Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	1	38	94	133
TfD	0	11	23	34
MfD	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	4	5	9
RfD	0	6	8	14
AfD	0	0	0	0

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 for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 September 19}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 September 19}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2025 September 19}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

September 10

File:Lockheed-logo Winnie-Mae.png

[edit]

Possibly below TOO Jay Cubby 15:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMO not below TOO PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, the logo was made in 1926 per [1], so PD-US-expired applies. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hauptmannmugshot2.jpg

[edit]

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

They would have had to publish (So it was accessible to the public) it before 1989. Do we have evidence of that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

File:Tannenberg Bold.png

[edit]

Plain & unoriginal text Jay Cubby 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

September 5

File:Koshlands.jpg

[edit]

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

@Explicit: why didn't you just PROD the files? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

File:Metro Observatorio pictogram.svg

[edit]

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

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

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

August 30

File:Isawheragain.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Delete – The German cover art's "irreplaceability" isn't my concern but rather its contextual significance to the song recorded by the Mamas and the Papas, an American band. Well, the American single release (45cat) didn't use a picture sleeve when initially released. However, I'm unconvinced that deleting this German cover art would affect how the song is understood when reading the article. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If it weren't obvious, given the arguments I make below for the Elton John "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" sleeve. Template:Non-free album cover applies to single picture sleeves as clearly as it does album covers. This is an established practice for picture sleeves, album covers, posters, book covers, and so on. Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. Tkbrett (✉) 03:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. We can't be certain for sure. Other FFD discussions have resulted in deletion, sometimes. Even other deletion templates were unchallenged. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFCC#1 and #8. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg

[edit]

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

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

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

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

File:SHPSFlexcard.jpg

[edit]

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

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

August 21

File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg

[edit]

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

Keep. I am pretty certain it is just Arabic text arranged in a triangular shape. The US has a high threshold of originality, particularly for logos composed of text. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not "just Arabic text", just as ASCII art is not just "English text". It definitely involves a considerable degree of creativity, hence copyrightable. --Altenmann >talk 02:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Since nontrivial copyright issues are not for to a J.Random Wikipedian to decide, I suggest consulting Wikimedia lawyers to make their worth. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII characters arranged in a simple triangle (like this) would definitely be below the threshold of originality in the US. If you set aside your snarky, uncivil name-calling of me ("J.Random Wikipedian"? WTF?) and actually took the time to read the Wikimedia Commons page on US threshold of originality, which I deal with every day as a Commons administrator, you might become better informed. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JRW was a generic reference to !voters and I see nothing insulting. If you claim you are not a random Wikipedian, but rather someone special, then why are you so excited? OK, my comparison with ASCII art was not good indeed. Still, there is an art of arabic calligraphy, and, e.g. File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg is much simpler yet labelled non-free, and c:COM:TOO US does not consider this category. --Altenmann >talk 03:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

September 12

File:Sermon on the 'Mount (South Park).jpeg

Image fails and does not conform with WP:NFCC#8 policy. Image is performative only, and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic; its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the nomination statement calls the image "performative", that's really just saying "decorative", and that falls into the fallacy of WP:DECORATIVE. The argument about NFCC#8 is a subjective one, about whether or not the image helps readers' understanding of the page. The screenshot is of something that is discussed significantly in the text of the page, and it shows, beyond what words can readily convey, what the scene looked like. There are lots of ways to draw Satan, and lots of ways to draw Trump, but this is about one particular and distinctive way. Perhaps some readers benefit in their understanding more than others, but NFCC#8 does not set the bar at having to be indispensable for every reader. I can understand how some editors might not like the image, but that's not a policy-based reason to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the part where I nomiated this for not liking it? I'm rather fond of the series, and follow its articles closely - they do a fantastic job at portraying the current administration (the animated image very much portrays the real life situation). Regardless, you've detailed how the image is included solely so that readers can see how the depictions of the characters are animated. I'd say that that is definitely decorative. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured some editors might be influenced by the fact that the content is anti-Trump. I'm glad that you are not such an editor, yourself, and I'm sorry that it sounded to you like I meant that it was you. As for seeing how they were animated, I don't think we would be having this discussion about an image of a work of visual art on a page about that art, where the image shows how the artist portrayed whatever they portrayed. That's not "decorative". Also, it looks like you are badgering here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated a file for deletion, and am interested in discussing the related opinions on how it doesn't violate policy - how is that badgering? (I'd consider this as peak badgering).

However, I'd be curious as to whether the consensus of this discussion initiates a need for all animated series to implement an image of their animation style, if it's deemed necessary so here. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is not performative. It depicts a scene of the episode which cannot be easily replicated in words and which is integral to the story. It adds significantly to the readers' understanding of the topic. Not liking things which is exist is not a satisfactory reason for not including an image, especially as its omission would harm understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the part that it depicts a scene of the episode which cannot be easily replicated in words. Does "Donald Trump in bed with Satan" not satisfactorarily describe this image, as prose that can be added to the plot? What part of this image cannot be replicated in words? -- Alex_21_TALK 02:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image does not lend itself well to description and its use is very appropriate in the context of the article for this episode.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly ask how? -- Alex_21_TALK 02:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thought I already voted on this. Anyway, I think the image isn't decorative as it shows a key frame of the episode that is frequently discussed - Trump and Satan in bed. Variety. I feel like this should be discussed more in depth in the article, but nonetheless, it is relevant commentary on the episode. It does help illustrate how the show depicted Trump, and why he did not like it. Another image alternative is the deepfake/AI/whatever still of Trump in the desert, but I didn't choose that because of BLP concerns (it is rather realistic) and WP:GRATUITOUS.

jolielover♥talk 11:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planetary diet meal.png

A free equivalent could be created that conveys the same information. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the image in question is copyright. It was obtained and used with permission within the report it has been sourced from. There's no evidence that the image is licensed for further use beyond the report its contained within. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete free alternative can easily be created. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlep raid on a roblox schlep tribute game.PNG

Fails WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#8. This file does not significantly contribute to a readers understanding of the subject. There is barely any discussion in the Schlep ban controversy article specifically regarding in-game protests about his ban, let alone this specific one, therefore making this file unjust. λ NegativeMP1 16:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. We can remove and delete it. TheSwagger13 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kylie-maybury.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#8. The main topic of the article is not Kylie Maybury, a person, but the murder of Kylie Maybury, an event. The image in question was not taken at the time of event and it therefore is not illustrative of the topic of the article. Further, using it on wikipedia violates the spirit of WP:VICTIM as well as being a copyright violation because its connection to the event is tenuous.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the file is used in the article about the person that was murdered to illustrate the person, thereby passing WP:NFCC. Nothing about using the file violates WP:VICTIM. Aspects (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, when the event and person are synonymous the media file is justified for the exact same reason as it would be in a biographical article. To identify the subject of the article. This does not violate WP:VICTIM at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Tortured Poets Department The Anthology.png

This cover art depicts a re-release/deluxe edition. While the original cover art received significant coverage and commentary, this version did not. Its omission from the article, does not harm the reader's understanding of the topic. It therefore does not place the replicability, necessity, or fair use implications of WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This file has been previously discussed in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5#File:The Tortured Poets Department The Anthology.png. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TTPD: The Anthology was marketed as a double album, containing an additional second volume with 15 more songs, and hence is not simply a deluxe edition of TTPD. As per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover: "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion."

This cover meets two of these criteria: it is significantly different; it is also widely distributed, since it is the cover used for TTPD: The Anthology on all digital platforms, as well as media coverage and reviews of TTPD: The Anthology. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

September 13

September 14

File:Online Neo-Nazis in Roblox holding Nazi flags.jpg

I am having trouble seeing why text wouldn't be sufficient for this. The article already says "According to a 2022 report by The Weekend Australian, "dozens" of forums exist to show Roblox players how to make Nazi-inspired content without being banned, such as rearranging the colors of the Nazi flag and altering the Swastika", and it does not take much imagination to put a swastika in a blocky environment. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good point, but I only uploaded the image due to how insanely realistic it looked. Usually, it is extremely hard to bypass a Nazi flag on Roblox (let alone an entire accessory), but the image is an example on how realistic online Nazism can get, TheSwagger13 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

File:Nehru tryst with destiny speech.jpg

May be PD-India unless URAA shenanigans contradicts that. Jay Cubby 02:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No URAA shenanigans; clearly PD-India-photo-1958. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nebraska Correctional Center for Women.jpg

Building is still standing and this can be replaced with free media. ^Wiinter_U 03:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saatchi Art logo.svg

Probably below TOO/US. Jay Cubby 13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the images copyright tag and replace it with a public domain tag. It is obviously not above ToO. ^Wiinter_U 15:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg

Should be PD, author died in '54 Jay Cubby 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no visible copyright indication, and the author died over 70 years ago, it will be public domain. ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as it was published between 1930 and 1977* ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mess of publication, however. Jay Cubby 17:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Falling Soldier was first published in the September 23, 1936, issue of the French magazine Vu (below), where it was reproduced with another, similar picture on the same page" FYI —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like quite a historical image, we should check US renewal records first. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: I could find books containing the photograph, but haven't figured out how to work the pre-1979 card catalog yet. Jay Cubby 01:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: it's at [2]; just look at the years 1936+22, 1936+23 and 1936+24. I might do this later. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

File:2025 CS Lombardia Trophy.jpg

This is not “the logo” as the description indicates; this is a full-page color advertisement. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deltarune Cover Art.png

WP:NFCC#1 vio as a free logo (File:Deltarune vector logo.svg) is available. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that using cover art over a logo, even if a free logo is available, is acceptable if that cover art is definitively the games cover and actually serves identification purposes. Deltarune's cover is not really a cover. Different artwork is used for different purposes and this is one of many different covers for the game. Therefore, the logo suffices. Delete. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

File:Blythe doll-en.jpg

Fails NFCC #1. Images under a non-free license although there are a bunch of similar files (via OTRS permission) on Commons (category). After the images were removed, the uploader insisted on placing them again. Fma12 (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) I will change my vote if the DR discussion I made just now results in "kept". --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blythe Loves The Littlest Pet Shop dolls.jpg

Same as above Fma12 (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images of toys are derivative works and rights are held by the rights holder to the toy, not just the photographer, see [3]. So images of toys need a free use rationale. Siawase (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. The discusión is about the two non free imagen uploaded by you that fail nfcc#1. Why should they be placed instead of any of the free use similar images available? Fma12 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the images on commons of toys are not actually free and should be/will be deleted from commons. Siawase (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, but if there are free images available on commons, what is your need to add those non free photos? Could You explain that, considering that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" according to WP:NFCC? Fma12 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know the images of toys on commons are not free but you keep calling them free? Sorry, but I don't follow. Siawase (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commons hosts free images of toys (with permission licenses). Just make a search yourself. Fma12 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they have permission from the photographer, not the rights holder of the toys themselves, that's the problem with derivative works. If you look at the history of Blythe (doll) you can see that the images of Blythe dolls on commons have been deleted several times before:[4] Siawase (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant since this discusión started: why do You insist on uploading non-free images of the dolls when there are similar free-use images on Commons? Anda You haven't answered that question yet. The NFCC images are absolutely unnecesary in this case Fma12 (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images that were deleted were images of Blythe dolls on commons that you keep calling free, but that are in fact not free because they are derivative. The images I have uploaded here on en wiki with a free use rationale were not deleted because they are within policy. Siawase (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an image has a license of free use (OTRS permission in this case) then it has no restriction of use. The copyrighted images You uploaded are unnecesary per nfcc#1. And they should be removed. All toys are derivative works (I never said the contrary) but several have a propper license that allows their use un any project with no need of a fair use tag. That's why I opened this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons have permission from the photographer, who does not have the rights to give away for the underlying work it was derived from. Siawase (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. As I have left my point of view clear enough, from now on I'll let an admin decide. Fma12 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) I will change my vote if the DR discussion I made just now results in "kept". --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dark Side of the Moon.png

Per FFD discussion on the JPEG version (File:The Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg), the PNG version should not require a non-free rationale but rather should have previous revisions undeleted. The closing admin of that previous discussion thought otherwise (discussion). Didn't feel like re-nominating the PNG version... the third time. Before the JPEG version was taken to FFD, the previous FFD discussions ended with "no consensus", defaulting to "non-free". George Ho (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

File:Sharon ageila.JPG

Doubts of this being a work of the US Federal Government were raised on the file's talk page 17 years ago, but were never addressed. This NPR article shows an uncropped and unwashed out version of this photograph credited to David Rubinger for Getty Images. If this attribution is correct, then there is no evidence of a free license. ✗plicit 00:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spratly Island Flag PHI.jpg

Apparently, not a legitimate flag. It is an artwork by Arthur Iglesias. There is no evidence that either the Philippine government or the Armed Forces of the Philippines recognized this flag as the co-official flag for either Kalayaan, Palawan or the Western Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original creation by Iglesias with no official use. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spratly Island flag other.jpg

Likely fictional. The only major use is in this blog post, but it isn't recognized by the Philippine government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely a proposal by the blog owner or someone else. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kanye West and Dave Blunts.jpeg

Subject is still alive so a free photo can still be made. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amelia Simmons.png

It appears that this image is falsely labelled as Amelia Simmons. An identical image appears in the book "Two Centuries of Costume in America", and is labelled as Lady Catharina Howard, 1640. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alternatively, rename and move to commons for being public domain. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

File:File name.ext

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

The result of the discussion was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. 2603:8083:DB40:C9:E0B8:BE41:45B8:A4D1 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Screen capture of Joe Flanigan in 'Metascifi', a 2015 public artwork by Martin Firrell.jpg

Artwork derived probably from other non-free sources depicting actor Joe Flanigan, despite the artwork's copyright status. George Ho (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:TooManyWalls.jpg

This cover artwork was used only for promotional reasons in the United States--it was never released on CD there, so this artwork would not be recognized by many people. In other words, the image provides very little contextual significance (NFCC#8). The Australian artwork is similar but features a blue border, so this image won't suffice as a description of that region's artwork. Considering the commercial UK artwork is now in the article, the usage of this image seems to be excessive (WP:NFCC#3a). ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is September 19 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 September 19 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===September 19===" 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

September 12

Recent nominations

September 13

September 14

September 15

September 16

September 17

September 18

September 19

Footer