Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Search all archived Files for discussion nominations:

WP:FFDWP:FFD

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

XfD backlog
v
t
e
V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	4	18	33	28	83
TfD	0	0	4	8	12
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	7	12	13	9	41
RfD	0	0	12	59	71
AfD	0	0	0	35	35

Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Nominated files are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus or the file may be deleted or removed if the nominator specifically requests it and no objections are raised.

If you want to nominate a file for discussion, follow the instructions below.

How to use this page

Reasons for nominating a file

Shortcut

WP:FFD#REASONSWP:FFD#REASONS

While this list comprises the most common and uncontroversial reasons to discuss a file, any properly explained reason can be used. Examples of files you may request for discussion here include:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file or its copyright status, start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to nominate here

Shortcut

WP:FFD#NOTWP:FFD#NOT

The majority of deletion and merge proposals concerning pages in the file namespace should be nominated at this venue. However, there are a few exceptions:

In general, if a deletion is uncontroversial, use the Proposed deletion process; if your proposed deletion is later contested, then you can nominate the file here.
For speedy deletion candidates, tag the file under one of the criteria for speedy deletion of files. These include duplicates, thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, and others
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
For files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused, or are non-free without rationale, place one of the following tags on 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.
For redundant or duplicate files, use:
1. {{Db-f1|FILENAME}} (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
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is nominated as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
For files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, use the Commons deletion request system.
For file description pages with no local file, even if they are in the file namespace:
1. For redirects, if none of the criteria for speedy deletion of redirects apply, nominate it at Redirects for discussion.
2. For local description pages with no associated file, speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
3. For local description pages for files hosted on Commons, speedily delete them under criterion F2 using {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. For other local description pages for files hosted on Commons, nominate them at Miscellany for deletion.
For appropriately-licensed files which could be usable elsewhere, copy them to Wikimedia Commons instead. Once copied to the Commons, you can speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
For requesting the undeletion of a file, contact the administrator who deleted the file; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, use Deletion review.

Nominate a file

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an file on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate files!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate files, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.

Shortcut

WP:FFDHOWWP:FFDHOW

Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a file for discussion. Do not include the "File:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related files at once, nominate the first file using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional files into the existing nomination.

You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the file should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. Only registered users can nominate files. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate files. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.

Methods

Twinkle

How to nominate a file at TfD

After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the file you want to nominate

Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!

The easiest way to nominate files for discussion is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:

Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
Go back to the file, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
Write a short nomination statement
If you want to nominate more than one file, enter the additional files into this tool

If Twinkle does not seem to work or you cannot edit the file, you are probably following the wrong process. Try this simpler process instead:

Copy the name of the file, for example, File:Weather balloon.png.
Paste it into the Wikipedia search bar, but replace File: with C:File: like this: C:File:Weather balloon.png.
Click ↵ Enter to perform the search. If the same file appears, it worked! Now you just need to click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Tools sidebar on the right of the page and explain why you think the file should be deleted.

Manual method

If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate files at FfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.

Manual instructions

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 November 14}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Edit today's TfD log and nominate 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 nominating 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 a nomination of multiple files. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 November 14}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media. For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2026 November 14}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

Discussion

In explaining their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

WP:NFCC1 – Free equivalent is or is not available
WP:NFCC1 – Significance
WP:NFC#UUI – Unacceptable image use

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

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

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1933, not 1927.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

November 5

File:Batman (Mykhailo Mudryk).png

[edit]

The source is dead, cannot find any alternate copy. Moreover, the stunt double is Mikhail Mudrik, not Mikhailo Mudryk the footballer. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete clear fail of WP:NFCC3A, WP:NFCC8 and WP:NFCC10. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:35, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

November 3

File:2025 Erbil shooting.jpeg

[edit]

Does not meet the criteria for NFCC8, namely contextual significance. The exclusion of this file is not significantly detrimental to the understanding of the article topic. Also, according to Wikipedia guidelines, files under fair use "should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events". A random shooting at a gas station is hardly a historically significant event. Donkeykong71818 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep. You are selectively quoting policy and ignoring widespread practice here. It is not by calling this a random shooting at a gas station that you reinforce your argument: the fact we have an article on it actually is an indication to the contrary. If you consider this event to not be notable, the venue to consider is WP:AfD, but on this page the use of the picture seems justified enough to me per the WP:NFCC, including 8. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:49, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Strange. If I don’t quote rules, then what should I quote? Shakespeare? Not every article that checks out per notability guidelines is an article whose subject is of a historically significant event. Can you elaborate on how the topic is of a "historically significant event" meant in this context (fair use), not how it is of a notable event allowing it to be added to the encyclopaedia, because it was never about that. Donkeykong71818 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

File:The Gentlemen TV series title logo.png

[edit]

Speedy move this to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. @Candidyeoman55 you know you can do this yourself when it is such a clear case, there is no need to open a discussion. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:44, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

But there are two hidden revisions, and I'm not an admin. So I can't move files that have hidden revisions myself. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh I missed that indeed, my apologies. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:02, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons as {{PD-textlogo}}. You can also try WP:REFUND (or just asking an individual admin) to get the previous revision(s) unhidden. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:WorldCup1970lposter.jpg

[edit]

This is below American threshold of originality, and also it was published before 1978. So if this was ever copyrightable in the US, there would have to be a verification of whether any notice appeared or any formalities in this direction were ever fully met. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons, below TOO. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:55, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

File:National Basketball Association logo.svg

[edit]

Violates WP:FREER. If the vectorization is under copyright but the base image isn't, we can use/make a different version. We cannot use a non-free version when we can make a free alternative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with the theory that vectorization grants a separate copyright, but I'm not opposed to using a different vector version from the official version, as long as it's accurate, manually traced and clarified to anyone reading it. I'm not opposed to deleting this specific file. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I make no comment on if that is or is not the case (haven't read enough about the law there) but we are acting as if it is the case, in which case it is replaceable by a different file, as you said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment Relevant ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Copyrighted vector version of PD logo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep and delete Commons vectorisation Because of how blatantly notorious the previous discussion ended with it in "Keep" by Pppery, someone should close this as a speedy keep. SportsLover1967 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

What specific discussion are you referring to? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Here. (Also, it’s really nice you commented to my comment, thx!) SportsLover1967 (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@SportsLover1967 How does this not violate WP:FREER? The last discussion ended with If someone wishes to replace this file with a PNG or self-made vector and upload it to Commons as public domain, the participants in this discussion approve of this - an admission it violates WP:FREER. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Why delete the Commons vectorization? Anyways, that question should be raised at Commons, not here. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake, it was Xplicit, not Pppery. I made a mistake. (Forgive me guys). SportsLover1967 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete as per discussion violates WP:FREER as there's a public domain/commons alternative (File:National Basketball Association logo 2017-present.svg) and thus doesn't qualify for fair use. It can't simultaneously be fair use and public domain. Also, you wont be able to delete said file in the commons unless there's evidence of a copyvio once you nominate for deletion. —JoeJohnson2 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 2

File:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aftermath.webp

[edit]

I don't believe the use of this image adds anything to the understanding of the reader. You don't need to utilize a photo of their corpses at the scene for the reader to know they killed themselves; the article already goes into how they did it. There was no image here before 9/20/26, and there's already a graphic of where they were situated in the library, which I do believe gives more context. Gun violence and suicide are also touchy subjects, and while I know Wikipedia doesn't censor, I don't know if the educational benefits of this photo (if there is any) outweighs the negatives and lack of necessity. I may be mistaken, but I don't think it's common practice to have photos of someone's suicide on Wikipedia articles, regardless of the morality of the person or people in question. Zosia Lee (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and also I think it does add value, as readers may be curious. ReelCosmix (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Reader curiosity does not equal encyclopedic value. We don't have an obligation to include images just because they might satiate someone's curiosity - if we did there'd be hardly any point in being selective about images like we are. This falls in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Images, which states that potentially offensive images should only be included when their omission would make an article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. It also states that images should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important aid to understanding the subject.

I'm saying that I don't think this image in particular provides anything that the textual description and alternative, existing image don't. The text describes how they died, what they used, their positioning, etc. whereas the existing diagram shows their position in the library, the bookshelf Harris was against, and their spatial relationship to the victims and each other. If its primary additional contribution is allowing readers to see their corpses, I don't think that alone demonstrates a sufficient encyclopedic purpose to justify its inclusion, particularly given the availability of a less graphic alternative.

If you think there is key historical value relative to the section it's in that I'm missing, I'm open to hearing it. I'm sorry for any moral or ethics heavy argument in my first post, it was late at night and I wasn't articulating myself well. Z (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NFCC8. A reader gains very little by seeing the bodies of Harris and Klebold beyond what could be gained from the sentence "Harris and Klebold committed suicide." Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Soyjak examples.png

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC3A (Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.) as a grid of nine different non-free images. A single example of the original meme image is probably enough. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep If we were to just use the original Soyjak image, it wouldn't show the "traced from photos" part of the meme. New editing editor (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

There are some freely licenced examples of that in Commons:Category:Soyjak. If it's important to show a particular copyrighted tracing, that could be uploaded as a separate file under a second fair use licence. Belbury (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Most of the Soyjak variants in the image are talked about in the article in some way. Plus, the two Soyjak variants on Commons wouldn't really make a good example of the meme since no one has ever used them. New editing editor (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

File:GWS Giants logo.svg

[edit]

Given the Carlton Blues logo was considered PD-US, This logo is possibly around the same simplicity as the Carlton logo, but since Australia has an extremely low threshold of originality (Which is mind blowing to me), this should be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, no? SportsLover1967 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

They cannot be uploaded to Commons! They might be considered PD in the US but not in Australia due to the low threshold of originality. Please see commons:COM:TOO Australia. It MUST be in the PD in the source country (Australia), which it isn’t, not just the US for it to be uploaded on Commons. Also using Ffd is not the place to discuss if it is PD in the US or not. Please read the first line for WP:FFD, "Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns." . Bidgee (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Still could changed to PD-ineligible-USonly. This isn't the first time we proposed a tag for a file. SportsLover1967 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledged that COM:TOO Australia is very low, no? FFD is not just deleting files. It is "DISCUSSION". SportsLover1967 (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

November 1

File:Jasonmask.jpg

[edit]

Definitely unnecessary in two of the three articles this is used in. In Jason Voorhees, the infobox image features the mask already. In Goaltender mask, there is nothing in the prose which mentions Friday the Thirteenth, and a free photo of this kind of goaltender mask is already present on the page. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

October 31

File:Sonic.exe title screen.png

[edit]

This image is currently being used to illustrate the Sonic.exe section of List of creepypastas, which doesn't have much noteworthy content due to only one reliable secondary source. There is nothing in the section which would require the copyrighted image for complete understanding, such as how the imagery is exactly violent. (This happens to be the first FFD of Halloween!) ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 03:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, I admit that just uploaded this image because another user attempted to upload it to Commons, then I thought that it could be useful for identification of a well known creepypasta as Sonic.exe is, although I'm aware that this image is not too much required. Delete if necessary. Amogus502 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

File:MoundVandalized.jpg

[edit]

Edited version of File:Platte_Mound_M_and_Platteville_water_tower.jpg used for vandalism over 15 years ago. No encyclopedic reason to keep this around. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Mountain park.gif

[edit]

I'm not sure which mapping service this is from, but it's clearly not the author's own work. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:12, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

October 29

File:Nadezhda Teffi.jpg

[edit]

As far as I am able to tell, this is replaceable by a freely licensed image that's been available on commons for 12 years: File:Teffi Choumoff.jpg. Is it possible that this could be free, at least in the US? It seems plausible given her lifespan but I'm not sure how I would verify that - delete if no. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

October 27

File:You'll own nothing and be happy - screenshot from original promotional video.jpg

[edit]

File:You'll own nothing and be happy - screenshot from original promotional video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This looks like a stock photo to me, and stock photos, like AP, Reuters, AFP, EFE, Getty Images, Alamy, etc..., are super-unfree and can only be used when they're the subject of discussion. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. No evidence that this comes from a press or photo agency. The image caption in the article states that this comes from a World Economic Forum promotional video. ✗plicit 06:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

October 23

File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg

[edit]

WP:NFCC1, as long as these detention centers are still open, a freely licensed equivalent could be created. Additionally, the pages this image is used in, they are not specific to the detention camp in Lop County. So, an image of any other re-education camp in Xinjiang could portray the same thing, if a freely licensed picture were taken.

Overall, I don't find the non-free use justification for these pages compelling. The fact that a free alternative does not exist right now is usually not sufficient. And, unless the Chinese government closes these re-education centers in the future, a free equivalent could be created. There's no evidence to suggest that they have been closed, not in the article or based on anything I could find.

The uploader's justification from 2021 is

Reason for such opposition is that, per WP:NFCC, Non-free contebt is allowed when no free alternatives are available. Thr proposed method of taking an alternative by self is not possible due to local military, paramilitary, and police force having sufficient power and intention to critically endanger anyone seeking to do so, provided that anyone with such intention

Again, I don't find this convincing. A non-free image was already taken by someone on Baidu Baijiahao (presumably with the consent of the local authorities), and there's no requirements in NFCC that a free media image be an unauthorized image. Whether the uploader could take a picture of it themselves is not really relevant either, it mostly just comes down to whether a free version could be created or not.

Maayaaaaa (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The original Baidu Baijiahao publication was part of official promotional material. It does not prove anyone will be allowed to photograph it unless they're doing it for the government, and if one is doing it for Xinjiang/China's government than it doesn't seems likely for the photo to be allowed to be released for free C933103 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@C933103: I guess I'm not really sure you mean by this. When it comes to NFCC, the burden of proof is usually on you as the uploader to justify the inclusion.

From a copyright point of view, I don't see this as that much different from an interior photograph of any other jail or detention center. If a copyrighted photo were taken of any other detention center were taken that was still open, normally this would not be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, as a freely licensed photograph could be taken in the future. This would be the case even if the detention camp is not open to the public, or the camp's warden does not allow photography.

The only exception to this would probably be if the photograph depicted a specific event, however, the image is currently being on articles relating to the camps in general, as opposed to a specific event that took place at these detention centers in China. So, any photograph taken in the future of these detention centers could be a suitable replacement in the infobox.

Also, the concept of copyright exists in China too, it's not a thing that's exclusive to western countries. People in China can release things into the public domain. Maayaaaaa (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Didn't we already went through the question in the previous discussion over availability of alternative and encyclopedic value.
The photo itself also got described by Radio Free Asia as iconic.
The ability of a photographer working for the Chinese authorities to release politically sensitive government material under a free licence depends on their actual authority to do so, including government permission and control over the relevant rights. Chinese copyright law's recognition of free licensing is a separate question from the photographer's freedom to exercise that authority. A January 2026 peer-reviewed study documents how local Chinese authorities initially published photographs and information concerning Xinjiang's re-education facilities before a coordinated information embargo around May 2017. Subsequent directives imposed strict secrecy and restricted the dissemination of information about the facilities, including prohibitions on mobile phones inside the camps, which make it not reproducible.
Independent journalists investigating Xinjiang's detention camps encountered extensive surveillance, restrictions on movement and access, orders to delete photographs, detention and threats from security personnel.Journalists also documented risks of detention and retaliation against local residents who cooperated with reporting. These restrictions affected the ability to obtain independent visual documentation of the facilities and their occupants. Documentary photographer Patrick Wack reported being detained and interrogated by plainclothes police after travelling near a Xinjiang detention camp, illustrating the difficulties associated with independent attempts to photo these facilities. These restrictions directly affect the practical availability of freely licensed images documenting conditions inside the detention system.
A February 2025 report by historian Rian Thum for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum finds that most re-education internment camps had closed, with former detainees variously transferred to forced labour, formal prisons or their homes. A January 2026 peer-reviewed study documents the dismantling, conversion and repurposing of re-education facilities, finding that the original system of compulsory political and vocational re-education had been substantially dismantled after 2020. China's subsequent repression increasingly involved formal imprisonment, coercive labour transfers and state-directed employment programmes, including transfers into factories and industrial facilities. These changes represent a substantial institutional transformation from the mass camp-based re-education system depicted in the photograph. The photograph preserves the appearance and circumstances of the mass re-education system during its early operation in April 2017. The specific event, its participants and the conditions documented belong to an identifiable historical period, whose institutional circumstances have subsequently changed. Therefore it is no longer reproducible.

(Link and text prepared with the help of LLM) C933103 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I feel @C933103 has a valid proof of non-free use. SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep You would be caught if you tried to take a picture of this if you are not a guard. Also, Samantha Lewthwaite and Jho Low are fugitives with non-free images, and Lucy Letby is arguably more accessible than all I mentioned so far and she has one. Also, File:Hibatullah Akhundzada.jpg. SportsLover1967 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Those are all pictures of specific people being used on articles solely depicting those people. However, in this case, any picture of any detention camp in Xinjiang could be a suitable replacement. Additionally, is there any photography policy of these camps? Is there any requirement that official photos taken by Chinese media cannot be freely licensed? I feel like these are important things to know whether it is replaceable or not. Maayaaaaa (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you missed the restrictions I linked above C933103 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that there are severe restrictions on photography. However, it's not really about whether you can take a photo personally, it's about whether a freely licensed media could be created, for NFCC. Besides, Wikipedia is hosted in the US and not in China, so if a photographer released it into the public domain, this would be respected. Maayaaaaa (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand it might seem replaceable, but it isn't. Electronics are forbidden inside the camps outside of officials, meaning a Free image would be impossible. SportsLover1967 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I find this claim to be dubious given that photos have already been taken inside the camps by Chinese media. Whether they choose to license it freely or not, that's up to them. For this reason, a free media version could be created, even if one doesn't currently exist. Maayaaaaa (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

As explained above, the photo was taken not by Chinese media but was by the.authority themselves, before information got more strictly controlled C933103 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether the photo is taken by the authorities, taken by Chinese media, or is unauthorized, these could all be suitable replacements, if a freely licensed one were created. It just needs to be a photograph of a detention camp in Xinjiang. Any photograph could work for this particular use case. Maayaaaaa (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I might ask someone to close this as Keep. SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

It’s impossible to make a free image as the guidelines say. All officials would disallow photography of this camp, and also, the camps probably don’t exist anymore. SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The page where this is being used, Persecution of Uyghurs in China, seems to suggest that this is still an ongoing persecution. If something has changed, it's probably best to update the page. Maayaaaaa (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The camps have been destroyed and now they are held captive in other ways since 2020. SportsLover1967 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

To end discussion, I will say Keep. This is clearly irreplaceable as it has since been demolished and was never replaceable in the first place. SportsLover1967 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

October 22

File:Don-Slepian-Alles-Machine-1980.jpg

[edit]

No source or evidence of Creative Commons license. Even assuming that the license is correct, there's no attributed source, so the "BY" part of CC-BY is violated. The file is not in use. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. A very quick search turned this up: iarchive:don-slepian-alles-machine-1980, so really there is not much doubt here. It would be perfect on Bell Labs Digital Synthesizer as well, so I am putting it there. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that link is sufficient to show that the copyright holder has released the image under a free license. The identified upload in the Internet Archive link is Don Slepian, the subject of the photo. The photographer is identified as Chris Kluge, and the photographer is normally the copyright holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Istres FC crest.svg

[edit]

France has its own tag regarding Threshold of Originality. This is below France ToO and needs to be moved to Commons. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:FC Istres logo.svg

[edit]

France has it’s own ToO tag, so move to Commons. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

October 20

File:Carrie Bradshaw (The Carrie Diaries) by AnnaSophia Robb.jpg

[edit]

Appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 - I don't see how this provides any more contextual information than the image used in the infobox. It appears to be used primarily for decoration. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep as this is a portrayal of the same character by a different actress, so WP:NFCC8 is passed in my opinion; WP:NFCC3A could be debatable, but as there are only two non free images on the page I think it is passed as well. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom; and especially in light of Commons:Category:AnnaSophia Robb in 2013; Given the character's non-descript appearance in the CW spinoff, I believe that these serve the same encyclopedic purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 01:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

October 12

File:Little America Penguin Billboard.JPG

[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D artwork. As c:COM:SIGNS states, complex signs are copyrighted in the United States. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Explicit Is that not a reason to downsize the file and update its use rationale, instead of deleting? I removed it from Grand America Hotels & Resorts, meaning it is only left on Little America, Wyoming and passes WP:NFCC3B. On this page I could see a fair use rationale to be justified. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

October 5

File:Think of the children.webm

[edit]

Uncertain if this meets NFCC#8. While this specific scene is discussed in the article, it's not really in relation to the scene itself but rather its subsequent spread and influence. There's nothing particular in the clip that isn't already explained in words, except possibly visual and auditory identification of the character which usually doesn't warrant a non-free file. I don't think that the clip can be said to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep the Simpson's mocking of it is central to how this cliché has become so infamous as a rhetorical tactic, and this clip in particular is a meme in itself, coming from the end of Season 7, arguably a time where the cultural influence of the show was at its most overwhelming. I believe it definitely meets WP:NFCC#8 for this reason. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't really see your argument? As I said, the point is that the clip itself (as in, its visuals and audio) is not discussed, only its existence and impact. What exactly does the clip provide to the article that the text does not? Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that I think the animation is unnecessary, but the audio is. When this phrase is spoken mockingly, it is typically done imitating Lovejoy, I think the file should be converted into an audio one. --RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

October 1

File:Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" sketch.jpeg

[edit]

Invalid claim for NFCCs #1 and #8. It's not software, and "terrifying and absurd" is not a valid reason for non-free images. Furthermore, the image does not add anything but cosmetics to the article, so a valid rationale probably cannot be written. Rose Abrams (T C L) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep The specific justification is "for identification and critical commentary". It depicts the comedy sketch, in which the visual element of Mitchell and Webb wearing SS uniforms in a WWII bunker is a crucial element. This is directly discussed in the article. Mitchell and Webb are well-beloved figures in British comedy, and the incongruity of seeing them dressed as Nazis is a big part of the buildup to the punchline. — The Anome (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I strongly believe all those details of the sketch can be easily conveyed with text only, which the article already does. And even still, the discussion in the article simply describes the scene rather than offer critical commentary, so the image being present does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" as required by NFCC#8. "Well-beloved figures" and "buildup to the punchline" are not valid reasons under NFCC – please see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSFUNNY. There are no reason under NFCC that the subject of an article "needs" an image purely from the article existing. Rose Abrams (T C L) 09:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Anome It looks like you removed my reply. That is not acceptable, please see WP:TPO or my message on your talkpage for why. I will assume good faith and hope you did so by mistake, ~~and if so I expect you to add it back~~. If not, be aware that bad faith editing will not result in the image being kept. Rose Abrams (T C L) 09:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC) Since you appear to have been offline for several hours, I have now restored my comment myself. (The reason that I initially asked you to do so was simply my way to assume good faith and that a user may want to clean up their own mistakes, but because of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY I didn't want to leave the issue hanging for long.) Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I removed your reply - I can assure you that that was by mistake through concurrent editing. I will look at the revision you sent and restore it unless you have done so already. - update: it looks by the timestamp that you have already done so. — The Anome (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rose Abrams: Regarding your restored comment: I have expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours; twice, once as proposer and a second time as a comment. I think we have to agree to disagree, and let others sort it out. — The Anome (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait for continued discussion and eventual closure. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. It is way too crucial. SportsLover1967 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete There is not really in-article discussion of the costume design itself. The primary notable thing about this episode is the really quotable line "Are we the baddies", which does not need a fair use image. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

September 30

File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg

[edit]

The uploader is not sure how our WP:NFCC works despite I provided them with a detailed explaination about it, mainly points 1 and 8. And I'm not going to wait indefinitely until it happens. The image depicts Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep arguing inside the restaurant J.G. Melon. It is claimed the image is famous and pivotal. The caption there read: "Hoffman and Streep at J.G. Melon in Kramer vs. Kramer. The article says "A tense crucial scene with Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman, in which Dustin Hoffman smacks his wine glass against the wall, was filmed at the restaurant for the 1979 Academy Award for Best Picture legal divorce drama film Kramer vs. Kramer", something not depicted by this specific still.

I am nominating this file for review as the ~~nominator~~ uploader is upset(?) I decided to remove it from J.G. Melon despite it doesn't satisfy NFCC8 in the restaurant's page, and the uploader cannot justify its use there. Whether it has to be deleted, replaced with a file depicting what the articles say, and/or whether it is valid in the restaurant's page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the uploader, and I think you've projected some angst on my part, even though all of my replies have been quite neutral and civil. As you removed the image with the edit summary, "Non-free content is not decorative," I merely asked for clarification of what you meant because that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in WP:NFCC. You did provide a detailed explanation, but it's not as clear as you think it is (the When Harry Met Sally example you cited is actually very similar to the image I uploaded: it doesn't show Sally banging on the table nor focusing on the patron saying "I'll have what she's having," it's a visual of the scene). The image I uploaded allows for better visual understanding of a scene with cultural significance in an important film. You may disagree, but the tone of your replies has, for no apparent reason, been awfully contemptuous towards me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"the tone of your replies has, for no apparent reason, been awfully contemptuous towards me" is just your opinion. At this discussion, we are discussing File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg, as a reminder. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. So setting aside the characterization you made of my emotional state above, could you elaborate on why you believe the contextual connection is insufficient for WP:NFCC8? In particular, what distinction are you drawing between an image that decorates an article and one that provides visual context? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I already did it in the introduction. Since you are the person asking File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg to be added to J.G. Melon's section "In popular culture", a section that mentions the scene but doesn't illustrate it verbatim, either through its caption or article text, you are the person required to justify NFC8, not me, because you uploaded the file claiming it met Wikipedia's fair use policy to be used in the article Kramer vs. Kramer with educative purposes, which is acceptable fair use, and to be used in the article of a restaurant with an unclear educational use with a caption that can be paraphrased as "this film scene happened inside this restaurant".

You need to provide evidence that placing a copyrighted image of a film still is pivotally needed to be placed in a restaurant's page because,

"Its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"
"Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"

Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If your position is that a film still cannot satisfy WP:NFCC8 in an article about a filming location, I don't think that follows from WP:NFCC8 itself. If instead you're saying this particular still doesn't provide enough additional understanding of the film/restaurant, I think that's the substantive question we could resolve.

The proposed use is to visually illustrate J.G. Melon's role as a filming location, using the same general rationale as the Katz' example you raised. That's the justification, and my view is that it satisfies both of the WP:NFCC#8 criteria you quoted. I understand your position, so I'd be curious for other editors to weigh in.

I agree that the caption and surrounding text should make the connection explicit and have never been opposed to revising the caption(s)/article text so the image is directly discussed rather than simply placed alongside a statement that a scene was filmed there. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:PCD Don't Cha.png

[edit]

Perhaps similar to PRODded image (File:The Pussycat Dolls - Don't Cha.png). This alternative cover art still is unneeded and non-compliant with NFCC. The other American cover art already suffices, yet the uploader may not have thought so. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't find the American cover art sufficient, as it was used only on a limited amount of pressings. In my opinion, if any cover should be deleted, it should be that one. The international one replaces both American covers on digital releases as well, and is now used as the default cover worldwide. Bronx Langford (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Pussycat Dolls is an American girl group. We can't use the international artwork just because it's been used in also later pressings, huh? Deleting the other American cover art feels unjust and wouldn't represent the American-ness of the group's single release, right? George Ho (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

but the once-international cover is now American on digital releases too (though the "American-ness" of it all is an odd hill to die on, if you don't mind me saying so) Bronx Langford (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Deleting the other US cover art wouldn't be right for me, especially considering discogs listing. Oh, and another US cover was used for a two-track CD release. Furthermore, CDs were still wide when the recording was first released in 2005. Let's then await others' opinions on this cover art. George Ho (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 17

File:Lowkey wr screenshot.png

[edit]

Non-free screenshot being used in the main infobx of Minecraft speedrunning that has WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) issues. While it's true that the vide game Minecraft itself is under copyright protection so that the images seen during game play need to be treated as non-free content, it is possible for someone (even the game's copyright holder) to take a screenshot during game play and then release that screenshot under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes while also using a non-free license for the game imagery. So even though the act of taking a screenshot itself is typically a mechanical reproduction that doesn't generate copyright protection in and of itself, such a file would still need to be treated as non-free because of the copyrighted game imagery it shows. This particular screenshot, on the other hand, is non-free not only because of the images seen during game play but also because the person who uploaded the video to YouTube is claiming copyright protection over their video. So, there's a double non-free aspect to the file with copyrights being held by two different copyright holders for two different reasons, and this is a problem (at least based on my understanding) per NFCC#1. This particular screenshot also has issues per NFCC#8. Even though it's a screenshot of the current (as of August 2026) world record, there's basically just a single sentence about the record added on to the end of the lede section of the article and a simple mention of the current record in Minecraft speedrunning#World record progression. Neither of these two things require the reader see a non-free screenshot to understand who the current world record holder is or what the current world record time is. Readers can more than sufficiently understand such content just from text alone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

About the problematic copyright of the screenshot, I can definitely reach out to skycrab for a VRT or something else, so that's (for now) a non-issue. Regarding the world record progression section, there is a similar table of world records on the Super Mario Bros. speedrunning page at Any% world record progression. That page also has a screenshot of the game from an old record (or record attempt). Readers can definitely sufficiently understand it from just the text, but I believe the images still help. Tagging @Dwarfroe. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep This would be a COM:DW vio. SportsLover1967 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg

[edit]

Redundant to File:Scottish National Party logo 2016.svg and File:Democratic Unionist Party logo.svg (the latter of which is an exact duplicate, except for being only black and white) so unclear exactly what adding these "Election symbols" to the infobox in addition to existing logos actually adds to the articles. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 Adding these symbols are still quite important as they are what a british voter sees on a ballot during election day GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I could handle the DUP's file getting deleted, but the SNP is quite differentiated from the main logo. There's a reason on why |symbol= is a parameter. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider the same symbol and the same "SNP" in the same font arranged slightly differently to be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC8. Regarding the symbol parameter we aren't obliged to use it. It makes sense for example for the likes of Muttahida Qaumi Movement – Pakistan (and other parties in Pakistan) where electoral symbols are different to the party's logo, but when the symbol is just a duplicate or similar to their logo it doesn't make much sense and just clutters the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 They still help the reader with understanding on what symbol does the target party uses to represent themselves. Might as well delete the other files uploaded by different people by that logic. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Other redundant symbols could well be deleted, but I'm dealing with these first. FDW777 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 and even if you were to go foward with these ideas, then other people who previously also uploaded other symbols will oppose your action. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 you reverted my edits reverting your edits and ignored my pings in the talk page of the afformentioned article (and not even redirect me to this page).

I'll contact someone at WP:3O about this tomorrow. I'll also revert and unrevert your deletion notice so that the file doesn't get deleted while we discuss about this. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg is not copyrightable in the United States, so it should not be subject to NFCC. Not sure about the United Kingdom, but supposedly the threshold of originality there has been raised recently. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 I will take note of that. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, this file fails the threshold of originality in the United States. But it doesn't means this file is eligible for Commons. Still copyrighted in the UK. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

September 11

File:LeonDoliceChryslerBuildingPastel1945.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://bid.peterboroughauctions.us/online-auctions/peterborough-auctions-llc/leon-dolice-1892---1960-chrysler-building-new-york-city-1940s-7171452

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceRainyDayOil1940.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/landscape-paintings/leon-dolice-rainy-day-new-york-city-modernist-urban-cityscape-mid-century-street-scene/id-a_9907362/

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceEmpireStateBuildingFromMadisonSquareColorWoodcut1935.png

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Shouldn't a search of records in the US Copyright Office be sufficient? (https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/) Delabrede (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've answered this question at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeonDoliceThirdAveElOil1940.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Leon-Dolice-Empire-State-Building-from-M/4ADD9C57AD37BA00E85CCE08CA125C07

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:NMIFA crest.svg

[edit]

File:NMIFA crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I want a discussion about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality and how the US Copyright Office would judge such a logo. Someone also uploaded a raster version of this logo to Wikimedia Commons, which I nominated for deletion as a way to start a discussion about this logo. You can have your opinion. If it's below the threshold of originality, the vector version will be moved to Commons. If it's above, the raster version will be deleted from there, and the vector will be kept locally at English Wikipedia as a fair use logo. You can also join the discussion at Commons here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sasquatch and Techie3 voted to keep the raster file at Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Look like below threshold, but could be wrong.Techie3 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

[edit]

This is in a bit of a weird spot. It's a German magazine republishing an image which may be hosted on Commons for the reasons outlined at File:St Paul's Survives.jpg. I'm not sure about German copyright and threshold of originality, but this can certainly be relicensed as PD-US-free if the block of text next to "Die City von London brennt!" is blurred. I'm not sure about a move to Commons, but I personally would not consider this a derivative work of the image in a legal sense. Therefore, we could have something like PD-text for the components of the German magazine (minus that block of text) and PD-US-no renewal for the image for a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Crickets. Anyway, oppose move to commons for unknown legality issue, and please make sure fair use rationale is done. Techie3 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Coming back to this after 6 months (that long?), if we want to be really safe we can just crop to the photo and the title section and then relicense to {{PD-text}} + {{PD-US-no renewal}}, since the only reason this is included in the article is to demonstrate that German publications used the photo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on the five-word headline, but there's no point blurring the text block. It's illegible in the larger revdeleted version here, and even in the source. This is a bit larger and almost legible - maybe someone literate in German and used to blackletter could make some of it out, but I doubt it. —Cryptic 09:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

[edit]

This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons The flip seems to come from https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=945cd22c17384fa3913d9e6854a7c48d&mediatype=photo. However, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News looks to be the actual originator of the photo, preceding the April publications by the AP by several months. This newspaper seems to have lacked notice, so the photo itself is PD.

However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.

If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also an interesting advertisement that is free by virtue of having no notice for it [https://www.newspapers.com/image/382105267/?match=1&terms=%22spoony%20singh%22/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.

As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.

So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Common face of one euro coin.png

[edit]

I do not think this is non-free due to common (not national) sides of Euro coins being freely licensed. Reproduction of euro coins is allowed, and there are many free images of euro coins available on Wikimedia Commons. The only restriction that applies to Euro coins is prohibiting damaging the image of the euro, but that's only a non-copyright restriction. - MJGTMKME123 19:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Support - this side of the Euro coin seems free per COM:CUR Euro. Move to Commons if it does not already exist there? -Consigned (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There are many Euro coin images available on Commons that are similar to or identical to these (apparently) non-free images:

File:Euro_1_cent.gif (free version) — File:1 cent euro coin common side.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_2_cent.gif (free version) — File:2_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_5_cent.gif (free version) — File:5_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro 10 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_10_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 20 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_20_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 50 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_50_eurocent_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro_1_coin.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_one_euro_coin_(first_series).jpg (non-free version)
File:Piece_Comm-2Euro_(pile).jpg (free version) — File:Common_face_of_two_euro_coin_(2007).jpg (non-free version)

- MJGTMKME123 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Some of the photos on Commons don't have their authorship tagged correctly; see e.g. . It is questionable if they would survive a deletion request. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use images of Euro coins under WP:NFC. However, I'm unsure if the enwiki photos are truly nonfree, or if commons:Template:PD-Art applies. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
I think a Wikimedia Commons user creating and uploading new, freely licensed euro coin photos would be better. - MJGTMKME123 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The PD-Art template is for 2D artworks, coins are considered as 3D artwork, so the pictures themselves could be copyrighted. Therefore, I think that the non-free EU coin common side images should be deleted and replaced with free ones (if they already exist, otherwise new ones can be created) Soviet Pepega (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

update: transfer to Commons, as coins scans are permitted on Commons without license. Janhrach (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
But are those coin scans or photographs? In any case, delete the non-free files and replace them with free ones. - MJGTMKME123 15:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
But are those coin scans or photographs? – Well, I don't know, Commons already does host near-identical pictures (ones linked above). Janhrach (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

September 9

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png

[edit]

Months after the prior FFD was closed as "no consensus", I have still kept wondering why this generic-looking(?) title card is used instead of this poster (Facebook). Indeed, this title card is not as unique as one from an All-Star season, but perhaps I shouldn't be using the WP:OTHERIMAGE argument.

In the prior FFD, one "keep" voter insisted that there must be a plausible reason to delete this generic-looking(?) title card. If neither ordinariness of the title card nor using the poster as a replacement is a sufficient reason to delete this, then why couldn't I find a plausible reason to keep this image other than... "there's nothing wrong with this image"? (WP:HARMLESS is a shortcut to a section of WP:AADD instead of WP:AAIDD, to be frank.) George Ho (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it is the logo of the season, its based on the AI technology that the season's theme is based on. It was the titlecard in every episode. What the other person is trying to change it to is a promotional logo that was never used other than previews before the rebrand in the first episode. Nobo71 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thinking back about what you said, I can't help wonder whether replacing thematic title cards of Big Brother 27 (American season) (FFD discussion) and of Big Brother 28 (American season) with promotional posters were right decisions. Indeed, even representing a theme didn't prevent a such title card from deletion. BTW, the red ripples background thing (which I said in that FFD discussion) turns out to be a zoomed-in fingerprint. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

August 30

File:Hainaut (new logo).png

[edit]

The copyright holder for this logo is the Belgian municipality, not the person who uploaded it to Logopedia.

Should be converted to fair use if decision is delete on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a non-free logo. If the file is deleted from Commons, it should be made PD-US. If it's kept, the file at Commons should become PD-textlogo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Evo.jpg

[edit]

Apache licensed per GitHub Jay Cubby 18:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I recently uploaded this using the logo option of Special:upload which has it as fair use. I seem to recall noticing the Apache licence at some point but wasn't sure of the implications as that's not an option in that form. I have no objections to it being changed if that's more correct. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg

[edit]

NFCC #8. Totally unnecessary image. This quote and its misappropriation is already discussed in its own section on the associated page. The resolution, when pushed down to meet NFC requirements, also literally makes the quote unreadable, further limiting its utility and making it all-the-more unnecessary. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This JPG serves as the main illustration at the top of the page Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. The fact that we show the poster to the reader emphasizes the fact that FFL has published lies to fit their point of view.
The image shows the layout of the Campus Outreach poster used by FFL to promote their view on abortion. The layout of the poster is only shown in the image, not described in prose. There is more to this image than simple text.
The poster's text being "unreadable" can be corrected by increasing the size of the scan as suggested by Diannaa six years ago at File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg. I should have taken her advice back then. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons If this image was non-free, I would 100% agree with deletion, since the bar for non-free media is that it must be a substantial improvement over text, which this is not (the design is not the main focus, it's the text itself). However, the primary component of this ad (the stuff in the black box) is not copyrightable. It consists of three elements, none of which are individually subject to copyright:

an inverted version of File:Susan B. Anthony cph.3a46878.jpg with slightly different levels,
the text "another anti-choice fanatic", which is too unoriginal,
the quotation, published in 1889, fell into the public domain long ago

As an arrangement of three uncopyrightable elements, it is probably not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Now, I'm not nearly as sure about the white box at the bottom. Is the text there copyrightable? Even if we did say yes, we could just crop out of the white box or suppress it (similar to File:White House edits NY Times's Kilmar Abrego Garcia headline.png) and still communicate much the same idea. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

August 25

File:Hanoi Jane.jpg

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion in reliable sources about which photo (or photos) gave Jane Fonda the nickname of Hanoi Jane and was the controversial one among the American public. The Guardian calls the non-free photo the infamous photo, but it then states that there were multiple photos and that There was outrage at the pictures (emphasis added). The Hollywood Reporter uses this public domain image and calls it The 1972 Photo That Turned Jane Fonda Into “Hanoi Jane”. The National Women's History Museum says it was the infamous photograph of Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft bomber appearing to aim at American planes, however, that caused this disdain to spread amongst the general public., which matches up with the description of the public domain image. The Telegraph describes the photo as a picture that was taken of her surrounded by Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft gun. Washington Times (yellow at WP:RSP) says the photo showed Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun targeting U.S. planes, laughing and clapping with enemy soldiers, which matches up with the non-free image.

I did go hunting for this image in contemporary newspapers to prove it was public domain, but I could not find this image at all. I'd argue this image either fails NFCC #8 (not being the correct photo) or NFCC #1 (the public domain image from the same event either also inspired the same controversy or shows how Fonda was perceived by the American public at the time). Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep the photo. We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors, especially the Nixon administration, to paint her as treasonous. Hershberger says in the 2005 book Jane Fonda's War that it was any and all of the photos taken from a particular day in late July 1972 showing Fonda talking with and listening to young Vietnamese people outside of Hanoi. But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. So there's no reason to delete it, or search for a better photo. Note that Fonda would have been targeted as "Hanoi Jane" without any photo evidence at all; Nixon had it out for her. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors So just say that in text? We do not necessarily need to have every photo or even two photos of the same event to communicate that point.

But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. But she's doing exactly that in File:Jane Fonda looking through anti-aircraft gun scope.webp. The point of this nomination is not to say that the public domain image is necessarily better, but rather that these two photos have the same encyclopedic purpose, meaning that the non-free photo fails NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
There are more options than deleting one photo. The photo in question was probably published without copyright notice in the same manner as the one you wish to replace it with. It can be moved to Commons in that case. Or another photo of the same event can be used; the book The Vietnam War The Definitive Illustrated History has a great one on page 275, showing more of the gun and the Vietnamese reporters holding microphones out toward her. The UK tabloid The Daily Mail shows this same photo and another related one. Tineye.com says there are 300 instances of the photo online. I'm making these suggestions because the free photo from Commons is terrible quality and fails to show the context. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
I looked through 70s newspapers for this exact photo, but I was unable to find any such publications (in fact, that's why I have significant personal doubts about whether this is the correct image, but I acknowledge that's WP:OR on my part). Therefore, I do not believe the nominated file is in the public domain.

Ultimately, any non-free image of this event would have to overcome NFCC #1. Even though the public domain image is low quality, it still succeeds at fulfilling the encyclopedic purpose of why the public was outraged at Fonda. Using the public domain image and a non-free one would be untenable in light of NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Magnesium torch Cousteau.png

[edit]

This does not meet NFCC, as the purpose of the image is simply to showcase a device and how it is used. The subject being "the most notable user of such a device" is not relevant, unless the episode/exploration itself were the object of discussion. Free-licensed photos of underwater use of magnesium torches could definitely either exist or be created – in fact, the article already contains a photo depicting overwater use. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The overwater use is a stretch, not the historically common use, and therefore not really relevant as a lead image. I searched several hours trying to find a free-license photo of underwater use and could not. I uploaded that single frame showing Jacques Cousteau because I could find nothing else; therefore I felt it qualified because I couldn't find an adequate substitute to illustrate scuba diving with a magnesium torch. The only other alternative would be to grab a frame from a black-and-white episode of Sea Hunt where magnesium torches were used at least once, but such an image would have the same issues. I also observed that the word "torch" has an unfortunate second meaning in the UK synonymous with "flashlight", causing searches for "magnesium torch" to be dominated by electric flashlights with magnesium cases. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort trying to find a replacement. If you want to put more effort into illustrating the article, I will leave you a tip: You could reach out to some authors of a good non-free photo and ask them to release under a free license – I often do that to illustrate topics I want to support and it often succeeds. I usually have the best luck with small-scale individual users at Instagram and Flickr. Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

August 15

File:El Paso Locomotive FC logo.svg

[edit]

Is this logo copyrightable? I think not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep as fair use. The shield is clearly a complex shape. ✗plicit 06:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

August 7

File:Tintin and the Black Island - Unicorn Theatre Company.jpg

[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. The photo itself is not subject to sourced critical commentary. Policy requires that a non-free image both enhance the readers' understanding of the article text and that its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. This image lacks contextual significance. The uploader contested the original deletion tag on the file's talk page. ✗plicit 07:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the Files for discussion archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

The discussions in this section have been nominated for at least 6 days. After 7 days, they may be closed.

November 7

File:2022 – União Brasil.webp

Verify if "Agência Liderança" is a press/photo agency. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. I consider that the file is legitimate under the Non-Free use rationale, due to the lack of free alternatives (WP:NFCC1), the respect it has for Wikipedia's media policy (WP:NFCC6)and the significance it holds in depicting the foundation of that political party, which is an important event for this Article (WP:NFCC7) Przelijpdahl (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete it is a photo of two alive people that are public figures, by definition it breaks WP:NFCC1, as of course a free equivalent [...] could be created. Edit: these two people have pages of their own with images, making this picture even less relevant. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:21, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Govt.Boys Degree College Barnala.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

This image is most likely stolen from https://mlvla65.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/a-glimpse-of-kashmir-the-paradise-on-earth/, or a facebook post, the link is in User talk:Engrksaim29. Simas10 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Recent nominations

November 8

File:The Wyoming Incident, Greyscale Heads.jpg

Doesn't really provide additional information on the Wyoming Incident subject in the article. The free special presentation image already provides good identification of subject. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Commment: Hello, i am the person who uploaded the image, and your reasoning why it should be deleted is probably a good idea. The "Free presentation" does already provide the identification of the subject, and i genuinely forgot that i uploaded this image as well lol.

1Ink (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep There is definitely something unique about the visual here, contrry to the very generic "presentation screen". How (disturbing) it looks is arguably the entire point. By the way, how sure are we that this is subject to copyright in the first place? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:57, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Schizoposting example.jpeg

A free image of a schizopost can be created. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep No one has uploaded an image to Commons that can be used as a free alternative yet. New editing editor (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

True, but someone can make one. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete definitely fails WP:NFCC1, completely possible to create such a comics/image on a free license. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Rage comics are one of the most popular forms of schizoposts. They can't be created with a free license since almost all rage faces are copyrighted. New editing editor (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete The prose makes no mention of schizoposts commonly using rage comics illustrations (and even if it did, you could merely allude to it via artstyle without infringing on their copyright). The fact that no free replacement has been made available as of right now is irrelevant; it is sufficient that a free replacement can be created. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Star Wars (1997 re-release poster).jpg

Poster for special edition of film doesn't add much to article. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep This is not just a poster, this is the theatrical release poster of what was deemed to be the definitive version of the movie by its chief creator. Between: the Special Edition of Star Wars contains 277 enhanced shots that were unachievable in the original film due to financial, technological and time constraints and "to me, the special edition ones are the films I wanted to make.", it is very clear that it is not just the poster for a re-release, but for the finished product. The fact that all these changes were and still are so controversial, and so influential in modern film discourse, definitely warrants inclusion of the poster to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:07, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Return of the Jedi (1997 re-release poster).jpg

Same reason for A New Hope special edition poster. Doesn't add much to current article. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep, same reasoning as above. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

File:2001DaleSrCrash.jpg

Fails WP:GETTY because this is an image by the Associated Press, and there is no commentary about the photo itself. Additionally, a frame from the TV footage could be used in place of this if a non-free image of the crash is still necessary. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete if this was not AP I would favor keeping only on Death of Dale Earnhardt and not his main page, but I agree that a frame of TV footage would be better. If you have access to such footage I encourage you to link it @Based5290, so that someone can do it. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMKjIvEyg8Q&t=101 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgfQVWpdDk&t=1449s Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg

Relicense this flag as PD-US. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Question @Candidyeoman55 I know next to nothing about flight copyright, but why is this notice not valid? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

This link is broken. Also, this site is based in the US. I seriously think this flag would be ruled non-copyrightable by the US Copyright Office. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up the link by forgetting a space, it's fixed now. However, what do you mean this site is based in the US? This is hosted on the Australian government domain, which makes sense since the Torres Strait Islands are administered by Australia. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia websites are based in the US, and this flag fails America's threshold of originality. PD-ineligible-USonly is the right tag for this file. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you meant Wikimedia, I got confused somehow. PD-ineligible-USonly seems appropriate. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Choucas Why would it be valid? Do you believe everything you read 1st time? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

When we see a copyright notice, our job is to decide whether we can fully, partially or not overrule it. There is no need to get passive-aggressive. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:24, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Australia's threshold of originality is very low, therefore this file can't be moved to Commons. Many copyright notices are fraudulent and inaccurate.

But the copyright notice referred to above is only valid within Australia. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Melody Allen "I'm Sorry" Single.jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melody Allen "I'm Sorry" Single.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:58, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete I don't think the fact that it is not fit for Commons has much to do with keeping the file here or not, but I mostly see that it is unused, therefore failing WP:NFCC7. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep 2122.5(F) A copyright notice for the sound recording cannot secure statutory copyright for the visually perceptible authorship. it has only the (P) symbol for sound recording no (C) copyright symbol or delete F8 @Choucas NFCC doesn't apply on free files 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 01:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

November 9

Skyos screenshots

File:Skyos early 1.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Forster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Skyos early 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Forster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Skyos beta4.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Forster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Skyos build6796.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Forster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Skyos beta8.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex Forster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshots of copyrighted software that do not provide significant context to the article nor are discussed in the article itself. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: I took the liberty to merge all five nominations together into one, as they were all with identical motivation and about images on the same page. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep File:Skyos early 1.gif, delete the other four. While showing the evolution of the GUI of SkyOS is not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC3A in my opinion, a single screenshot of early SkyOS is still something that is interesting to include. Unless I am mistaken, showing a screenshot is also common practice on OS articles, big or small, especially when they use a unique GUI like (I think) is the case here. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep the first file above, delete the others per nom. In addition, the four other files also fail NFCC8. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

English football club logos

File:Peterborough Sports F.C. logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RickyDean76 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:1874 Northwich FC badge (new).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by One Salient Oversight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Yate Town F.C.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MassimoV23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:London Lions F.C. logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by One Salient Oversight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hartpury University FC logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RickyDean76 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Shaftesbury F.C. logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RickyDean76 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Havant & Waterlooville FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JpTheNotSoSuperior (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hanworth Villa F.C. logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Delusion23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I have doubt if these files fail the threshold of originality in the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: I also made some manual changes because I can't change the section name automatically and the additional file do not have a template. I nominated other files for discussion (in one section) to avoid re-nomating other files separately. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Manchesterunited1234 I am somewhat confused by your mass nomination. When you say "fail" the threshold of originality, do you mean that you believe they all fall below it and should therefore be moved to Commons? Also, would you mind consolidating the nomination, as all the discussions are virtually about the same thing? I can also do it for you if you wish. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 10:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Choucas, please regroup all my nomations in a single nomination. Because, I have very difficult to do this. As for the "threshold of originality" reason, I also forgot to mention this, but all the license tags ("Non-free logo") are incorrect since the files only display geometric forms with only letters/numbers. I think it's better to relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}} without transferring these files to Commons, as these files still copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Done :) Regarding the actual substance of the discussion, I am not sure, some of them look pretty complex to me. I have no objection to an adjustment of the license if others deem it necessary or useful. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Convert them all to PD-US, but the logos introduced after THJ v Sheridan should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

November 10

File:Jay-Z - Wishing on a Star.jpg

Not proven contextually significant (WP:NFCC#8) to the original song (or subsequent hip-hop version). Uploaded one year after the other copy (file:WishingonaStar.jpg) was deleted. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCC3A. There are many covers of the song on the page, and only this one features a picture, it is not reasonably necessary like an album cover would be. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 10:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

November 11

File:Logo of the Democratic Labour Party (Brazil).svg

This logo is actually a non-free one, as the hand and rose symbol is far above the threshold of originality. Convert to fair use. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep it on Commons, delete local file I believe that this is below TOO in both the USA and Brazil, which also has a very high TOO per c:COM:TOO Brazil. For context, this file is subject to an open deletion discussion on Commons at the moment. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 12

File:Strayspark Lab Logo.png

Uploaded for deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element Anti-Virus. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:50, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete unused and now unlikely to be used. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Unusued per nom. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:The Trumpeter of Krakow.jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Trumpeter of Krakow (1966) cover.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Neutral I would like to keep it, as we do not have a cover picture for The Trumpeter of Krakow and therefore a fair use rationale could be justified; however I have no idea what the source is. I tagged the file as Template:Non-free book cover, if someone want to/can help dig this out it would be appreciated. Maybe something minor, but it would be better to have a deletion rationale that actually applies to Wikipedia; we care less about the fact that it is non free than whether it is mis-tagged or inappropriately used. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:27, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Chanchhaya.jpg

File is orphaned. It was deleted at Commons in 2022 for being a copyvio. I do not believe that this file, at present, is useful on Commons or Wikipedia. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete at first I thought there was a Cambodia-specific copyright issue, but then I saw that we have c:Category:Preah Thineang Chan Chhaya, so this file really serves no purpose. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:35, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Dru Can See Everything.png

While a fair-use rationale is offered, I'm not convinced it satisfies WP:NFCC, particularly #8 (contextual significance). A screenshot of a parody sketch does not seem like it adds enough to warrant fair use, especially since the parody only seemed to be covered right after broadcast without lasting coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep That's a fair response. I will say that I see this is a more notable instance since the documentary's subject directly responded to this specific portrayal (Evans may have been joking, but suggesting that he was willing to do blackface in response was pretty extreme).

I also think that providing a visual example of how Holmes' appearance and behaviour has been mocked by the media may be informative for readers. Do you think expanding on the way that particular scene has been used in comedy would be useful? Viscrealrealism (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Think of a famous or often-memed shot from basically any other movie – then go look up that movie's article, and I'm fairly confident you won't find a picture of that shot, much less a parody of that shot. There is a high bar for including non-free content; being a meme in a 24-hour news cycle, or getting a joking/trolling/whatever response in a tweet, won't cut it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete Druski does a parody of a lot of people, and I don't think there's anything in this image that's essential to communicating encyclopedic information. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete Parody isn't notable enough yet to warrant an image; it would probably be forgotten within a month. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Curious to know what you deem notable. I've managed to find numerous articles discussing the subject, the public's reaction to the sketch, and the documentary subject's reaction beyond just episode recaps. "It would probably be forgotten within a month" doesn't really make sense to me as a relevant argument. Viscrealrealism (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete this is a clear fail of WP:NFCC8 in my opinion. Two sentences only are related to it, and they are already in the "cultural impact" section. This specific parody is really not notable enough and essential enough to the topic at large to necessitate a non free image. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:39, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

This film and the context feel incredibly culturally relevant today, and the discussions surrounding the film are spirited. To those who have seen the film, this parody adds a meta-narrative on top of the existing meta-documentary, an additional layer to the discourse.

Within the context of the genre bending scope of the film (Amanda Seyfried’s role is absolutely fascinating).

The Druski parody is a cultural response, and perhaps is only necessary to be understood by those who have already seen the film? My gut says it’s not necessary to show this photo for encyclopedic purposes ~2026-60152-94 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

File:La fata turchina.jpg

This is PD in US since 2019, no? SportsLover1967 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This is PD. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone relist this if possible? SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Re-license as PD-US or most appropriate tag, @SportsLover1967 can you please explain why it is PD for convenience? If it is clear it may not have needed a relist otherwise. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

It's copyright may have expired per c:Template:PD-Italy. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Office XP.svg

Is this logo really copyrightable? I think it's below TOO. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep, I think it is borderline but in doubt I would leave it be. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Chicago Fire SC logo.png

I searched the US Copyright Office's records and couldn't find a registration for this logo. Is this copyrightable or not in their view? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure, the copyright notice on the website starts at 2019 which is either the last year of use of this logo or the first of the next; the following logos do not have the R but they are also clearly below TOO. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:46, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep this logo for now, until I find more evidence regarding this logo's status. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Galaxy logo (1996-2007).svg

How did/would the US Copyright Office judge this logo? Copyrightable or not? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep This is complex enough to be above TOO in my opinion. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:47, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:ColoradoRapidsOld.png

Below the threshold of originality, it should maybe be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: IMO, the soccer ball is included in the TOO. Ineligible for Commons. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
The ball design is too simple. Nothing complex. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The ball in the logo is basically a reproduction of the design made popular by the Adidas Telstar. So it is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Okay. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The ball is a simple geometric shape. That's why I listed this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Columbus Crew SC Logo.svg

Logo below the threshold of originality, should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to commons Just text and simple shapes, well below the TOO. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:20, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Atlanta MLS.svg

Maybe this logo can be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This logo is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to commons It's just a mildly stylized tex with simple geometric shapes, well below the TOO. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:19, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Note – The original file depicted a different logo (which was simply the text "Atlanta" with the original MLS logo) that is copyrighted and should not be moved. It would be easier to just reupload the current logo at a better filename on Commons. Sounder Bruce 04:03, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that this file is a shoe-in to survive at Commons. Fair use rationale is not accepted at that project, and although PD-textlogo is known to apply to the LAFC logo, AUFC is a more involved logo, with a much larger number of interacting design elements that is going to attract deletionist attention at that project. I would argue strenuously against abandoning our eggs to that basket. By all means, feel free to upload it over there, but let's tag this as {{Keep local}} for long enough to make sure the carpet doesn't get yanked out from under our feet.Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 06:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
Atlanta United's logo is purely geometrical. LAFC's logo (ruled non-copyrightable by the US Copyright Office) is not purely geometric, it has a wing representation. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:ColinCampbellRossImage.jpg

In my opinion, there are doubts concerning the copyright notice of "fair use". However, it could not be eligible for Commons because this work could still be copyrighted in Australia, despite being PD in the United States only. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If that's a work by the Australian government or an Australian state, move to Commons, as crown copyright expires after 50 years. I think this photo was never published in the US before it could be copyrighted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't require publication in the US it would require publication anywhere.

This runs into the absolutely tortured question of whether a photo is declared "published". Commons is random about it - offering to publish a photo, or theoretically doing so, counted as publishing in the US, so probably move it I guess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence to support publication date?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

File:SkyOS Logo.svg

Below the threshold of originality. Is the country of origin the United States? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, the developer listed in the article is Austrian. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make Austria the home country of this work. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Well there's no reason it would be the United States? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Dora grows up.jpg

I'm not sure this file is very important here per WP:NFCC8. In addition, this file depicting Dora is used in the wrong article, but can also fails WP:NFCC3A if used there. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This is concept art for the series that ended up airing as Dora and Friends five years later. I think it would be most relevant on that article, though it looks like someone uploaded File:Dora grows up2.jpg when the series aired, and I suppose per your reading of NFCC3A we wouldnt need both of them, and that the newer image should prevail by default. On the other hand, both images have existed side by side undisturbed for the last twelve years, so I cannot vote to delete this. —Soap— 22:43, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete not useful contextually, does not substantially enhance understanding of anything in this context, and so fails NFCC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Cindy Hyde-Smith in a Confederate cap.jpg

This photo has exactly one sentence of coverage in the article's prose. The text alone is self-explanatory without the photo, so this photo fails WP:NFCC#1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this is not the object of major discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also fails WP:NFCC8. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 13

File:Montpellier HSC logo.svg

This is public domain. France has its own threshold of originality tag at Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom and which cannot be done easily because of hidden revisions. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons I am shocked this had yet to be nominated before. Should have been in Commons in the first place. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons Per nom. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Irish Football Association logo.svg

Maybe this logo is PD-US, as the four shamrocks are the only major symbols to watch out. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

English football clubs logos

Should these British football club logos (files) are at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? Because, it fails America's threshold of originality. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:StormNovel.jpg

I believe this file should be considered to be in the public domain - it was published in 1941 in the United States, so {{PD-US-no notice}} should apply to the cover art, for the same rationale as the first edition paperback cover of Jaws (File:Jaws 1st edition 1975.jpg), which does not have a separate copyright notice for the cover art. On archive.org there is only one search result for "copyright" (which does not credit anybody but Stewart), and with print-disabled borrowing you can see that there isn't a notice on the last page before the back cover.

If this file is moved to commons, I would recommend it be exported with the name "File:Storm (George R. Stewart) novel cover.jpg" to avoid ambiguity. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Acid Bath 2026.webp

Fails WP:NFCC#1; the current band lineup is made up of still living members, so a free image is theoretically possible to create. "As this photo depicts real people, it would be illegal to portray them without consent" is not accurate. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I just realized that this could have been deleted under WP:CSD#F7, my bad. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, the portayed persons are alive. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

While I am on the subject I am going to point out these files as well:

These all have incorrect NFCC#1 rationales as well. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Stade Brestois 29 logo.svg

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:FC Annecy logo.svg

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:En Avant Guingamp logo.svg

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Stade Lavallois logo.svg

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

November 14

File:Godzilla Minus One Artwork.jpg

delete, as it already depicts Godzilla in this design in his infobox TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

File:Shin Godzilla in Godzilla vs. Evangelion, The Real 4-D.png

Feels unnecessary to have an image of all of the character's appearances. Delete. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

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

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	4	18	33	28	83
TfD	0	0	4	8	12
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	7	12	13	9	41
RfD	0	0	12	59	71
AfD	0	0	0	35	35

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	4	18	33	28	83
TfD	0	0	4	8	12
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	7	12	13	9	41
RfD	0	0	12	59	71
AfD	0	0	0	35	35

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	4	18	33	28	83
TfD	0	0	4	8	12
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	7	12	13	9	41
RfD	0	0	12	59	71
AfD	0	0	0	35	35