meaning they are equal/separate/sibling teams, then using the logo for all 5 teams seems fine.

Thoughts, @Jonteemil? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 21:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are definitely separate teams of equal status under the PNVF unlike say youth teams of regular volleyball. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JJMC89, what rule applies here? Jonteemil (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 09:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulsa Roughnecks FC logo.svg

Former logo that doesn't significantly contribute to article contents. The article has already a nfcc image of the current logo (File:FC Tulsa logo.svg) on infobox. Fma12 (talk) 10:30, 4 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]

File:Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, p 1 of script.jpg

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

Criterion 1, because the file is replaceable by text, . . . , which would serve the same encyclopedic purposes
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding — Ирука¹³ 12:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't do anything to help the article. Seems like decoration.
⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hefazat press release, 4 August 2025.jpg

This is not a "simple image" and should be labeled accordingly or deleted. — Ирука¹³ 12:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - The logo is something that could be copyrighted, so would need more info about it.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority logo.png

Too complicated to be PD UK; should be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — Ирука¹³ 12:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File is simple geometry and text and does not fall under the author’s own intellectual creation test that has been in force on Commons since December 2024 following THJ v Sheridan (see COM:TOO UK). The file is already transferred to Commons, however (has been since 27 December), and so I would support deletion here per F8. Note my listing on requests for undeletion to undelete the revisions for transfer to Commons. Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iwan Salomon.jpg

If this photograph was published in 1931, then {{PD-old-100}} can not apply. Plus, the year of publication would mean this is still copyrighted in the United States due to c:COM:URAA. If no freely licensed image of this individual exists, it can be converted to fair use. ✗plicit 13:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piercetheorganist-userbar.png

Contains a Confederate flag and is of no conceivable use to Wikipedia. As one can expect, the creator was indeffed for calling a BLP a racial slur. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. - Only good Nazi is a dead one!

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braga logo.png

All of the pages which use this logo are child entities of S.C. Braga, which uses File:S.C. Braga logo.svg, hence this version can be deleted per WP:NFC#UUI17 as it's the same logo, just in another file format. 44 Gabriel (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace, then delete. - Doesn't seem like this needs discussion. Just replace with the .svg version and have .png speedily deleted.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 05:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Furby.jpg

Doesn't significantly contribute to article contents, where there is already a nfcc image (this) on it. The company has launched several toy lines so to include all of them would infringe NFCC criteria. One depiction is enough for this article. Fma12 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant sourced commentary to support the use of this image. The stated purpose of visual identification is already available tih File:Furby, a McDonaldsToy circa 2001, with bright blue coat.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Redundant

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

File:The post-merger pledge pin of Phi Mu Gamma professional sorority.jpeg

This photo of three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, the design of the object is in the public domain and foto is non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one (example). — Ирука¹³ 11:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ian Beale (1985–2015).jpg

The purpose for this non-free image is claimed to serve "as the primary means of visual identification of the subject", but that is false. File:Ian Beale.jpg is being used for that purpose in the infobox. This collage is also claimed to illustrate the longevity of this character, but there is no significant sourced commentary about this character's appearance over time. Fails WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per failing 8 & 3a.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ian Beale shooting.png

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary, and as stated in the NFUR, merely "is mentioned in the article". The fact that this character was shot is adequately explained with text. Fails WP:NFCC#1. and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unnecessary to understand article topic. Text does fine.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magnumtomselleck.jpg

Replaceable with either c:File:Tom Selleck filming Magnum P. I., Hawaii, 1984.jpg or c:File:Tom Selleck Kahala Hilton.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replacing with free image.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 06:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liz Lemon promo pic.jpg

Replaceable with c:File:Tina Fey filming "Episode 209" of 30 Rock edited.jpg (already in use at Liz Lemon) per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Hutt City Council Coat of Arms.png

Replaceable with free media File:Upper Hutt coat of arms.svg Traumnovelle (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since very different. Not sure which one is "more correct."

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 07:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its a coat of arms so neither is more correct, one is how the council uses the design but in heraldry any design based on the blazon is correct. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no strong feeling about it being replaced, but I will just note that File:Upper Hutt coat of arms.svg just depicts the shield of the Upper Hutt coat of arms while File:Upper Hutt City Council Coat of Arms.png depicts the full arms with the shield, crest & motto.-Radicuil (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:GenesisKS.jpg

De-PRODded just because the second cover includes different novel name to help with identification. The alternative title is already verified with a source, so I'm unconvinced why omitting this extraneous cover would impact readers' understanding of an entry of the Will Trent novel series (adapted into a TV series) (WP:NFCC#8). George Ho (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

File:Swimsuithistorysign.jpeg

No freedom of panorama for text in the US. Delaware Public Archives would hold the copyright to the underlying work, making this a derivative image of a non-free object. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cast screenshots of Law & Order

Uploaded multiple screenshots of the Law & Order, especially to replace a photo that still has been seen in Getty Images. I've just now uploaded a few more, prompting me to reconsider the above screenshots I'm listing here. I'm now worried about exceeding "minimal number of items" allowed. As figured, an image depicting just one cast change... For a long time, I've wondered why I uploaded the two screenshots other than cast changes and all. I've been also worried about depriving readers from learning about who's who in the series and the context of the series itself. I'd be happy to add more here if necessary. George Ho (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, further note: no objection to deleting these screenshots if no one opposes it. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:L Is for Love (The Loud House) Title Card.png

This title card consists only of simple text/shapes and is thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. License should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today is January 6 2026. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 6 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===January 6===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

v t e Wikipedia community
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.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

December 30

Recent nominations

December 31

January 1

PSY single covers

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

Cast screenshots of Law & Order

Footer