Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Files for deletion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 1 61 90 152
TfD 0 0 0 12 12
MfD 0 0 6 9 15
FfD 0 0 40 12 52
AfD 0 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.

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

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

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

What not to list here

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{ db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{ subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{ db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ Ffd|log=2021 November 29}} 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=2021 November 29}} 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=2021 November 29}} 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 1928, not 1922.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{ PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

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

November 20

File:Roll tide wiki.ogg

[ ]

File:Roll tide wiki.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in " Crimson Tide (film)" and " Hans Zimmer" articles. I doubt that the sample is necessary for each article, especially to understand the instrumental "Roll Tide" as one of Zimmer's "personal favorites" and "heavy use of synthesizers in place of traditional orchestral instruments". Furthermore, description about the track in each article is very brief. George Ho ( talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC); edited, 22:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded this. It could survive if the use was pruned back to one article, " Crimson Tide (film)" and a bit more detail given about it. Otherwise there won't be many audio clips left.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Why would deleting the only audio clip remaining in the film article diminish the understanding of the film (and its soundtrack and film score)? Hearing the sample, even as identity of the instrumental, I couldn't tell whether it indicates the instrumental's significance. Even improvements still wouldn't help support the sample, would it? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I've always assumed that any audio clips that I have uploaded have some use, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in doing it. The problem is that some people set a stricter NFCC benchmark than others. I am strict about not having non-free audio clips used in more than one article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:God Help the Outcasts scene.png

[ ]

File:God Help the Outcasts scene.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coin945 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot was taken from Disney film adaptation of Hunchback of Notre Dame. The details about the scene is described in the caption ( diff), but the light shining through the glass window... I'm unsure whether the image is needed to understand the song and the whole scene easily described (to me) by text. I'm also unsure whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. George Ho ( talk) 23:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - as an iconic frame from the song in it's original use, the animated film, that it meets WP:NFCC#8. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

November 18

Samples of tracks from Izitso

[ ]

File:Cat Stevens - (Remember the Days of the) Old Schoolyard.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jagged 85 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Cat Stevens - Was Dog A Doughnut.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jagged 85 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The samples I'm listing are used in both articles " Izitso" and " Cat Stevens". They are de-PRODded per assumption that critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the samples, like 'It was an early example of synthpop and his last top 40 hit single of the 1970s' and 'It was one of the first examples of electro, or techno-pop', helping them meet WP:NFCC#8. However, those lines taken from the Cat Stevens article (to me) would be understood already without the samples. Moreover, description about the songs is very brief.

Furthermore, the samples are also used at the "Personnel" section of the album article, but there's not enough support there. Additionally, each sample exceeds the 10%-limit set up by MOS:SAMPLE: "Old Schoolyard", 13~14 seconds longer; "Doughnut", five to six seconds longer. I don't know which segment of each song to use (for better understanding), and I don't know whether the same segments are significant for such understanding. George Ho ( talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep both are used and commented on in Cat Stevens. It was an early example of synthpop and his last top 40 hit single of the 1970s and It was one of the first examples of electro, or techno-pop is valid commentary, and a 30 second sample is a minimal use fully in line with our best practices. 10% or 30 seconds is a rule of thumb, not immutable law. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    You're quoting captions of the samples from Cat Stevens#Later recordings ( diff), aren't ya? "Old Schoolyard" lasts two minutes and 44 seconds (i.e. 164 seconds). I trimmed the sample, making sure it's no more than 16.4 seconds (i.e. 10%), and downgraded the audio. Furthermore, I think you omitted, if not overlooked, what MOS:SAMPLE said: whichever is shorter. "Was Dog a Doughnut?" is an instrumental lasting four minutes and 15 seconds (i.e. 255 seconds). I trimmed that as well, making sure it's no more than 25.5 seconds (i.e. 10%). Still, an instrumental? Furthermore, there are other samples used in the musician article, but I've not yet nominated them at this time. George Ho ( talk) 02:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    Almost forgot: the same captions are also seen in Izitso#Personnel ( diff). -- George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC); edited, 09:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but to prevent arguments about multiple use, they are more on topic at Izitso than Cat Stevens, so a single use at Izitso is recommended.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

November 15

File:Katherine Jenkins - Bring Me to Life.jpg

[ ]

File:Katherine Jenkins - Bring Me to Life.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ShaneFilaner ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Katherine Jenkins version charted modestly (or worse) in Germany and the UK. Despite the content length about the version, the cover art wouldn't improve understanding of the song. Even if the cover art would, deleting the cover art still wouldn't affect how the song is understood significantly and contextually. George Ho ( talk) 21:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November 13

File:Anarchy in the UK.ogg

[ ]

File:Anarchy in the UK.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have concerns about the sample's compliance with WP:NFCC#8 while currently used in Anarchy in the U.K., Punk rock (former FA), and Sex Pistols (still FA). I recently trimmed out seven seconds and downgraded the sample quality. Even then my concerns, especially about critical commentary's sufficiency to support the sample, still haven't been eased. George Ho ( talk) 09:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep There is more than enough critical commentary -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    In which articles? George Ho ( talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    In the above, and in hundreds of books and thousands of music mag editions. Ceoil ( talk) 13:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep in the song article since there is enough critical commentary there to justify its inclusion. Aspects ( talk) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:The Exploited Punks not dead.ogg

[ ]

File:The Exploited Punks not dead.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Punk rock and The Exploited, I'm unsure whether the sample is supported by critical commentary and meets WP:NFCC#8 in each article, even when trimming out 20 seconds to comply with MOS:SAMPLE. George Ho ( talk) 10:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Perhaqlps the definitive Oi! track, a style discussed extensively in the Punk article, while how can you have an article on the The Exploited with out a file sampeling their style, which is explained in detail in the text. To note, the people who would be most upset by the Exploited file being removed from the Punk article would be the members of the Exploited. So zero risk here. Ceoil ( talk) 12:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Still, the sample exceeds 10%-requirement because the song lasts one minute and 51 seconds. I don't know which segment to use. Also, the bit rate needs to be downgraded. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The 10% is a rule of thumb and a hard and fast rule -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Ceoil and Guerillero: I resampled a portion and trimmed out at least 20 seconds. I downgraded the sample rate a little bit. I wonder either 32 kHz (which the current revision uses) or 22 kHz is the right sample rate. Furthermore, I wonder whether the portion is good enough. George Ho ( talk) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Basshunter – Please Don't Go.jpg

[ ]

File:Basshunter – Please Don't Go.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Holiday56 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Basshunter version of " Please Don't Go" did well in Sweden but so-so (or worse) in Slovakia. Even with chart performances, and even as identification of the release, I'm unsure whether this cover art complies with WP:NFCC#8, is necessary, and is too significant (in context) and valuable to be deleted. The song was originally a late-1970s ballad hit, but later then it became a 1990s dance hit... twice. Furthermore, the Basshunter version is another dance version, and I'm unsure whether it has made much significant impact as prior versions. George Ho ( talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November 12

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg

[ ]

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JG66 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. George Harrison and Bob Dylan rehearsed " If Not for You" before a concert. The text sufficiently explains this, a non-free screenshot of the rehearsal is not justified under policy. plicit 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep, as the uploader. I can't see how this violates WP:NFCC#1 when a free alternative does not exist and certainly can't be created now, because one of the subjects (George Harrison) died 20 years ago.
With regard to WP:NFCC#8, I don't believe the text does sufficiently convey the significance of the rehearsal image. Several commentators cited in the article focus on the visual aspect, which only came to light with the release of the footage in 2005, not just the fact (which obviously could be explained in words alone), and how that aspect reflects the depth of the Harrison–Dylan connection. Jack Whatley of Far Out Magazine refers to subtle glances and body language cues, which can't be conveyed fully in words. David Fricke of Rolling Stone (whose comments I've added just recently) talks about the song becoming a statement on Harrison and Dylan's friendship, given they perform it together with such intimacy.
Less directly, it also supports other themes in the article: "If Not for You" was the most popular song on New Morning and a concert tour was expected to follow up and complete Dylan's creative comeback. He didn't want to return to the stage, as it turned out, but he did make an exception for Harrison and his Concert for Bangladesh project. Another theme, in the section on Harrison's 1970 recording, is how "If Not for You" and other Dylan-associated songs on the All Things Must Pass album ensured Dylan had a felt-but-not-visible "presence" on Harrison's debut album as a solo artist. Dylan's arrival at the Madison Square Garden rehearsal stage is the realisation of that "presence" (and a note in the section where the image appears explains the emotional significance of this moment).
On a more general note, I'm confused how there can be an issue with including the Harrison–Dylan image, given that secondary sources recognise its significance, when I raised images here for discussion that are completely ignored in their relevant articles and they were similarly ignored in terms of engagement from Ffd editors, back in May. (I'm talking about the non-free images that are still used at the top of Break-up of the Beatles and The Beach Boys' 1968 US tour with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) Yes, other stuff exists, but I try to be very mindful about including non-free media (which was the reason for seeking some guidance from outsiders about the other files), and I don't see a problem with this 1971 rehearsal image. JG66 ( talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I appreciate the depiction of Dylan and Harrison performing the song at a live concert. However, I merely see two singers doing the duet. Apparently, to me, the image's purpose would be more about identifying merely Dylan and/or Harrison than displaying what would be considered significant to the song itself and to a specific version. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the image improves understanding of what can be already understood without this image. In other words, presumably, average readers can understand what the "Live performances" section says without the image around. Right? George Ho ( talk) 02:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, I think it meets the standard because of the comments of David Fricke and Jack Whatley. The latter writes about "some shared moments and some body language cues", something the reader appreciates more deeply through actually seeing the image. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:1.crop.jpg

[ ]

File:1.crop.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DigitalIceAge ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1. There are currently two Packard Bell PB286LP laptops on eBay (US) for $200-250. Buy one of those, ask the sellers to mail their photos (which they already took for the auction anyway) to WP:VRT, find another enthusiast and ask them to take a picture, find a museum that has it on display and snap a pic there, etc etc. The rationale given for NFCC#1 ("The only other alternative images at this point in time are also copyrighted works, from collectors and sellers.") is imho not valid. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 10:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep Buy one of those I'm not above doing that, I've taken some photos of computers in my collection for Wikipedia, but $200+ is simply out of my price range. ask the sellers to mail their photos etc. etc. As someone with a lot of experience dealing with eBay sellers, any private message that doesn't invoke a dollar sign somewhere is usually ignored. find another enthusiast and ask them to take a picture The only two people on vcfed.org who have it haven't logged into the site in quite a while. find a museum that has it on display and snap a pic there Can't find any museum who has one in their inventory.
I'll try improving the rationale, and I pinky promise if I somehow happen to find one of these in the wild I'll snap a CC picture, but I don't think a grainy black-and-white photo is draining Acer's bottom line. DigitalIceAge ( talk) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ DigitalIceAge: Nice work with the photos. I like how you blanked the background, I sometimes do that too, looks nice and clean. The machine costing $200+ isn't sufficient to satisfy NFCC#1. It isn't a dead person or an object that doesn't exist anymore. The photo in question could be {{ PD-US-1989}} if it was originally published in the US by Packard Bell before March 1989 without a copyright notice or registration, for example in a magazine or newspaper ad or leaflet. The January 1989 InfoWorld review doesn't count because that's not published by Packard Bell. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete As evidenced from the Ebay search, copies of the item apparently still exist. The image therefore fails WP:NFC#UUI §1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

November 7

File:Madonna - live to tell.ogg

[ ]

File:Madonna - live to tell.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If critical commentary of Live to Tell is adequate enough to comply with WP:NFCC#8, then the sample can stay at the song article. However, I'm unsure whether the same is true for that of the Madonna article. If not, then remove the sample from the parent entertainer/musician/singer article. George Ho ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep For both Madonna files up for discussion, the reader needs to know how the voice of the artist sounds like, what is the sound of the artist, etc. Both songs are used and discussed in the context of showing Madonna's reinvention (highly notable) and different vocal styling, as her voice changed after "Evita." Both samples have sources discussing the importance of those two tracks in the context of Madonna's career. Alecsdaniel ( talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Madonna - ray of light.ogg

[ ]

File:Madonna - ray of light.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly meets WP:NFCC#8 when used in Ray of Light (song), whose critical commentary may be sufficient enough to support the sample. However, unsure whether the same is true when used in the Madonna article. Default to removing the sample from Madonna unless stand corrected. George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep For both Madonna files up for discussion, the reader needs to know how the voice of the artist sounds like, what is the sound of the artist, etc. Both songs are used and discussed in the context of showing Madonna's reinvention (highly notable) and different vocal styling, as her voice changed after "Evita." Both samples have sources discussing the importance of those two tracks in the context of Madonna's career. Alecsdaniel ( talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

November 5

File:Oh Bondage Up Yours.ogg

[ ]

File:Oh Bondage Up Yours.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Oh Bondage Up Yours! for infobox and Punk rock (now former FA) for its "1977–1978: Second wave" section. I'm not confident about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8 in those articles. Hearing the sample, either the critical commentary in the song article is insufficient to support the sample, or critical commentary can be already understood without it. Furthermore, the genre article's description about the song other than the caption is brief and insufficient enough to support the sample. I'm unsure whether the caption can help justify the use of the sample anymore.

Another criterion I'm concerned about is WP:NFCC#3a. Currently, the genre article uses several more samples, which may or may not be necessary. George Ho ( talk) 07:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep There is enough critical commentary in the song's article to justify its use there. Aspects ( talk) 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

October 28

File:Bonzo Goes To Bitburg.ogg

[ ]

File:Bonzo Goes To Bitburg.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DocKino ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Bonzo Goes to Bitburg and Ramones. Default to deciding for now that, since I'm uncertain, the sample neither is supported by critical commentary in each article nor meets WP:NFCC#8. George Ho ( talk) 23:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the sample is six or seven seconds longer than what MOS:SAMPLE usually wants a sample to cover. But even trimming down the sample wouldn't overcome its potential failure with the "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho ( talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep in the song article since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion there. Aspects ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

October 27

File:Agnes Husband's Burgess Ticket.jpg

[ ]

File:Agnes Husband's Burgess Ticket.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaybeesquared ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Isn't this a government work and thus {{ PD-UKGov}}? Stefan2 ( talk) 13:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, I looked back at my original request for licence to use, my correspondence re the archived document which was on public display by the owner, Dundee City Archive and Record Centre.(with Sarah Aitken, Assistant Archivist, who was the one who took the photograph and thus the image author?) shows that the archives clearly granted permission for me to upload it for its use in the Wikipedia article Agnes Husband as they could not upload to Wikipedia direct and also said it would go to Dundee Archives flickr.
This image was for the very first article I created for Wikipedia and may have chosen the wrong licence type.
However as Dundee (or other UK cities) are not listed under Crown Copyright bodies {{ PD-UKGov}} may not apply.
Having a look at the PD types it may be covered by {{ PD-1996}} as it was publicly created in 1926.
Alternatively I can ask the archivist to add it to the Dundee Archives flickr account now for PD use.
Please advise. Kaybeesquared ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Hm. I have asked about PD-UKGov at c:COM:VPC#Crown copyright and works by cities.
{{ PD-1996}} only applies if the work was in the public domain in the UK in 1996. If the work is {{ PD-UKGov}}, then PD-1996 also applies. If PD-UKGov doesn't apply, then PD-1996 doesn't apply either.
At the very least, the work becomes {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} next year. I have added some parser functions which will automatically remove the fair use rationale and replace the copyright tag next year. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that response, as I had thought that would be the best way once I read a bit more, and was going to do this manually at that time.
Please also kindly let me know the outcome of PD-UKGov discussions as a lot of articles I work on have images in the public ownership of city authorities in the UK and responses to requests vary!
Thanks Kaybeesquared ( talk) 17:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The file page tells us that "this image is subject to copyright", and "permission to use in this specific article was given by the Assistant Archivist Dundee City Archives". The former is unsubstantiated (who is the creator? If none is named, then it is likely PD as an anonymous work more than 70 years old). The latter is irrelevant, unless Dundee City Archives are claiming to be the copyright holder. If so, on what basis? Furthermore, if we were reliant on such permission, the uploaders say-so would not be sufficent; we would require confirmation from the Archivist via VRS (formerly OTRS).

Finally, despite the uploader saying "This image has not been reduced as it is necessary to see the heraldic detail", the image has been resized - by a bot - from 287KB to 23KB, rending it virtually useless for this stated purpose. If it is a PD image, the original as uploaded should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, so for clarification on the first point Dundee City Archives hold the original which was issued for Agnes Husband by Dundee City (so there is no doubt they are the document copyright owner, and the photo image of the original document was taken by their assistant archivist in the course of her work, so she would be the author of that image, and gave permission for it to be uploaded.
On the second point, as explained earlier this was the first article, first image I had used on wikipedia and so forgive me if I did not feel able to challenge bot-edit of the size of the image after it changed it.
I can attempt to do that (perhaps): do agree such a document could/should/will be considered PD material.
Thanks Kaybeesquared ( talk) 11:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Since the text can't be read, it's unknown if an author is indicated on the image itself. At the very least, the image is currently {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}, meaning unfree in the United States, assuming it's not PD-UKGov. I suggest keeping the image as-is for now and undeleting the high-resolution copy and reverting on 1 January next year. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons doesn't recognise any copyright in a reproduction of a 2D work (i.e. the assistant curator's photograph). You say "there is no doubt they are the document copyright owner", and that may be, but if the creator (the designer, if you like) died more than 70 years ago, or is not known, then the work is out of copyright. We need clarity on that point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that point, I am glad to have that clarified, if it is a general point (no copyright in photo of a 2D work) it is very helpful - can you point me to the WP on that ? Still interested in Crown Copyright question being clarified as well. Re the designer, or the creator (if it was as I suspect, hand drawn) as he/she had made it in 1926 then it is necessarily so! (made before the date awarded i.e. before 4 March 1926) [1] so now I would like to upload the high res version again and choose the right licence - can you confirm which one ? - to see the detail. Thanks for your help to someone still learning the complexities of permissions for images. Kaybeesquared ( talk) 11:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Bust of Ferdinand Marcos.jpg

[ ]

File:Bust of Ferdinand Marcos.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:FREER. This is listed as cc-by-nc on Flickr. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines and the bust is already destroyed so a free alternative is not possible. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Boken till dig.jpg

[ ]

File:Boken till dig.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lsjoberg ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boken till dig.jpg. If unfree, it could probably be used under the WP:NFCC policy. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free book cover and add a fair use. Salavat ( talk) 06:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Vase painting of women engaged in wool-working.jpeg

[ ]

File:Vase painting of women engaged in wool-working.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Camsara99 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vase painting of women engaged in wool-working.jpeg. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, per my comment in the commons deletion discussion. The photo is CC-0; the vase itself is long out of copyright. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

File:BCNA Logo.jpg

[ ]

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

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BCNA Logo.jpg. I propose re-tagging it as {{ non-free logo}}. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I think this is legit as I did find a Laura Crowden who worked at the organization in question. [1] However, we generally require VRT permission for corporate works. @ Lauracrowden: Please see c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and follow the instructions there. Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat ( talk) 06:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

October 26

Embraer concept art

[ ]

File:Embraer turboprop concept.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Embraer 2021 turboprop concept.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Multiple concept art images of possible future aircraft. The removal of these images does not detract from a reader's understanding of Embraer. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your scrutiny. Would it pass NFCC#8 if it would be in their own article, eg Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport and Embraer next-generation turboprop?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 04:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)please ping me when replying, I don't follow this page, thanks.
Done.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Marc Lacoste: One non-free image in the infobox would be okay for an article about the planned aircraft. Two (or more), without greater justification as to why each must be in the article would not meet WP:NFCC#3a. As to whether the articles on the concept places meet notability is outside the scope of FFD. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not gratuitous, there is a major configuration evolution between both concepts, with the engines migrating from the wing to aft pylons, and it's much easier to comprehend with a picture than with words only, with a finer comprehension too. For example, the Boeing_737#Initial_design had the opposite evolution, with the engines at the tail initially, moved to the wings as it's lighter, a bold choice.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 04:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) thanks for the ping
The use of both images is not needed. The one image can show that the engines are now at the back and the lack of an image with the engines on the wings does not impair a reader's understanding of the article in any significant way. -- Whpq ( talk) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
We disagree. How about following this discussion on the more relevant Talk:Embraer next-generation turboprop?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:@ Marc Lacoste: Yes, we disagree, but this is the correct venue for the discussion. Lets wait for others to weigh in. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:@ Whpq: As it's an interest for aviation editors, can I offer them to participate to this discussion while avoiding WP:CANVASS ? thanks-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 15:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Marc Lacoste: I see no issue with a neutrally worded message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Whpq: Done. If you think it's not neutral, please correct. Thanks.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The initial wing mounted design (File:Embraer turboprop concept.jpeg) appears conventional and therefore probably does not need an image. The aft-mounted engines configuration (File:Embraer 2021 turboprop concept.jpeg) and the short takeoff design (File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.png) are different enough to need the images to illustrate though more so for the former. -Fnlayson ( talk) 06:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

October 25

File:Go All the Way.ogg

[ ]

File:Go All the Way.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at power pop genre article. I'm uncertain whether the sample of Go All the Way (song) complies with WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, I think the song article doesn't have much commentary to support the sample. I appreciate the sample trying to exemplify how the genre progressed in the 1970s. However, I think readers can grasp what "sexually suggestive lyrics, considered risqué for the day" really mean without help from the sample... I hope. Moreover, I hope those reading the genre article should grasp what "heavy arena-rock hook to the cooing, teenybopper-friendly verses and chorus" really mean without trying the sample and emphasizing a lot what the caption says about the song. The idea that readers couldn't understand what the song article says about the song itself.... Maybe keeping the sample would allow readers to have their own opinions without believing what quoted passages say? George Ho ( talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep The genre article has commentary about the song's musical content and the song's importance in the context of the genre. ili ( talk) 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg

[ ]

File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hzh ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The sample of buliao qing (song) is currently used for Mandopop article. However, I don't think the sample complies with WP:NFCC#8 at this time. Even the song article doesn't have sufficient commentary to support the sample. I don't think the genre article does either. Furthermore, there are already samples of spoken Mandarin Chinese in Commons if readers want to learn more about the language. George Ho ( talk) 03:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep This is perhaps the most popular song from Hong Kong in the period, and it also illustrates the change of musical style from Shanghai's shidaiqu to the sound of that period (such as the use of piano and strings, the text also mentions the change of musicians employed and musicianship in Hong Kong). Hzh ( talk) 08:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I see you made some additions recently in order to support the sample and are working hard to help the sample being kept. However, to me, the "1950s–1960s: The Hong Kong era" section... I can't tell whether the condition is bad or not. There aren't enough sources cited IMO. It also uses songs as examples. I tried finding sources discussing the song, but I just found articles about films using the same Chinese title. The assumption that deleting the sample would deprive readers from understanding more about the genre... I wonder why I just don't see that happening in my mind. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
More can be written in that section, and more sources can be given. The section as it is is not complete, there is for example no mention of the influence of British bands like the Beatles and the band sound of Hong Kong, but that can be fixed later. There are distinct periods of musical styles (and the files are there to illustrate the change in style), by the 1970s, the synthesizer/electric organ sound became dominant (likely influenced by Japanese pop music), which is why your comment on The Moon Represents My Hear.ogg is wrong, because that was the dominant sound of that period. Hzh ( talk) 09:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Edited: (Moved my replies about the other sample to #File:The Moon Represents My Heart - Teresa Teng.ogg). George Ho ( talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

File:The Moon Represents My Heart - Teresa Teng.ogg

[ ]

File:The Moon Represents My Heart - Teresa Teng.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hzh ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at Mandopop and The Moon Represents My Heart. I don't think the usage in the genre article complies with WP:NFCC#8. Probably an attempt to educate readers what a Mandarin-language pop song sounds like back in 1970s. However, I've not yet seen sufficient commentary that can support the sample. Unsure whether the sample should remain in the song article, nonetheless. George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep The text in both articles do explain its significance, specifically illustrating her singing style, which is in direct contrast to the strident style of revolutionary music then only permitted in mainland China, and the reason why her music made such a strong impact in China (her music was not officially permitted at that time but smuggled into China, but still became hugely popular). Her music, in this case her most popular song used for illustration, is of historical cultural significance in China in the shift from the stridency of the Cultural Revolution to something that is more "normal". Hzh ( talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
(moved from #File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg) I said "electric keyboards", not "electric organ". Well, I should've said " electronic keyboards" instead. I wonder whether you can tell the difference between two samples (besides loudness): one you uploaded originally, and the one I took from Spotify. George Ho ( talk) 09:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC); modified, 09:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
(moved from #File:Bu Liao Qing.ogg) Maybe they were neither synthesizers nor electronic organs nor electronic keyboards. But I can't figure out which instrument was used for karaoke, especially when a singer mutes the vocals, original or not. George Ho ( talk) 09:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, compare the video uploaded by ymfan on YouTube with other videos (or copies?) of Teresa Teng's version. I know, or figured, the one uploaded by ymfan is similar to one of the the version you uploaded. George Ho ( talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Tracks used for karaoke generally has no or quieter vocals, so that is irrelevant. Anyway, the one you uploaded is not the whole song (do you have YT link to your version?), so I can't really judge the differences, but those synthesizer/keyboard sounds were exactly what was popular at that time. If you are ripping from a newer release or extracted from a modern download, these tend not to represent the older recordings, because newer releases tend to be too loud and removing nuances in dynamics - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35250557 and in the case of The Moon Represents My Heart, the loudness ruins the intent of the original recording, which was meant to be soft and gentle (your re-upload is softer, so that is not that much of an issue). The ymfan's one sounds like the same one (I extracted it starting from around the 1.25 mark). Hzh ( talk) 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I took the sample from Spotify release, which I'm giving to you. And here's the YouTube video uploaded by ymfan (actually, a U-Best karaoke release). -- George Ho ( talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't get it from a U-Best karaoke release, so it is irrelevant. My one looks like it's from this - Forever Star (I no longer have the original file/CD, so I can't really go back and check the one I used). Your one actually is likely not the original, precisely because that wasn't the most popular sound of the time, but unless someone can produce the original release, the argument is moot because the CD I used was a later release, as is the one in Spotify. Actually, I listened to both again, and there is little difference, the difference might be mainly due to which part you sampled from. Yours might also have been remixed to emphasize the strings, resulting in an apparent sound difference that may not be real. Hzh ( talk) 11:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't remix just to emphasize the strings. Neither did the studio. A video from Bilibili shows a vinyl copy proving how the song sounds. Or search for " videos of 邓丽君 月亮代表我的心 黑膠" on Google to hear the song on vinyl. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You mentioned CD. As I must say, I don't know which CD you bought, but I can't tell whether it is an authentic copy or a bootleg or something else. AFAIK, even any edition of the compilation album 15周年 (Forever Star, which AllMusic calls it) didn't contain the same version that you uploaded. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No one has accused you of remixing, quite bizarre that you would think I thought you can. As far as the song is concerned, no bootleg would ever bother to mess with the song or add anything, no idea why you would think that it would make a difference. It's essentially the same song, you need to be a song historian to know why there might be some slight differences with different releases. Just why you spend so much time arguing something when I'm not reverting your new upload I have no idea - the initial objection was on the loudness, but that was resolved with a new upload. Hzh ( talk) 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As mentioned in the nomination, there's a whole article about the song ( The Moon Represents My Heart). The inclusion of the clip there is clearly significant and valid. As for Mandopop, there's a whole paragraph specifically about Teresa Teng and her significance and style, which the clip meaningfully contributes to. Adumbrativus ( talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

October 23

File:Hands All Over (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg

[ ]

File:Hands All Over (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at the following articles: Hands All Over (Soundgarden song), Louder Than Love, and Soundgarden. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Jesus Christ Pose (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg

[ ]

File:Jesus Christ Pose (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Jesus Christ Pose and Soundgarden. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with reliably sourced captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho ( talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Black Hole Sun (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg

[ ]

File:Black Hole Sun (Soundgarden song - sample).ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in Black Hole Sun, Soundgarden, and Superunknown. Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, even with reliably sourced captions. May potentially fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho ( talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. The file is too lengthy, displaying 31 seconds despite the 30-second limit imposed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. Otherwise, it is sufficiently supported by cited description at the Soundgarden band page, but not at the other two articles. At " Black Hole Sun", the file is not described at all, while at Superunknown, it is accompanied by text having nothing to do with the sounds that the listener is hearing. Binksternet ( talk) 04:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    I resampled the song and almost the same segment. I also downgraded the quality by lowering the project rate. Hopefully no more than 30 seconds. George Ho ( talk) 08:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep in Black Hole Sun, remove all other instances. The commentary on Soundgarden should be moved to the song article, as it meets WP:NFCC#8. plicit 00:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

October 22

File:Halyna Hutchins (cinematographer, journalist, born 1979).jpg

[ ]

File:Halyna Hutchins (cinematographer, journalist, born 1979).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

She died yesterday, and no evidence that an attempt to find a free image has actually been attempted. As such, I don't believe WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied, as a freely licenced image could be available if people actually did a search Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep I've searched on Google Images and Flickr and haven't been able to find a free image. Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Until we can find a free image of her, I suggest that we let this picture be in her article. Toadboy123 ( talk) 09:49, 22 October 2021 (PST)
  • Note: Article about subject has been nominated for deletion. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Now resulted in an apparent snow keep, if it matters here. -- Chillabit ( talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7; so, the outcome of an AfD can impact whether a non-free file is kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete a cursory Google and Flickr search is not enough. We don’t keep this until a better one is found, we wait a few months until all avenues have been exhausted. Step hen 02:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with this. There's no reason why either her family or one of her employers wouldn't be able to freely licence a photo for us, or anyone that has ever seen her and taken a photo could also do so. Google and Flickr are not the entire world. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: While there's no brightline amount of time that needs to pass before a non-free image of a deceased person can be used, it's generally expected that a reasonable effort be made to find a free equivalent that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one. It doesn't have to be a free version of the non-free one, just a free one that can serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose. Now, there might be some disagreement among editors as to what is considered a "reasonable effort", but a cursory Internet search shortly just after someone has died usually doesn't seem to be enough. This is a hard case to assess because there was no article about Hutchins before she died and thus there's no way to easily determine whether there was any effort being made to find a free image of her as is sometimes the case with those who die after an article had already been created about them. Moreover, as pointed out above, the default is not automatically to use a non-free image until a free equivalent can be found or created. There are quite a lot of images of Hutchins currently available online. Is there a way to track down the provenance of some of them and see whether WP:PERMISSIONs might work? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per standard NFC approach around recently deceased people (particularly those that we know had public presence), we expect editors to try to make a good faith search for free media, which includes reaching out to family + friends for a possible free licensed image. But we know doing that immediately in the wake of death is not appropriate, but within 6 months or so is a reasonable timeframe, so for those 6 months after death, we do not allow non-free images of recently deceased to be used. -- Masem ( t) 13:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until somebody produces a free image, there is no reason to assume one exists or could be obtained. Sandstein 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't how fair use works on here. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a freely licenced phot could be obtained by all the methods I suggested above, we shouldn't default to assuming that none exists just because nobody has found one. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per Masem and MarchJuly. Free content can be created. It automatically fails FREER due to that possibility. In 6 months, this can be reconsidered, since a considerable amount of effort would of been put in to search for free content. Sennecaster ( Chat)
  • Keep - Undeleting the image after six-month wait seems like a plausible option, but I find the process too agonizing and bothersome. Furthermore, deleting and undeleting would prove that, from this day, the image meets NFCC, i.e. is irreplaceable and contextually significant. Must we assume that a photo fails NFCC but then meets NFCC six months later? Also, why should NFCC indicate age of a non-free content? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. For any other person we accept a fair use rationale if they are no longer alive and a web search turns up nothing that is freely licensed or potentially public domain. I have also searched Flickr and tried YouTube as well. Got nothing. I've never seen a requirement to contact random photographers or organizations (who may be grieving soon after someone died) to try and convince them to freely license their material. It would be nice if something was relicensed and we would delete the fair use image in that case, but waiting some arbitrary period before allowing fair use seems rather pointless and bureaucratic to me. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Frank Ocean Voodoo.ogg

[ ]

File:Frank Ocean Voodoo.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piotr Jr. ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at Frank Ocean#Musical style. If it helps readers identify the musician's style, then I can appreciate the efforts to help readers identify his music. However, I'm not sure whether the sample complies with WP:NFCC#8/ WP:NFC#CS. The section's description of the song "Voodoo" is brief, aside from quoting the song's chorus (or a verse?), which I could remove someday. I don't think the critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the sample. Furthermore, I think deleting the sample wouldn't affect how readers can learn about the musician's musical style, which may remind listeners with/of(?) R&B... or "avant-garde R&B"(?), and comparisons to other musicians/artists. George Ho ( talk) 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I uploaded the file originally... isn't this a freely released unpublished work that could just be rectified with a different licensing? It was only posted on the artist's social media account for free as far as I know... Anyway, I don't understand all these seemingly knee-jerk delete noms... not that readers couldn't just YouTube-browse these songs anyway, but there is fairly substantial commentary in the article(s); the noted elements in the caption echo discussion in the relevant sections. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 19:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

More relevant commentary from Stereogum... would this connection help justify the sample? "...moods that fit in well with the rest of Frank’s sometimes-bleak, depressive lyrical tendencies..." ( [2]) Piotr Jr. ( talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The commentary from Stereogum wouldn't help justify much either. I believe that readers will grasp what "sometimes-bleak, depressive lyrical tendencies" (or just "tendencies"?) mean without a sample (and its help). I would like to know why you think deleting the sample would affect readers' ability to understand the topic, i.e. the musician/singer/songwriter and his style, and/or the article's ability to teach readers about the topic. The criterion requires a non-free content to be too significant for deletion, and I'm failing to see how the sample complies with it. George Ho ( talk) 20:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Unless a reader has heard his music before, I don't think any amount of text would ultimately give the average person a sense of what it sounds like... Piotr Jr. ( talk) 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, text and an audio work aren't the same thing. However, I see you haven't yet given text content plenty of chances especially to educate an average person about one song... or one person. for me, no matter how dissimilar the clip and text are, the text content (editable it has been) can adequately give sense of what a person like Frank Ocean and his musical style are about. If I want to sample his songs, I can go to music and shopping websites. Maybe I'm implying the sample's compliance (or failure to comply?) with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER? I wanna mention those but couldn't due to fear that my argument based on the sample's ability to be "irreplaceable" couldn't be strong enough and could be rebutted easily. George Ho ( talk) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I struck the assumption I made about you in order to keep good faith, I hope. Probably you did give text plenty of chances before but then found text a poor replacement for an audio clip, right? George Ho ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Which leads me to believe you are underestimating the importance of an audio sample in general... Piotr Jr. ( talk) 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think is the sample of the song, not the whole song itself, significant to the article and its topic? WP:NFC#CS mentions the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance. Both links lead you to WP:NPOV, one of the project's core content policies. I'm unsure how the sample containing the chorus (or a verse?) balances the biographical article well and gives the article a due weight. George Ho ( talk) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm still unsure whether a sample of any Frank Ocean song like "Voodoo" is necessary to help readers understand the person in question. George Ho ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Didn't notice the reply below until I posted this comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The Spin source cited in the sample caption identifies it as an "odd" and an eccentric take on an R&B trope, which are identified as characteristics in Ocean's music overall, according to the section this sample is placed in. MTV News identifies the song as "a prime example of Ocean's distinctive technique as a songwriter: His best songs, like "Voodoo," disrupt the flow of linear time by prompting us to dive deep into our own memories and feel something indelibly real." (In an extensive essay on other examples of this in Ocean's music...) Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The caption may... probably help a lot. However, outside the caption, the body content already describes the song's themes and (derivative?) use of traditional spiritual song " He's Got the Whole World in His Hands". George Ho ( talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's relevant in the spirit of WP:AESTHETIC. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, it sure does meet WP:AESTHETIC, but what about due weight and balance? George Ho ( talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you please explain how you are applying questions of due weight/balance to the current content in the section on Ocean's musical style? Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I see you added some more content in effort to improve support for the sample. I appreciate your efforts... and I don't know what else to say about the current version. Maybe I hope the paragraph/passage about the song is neither excessive nor overly detailed, is it? If it is perceived to be excessive, then the passage may potentially have undue weight and/or poor balance.
Speaking of excessive, I just listened the whole song at Tumblr and used a stopwatch. I realized the song lasts 96 to 101 seconds. However, the sample is more than 10 percent of the song's length, which is disallowed by MOS:SAMPLE, WP:NFC#Audio clips, and WP:NFCC#3b. In order to trim down, the sample must be no more than ten seconds, unfortunately, and I don't know which of ten seconds I must sample. Do you know which ten-second segment to sample? George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I can figure it out... but I had a question earlier about whether this song is non-free or not. What do you think? Piotr Jr. ( talk) 00:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
By default, the sample is non-free, regardless of how the song was released, unless the artist released it under either an acceptable Creative Commons license, Free Art License or another acceptable license allowing freer and broader use of content; see c:COM:licensing. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've shortened it to 10 seconds. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 01:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I've done my best to create more improved but still-inferior versions of the sample. At least the length is no longer excessive. But the line "don't you let her see divide / voodoo"... and the music... I hope I'm wrong about its (in)significance, but I fear that I might be right about its inability to be relevant or significant to readers. George Ho ( talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe I was confusing significance with "irreplaceability" and/or intermingling them both? George Ho ( talk) 02:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Your revision didn't make much of a discernable difference... And I still feel it's significant enough. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 02:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Damaged Goods - Gang of Four.ogg

[ ]

File:Damaged Goods - Gang of Four.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at post-punk#United Kingdom. I'm unsure whether the usage complies with WP:NFCC#8. The song is briefly mentioned outside the caption, which to me doesn't improve justification of using the sample. Furthermore, even when used at the song article, I don't know whether the critical commentary of Damaged Goods (song) is sufficient enough to help the sample comply with the criterion. Also, the sample is nine seconds longer than what MOS:SAMPLE allows based on the song's length. Nonetheless, fixing the sample's issues with WP:NFCC#3b still wouldn't help the sample comply with the other criterion. George Ho ( talk) 21:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep – The caption includes critical commentary about the sample's musical content and the fact that "Damaged Goods" is considered the first post-punk song. It would also be appropriate for inclusion on Damaged Goods (song) because, uh, the entire article is about it? Sample should be trimmed, but not deleted. ili ( talk) 00:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Which segment of the song please? I want to upload a newer version that lasts 21 seconds or less. George Ho ( talk) 02:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC); updated, 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    I trimmed out the last nine or ten seconds, just in case. I'm unsure whether the segment is right for critical commentary. The sample came from a part of the final third of the song, to which I recently listened on YouTube and Spotify. George Ho ( talk) 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough critical commentary in the article to pass WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 23:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    Which article(s)? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
For the song article. Aspects ( talk) 21:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not an expert on copyright rules but I can testify that this song has cultural significance. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    To which articles does the sample belong? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Faith No More – I Started a Joke (CD1).jpg

[ ]

File:Faith No More – I Started a Joke (CD1).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Balthazar ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The cover art was de-PRODded on basis that it supposedly meets WP:NFCC#3a and that the Faith No More version of I Started a Joke is notable. Even if it may meet WP:NFCC#3a and can identify the release, I'm unsure whether the cover art also meets WP:NFCC#8. The version charted in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, but its chart performances were either (less than?) modest or unsuccessful. Furthermore, I think deleting the cover art still wouldn't affect how readers understand (i.e. learn about) the version and its notability and other versions of the song, regardless of the size of the section about that version. There are free images of the band in case that the cover art is deleted. George Ho ( talk) 21:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. Aspects ( talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

October 21

File:Mariya Takeuchi - Plastic Love 2021.jpg

[ ]

File:Mariya Takeuchi - Plastic Love 2021.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Areaseven ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This cover art is of the upcoming 2021 re-release of " Plastic Love". Sure, the song became more popular due to internet fan-made video back in 2017. Furthermore, a cover art used for the other song "Sweetest Music" was used instead for that video (now deleted?) and is now used for this year's upcoming re-release. There's already the cover art of the original 1985 release, which... well, didn't perform well in Japanese music chart. Still, why need the re-release cover? George Ho ( talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I started other discussion at Talk:Plastic Love on whether to use the "Sweetest Music" cover, identical to the reissue cover. George Ho ( talk) 09:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ George Ho: Just trying to clarify: you want to remove the reissue cover and replace it with the "Sweetest Music" cover under fair use?  Ganbaruby! ( talk) 18:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Ganbaruby: If that's possible and there are no objections... then yeah. Not as part of top infobox; rather part of "Resurgence" section. Well... Even if the Sweetest Music cover won't be accepted, I still don't think the reissue cover is necessary. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Reissue covers are displayed on articles all the time, and for good reason. This one has more relevance than most, as the reissue cover both shows the Sweetest Music photo that's become associated with the song and serves as evidence of the cultural impact of the song's resurgence in the specific form that it did. ElspethOfValeron ( talk) 22:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
In other words, you favor using the reissue cover instead of the "Sweetest Music" cover art, right? George Ho ( talk) 23:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Correct. The key thing, in my eyes, is that the reissue cover demonstrates that the cultural impact of the "Plastic Lover" video was enough to inspire official recognition of the correlation between the song and the image. ElspethOfValeron ( talk) 01:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep per ElspethOfValeron. The Sweetest Music cover should go on the article about Sweetest Music, not here. There should be more reasoning than "don't think it's necessary".  Ganbaruby! ( talk) 07:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep - per ElspethOfValeron. The use of the reissued cover for "Plastic Love" does not netigate the existence of the "Sweetest Music" single. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

October 20

File:Gin Blossoms - Found Out About You.ogg

[ ]

File:Gin Blossoms - Found Out About You.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esprit15d ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at Doug Hopkins, Found Out About You, and Gin Blossoms. The sample was de-PRODded, citing one critic's quote, haunting, almost psychedelic quality to the interweaving guitar lines, as sufficient enough to keep the sample. Hmm... I wonder. I still don't think the sample meets WP:NFCC#8 when used at the singer article and the band article. Unsure whether the sample complies with the criterion when used at the song article, even with the quote. George Ho ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep There is enough critical commentary in the song article to pass WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 23:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per my de-PROD commentary as summarized above.-- Carwil ( talk) 14:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    @ Aspects and Carwil: Besides the song article, shall the sample continue to be used in other articles? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not think there is any/enough critical commentary in the other articles to justify its use in those articles. Aspects ( talk) 21:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

October 19

File:Chanchhaya.jpg

[ ]

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

Cambodia does not have freedom of panorama, per COM:FOP Cambodia. — oscitare ( talk | contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep It's {{ FoP-USonly|Cambodia}} at the very least.
Who is the architect? Is it possible that the copyright already has expired? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

October 17

File:ME! mural.jpg

[ ]

File:ME! mural.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ronherry ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lack of contextual significance: "For commentary on the album's background and the release of its lead single Me!" is hardly enough to warrant WP:NFCC criteria 8 ("its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") and 1 ("used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.") Currently used in two articles: Reputation (Taylor Swift album) and Me!. In the former, another free image currently used ( File:Taylor Swift Reputation Tour3.jpg) is enough to provide understanding on the album's background and conception. In the latter, I am dubious about the significance of this file, because the article already has three non-free files to support. Ippantekina ( talk) 07:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The mural image has contextual significance because it is the first promotional event Swift did for the song or the album. It's not just about the background, but the marketing aspect too. It's not abnormal in album/song articles to include images of how the artist promoted their work, such as via billboards; in Swift's case, it is a mural. The image does the job by actually illustrating the mural, which was widely covered by publications as well. The Reputation tour image is about the conception, while the mural is about the marketing/rollout. Ronherry ( talk) 07:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how removing this image would negatively affect the readers' understanding. Non-free files must be essential and not merely decorative. A lot of artists embarked on extravagant promotional campaigns for their albums/singles/films, which can be effectively conveyed through prose, with an external link to the copyrighted images if necessary. Ippantekina ( talk) 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Every image on Wikimedia could be removed and explained in the prose itself, but that's not the case. The mural is quite literally the only image, on Wikipedia, of Swift participating in a Lover promotional event. It clearly serves the purpose and I don't see how it is "decorative" when it's the only picture of anything related to Lover, which had its tour cancelled. Ronherry ( talk) 19:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It can be safely removed without violating criteria 8: "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". We know that Swift embarked on a large promotional campaign without having this photo--even the subject of this photo, the butterfly, has little to do with the album itself. Ippantekina ( talk) 08:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

File:I Want To Hold Your Hand (Beatles song - sample).ogg

[ ]

File:I Want To Hold Your Hand (Beatles song - sample).ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Johnleemk ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at Cultural impact of the Beatles, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Power pop, and The Beatles' North American releases. If it helps readers understand the song more and meets WP:NFCC#8, the sample should remain at the song article. Unsure whether the same is true for usages in other articles. George Ho ( talk) 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep obviously merited for the articles that were named, and they each contain critical discussion about the contents of the song recording (except perhaps The Beatles' North American releases). ili ( talk) 00:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    You don't object to removing the sample from The Beatles' North American releases, do you? If so, how would removing it affect the understanding of the topic or what is discussed? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    I don't object. Removing would not affect the readers' understanding of the Beatles' North American releases because there is no critical commentary about how the musical contents of the song relate to the Beatles' North American releases. ili ( talk) 01:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Almost forgot: the genre article doesn't mention the song outside a file caption. George Ho ( talk) 19:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    ...So? Why does the body need to include more commentary about the musical merit of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" when the media caption and sample says everything there is to say? In any case, the section contains much commentary about the Beatles' "Mersey sound" from early 1964, the same time that the song reached number-one in the USA. The song is actually referenced, just not directly. ili ( talk) 01:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    All right, all right. I guess the caption is sufficient enough, and describing the song outside the caption isn't necessary? Probably the sample is trying to tell readers what early-1960s power pop sounded like, how the Beatles fit the term "power pop"... or what "power pop" had been when Pete Townshend coined the term. In my case, having listened to 1960s songs, I can already understand what the article describes and what a typical 1960s power pop song would sound like, both without having the sample in my head. I even understand what the quote from The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll says about the Beatles and its musical style without assuming that deleting the sample would affect such understanding. Maybe younger demographics of today can imagine what a typical 1960s power pop sounds like without the sample, or maybe they need the sample since they are preoccupied with newer songs of their time? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    As a rule of thumb, I think that such broad-concept articles should be kept accessible for people who have hardly listened to anything recorded before this century (i.e. the vast majority of people under 21). I also believe that there are plenty of people above 21 who are, shall we say, too musically challenged to understand what "ringing guitars", "vocal harmonies", and the "Mersey sound" are supposed to sound like without an immediate reference. And perhaps there are people who only know the Beatles for Yellow Submarine (I've met several) and would therefore struggle to understand the link between their songs and Fountains of Wayne. ili ( talk) 07:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

October 16

File:Lady Gaga - Applause (Music Sample).ogg

[ ]

File:Lady Gaga - Applause (Music Sample).ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used at Applause (Lady Gaga song) and Artpop. It was previously nominated for WP:NFCC#8 concerns, but nomination was withdrawn after improvements on rationale, which would improve compliance with another criterion WP:NFCC#10c IMO. Even with rationale improvements, I don't believe that WP:NFCC#8/ WP:NFC#CS concerns have been yet addressed.

Artpop is an album, and the sample is used at the "Music and lyrics" section. I'm unconvinced that one sample is necessary to help identify the album's music style and theme and that removing the sample would impact such understanding. Furthermore, the section isn't fully about just one song. The article already provides information about the album and its tracks. If a reader wants to listen to the song in order to learn more about the song, he or she can go to the song article about "Applause".

Speaking of the song, I still wonder whether the sample is way too significant to be removed from the song article, even when it's used at the "Recording and composition" section. If so, then I guess the sample belongs at just the song article. George Ho ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As I described at Talk:Artpop#Non-free_audio_example, the sample fails to demonstrate the characteristics described in the sources. If somone wanted to illustrate a point from those sources, a different part of the song should be uploaded. Binksternet ( talk) 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for Applause page, remove from Artpop I see the file's caption supported by this at Applause (Lady Gaga song). While somebody could change the Artpop one to match it or perhaps tweak in accordance with Idolator (which says the track "plays like a return to Gaga's days of The Fame"), I feel this is best reserved for the song page in order to minimize the use of non-free audio samples. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 02:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Did you notice that none of what is described can be heard in the selected portion of the song? The stuttering synths are at the very beginning of the song, but this section doesn't have 'em. The snare drum hits are also at the beginning but not in the selected portion, which instead has a strange kind of synthetic noise percussion. So the file doesn't work for its caption or its supporting sources, not in the "Applause" song article or the album article. Binksternet ( talk) 22:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, the fact that the song is similar to Gaga's Fame output cannot be conveyed by one audio sample. A simple statement in prose is sufficient to get the idea across. Two audio samples might be able to help the reader, but the source does not specify the exact part of Fame. If someone put together a listening sample of "Applause" and some section of Fame then it would be a violation of WP:NOR, because they would have decided on their own what part of Fame was targeted by the critic. Binksternet ( talk) 22:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

October 12

File:Friedrich Leibacher.jpg

[ ]

File:Friedrich Leibacher.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Months ago the article about the perpetrator was merged into Zug massacre as WP:BIO1E has applied. Some other perpetrator images have been kept per other FFD discussions. However, I don't believe that the image may comply with WP:NFCC#8. The article is about the tragic event, and the event was already tragic enough. I don't see how the image improves the understanding or identifies the event. It identifies the perpetrator, but he is not the main subject of the already-merged article. George Ho ( talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The perpetrator is arguably one of the core subjects of a mass shooting article, which is in part also his biography. This warrants illustration. Sandstein 07:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

October 10

File:Pangasinense People.jpg

[ ]

File:Pangasinense People.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mlgc1998 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source is Facebook, claiming that the PD-Gov applies to official social media presences even when unstated, and claims of PD are false as archives of government site to 2019 point to copyright either way. I think an NFUR could be written for this image, within context to the rest of the article, but not certain. Either way, this licensing is incorrect. Sennecaster ( What now?) 19:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep The image is present on a Philippine government website [3]. The site copyright notice says content is created and maintained by the Provincial Information Office, and owned by the government Province of Pangasinan. It is thus effectively public domain, as as explained in Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines. I have updated the image template to recommend moving the image to Wikimedia Commons. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    The website must state that it is public domain for PD-PhilippinesGov to apply. The website in question was ARR at the time of uploading. This will not stand on commons. This is copyrighted. I wish it worked the way you argue, but it unfortunately doesn't. Sennecaster ( What now?) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    @ Sennecaster: This has already been discussed in the case of Smithsonian on Commons, but ARR use by governments is a complicated matter. Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that public domain requires some kind of explicit "public domain" notice, but that is not the case on enwiki. Public domain is inferred, and the rules regarding that process are laid out in broad strokes on WP:PD. As far as I can tell there is no special exemption to this policy for the Philippines, nor does PD-PhilippinesGov require sources explicitly state the images are public domain. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @ Sennecaster and Elephanthunter: this is very tricky. I usually consider official socmed pages of the likes of the Province of Pangasinan as under PD. But there is one caveat: did the photographer of this particular file took this photo as part of his/her regular duty as an employee of the Provincial Government? See c:COM:Philippines#Commissioned works, rule #1 for works created during employment. If the second case (letter b.) is the case here (in which the IP rights belong to the province), then this passes Commons' house rules on policy. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    It is generally presumed that in the Philippines, official social media presences are managed by staff members of the office in question as part of their regular duties. At the risk of WP:COI, I'll use this example: my grandmother is mayor of Gasan, Marinduque, and the various offices under her office have official Facebook accounts (e.g. her office, the municipal tourism office, the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, etc.). Those accounts are managed by employees of the municipality as part of their regularly-prescribed duties, and as such their contents are presumed to be in the public domain. -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 04:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless I'm totally missing something, I don't think this can be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. No disrespect to anyone is intended, but this looks basically to be nothing more than a photo of a group of people standing in a room; so, a similar photo could almost be certainly taken by someone to serve that same encyclopedic purpose, and then uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license. For example, a photo like File:KKPK Katlung Misyun.jpg (assuming that's not a copyvio) also being used in the same section of the same article seems reasonable to create or find. In addition, given also the way this file is currently being used, it would also be hard to justify this as non-free per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.
    The argument that this is PD made by Sky Harbor above, however, is interesting though and might actually be OK. I still think the provenance of the photo would need a bit more clarification to to eliminate any doubts about it. I'm not sure about c:COM:Phillippines, but not everything posted on an official US government website is, for example, automatically PD. US government websites do occasionally "use" content created by third-parties (not US government employees as part of these official duties) and these are not OK to license as {{ PD-USGov}}. Whether the Philippines has similar provisions in its copyright law(s) is something I'm not sure about, but that would one concern that I think would need to be addressed before this could be moved to Commons. If there are any doubts as to whether this would survive a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be keeping it under such a license. If there's a chance that anyone in WP:PHILIPPINES could simply take their own similar photo and upload that to Commons, then that might be the best way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly: there is. At Section 176.3 of the copyright law of the Philippines: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • According to {{ PD-PhilippinesGov}}, all works by the Philippines Government are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. Where is the "unless otherwise noted" part from? It's not in the law from what I can see. It is also complicated by the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with Commons that works by the Philippines Government are free, see {{ Non-free Philippines government}}. Both our template and the one on Commons have survived two deletion discussions. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    There is an All Rights Reserved notice at the bottom of the source page, which would reasonably apply to all images published there. I consider that as "otherwise noted" from the PD claims, especially since it is blatantly stated. The Philippines government is notoriously bad at removing those All Rights Reserved notices (if they were unmarked, I could assume PD-Gov but since it is explicitly said I count it as "otherwise noted") and I'm not really sure how to proceed around it. Sennecaster ( Chat) 17:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Where does the "otherwise noted" statement in the Commons template come from? I can't find it in the law. As a comparison, {{ PD-USGov}} does not contain an "otherwise noted" statement. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    The text may also be in Republic Act 10372 which isn't linked. Alternatively, and this is my speculation of what I know about Commons, there may be a consensus on Commons to be conservative in respects to copyright, so that could be how a consensus was formed to add it. Unfortunately, Philippine law is very ambiguous on copyright like this and TOO, but I respect and trust what Commons has to say about copyright laws and how it applies to the project (and supplementary, ours). Sennecaster ( Chat) 22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    @ Sennecaster and Stefan2: the template wording used at Commons is just a rewording. The exact wording as per Section 176.1. of our copyright law is read as follows:

    176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.

    It is a holdover of section 9, third paragraph of Presidential Decree 49 (1972), which was our copyright law from 1972 up to 1998, when the current law (R.A. 8293) came.
    But there is also a clarification at Section 176.3 for government works that incorporate copyrighted works from non-government people or entities. The copyright in the said work (by non-government people or entities) is not nullified just because it was incorporated in a work of the Philippine government (thus resulted in the deletion of a Philippine stamp bearing an image of Catriona Gray). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 09:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Henry Kulka images

[ ]

File:Parker store.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Maple furniture.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Friedlander House, Masons avenue, Herne Bay, Auckland. View of lounge taken from elevated dining niche. Designed by Henry Kulka in 1967.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Roberta Ave House, 1962.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Innes Schweppes - Coca Cola Building designed and realised by Henry Kulka on the Corner of Victoria Street, Hamilton, New Zealand in 1955.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Photographer Cedric Firth for architect Henry Kulka, 1955. Staircase study..jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Fisher and Paykel (F&P) head offices and factory. Designed by architect Henry Kulka. Mt Wellington, Auckland, New Zealand, 1955.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Fletcher Building Head Office in Penrose, Auckland, New Zealand. Designed by Henry Kulka. Interior view of curved staircase inside the entrance. 1941.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Front south facing façade and front entry of wooden Bungalow for Dr E. Meyer, Springcombe Avenue, St Heliers Bay, Auckland. Designed and realised in 1962..jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Kantor Raumplan in Jablonec Nad Nisou. View of south facing garden façade. Villa realised autonomously by Henry Kulka in 1934.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Original interior photograph of the Villa Kantor Raumplan designed and realised by Henry Kulka for Dr Kantor in Jablonec Nad Nisou , Czechoslovakia, in 1934.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Semler, galleried Raumplan apartment, realised in 1933-4 for Oskar Semler at Klatovska St, Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. View from lower hall into main lower lounge and fireplace in fire niche with lowered ceiling.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Khuner. Double level gallery view down to fireplace and dining niche. Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Khuner, Eastern façade, Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fourteen non-free files of buildings or interiors designed by architect Henry Kulka all uploaded by the same person and sourced to the Kulka Foundation currently being used throughout the article about Kulka. All the files are licensed as {{ Non-free destroyed architecture}}. While it might be possible to justify the non-free use of a couple of photos representing Kulka's work, fourteen seems quite a bit excessive in terms of WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, there are also five images from Commons being used in the article which means (assuming their licensing is OK) that WP:FREER also comes into play and some of the non-free images might also not be needed for general illustrative purposes. All of the non-free use rationales provided for the files contain the statement "To illustrate the specific architectural points described in the paragraph to describe the specific, unique architectural structure described in the Henry Kulka Wikipedia text." or something similar which I think is something that needs to be closely examined to see if this is really the case per WP:NFC#CS and assess when omitting any of these files would actually be detrimental of the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. For example, seven non-free and three Commons images are being used in Henry Kulka#Work in New Zealand which seems quite excessive and also not really needed per WP:FREER.

In addition to the non-free use issues, there are also issues with the file syntax in that thumbnails are being fixed to a specific pixel size which is something that is not recommended at all per WP:THUMBSIZE as well as some MOS:SANDWICHing issues; these things, however, should be fairly easy to sort out once the non-free issues have been resolved. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment So I did some basic research on the Villa Khuner photographs 1 2. Those images are commissioned by Henry Kulka for his 1931 publication Adolf Loos. Das Werk des Architekten and taken by Martin Gerlach, [2] a photographer who died in 1944. [3] I would argue given German / Austrian copyright law, those photographs are now public domain and the files should be updated to add Template:PD-URAA.
    Overall I am admittedly hesitant to remove fair use photographs for buildings truly destroyed or otherwise permanently damaged, rendering the photographs possibly irreplaceable. Although that's not to say some of these photos shouldn't be removed. I just think deleting them all would be a bad idea. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for trying to dig up more information on these. If some of them are PD, then that would mean they're no longer subject to WP:NFCC. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to simply preserve images just because they are rare or might otherwise be irreplaceable as explained in WP:IRREPLACEABLE; so, just keeping them for that reason regardless of whether their use complies with the NFCC is not really something we should be doing. If someone wants to preserve the images for posterity, they can download them and host them on some other platform. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, thank you Elephanthunter. Based on what you say, it sounds like the files should be moved to Commons. I'd imagine there are additional knowledgeable folks there who can further evaluate the URAA claim if you are not certain. I'd be happy to move them over if you update the copyright tags. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 20:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to commons as PD per above rationale. Buffs ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not excessive: The fourteen images are not an excessive number of images to illustrate the diverse and important architectural points in Kulkas work alongside descriptions in the Henry Kulka article. The not-free use exceptions and image numbers conform to the Wiki rules and Wiki exceptions rules. Each image has been chosen by a group of experts (academic) associated with the Kulka Foundation, a Registered charity to study and curate the works of Kulka. Each photo has been chosen by experts on Kulka to illustrate a unique category of information, whether 1) a period of work of Kulka with Adolf Loos, 2) relating to raumplan theory, or 3) an important typological variant, or 4) a new geography after forced exodus during world war 2 or 5) the separation between his European and South Pacific work or 6) the difference between his commercial structures or his private commissions.
    The suggestion to remove these expertly chosen images from this site is inexpert, cavalier and would clearly be detrimental to enabling readers and scholars to get an aesthetic sense of interiors and exteriors that informing about specific aesthetic differences in time-place and in context. Taking these images off would be detrimental to the readers proper understanding of these differences and points in the evolution of works as physicalised ideas.
    For example one editor above suggests that seven non free use photos are excessive for his work in NZ but Kulka’s predominant career was in NZ as the chief architect for Fletchers the country’s largest commercial building company and he separately ran a private practice - it is reasonable to have three or four images for each practice set. The initiating arguments hint at a dispassionate motivation behind the suggested removal and reclassification. ‘The Kulka Foundation’ refutes the approach to dissembling a thoughtfully published set of accompanying images.
    Copyrights: All images uploaded under non-free use are those where Kulka, who died in 1970, through his Estate in NZ and Europe, still has a potent copyright interest either 1) by way of his financial commission, 2) his copyright in the architectural object-subject he created or co-created, or 3) by virtue of his 'direction of the taking of the image’ under the copyright laws at the time of image production by collaborating photographers. To move the images into Commons as some of the inexpert but no doubt well meaning editors ( indicating ‘ basic research was undertaken by them’) suggest above, would be a copyright violation under both Austrian and NZ copyright laws. The aforementioned comments and suggestions regarding the Khuner photos are an example of a route to copyright abuse because Kulka was a co-creator ‘of’ the Khuner structures themselves, and a director of the image notwithstanding its being taken by Gerlach, and Kulka a commissioner of their execution. The copyright is therefore Kulkas. The uploader has consulted copyright specialists qualified from the University of Oxford and can provide administrators with opinions and the statement of ownership of the owners of the copyright. The other images under non free use were permitted by the Kulka Estate, on the request of the Kulka Foundation. That Registered Charitable and Curatorial Foundation comprises a group of scholars in modernist architecture with specific knowledge about Kulka and his Czech, Austrian and South Pacific ouvre. Expert and professional legal intellectual property advice was sought by the uploader (representing the Foundation ) for each and every image - who commissioned it, who directed it, whose attribution of the object taken. Legal documentation and proofs were kept of such advice for each image and were shared with the Adminstrator. Please note, violations of the Kulkas Copyright found on the internet Commons do not make it safe for Wiki editors to use this violation as a modus/pretext to move the non-free use classification of the image to Commons, particularly after we submit this addendum fore warning. That would be a wilful wrong.
    We request that the images be left, as they have been carefully published and categorised, to enrich the understanding of Kulkas’ work, which, being a building art, must be viewed as an image accompanying a description of attribution, provenance, typology, chronological order, geography and creative differentiation - which the article with the image selection does.
    Note: We request that the administrators kindly remove the ‘files for discussion’ notices’ from each image please. -- Wasuwatanabe 02:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Trim number of images Obviously, if any of these actually do turn out to be PD, then they should be moved to Commons and kept. But regardless of who the person is, WP has a non-free content policy with the goal to limit the amount of non-free image usage, including a per-page issue. Henry Kulka does not seem to have as many notability buildings like Frank Lloyd Wright (where these buildings would have their own pages and thus the images could be there), so we have to be much more selective as to what images are used. We need to go by what sources are available to give us critical commentary as to use only those images that best reflect those sources. (And to that end the article is drastially missing sources on much of its content which is not helpful here). For example the interior shot of the Harvey House is support in text via the "violin" comparison (with source) so that would be one to keep, but the next one down of the Meyer house has no discussion in the text and thus inappropriate to have. What the exact number is appropriate is hard to say, but based on how few seem supported by text, I think we're looking at 4-5 non-free at most, and that discounts what images are also PD that can be used. -- Masem ( t) 04:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://dundeecityarchives.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/dundee-women/
  2. ^ "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  3. ^ WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg

[ ]

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niteshift36 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free use in Shannon Miller which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, and in 1996 Summer Olympics which fails WP:NFCC#10c. I'm not seeing any sourced critical commentary in Shannon Miller#1996 is specifically about this imagery of the medal that justifies it's non-free use per WP:NFC#CS. More specifically, an image of the medal that Miller won at that Olympics doesn't really need to be seen for the reader to understand that she won the medal per WP:FREER, and the non-free use rationale's claim that image is needed to "illustrate a point in the article" is pretty by definition decorative non-free use. I can't see any way to justify the file's use in the Miller article and suggest that it be removed from that article.

The non-free use 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports actually makes more sense per WP:NFCC#8 since perhaps there's some sourced critical commentary about the medal's design could be found and added to that particular section and help justify it's non-free use; however, the file is currently without a non-free use rationale for that article which means it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. This could possibly be a keep if the file's use in the 1996 article can be better justified; otherwise, the file will most likely need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • It is a low resolution photo of the item. It doesn't lack contextual signifigance. If the article points out, in the lead, that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games, having a representation of what that looks like is helpful and in context. In addition, since the medals for each games are different, showing the ones for these particular games, such as in the 1996 Summer Olympics article, has value. Both of these are more than mere decoration. I expanded the rationale to reflect this. Clearly this low res picture doesn't degrade the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. Niteshift36 ( talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If the medals are different for each Olympic Games and sourced critical commentary about the design of the medals for the 2016 games can be found and added to 1996 Summer Olympics and then a corresponding non-free use rationale added to the file's page, then it might be possible to justify the file's use in that particular article per WP:NFC#CS. A separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use per WP:NFCCE; otherwise, the file can be removed simply for not having one and there doesn't seem to be a way to write a valid rationale based upon how the file is currently in 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports. As for the use in the Miller article, I disagree that a non-free image of a single medal represents that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games. A visual representation of that is borderline decorative non-free use to begin with, but this isn't even a picture showing Miller with or wearing all of the medals she won. There have been quite a number of multiple gold medal winners over years at various Olympic games and such achievements can be more than sufficiently understood by readers of such articles without actually seeing images of the medals they won. So, the reader doesn't need to see a non-free picture of a gold medal to understand that Miller won any gold medals in 1996; moreover, there's nothing special about the design of this medal that's really contextually tied to Miller, at least nothing currently in Shannon Miller#1996 or anywhere else in the article, that would be hard for the reader to understand if they didn't see this particular image. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I disagree that there needs to be critical commentary about design differences to be relevant to the depiction. Miller wasn't wearing them at the event. If you can find an image of her wearing them, that would be a good replacement. Until then, images of Miller and of the medal will have to fill that void. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from Shannon Miller. The fact that she won a gold medal can be explained in text. There is no need to include an image of the medal.
    The image currently fails WP:NFCC#10c in 1996 Summer Olympics. WP:NFCI §2 says that logos can be used for identification and for Olympic games I think that the same can be said about the mascot and maybe the medal. Is the medal always the same? If they only change the roman numeral, the city name and the year, then I think that the image runs afoul of WP:NFC#UUI §14. If, on the other hand, the image also changes, then it is maybe only WP:NFCC#10c which is violated in the article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No, the medals aren't all the same. Any easy way to demonstarate that is..... by photos. Question: What makes this picture unacceptable but makes ones like this [4] ok? Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which means there are way less restrictions placed upon how they may be used. The file being discussed here was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content and, therefore, its use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained in WP:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia. Please note that uploading a file to Commons doesn't automatically mean its licensing is OK because files are constantly being deleted from Commons for a variety of reasons; however, that's an issue that would need to be resolved on Commons. If you have a concerns involving the 1964 medals photo, you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC, but there could be a variety of reasons the photo might be OK, including the information found in c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and c:COM:Switzerland. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I had a concern. I asked what the difference it. I'm actually trying to improve Wikipedia, but I'm starting to get tired of you talking to me like I'm an idiot. I have over 40,000 edits on English Wikipedia and have uploads at the commons as well. I'm asking how to do it better, so giving me some useless "things get deleted" wikilink as if I don't understand the basics borders on insulting. Clearly, you're not going to try to help see how we can retain the picture. Your interest in in deletion only. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid. You asked a question and I tried to answer. Since you're question involved an image on Commons, I just tried to point out that such things cannot be resolved here on English Wikipedia. Anyway, my apologies if the wording of my post or the links I added somehow seemed insulting because that was not my intent.
            I did explain my concerns about the file and what I think is needed to keep using it both the Miller and 1996 Summer Olympics articles. You seemed to disagree; so, there seemed to be no need to restate the reasons why I nominated the file for discussion.
            I am curious though as to why you think the same file uploaded to Commons under a different name is now your 100% "own work" and OK to release under a free license. Is there some reason for you to believe the engraving and design of the medal is not protected by copyright? Such things actually are often eligible for copyright protection per C:COM:CB#Jewelry and c:COM:CB#Engravings. So, unless you're actually the creator of the medal, then your photograph would seem to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights that need to be considered: the one for the photo and the one for the photographed item. Since the photograph entirely focuses on the medal, it would be hard to argue de minimis in this case, which means the copyright status of the medal needs to also be taken into account. I thought this was the reason why the file's licensing was converted by you to non-free per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 28#File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg.. If something has change since then and you can clarify what it is, then perhaps this FFD can be quickly resolved. The file uploaded to Wikipedia is now orphaned non-free use and will be deleted per WP:F5 if it remains as such. However, if the Commons file cannot be kept because of c:COM:DW, it will end up deleted as well. Maybe it would be better to re-add the non-free file to the articles where it was being used until any issues with the one you uploaded to Commons are resolved or this FFD is closed, whichever happens first. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't magically think it's my own work etc. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. The focus may be on the medal, but the low resolution photo hardly diminishes the original copyright holders commercial opportunities. Nothing has changed from the conversion. I still believe all of those to be correct. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - The fact that Miller won a gold medal is adequately conveyed with the text and does not need a non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg

[ ]

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PopDisaster182 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think that WP:NFC#cite note-3 only allows the use of image in the main infobox, not this extra image, as there is no critical discussion about the cover. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Many other Wikipedia pages for musical releases use additional covers that bear significance to the release in question. For example, the page for the song I Fought the Law includes additional infoboxes for covers that were done by the other artists, and have the associated images for said covers, but does not include an image in the main infobox for the page. User:PopDisaster182 ( talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Stefan2, if I'm not mistaken, this is usually standard protocol for music Wikiprojects when the item in question is not notable enough for its own article, but is relevant to an existing one. Such an occurrence is usually rare, especially when the art differs this much. Only problem is, journalists would have a hard time trying to mention this in news items because their editor would most likely tell them "no shit, Sherlock" (nicer of course, but you get the idea). A more common example is in "deluxe editions" of albums where not only the cover art differs significantly, but there is new material. dannymusiceditor oops 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The way WP:NFC#cite note-3 is witten, I think that only one image is permitted. The situation with deluxe editions is clearer. It looks similar to the child and adult editions of the books about Harry Potter, where Wikipedia only uses the covers of the child edition, so I don't think that we should use both regular and deluxe edition covers of music albums.
If the WP:NFC guideline has diverted from music guidelines, then a discussion is needed somewhere, probably at WT:NFC. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there has to be one of these discussions somewhere but I'm not certain where it is. All I'm aware of is that this is usually considered normal, as far as I know. dannymusiceditor oops 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • A WikiProject cannot decide to do something that supersedes a community-wide policy like the WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. If a WikiProject is providing guidance that isn't in accordance with a community-wide policy, it's up to the WikiProject to revise its guidance accordingly to comply with the policy or to get the policy changed. The best way to do the later is to start a discussion on the relevant policy's talk page. You might have a preliminary discussion on a WikiProject's talk page, but things will need to be ultimately sorted out on the policy's talk page. In the case of songs, it seems to be commons practice to put all of the cover versions of a song in the same article for encyclopedic reasons, even in cases where an individual cover might be WP:NSONG in its own right. In many cases, there are individual covers for each of these versions added to the article, but that doesn't necessarily make all of the additional covers NFCC compliant. I think that basically comes down to whether the assessment is that the cover art would be allowed if it were being used in an independent articles about notable cover version. I'm not sure how that applies due to the difference between "song" and "album". I guess the same reasoning could apply if the EP is deemed notable in its own right per WP:NALBUM, but in that case it might simply be better to create a separate article for the EP and then use WP:HATS to link the two articles together. Alternative cover versions used outside the main infobox are going to be harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and simply adding the file to a secondary infobox template isn't probably going to be deemed sufficient. Does the acoustic EP meet any of the criteria of NALBUM; if not, then it's going to be quite hard to justify the non-free use of its cover art. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NFC#cite note-3 is just talking about a particular state of affairs that automatically satisfies WP:NFCC#8. But even if we don't think it applies here, taking a step back and looking at the #8 "contextual significance" criterion directly in this case, I think it's fair to say it's satisfied. i.e. omitting this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. I mean, the "Acoustic EP" section is basically just a little stub article embedded inside another article. If the image would be appropriate for the exact same content if it were simply moved to its own article, why would it not also be appropriate here? Colin M ( talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png

[ ]

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TAnthony ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a LucasFilm image of Star Wars Stormtrooper. As actors/cosplayers playing Stormtroopers wear the same indistinguishable costume/armour (apart from obvious derivative cosplays), it seems that cosplay images can perfectly replace the fair-use file. Given that we have ample cosplay images of Stormtroopers on Commons, it is doubted that whether WP:NFCC#1 is violated. The file is therefore nominated to be deleted. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've also asked for further copyright advice on WP:MCQ#Star Wars Stormtrooper and File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png, but it seems that no response have been made. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but overwrite with an image from official media because according to Fandom (which is listed as the source here, unacceptable) this image originates from http://www.anovos.com/collections/the-imperial-collection/products/star-wars-classic-trilogy-imperial-stormtrooper-pre-order (dead link) which was "awarded the STAR WARS™ high-end costume and high-end collectibles licenses" so the current image is no more valuable than a photo of a cosplayer wearing the same thing. 廣九直通車, according to Commons we have to use the separability test. While a large portion of the suit would be considered utilitarian, particularly the lower part of the helmet doesn't appear to be, containing many details without any function. It has been a source of debate for well over a decade on Commons though. @ Clindberg: would you agree that at least the helmet is eligible for copyright protection? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe a U.S. court ruled they were copyrightable (but it was a summary judgement, as the defendant did not show up) -- but they are not copyrightable in the UK, actually. See Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you know of a "real" ruling? The Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth article mentions a case in California where Lucasfilm won by default, i.e. the court never considered the question whether the costumes were copyrighted because the defendant never showed up in court. I don't think that a default ruling is suitable to determine if something is copyrighted or not.
      • For Commons, it is also necessary to determine the status in the source country. The French supreme court has ruled that furniture can be copyrighted and that photos of furniture can infringe the copyright of the furniture, so photos of costumes could be an issue in France. However, Wikipedia only looks at United States law and United States law exempts utilitarian objects from copyright protection. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Presumably there was a valid copyright registration for Lucasfilm to file suit in the first place -- if they have one of those, then I believe copyrightability is prima facie assumed by the court. I think a defendant would have to disprove it during the case, and the defendant did not show up. I'm not sure they had a sculpture registration directly, though General Mills has a couple of 1978 registrations on derivative stormtrooper toys. Those mention the movie itself as the underlying work, so Lucasfilm may have been relying on the character copyright embodied in the movie in order to file suit, rather than a direct sculptural registration. The U.S. Copyright Office searchable records only start in 1978 though, so it's possible there was something earlier. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
          Clindberg, I can see why the "it's a sculpture!" argument would fall flat. It clearly isn't a sculpture, it's a functional helmet. It will protect you from rain and foes armed with paintball guns. I wouldn't count on it as a bike helmet, but that's not a requirement to be utilitarian. What would be interesting (assuming this isn't what happened) is if Ainsworth had used all the holes in the lower part of the helmet to turn it into a functional gas mask, respirator or diving helmet. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's possible (but I have no helmet to check) that the holes actually allow for air to circulate so the actors won't suffocate/overheat. If that assumption is true it would make this considerably harder to judge, I think. But until we know more, I think it's safest to assume non-free. Besides that, I'd really prefer to see a genuine depiction from the movies in this case. A cosplayer ultimately isn't a Stormtrooper. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
          • @ Alexis Jazz: The Copyright Office has generally said that Halloween masks would tend to fall outside of the "useful article" scope, and are often registrable. See here. From that, Although a mask alone is not considered a useful article, a legitimate question arises regarding registration practices in instances where a copyrightable mask is combined and sold as a unit with an otherwise uncopyrightable costume. In such circumstances, the Copyright Office will register the "work" on the basis of the copyrightable authorship in the mask. A helmet could be an interesting part of that -- the helmet portion can be utilitarian, but if the portion in the mask area is considered "separable" or not utilitarian, it could still be a problem. It's in the gray area, for sure. There is also the possibility there is a "character" copyright on the details of stormtroopers, and a costume could infringe that (but not sure we delete photos of cosplay on those grounds, if the costumes themselves are legal). And photos which are not focusing on the mask portion may be fine, as well, if the copyright is just on the mask, much like a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle -- only photos focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep non-free image but replace, per above - I uploaded this image in the first place because every cosplay image previously used in the article was systematically deleted from Commons as a copyright violation (see Costumes and cosplay). I'm sort of shocked that there are so many such images on Commons now, perhaps the community has begun taking a less aggressive stance? In any case, I was unaware this was not an official image, so if a non-free image remains then I agree with Alexis Jazz it should be replaced with an official one.— TAnthony Talk 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Question @ Alexis Jazz and TAnthony: Commons had a deletion case involving a image depicting a Spiderman cosplay (which of course is the kind of character where the costume covers the full body of the actor/cosplayer), and the file involved is later closed after lawyer's opinion is solicited. Do you think such safeguard on Commons is sufficient to ensure that related files on Commons won't be suddenly deleted? 廣九直通車 ( talk) 05:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      廣九直通車, that 2009 email from Godwin has been superseded by the 2011 email from WMF legal which was discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      • My fault for not noticing that advice has since been superseded by another one. Fine then, I'll withdraw my request for deletion, and will wait for the replacement. Thanks for all of your comments! 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
        I don't have access to the movies currently. TAnthony, can you supply an image from the movies? Or if you can find a suitable image at https://www.youtube.com/c/StarWars/videos I could take a screenshot. I found no great image in the trailers for the recent Star Wars movies on that channel but there's much more content there. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg

[ ]

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NoobMiester96 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image that is stated to be used for identification but is actually used at the bottom of the article. File:Starro.jpg is the fil in use for identification. The remocal of this image would not detract from the understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • weak keep it's the same character in a quite different (and quite popular) media. Seems quite relevant to the article and no reasonable amount of words is going to make the differences clear. This is "a picture is worth 1000 words" situation IMO. Weak because it's not clear all that is enough for using a non-free file... Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg

[ ]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rain Forest ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free song sample which is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The song is mentioned in the article but none of the critical analysis claimed in the purpose is present in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 13:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Whpq's point was absolutely valid, however, having read through the article it was used in, it now meets WP:NFCC#8. Rain Forest ( talk) 06:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Move file to Dumb Dumb (Somi song). WP:NFC#UUI#6 guides users to utilize non-free content in the article of the subject if it exists, which it does in this case. The critical commentary should be moved there as well. plicit 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg

[ ]

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The US release lacks a picture sleeve, yet the US market share was larger than the rest of the world at the time. Yeah well, I'm summarizing what the uploader (the same who uploaded this image and the other image I previously nominated) said at the other FFD discussion. To put it another way, the American music industry has been very important. Out of huge single releases at the time, Americans received the single release using just a generic sleeve. The US release hasn't been distributed with a picture on the front cover.

I don't think a picture sleeve of an overseas release of " Love Train" by the O'Jays is necessary. The free image exists ( File:Love train by o'jays US vinyl.png) and is concurrently used there. Furthermore, the song can be already well understood without a picture sleeve identifying singers (or band) who recorded the song or a song title. The (overseas, or German/Dutch) picture sleeve may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1. Moreover, the picture sleeve wasn't well identified without a caption. Whether enjoyment of the article or the song may be affected by deletion of the sleeve isn't part of NFCC. Understanding the song (or the single release) with or without the image is part of the NFCC.

Well, it's not like " I Need You (Eric Carmen song)", whose non-free lead image was kept by default. Rather I hope to compare this with " Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing". This isn't the case of whether the song has more than one version. Instead, this is more about identifiable releases (of the same version of the song). George Ho ( talk) 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Where are you getting information about the sleeve cover? It looks like you also changed Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing to say that it was artwork for the German single [5]. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    45cat.com shows images of the Dutch and German releases, which contain the same picture sleeve. The US release lacks one. Even the German release of the Donny and Marie Osmond version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" has a picture sleeve, while the US release doesn't. I can show you images from discogs, a user-generated website, if you like. If you don't believe in 45cat or discogs, then I don't know how else to convince you. If only eBay listings show more images of the releases.... George Ho ( talk) 23:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Very surprised that neither 45Cat nor discogs (2 US entries) have one. I tend to believe them, even though they are "not WP:RS." Maybe, as US artists, the company assumed the American public would know better who they were buying? Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    If curious, you can look up sources discussing vinyl singles sleeves or use the Wikipedia Library. You'll learn history of releasing singles before CDs. George Ho ( talk) 10:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the links. The first has "No preview available" for me. I'm not sure there is anything there which might answer the question here. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:ZTE Orbit phone.jpg

[ ]

File:ZTE Orbit phone.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Well within the bounds of WP:NFCC#1. This is a defunct phone with defunct insecure OS from almost a decade ago, with batteries that are rated for 2-3 years. The chances of a new free equivalent being created is zero, and I don't see any existing free replacements. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It is possible that the batteries no longer work, but most phones can get electricity by connecting a cable to the phone if you wish to run the software. Note that the software is unfree, but the photo still fails WP:FREER. Also, there is no software seen on the back of the phone. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Overwatch loot box.gif

[ ]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The NFCC#1 "not replaceable with free media" criteria is inaccurate. Even assuming that it's impossible or extraordinarily unlikely for any freely licensed game to have microtransactions, it would still be possible for someone to create a freely licensed representative example of lootbox opening. Such an example already exists at File:Video game loot box mockup.png and is included in the article Loot box. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to add on that in the context of the article as it is right now, none of the elements specific to Overwatch are discussed in the context of this image. The description for the image as it is used in the article only remarks on general features of lootboxes that are present in the image, such as the items flying out of the lootbox, item rarity by colour, and the "final reveal". Two of those are demonstrated in the freely licensed image at the top of the article and a freely licensed "final reveal" could be easily mocked up. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This was discussed last December with "no consensus" Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 8, and I think the same arguments still apply. The article discusses the specific nature of how certain parts of opening loot box animations (not necessarily those specific to Overwatch, but exemplified by Overwatch's animation) are used to draw in the gambling loop. While there are free ways to show how a loot box is opened, they do not capture the artist aspects that companies like Blizzard have spent to make the aspect of opening another loot box attractive (factors discussed in the article in depth). That animation aspect cannot easily be remade by free works. A free work can demonstrate the mechanic aspects of what a loot box does, but not the psychological factor which is what only is going to come from a commercial -- and therefore non-free -- example. -- Masem ( t) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Since the last FFD an example has been created at File:Video game loot box mockup.png, so the discussion has materially changed since then.
    The argument you're making is basically equivalent to saying that no free equivalent of lootboxes can be created that is of the same quality of the Overwatch lootbox. This flies in the face of the spirit of WP:NFCC and a decade or so of consensus, which is that we can't use a non-free file solely because it would look better than a free equivalent. "Free replacements" are allowed to be substandard and of a significantly worse quality so long as they demonstrate the encyclopedic aspects of a non-free image.
    And the necessity of the profit motive making something non-free is illogical. If I create a JimboBox app on my computer tomorrow that lets one collect rare Jimbo cards composed solely of freely licensed photos of User:Jimbo Wales and charge the user $5 for a box of four Jimbos, solely so I can screenshot a photo of that app and freely license it, would that change your opinion? Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    There's two aspects of a loot box image. One is the mechanical factors to show the box opening, dispensing loot (with different rarities) and all the flat-out gameplay stuff which absolutely can be 100% recreated with a free image. But the factor about loot boxes is the subtle psychological aspects of how this presentation has been tuned with fine details as to increase the anticipation level and draw the player into continuing the cycle - matters discussed in the article, and the type of stuff that is refined by commercial publishers (seeking to make a profit) to maximize that influence. Those elements simply can't be recreated with a free image because they represent time and money put into by the commercial company to get it just right. And that's the part that is important to capture from the OW loot box image and justified via NFC. -- Masem ( t) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    You're again, just reiterating the argument that since free images can never have the same quality as the commercial ones (which may or may not be true), that it's OK to include non-free content. This is an argument that has been rejected time and time again, with low quality free images used all the time in place of high quality images. It's also interesting that you claim that these "subtle psychological aspects" are "matters discussed in the article". I don't actually see any discussion outside of the caption of these "subtle psychological aspects" in the gif that aren't demonstrated by the free image that's currently present in the article. Just to diagram it, let's examine what's present in the non-free/free image and discussed in the "design" section as of this diff [6]:
    1. Loot boxes are often given to players during play, by watching streams, or by buying them (free ☒N non-free ☒N; neither image shows how the lootbox is obtained)
    2. Loot boxes can either be openable immediately or by using "keys" (free ☒N non-free ☒N; both images do not show keys)
    3. Loot boxes have appealing visual effects (free checkY non-free checkY)
    4. Loot boxes have appealing audio effects (free ☒N non-free ☒N)
    5. Loot boxes can be modelled off of slot machines or roulette wheels (free ☒N non-free ☒N)
    6. Loot boxes can show a prominent button prompting the player to buy more (free ☒N non-free checkY)
    7. Loot boxes can contain items of differing rarity, sometimes denoted by colour (free checkY non-free checkY)
    8. Loot boxes can have a mechanic that increases the odds of higher rarities the more cases are opened (free ☒N non-free ☒N)
    9. Loot boxes may give items that can be traded or shown to other players via inventories (free ☒N non-free ☒N, no demonstration of that mechanic in the gif itself)
    10. Loot boxes give items visible to other players via the course of a game (free ☒N non-free ☒N, neither image actually shows the game in which the items are being used)
    11. Loot boxes can give items that the player already owns (free ☒N non-free ☒N, player's inventory is not shown in either image)
    12. Loot boxes that give "duplicates" can have systems for the player to get rid of these duplicates, such as trading or converting into in-game currency (free ☒N non-free ☒N, neither image shows those systems in use)
    13. Loot box systems can allow a player to use the aforementioned in-game currency to directly purchase items they don't have, circumventing the loot box (free ☒N non-free ☒N, neither image shows those systems)
    14. Loot boxes can implement " gashapon" mechanics (free ☒N non-free ☒N)
    15. Loot boxes can be "seasonal" and only available during a certain time (free ☒N non-free ☒N, Overwatch seasonal lootboxes not shown in the gif)
    It appears to me as if the only aspect that this particular gif demonstrates over the free image that is included in the article is that this gif includes a button to go to the "shop". The rest of the details are only included in the caption and are unsourced commentary. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article does not discuss any visual elements specific to Overwatch, and discussions about the psychological factors are not related to the visual elements. The free image File:Video game loot box mockup.png is sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Wcam ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

October 6

File:Central Market midcentury.jpg

[ ]

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

Violation of WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Also dubious WP:NFCC#1 assessment. Why is it believed that no free images exist? The image is from the time when copyright notices and renewals were required. What checks have been made to verify if there are other images which were published without notice or renewal, such as advertisements? Stefan2 ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is not a violation of #8, I discuss its Tudor-Revival trim that was in place for its last 36 years, and thus is how many residents identify the building, as stated it was "commonly associated with the building". It also shows the building in the mid-20th century. The only free files show it around the turn of the century, before the automobile era and urban revitalization. The image conveys it as a relic of a past time, an important part of the historical narrative. As for NFCC #1, again, this would be another benefit of talking to me first. I wrote the article on the market, and had a heavily exhaustive search (literally and figuratively) to find free images of the building in this era. All you have to do is ask, not tag-bomb. ɱ (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Assuming that this discussion you're referring to above is the second paragraph in Central Market (Columbus, Ohio)#History, then perhaps there's a better way to support what's being claimed than a single citation at the end of the paragraph. Right now, it's not clear (at least in my opinion) whether everything in that paragraph reflects what is written in the cited source or whether the source is for only the last sentence. I'm getting a 404 error when I try and check the source, which is making verifying things a bit hard at the moment. An image isn't automatically "historic" per WP:NFCC#8 (as clarified in item 8 of WP:NFCI, WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:NFC#CS) just because it's old or shows how something looked a long time ago; historic images tend to be ones which themselves are the subject of sourced critical commentary either at the time the image was taken or in the years since. There might be critical commentary added about an image to an article, but it's going to be considered WP:OR in many cases if it's unsourced or vaguely sourced. So, if there's a way to further clarify things about the image in this article by adding more supporting sources or clarifying whether the existing source applies to the entire paragraph, then that might help sort out the NFCC#8 concerns. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • This is a near-repeat of an earlier comment you made to me. If you really think {{ Non-free historic image}} is meant for what you claim it is meant for, why not try to reword it? Because as it stands right now, the only part that says "the image itself" has to be the subject of commentary is when the image is from a press agency. For general uses, like sentences above that, it has no such clarification. ɱ (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • {{ Non-free historic image}} is a copyright license template. I didn't create it or any of the other similar templates, but my guess what that they were worded in a way that allowed them to make them easier to apply to certain types of non-free files. Simply adding a non-free copyright license doesn't, however, make a non-free automatically WP:NFCC compliant; even adding a non-free use rationale doesn't make a particular use compliant. The burden falls upon the uploader of a non-free file per WP:NFCCE to provide a valid justification of it's use(s), and any disagreement over this can be resolved through discussions like this. If a consensus is establish in favor of the file's use, then the file will be kept; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Cool, well it's abundantly clear that the image can be licensed as nonfree-historic without the physical photograph needing to have its own notability. ɱ (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • And I would be cautious when taking that narrow interpretation - the guidelines/essays you cited to me do not stress that the image itself has to be iconic and subject of commentary, but that the image has to have a historical importance, and parallel critical commentary in the article. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • My interpretation is what I based my comment on. I didn't WP:!VOTE in this discussion, only commented. Either way, if my interpretation is incorrect, then whatever consensus is established will almost certainly not reflect what I posted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll fix the dead URL to Edible Columbus, but you're not very clear going on about references and paragraphs, can you explain more clearly what you intend to point out about that? ɱ (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • There's a seven sentence paragraph supported by a single citation at the end. The content spans a 30-year period, and one of the sentences even appears to be an indirect quote attributed to the Governor of Ohio. The only sentence which specifically seems to tie into the market's appearance and thus this file's use is the first sentenace: "In 1930, the market was remodeled by Thomas Tully, with new dormers, half-timber trim, new roof lines, and heating and refrigeration installed." That sentence, however, doesn't seem to be supported by a source. Is all of that content of that paragraph supported by the same single citation? If it is, then perhaps would be better to clarify this (if possible) to make the WP:INTEGRITY a bit clearer. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • There are three instances that mention timber, several that talk about urban renewal, and one that mentions its historic surroundings, contrasted by the more modern nonfree image here. ɱ (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • And this about citations is a dead giveaway that you're not a seasoned writer here. You don't have to cite every single sentence, in fact, you're discouraged from doing that. Unless it really needs to be clear, e.g. with a controversial statement, it is better to add the inline citation following all the information being cited, usually at the end of the paragraph. So, yes, those seven sentences were from that reference, and I'm not about to add six more citations just to clutter up the prose. ɱ (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Another comment - this building is almost always depicted with the Tudor Revival trim. It's the most identifiable feature, and unique for a public building and near-unique entirely for Columbus. This is the case so much that works that talk about it, including A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus, only use a photograph of it with the Tudor Revival exterior. To have an article on the building without this appearance is like having an article on the U.S. Capitol but only depicting it with photographs from its pre-dome state. ɱ (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Apple store 2017-19 renovation.jpg

[ ]

File:Apple store 2017-19 renovation.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: no need to see a picture of it being renovated to understand that it was renovated. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - the file demonstrates the reconstruction of the cube with three massive panels of glass per side, and is the only known photograph to show it alongside the temporary Apple store. Both are part of critical commentary in the article. ɱ (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Free pictures of previous renovations already exist, and there is already another nonfree image in the article. Does not really serve to improve my visual aid since it doesn't describe any particular unique renovation. The box in 2011 was pretty unique, warranting its inclusion (plus the presence of multiple free images), but this one I don't see anything that would improve critical commentary. Sennecaster ( Chat) 17:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 5

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light car barn.jpg

[ ]

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light car barn.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 01:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: WP:NFCC#3b is ridiculous, simply reduce the image size. WP:NFG is merely a guideline that states it's okay on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it doesn't need to be in the gallery, but the car barn is decently discussed in the article, an important part of the complex written about, and this is the only image that depicts it. It's likely a free image anyhow, it's so old, though I haven't found the original source. As for WP:NFCC#8, I already cover that it's a significant part of the complex with enough discussion to warrant an illustration. ɱ (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The file description page - which you wrote - and its use in the article doesn't support any of that. The assertion that it's "as small a version as possible", at 3710x1974 px, is ridiculous on the face of it. The image isn't discussed at all in the article; the sum total of critical commentary is the caption "Car barn and powerhouse, undated". Use of {{ non-free historic image}} generally requires critical commentary on that specific image, not its subject - that the subject no longer exists would strengthen a different base rationale (typically identification), but isn't one in and of itself. And no, it doesn't identify the article's subject, which is the office complex; what this image covers gets all of one sentence in the article body and two words in the lead. Maybe an acceptable fair-use rationale could be written to use this image, but this ain't it.
      I do agree that it's likely free. It looks like newsprint, so was probably published promptly after creation, meaning it dates to 1930 at the latest and either is now or will be public domain within the next few years. Best bet to keep this image would be to contact that blogger and ask him where he got it from. — Cryptic 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I already contacted the blogger, and he has no idea anymore, nor could I find the source myself. I can work towards adding more about the car barn in the article, but can you show me a better example of a nonfree file like this with a good rationale, so I can improve this one? And/or if you want to help correct it yourself, please do. ɱ (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Since we don't have a better source, we have to assume that the file is unfree. However, due to the age, there is also the question on whether the image is thought to satisfy WP:NFCC#1. What attempts have been made to determine that there are no other photos which are in the public domain due to lack of notice or renewal? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I have been exhaustively searching the web for this file, and ones like it. So far the best I've got of the car barn is a low-res photo of the side, without showing the words printed on the front, and without showing the powerhouse. ɱ (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
            • It sounds as if you have been searching the wrong place. The web did not exist back in the days, so the obvious place to publish photos was not on the web but on paper. What attempts have been made to see if anything was published on paper and whether any such material happens to be in the public domain? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
              • Is this serious, or humor? I have been a historical researcher for well over a decade. I am not sure if you are, but I know the best avenues for research. The blogger, Don, found the photos online, and thus they are certainly online somewhere. And you might not know, but digital archives like the Library of Congress, Internet Archive, Google Books, and local sources like the Columbus Metropolitan Library, Westerville Historical Society, etc., etc., have far more old documents, newspapers, photographs, and books available online than you could find with countless hours of manually searching paper volumes. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

File:June Havoc photo from Anna Christie on Celanese Theatre.jpg

[ ]

File:June Havoc photo from Anna Christie on Celanese Theatre.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raygauche ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary failing WP:NFCC#8. The breadth and scope of the subject's career does not need an image to demonstrate it as that is accomplished with the text in the article with her credits and so fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq ( talk) 02:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to say what first comes to mind is the "old chestnut" that a picture is worth a thousand words. I think that this is particularly true with a visual artist such as an actor or actress. It is true, of course, that the text indicates that June Havoc played the part of Anna Christie in a performance of the Eugene O'Neill play on the Celanese Theatre program in 1952. However, that fact does not describe the performance: the look of Ms. Havoc in the role; her costume; the props. The photograph shows Ms. Havoc in character as Anna Christie, which is separate and distinct from the fact that she played the role. Raygauche ( talk) 20:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That old chestnut is generally not accepted as a valid reason to keep a non-free image. What is needed is significant independent sourced commentary about the image. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg

[ ]

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ritchie333 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Pretty much per the previous FfD, where I set out the rationale of why the file was PD, leading it to be kept. However, a bunch of bots keep "edit warring" on it, so I'm bringing discussion here again to gauge consensus on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The previous FFD only considered public domain status in the UK. If it was published in 1929 and in copyright in the UK until 1999, then it's still in copyright in the US - the monstrosity that is the URAA "restored" copyright to foreign works still in copyright in their country of origin in 1996. Particularly heinous for this image, which likely would have been public domain in the US for many decades had it originated there, maybe since publication.
    Copyright duration in the US for works-for-hire is 95 years since publication, or 120 since creation if that's sooner. So if you know it was actually published in 1929, it'll become PD in the US in 2025 (at least unless Disney intervenes again). If it was just created in 1929 and not published until later, it might remain under US copyright as long as 2050. — Cryptic 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    Cryptic, And to further add to that, the "Underground Group" mentioned in the picture is (I believe) the Underground Electric Railways Company of London which was a private organisation, hence copyright expiring 70 years after publication. However, four years later, in 1933, it was absorbed into the London Passenger Transport Board, a government organisation and hence under Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. So, if my understanding is correct, it means that a photograph published later by the same body (or descendent) is more likely to be out of copyright. That's .... bonkers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:A screenshot of Smalltalk-76.png

[ ]

File:A screenshot of Smalltalk-76.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SUMIM.ST ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Was going to di-replacable-fair-use this, but since it is used on a couple of articles where this would be useful, I think it would be good to have a discussion about this. For each of the uses listed, only Xerox Alto seems like the one most in line with our WP:NONFREE policy. The rest should be removed. And even Xerox Alto's usage may possibly not be in line with our non-free policy. That is my reason for listing this for discussion. Aasim ( talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not impossible to see what a Smalltalk-76 desktop looks like, but it's a very high hurdle for a casual visitor to Wikipedia. Trying to talk about the history of Window-Icon-Mouse-Pointer (a.k.a. WIMP) based GUIs and the desktop metaphar without this image tends to result in reality being twisted by history revisioners, especially fan of Apple and Jobs. It is very important to show this image at key points, and I hope you understand. SUMIM.ST 9:55, 6 October 2021 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUMIM.ST ( talkcontribs)
The main concerns here are NFCC 1 and NFCC 8. NFCC 1 prohibits uses where text would suffice. NFCC 8 prohibits uses that would not increase understanding of a topic. Aasim ( talk) 21:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

November 22

Borderline (Madonna song) cover arts

File:Madonna - Borderline (US 7-inch single).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Borderline by Madonna European artwork.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded the US 7-inch vinyl release under originally JPEG format to replace the European artwork ( JPEG version) in 2013. Then the PNG version of the same US release took over in 2017; I haven't minded the change. This year, the change to the European artwork occurred. I had the image reverted back to what the image was and then uploaded the European artwork separately. Then I'm listing both cover arts here.

The song " Borderline" was recorded in the US by the American singer Madonna. Sure, Madonna's a global icon, but she and the song are American. Furthermore, American music industry has been influential and has had its own share of customers in its region. If keeping both is not aligned/compliant with WP:NFCC#3a, then one of them should be kept; the other, deleted. Preferably, the US 7-inch single release should be kept (primarily) to represent her, the industry, and the American customers. However, I can see others voting for the European artwork, especially if her influence on Europe matters more. Alternatively, both cover arts can be kept by default if there's no agreement on what to do with them. George Ho ( talk) 06:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Christopher Renz.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

tagged VRT (OTRS) received for 3 months. Upon reviewing the associated VRT ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 08:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Dead Actorism emparchment.jpg

File:Dead Actorism emparchment.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hunterd ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm not even sure what this is exactly? It's only used on User:Hunterd/DeadActorism/HolyEmparchment which doesn't explain it either. Does it have educational value? The claim This file is copyright the OneCone community, however I (on behalf of OneCone community, being a member of it for several years) have released all the rights. seems problematic. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 15:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Dalmatinac 1957 Robinson Cup Winners.jpg

File:Dalmatinac 1957 Robinson Cup Winners.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maestrale ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No indication whether the actual banner is in public domain. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Thai Constitution Defense Monument Removal 2016.jpg

File:Thai Constitution Defense Monument Removal 2016.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILikelargeFries ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image that is used to illustrate text about the removal of the Constitution Defense Monument. The removal is adequately described with text so fails WP:NFCC#1. the image itself is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary nor would its removal destract from the understanding of the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 18:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Dark Days Inside the Light While Drunk on Wine.jpg

File:Dark Days Inside the Light While Drunk on Wine.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joseph Barker ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused book cover, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Daisy Buchanan.png

File:Daisy Buchanan.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Informant16 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is used on the page Daisy Buchanan and is of an actress portraying the role. The non-free rationale for use states that no free replacement can be found. However, there have since been two images in the article of actresses who have portrayed the character from the public domain( one and two. -- Mike  🗩 21:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - the stated purpose in the NFUR of illustrating the character fails WP:NFCC#1 as noted in the nomination. The image itself is not needed to understand the article nor is it the subject of significant sourced commentary so I see no way that the NFUR could be modified so that the image could be used. Whpq ( talk) 15:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent nominations

November 23

File:E Logo small.png

File:E Logo small.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo used within a list, which should be avoided per WP:NFLISTS. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, but convert to PD-logo: This logo seems simple enough to convert to {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States since it's basically a combination of two simple elements (a square shape and a script-letter "E") which are not really copyrightable in their own right and the combination they create is also not really eligible for copyright protection in my opinion. So, if the consensus is that this logo is simple enough to be PD then that would mean it's no longer be subject to WP:NFCC and could continue to be used in the list article. If, however, the consensus is that it needs to remain licensed as non-free, then it I agree with the above comment about WP:NFLISTS and that the file's non-free use in the article would not be policy compliant. Most likely the file was uploaded for use in a stand-alone article about Esperanza Drum and Bugle Corps and the non-free use rationale provided at the time would normally be OK in such a case; once the article was redirected to the list article, the justification given for non-free use was no longer applicable and the file's use was no longer policy compliant. Non-free use is not automatic and when articles are merged or redirected into other articles, any non-free content being used therein needs to also be justifiable per relevant policy in the new article or it will need to be deleted if a valid non-free use for it cannot be found. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:InternetKKsm.png

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

Non-free logo used within a list, which should be avoided per WP:NFLISTS. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Oregon Crusaders Drum & Bugle Corps logo.jpg

File:Oregon Crusaders Drum & Bugle Corps logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GWFrog ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo used within a list, which should be avoided per WP:NFLISTS. Further, there are free images provided of the corps in uniform which can also serve an identifying purpose. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sky-Ryders-Logo.png

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

Non-free logo used within a list, which should be avoided per WP:NFLISTS. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Thunder Drum and Bugle Corps logo.jpeg

File:Thunder Drum and Bugle Corps logo.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GWFrog ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo used within a list, which should be avoided per WP:NFLISTS. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: This logo might be simple enough to convert to {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States since it's basically a combination of two simple elements (i.e. two colored right triangles with their hypotenuses slightly cut out) which are probably not copyrightable in their own right. The only question mark is whether the combination of the two to create the lighting bolt third-element in the middle might be just creative enough so that together they are eligible for copyright protection. If the consensus is that this logo is simple enough to be PD then that would mean it's no longer be subject to WP:NFCC and could continue to be used in the list article. If, however, the consensus is that it needs to remain licensed as non-free, then it I agree with the above comment about WP:NFLISTS and that the file's non-free use in the article would not be policy compliant. Most likely the file was uploaded for use in a stand-alone article about Thunder Drum and Bugle Corps and the non-free use rationale provided at the time would normally be OK in such a case; once the article was redirected to the list article, the justification given for non-free use was no longer applicable and the file's use was no longer policy compliant. Non-free use is not automatic and when articles are merged or redirected into other articles, any non-free content being used therein needs to also be justifiable per relevant policy in the new article or it will need to be deleted if a valid non-free use for it cannot be found. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Lady on glass.jpg

File:Lady on glass.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rajesh dangi ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per COM:FOP India, freedom of panorama does not extended to 2D works. There is no evidence that this artwork is subject to {{ PD-India}}. plicit 07:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. This would basically be considered a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights to consider: the one for the photo and the one for the subject of the photo. If the uploader is the same person who took the photo, they can release the photo under a free or PD license; however, they still would need the WP:CONSENT of whomever painted the "Lady on glass" in order for this file to be kept. The same file is also being discussed -at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lady on glass.jpg and if Commons can't keep the photo, then it would be hard for Wikipedia to do so as well. Since there's also no freedom of panorama for 2D-works-of-art in the US per c:COM:FOP United States, I don't think there's any way to keep this locally as PD in the US only as well unless someone can clearly establish that the artwork was created prior to January 1, 1978, and was either published without a copyright notice (i.e. {{ PD-US-no notice}}) or was published with such a notice but copyright wasn't renewed (i.e. {{ PD-US-not renewed}}). The only other option would then be to treat the file as non-free with a {{ Non-free 2D art}} added a a copyright license for the artwork and {{ Non-free use rationale 2}} added for the rationale; however, given the way the file is currently being used in Mavalli Tiffin Room#MTR Foods it would be really hard to justify that the non-free use of the file per WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFG. If the Commons file is kept, there's no need for the same file to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia; if the Commons file isn't kept, then this one cannot also be kept for the same reasons. So, basically, this file will end up deleted regardless of what happens to the Commons file. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Equal Dagesh .PNG

File:Equal Dagesh .PNG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epson291 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is unused (except in creator's sandbox) while the commons version ( File:Hebrew Equal Dagesh.svg) is of better quality and used in 3 en.wiki articles. Gonnym ( talk) 11:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:John Swinney addresses media over Kilmarnock incidents.png

File:John Swinney addresses media over Kilmarnock incidents.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Goodreg3 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is not needed, as it does not portray the event. It's just someone standing at a podium after the event, and so fails WP:NFCC#8, as it doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. We also have File:Scene of 2021 Kilmarnock incidents.png, which is a much more relevant image of the actual event, which is much more useful to contextualising the event than a man on a podium Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Ipl2020IsBack.jpg

File:Ipl2020IsBack.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daljit8 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused derivative work of several copyrighted designs. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete it's a mixture of many logos. We already have File:Ipl2020NewLogo.jpg for the 2020 Indian Premier League logo, and the team logos are already on the correct team articles. There is no article where this derivative work would be an appropriate fair use image. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 21:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Barney's film.png

File:Barney's film.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scorpion0422 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used for the infobox of A Star Is Burns. Depicts a scene from Barney Gumble's (short?) movie, but the scene can be easily described by text, making it possibly replaceable per WP:FREER. Furthermore, critical commentary is insufficient enough to support the image, which can also fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. George Ho ( talk) 19:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:CeciliaHighSchoolLA.jpg

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

No freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in the United States. Ixfd64 ( talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: There is actually some (conditional) freedom of panorama for 3D works of art publically installed in the US prior to 1978, but the provenance of this statue isn't immediately clear from Cecilia High School or Cecilia, Louisiana. Depending upon when the statue was first installed, it could possibly be {{ PD-US-no notice}} or {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. According to its Wikipedia article, the school might date back to 1922; so, the statue might even be {{ PD-US}} if the it goes back that far. I couldn't find any listing for this in the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog, but perhaps someone else can figure out when it was installed. The uploader of the photo hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of July 2017 which means somebody else may have to be clarify when it was installed if they feel the image should be kept; otherwise, this will need to be treated as a WP:Derivative work and can't be kept without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the statue. There also seems to be no way to convert this to non-free content under a license of {{ Non-free 3D art}} given the way the file is currently be used. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November 24

File:ScarAndHyenas.jpg

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

Depicts a scene of the main antagonist of The Lion King at the top of the tower of hyenas. Identifies a scene from "Be Prepared" act, but I'm unsure whether it improves the understanding of the song in question. Default to doubting it, but I can stand corrected. George Ho ( talk) 03:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Feelin so good.jpg

File:Feelin so good.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AJ9 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Identifies Jennifer Lopez and her mother in the " Feelin' So Good" music video. In the scene, her mother feeds Lopez. I'm unconvinced that critical commentary is sufficient enough to support the image, which may fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. Furthermore, the scene is already described and easily understood in text, making the image replaceable per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1. George Ho ( talk) 06:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Claire Monis wiki.jpg

File:Claire Monis wiki.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David Choukroun ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Reuploaded after being deleted on Commons. No license, no source, no author, no date of first publication. Maybe it could be kept under a fair use rationale, but the uploader needs to provide one. Yann ( talk) 08:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete image should be assumed copyrighted, as it's impossible to tell from the information whether it's old enough to be public domain in US and country of origin. Cannot be used as fair use, as fails WP:NFCC#1, as there are other images of her from a similar time period in the article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Proteroctopus ribeti fossil.jpg

File:Proteroctopus ribeti fossil.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgiganteus1 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is used under a fair use rationale. c:File:Proteroctopus ribeti.jpg has been uploaded from [7] which is very similar, but not the same photo. The shadows differ and it appears to include slightly more debris. I suspect this fair use image was taken slightly later after the fossil was further cleaned. We can't rule out c:File:Proteroctopus ribeti.jpg being copyvio (could be a derivative work, someone taking a copyrighted photo, adding a text layer and uploading it with a free license) but unless we have proof of that we should probably just accept it and thus delete this fair use image. For reference, the source of this fair use image is dead but it was archived. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination Coffee.. I'm a gullible idiot. Credit: From “Proteroctopus Ribeti in Coleoid Evolution,” by Isabelle Kruta et al., in Palaeontology, Vol. 59; November 2016. (I'm not in the mood for discussing the file on Commons but anyone reading this is free to do so) — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Paranaja: FYI — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Jérémie Bardin, who uploaded the image to Morphobank, was one of the authors of the s