Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

Shortcut WP:FFDWP:FFD

XFD backlog v t e V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total CfD 0 8 71 0 79 TfD 0 4 18 0 22 MfD 0 0 0 0 0 FfD 0 0 6 0 6 RfD 0 0 21 0 21 AfD 0 0 1 0 1 Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here [edit] For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page: {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.) For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually: How to list a file for discussion manually Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps: 1 Edit the file page. Add {{Ffd|log=2025 December 1}} to the file page. 2 Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~ Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2025 December 1}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated. 3 Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}} Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2025 December 1}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion. State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include: Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2. Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926. Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3. Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}. Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here: Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright. Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin. NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements. Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page. Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise. These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
Today All (sorted) Closing Log
Templates
Today All Closing Holding Log Instructions
Files
Today All Closing Log
Categories
Today All category Closing Log Speedy Working manual large
Redirects
Today All Closing Log
Miscellany
Today All Closing Log
Speedy deletion
Candidates
Proposed deletion
All (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Below the threshold of originality, move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly}}. There is no information regarding Estonia's threshold of originality. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Paris Saint-Germain F.C..svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Maybe this could be Public Domain, or more likely PD-US. The only maybe copyrightable element is the fleur de lis, and the New Orleans Saints couldn't copyright theirs. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Mahsa Amini skull CT scan September 2022.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rolf h nelson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Diagnostic medical images created solely through a machine (X-rays, so likely also CT/MRI) are PD-US JayCubby 21:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. there is nothing remotely creative on these medical images. This is PD. Bedivere (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Shirley Bassey - Diamonds are Forever.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leafy46 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

sample of title theme not contextually significant to the whole film soundtrack. moved caption into prose George Ho (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment: Would the sample work better if it were moved to the page of the film itself? It is the title track of a film in a series very much known for its title themes. Leafy46 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the eponymous theme song in Diamonds Are Forever (film)#Music is barebones. Also, there's already a film poster, and the sample (of the theme song) wouldn't improve much understanding about the whole film, anyways. Best not to put it anywhere in the whole project, IMO. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC); edited, 02:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per updates made by Widgetkid, backing down on the omission suggestion for now. Honestly, didn't think a song article was worth creating at first, but... George Ho (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's... a really aggressive comment, but okay. I respect your opinion on the matter. For the record, I think that there may be enough information around the song to put together an article for the song (between its charting, its sample in Diamonds from Sierra Leone, and its rankings in bond themes), but I'm also not interested in doing that. Leafy46 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but... I have created a long-overdue article for the song itself, where the composition and audio elements are discussed. Recommend removing from the soundtrack article and leaving on song article. @Leafy46, aggressive is how the @George Ho do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 😂

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:MKW Cow Concept Sketch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Captain Galaxy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. as File:MKW Cow render.png suffices. Also arguably fails WP:NFCC#8, as a second image doesn't significantly enhance the article, even though this specific sketch is mentioned in the text. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not uncommon to use concept art to illustrate the growth and development of a character, and in this case, it also provides an image of the Cow driving, which the lead image does not. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator keep: I disagree that the file fails WP:NFCC#3a as it is the art itself that is the focal point of the given section of the article as it is tied to the Cow's development as a playable character, rather than that being a simple depiction of the character. This is further proven to be the case by the nominator as to mention the fact that the article's text mentions the concept art in-question. It has contextual significance to the actual article, ergo, it shouldn't violate WP:NFCC#8 either. CaptainGalaxy 17:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is virtually identical to the final render besides the vehicle, so it doesn't show how the character changed from the concept art to final phase, like, say, Gordon Freeman's article. It seems like it's just there to add flavor, which is not how non-free copyrighted images should be used. If showing how the cow drives is an issue, the main image can be swapped with one showing the cow driving a kart rather than just standing there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It seems like it's just there to add flavor. Not really. Sure, this Cow character is non-playable, and showing Cow driving is... well, hardly surprising. However, the infobox image is a three-dimensional artwork, and this nominated image uses two dimensions. Hard to visualize how Cow would appear in flat drawings without this image, honestly. Compare this with "The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour". George Ho (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if you consider going from 2D to 3D a huge change, which I don't, there is still the issue of NFCC #8 which is whether it "significantly" increases readers' understanding. Given that the designs are nearly identical, the only possible thing you could argue in this instance is that it shows how Cow drives the vehicle, but that is doable with a replacement of the original 3D image if it is strictly necessary (which I also do not believe either). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the basis of NFCC #8, the art not only has the added benefit of depicting the cow driving, but as I stated in my last comment, this image does hold significant relevance to the Cow's development as a playable character. It is the image itself that is intrinsically tied to the character's development. It was not there to simply add flavour, it was there to demonstrate what it was that triggered the developers to have the idea to not only convert the Cow into a playable racer, but create an entirely new mechanic; which I do not believe could be justified simply with text. And I would also agree with George Ho above that the dimensions of the artwork changing to also be a factor. That being said, on the notion that we could just have the Cow driving in the infobox, me and a couple other editors attempted to do this off-wiki. However, since there isn't an official render of the Cow driving provided by Nintendo, all we are left is in-game screenshots, which we agreed just ended up becoming too busy for an infobox image. I think how the article handles the two images is perfectly fine as is. CaptainGalaxy 11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think a screenshot like this one, properly cropped, would be unsuitable as the main image, if as you claim showing the Cow riding a bike is highly important. It's still clearly visible - any concerns about the background being there or not are just second fiddle to the information it depicts to the reader. It proves that the drawing is not required to depict the cow riding something. I also think that with enough time in Photoshop it could be cropped out entirely, even though that isn't strictly necessary.

  I do think the argument that the image itself compelled Cow's addition to the game is a more convincing one, but at the same time I do think that "the Cow driving a truck" is something that can be reasonably extrapolated from an image of Cow driving a different vehicle. It would essentially have to depict something that the reader could not form a mental image of without additional imagery, so I'm still unconvinced myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the late response. I had considered the image at the time of writing the article but inevitably decided against using it due to the aforementioned to the aformentioned background, which I found somewhat harder to crop (not out of my realm of possibility though). However, the other render provided a simpler cropping process and was much cleaner to use, as I found the in-game select screen render more appropriate for the infobox image. The concept art then provides two functions as I believe the artwork is connected to the Cow's development, which is inline with other concept art images on VGC articles. CaptainGalaxy 00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Zxcvbnm. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per @Cukie Gherkin. Shows character development over time.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Old Man (Neil Young single - cover art).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb26554 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should, preferably, display the other (Canadian) single release as the sole lead image representing the Canadian musician's recording rather than this (German/Austrian) one per WP:NFCC#3a (discogs). George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize until just now that it's used in two articles. Just now, also using another portion of the Canadian single in the other article. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The single covers show a more complete image of the single cover than the Canadian single release alone. Instead, Delete the Canadian singles File:Old man by neil young Canadian vinyl side-A.webp and File:The Needle and the Damage Done Neil Young Canadian vinyl side-B.webp as they are redundant. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.

  Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long before cassette singles and then CD singles arrived in stores. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. Like Black Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it on Discogs, seen here. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels fail WP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than one prominent aspect of the subject, right?

  With all due respect, regardless of which portion to use, be it a plain vinyl record or a picture sleeve, the right... or an important release matters more. (Portion ≠ release.) Also, a release can be a "prominent aspect" that a reader would realize and have sought for. (Shall I explain further why video game community has preferred displaying English-language cover arts, like Super Mario World? Well, Japanese editions of Final Fantasy IV and Tales of Eternia are unique cases for you to study.)

  Also, various single releases of "Old Man" didn't use one universal single cover art (discogs). Unsure why you've thought the German/Austrian single is the most important out of all initial single releases to display, and unsure why we must compare "Old Man" to a Led Zeppelin song.

  It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...? George Ho (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per George Ho's rationale. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I uploaded this logo and now I think this is Public Domain actually. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below t.o.o., therefore pd. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simple calculator 01.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MaTrIx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused image, low quality vectorisation, WP:NOTFILESTORAGE —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Magical Mystery Tour US Cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KAYTRA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:TheBeatles-YellowSubmarinealbumcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paulisdead (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ozmosis82 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:The Beatles - Let It Be.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miklogfeather (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These album covers were published in the United States without an attached copyright notice (sources: Heritage Auctions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [the "notice" on the back cover appears to apply only to the lyrics], eBay for Magical Mystery Tour, eBay for Yellow Submarine, eBay for Abbey Road, eBay for Let It Be) within thirty days of their publication in the United Kingdom. Per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, Wikimedia Commons treats works published "simultaneously" (within thirty days) in the US as first published in the US. They should thus be transferred to Commons and tagged {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Simultaneous US publication|country1=United Kingdom|publication year=1967/1969/1970}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don’t delete it I’m a big Beatles fan plz don’t Neoogai (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are kept as-is or transferred to Commons, they are not being deleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Neoogai. There is no doubt about your good intentions, but please understand that the basis of such discussions are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Agreed with the logic of moving to Commons.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Commons, per above rationale. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Clearly PD-textlogo and should be moved to Commons. I'd do it myself if not for the deleted revisions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Some1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since I've been reverted twice on this (by @ChiruKondo:, and @KILLGOESE:), I'm going to start a discussion on deleting this file so that the dispute can be concluded.

The dispute concerns whether the fair use photo in question can be used when there is another CC-licensed photo (File:Photo of Luigi Mangione.png) available. Killgoese did not provide a reason for their reversion, but ChiruKondo said that it was "potato quality" and therefore unable to be used. Perhaps this is a matter of opinion, but I believe that the CC-licensed photo still reasonably serves to identify the subject and shows his facial features. NFCC1 requires us to replace fair use content when we have free alternatives.

On another front, I have been questioned by @Einsof: on Commons on the copyright status of such footage. Given that the footage was uploaded by NBC News on their official channel with the CC BY license, and that NBC News elsewhere explicitly credits themselves with taking the relevant footage (here; see top right about 16 seconds into the video), I believe they had the full right to release the relevant content under a CC-BY license. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By comparing the footage in the two videos it is evident there are at least two different camera operators involved: e.g., [1] versus [2]. The footage in the second video, which seems to carry an NBC News attribution as you say, is not permissively licensed on youtube. The footage in the first video, which was used to create these files, seems to be unattributed. Einsof (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing here additional footage which is not provided in the CC-BY video, but if you compare the footage which does appear in both videos (here and here), it is evident they are the same footage, not by different camera operators. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the license of that footage is still not established. The first video is using the footage to provide commentary (seemingly emphasized by the choice to overlay footage of the reporter in the center of the frame). The commentary may be permissively licensed, but may be relying on fair use of the underlying perp walk footage. Einsof (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not count as fair use if the content is created and held by the very same entity. ABC News is the copyright holder in both cases and has the ability to license each video however they wish. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since ABC News produced the underlying footage, and released the whole video under a CC-BY license, that makes the entire video CC-BY, including their footage of Mangione. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's NBC News; second, not all of the footage in that video was produced by NBC News; and third, the license of a derivative work is irrelevant if you are simply using that work to extract underlying footage. What matters is the license of the underlying footage. Einsof (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The license of the derivative work is absolutely relevant if its the exact same copyright holder. If the same copyright holder gives a free license to a derived work, then that entire derived work is under that license. This has been upheld in Commons for works like photos from the Star War's Flickr stream, see also c:Commons:Free depictions of non-free works. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latter explicitly permits YouTube videos with copyrighted material uploaded under {{YouTube CC-BY}} by the copyright owner of the said material or its subsidiaries. Any extracted images/audio from the video. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Howard. If NBC News was the one who filmed the footage, then they would have the copyright to that footage. So, them putting it on a YouTube video that is CC licensed would mean that they released it under that license. I don't think that the idea of "the license of a derivative work is irrelevant if you are simply using that work to extract underlying footage" would be true in this case. It's only really true if the footage was actually by a different copyright holder. reppop^talk 18:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's definitely not a beauty shot or anything, but he is accused of a crime; a shot of him during his perp walk where his face is still reasonably discernible (though low resolution) can certainly replace the mugshot. Probably gonna get filed at WP:Unusual biographical images anyways. Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyclohexyl Hydroperoxide.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sophisticatedevening (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Has uneven strokes and a solid dot insead of an "O" for one of the oxygen atoms. Looks like it was autotraced using highly incorrect settings, rather than actually a correct diagram of this substance. Have File:Cyclohexyl hydroperoxide.png already on commons. DMacks (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FSS logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Speedy delete this duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_Association_of_Serbia_logo.svg Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruno K portrait.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Edibiz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is sourced from the Ugandan Daily which claims everything on their site is CC-BY 4.0 based on their copyright page. The site is not at all clear that the licensing applies only to their material. Thye cannot apply a free license to material for which they are not the copyright holders. There is no evidence that the real copyright holder has licensed the material under a CC-BY 4.0 license. See this Facebook post . Looking at another article from the Ugandan Daily, this article about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have a photo of them together. This is an AP photo. See [https://www.myjoyonline.com/johnny-depp-reveals-painting-inspired-by-his-ex-partner-vanessa-paradis/ this article which credits AP. There is no way that AP has licensed this as CC-BY 4.0. The the free licensing on the Ugandan Daily only seems to be applicable to their material and cannot be relied upon for other materials regardless of the statements made on that page. Whpq (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yanis Varoufakis banquet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is not being used for identification as claimed in the non-free usage rationale. The image is being used to illustrate the section about the couple's photo shoot with Paris Match. The photo is not needed to understand that the photoshoot happened and caused negative publicity so WP:NFCC#8 is not met. The photo itself continues to be licensed for commercial use through Getty images (link) so WP:NFCC#2 is not met either. Whpq (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think its " likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material" as its a photo from 10 years ago of a politician very few non-Greek people have heard of or remember, i also think it "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why it was so controversial ~

WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Wikipedia:F7 b  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low graphical quality, and confusing geometry of the dimethyl-bridge. Have File:Cyperotundone.svg on commons as high quality. DMacks (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berwyn car spindle 20070707.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JeremyA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this not a simple combination of utilitarian objects? JayCubby 02:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ? Strong Keep and quick close. This was a very famous sculpture in Illinois (U.S. state) for decades, used in films (i.e. Wayne's World) and other media. It is needed as a fair use image at Spindle (sculpture), its own page. Not understanding the reasoning why the image is up for deletion, JayCubby, maybe remove this request (asking for a Wayne worlder). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_18528520  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Sounds like a concern about article relevance, not the image itself.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

c:COM:FOP UK requires works to be permanently situated. This banner was temporarily placed. ✗plicit 06:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:M by Judi Dench.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insomniacpuppy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I've thought about using a free image of Judi Dench, like this one as free alternative to this non-free screenshot. The more I have had, the more I have questioned this screenshot's contextual significance to the fictional character, "M" of James Bond franchise. The image's irreplaceability is probably not the main issue here, though also I've questioned it. Rather the main issue is the potential affects of omitting the screenshot from this project. If no objections, then this screenshot may not sufficiently contextually signify after all. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character isn't so visually different from the actress. Seems a reasonable call on your part. JayCubby 22:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very contextually significant to show M portrayed as a woman. The same non-free justification is used both in the M and Q articles.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  15:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ThecentreCZ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFC#UUM. Absolutiva 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't fails UUM. Copyrighted file is used here in accordance with UUM for 8 years. ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails how? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Chinese imitation pearl peddler in Milan, 1920s.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zicheng zic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As used, this image fails WP:NFCC#8. However, the assertion that this image is circa 1920 means that it is possibly public domain, however the source provided in the file description makes no assertion on the date of the photograph. Without more information, the determination if this is public domain is not possible, in which case the file should be deleted as no meeting our non-free content criteria. Whpq (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Scherzinger Your Love music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BittersweetTragedy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Scherzinger On the Rocks music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BittersweetTragedy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Scherzinger Baby Love music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BittersweetTragedy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Scherzinger "Whatever U Like" music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BittersweetTragedy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:PCD - When I Grow Up.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Status (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 . Sricsi (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ballroom Blitz.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thisbirdhadflown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Content heard in sample inadequate to contextually signify the whole song. No proof that omitting this sample would affect such understanding. George Ho (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant discussion of the musical content of the song in the article, so second non-free file not warranted.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article contains no significant critical commentary about the song composition that would support the use of this song sample. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melanie C - I Don't Know How to Love Him.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Patricia CV (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded (by non-admin user) due to assumptions that, if the first version of the song, the content about the version itself is large enough to justify usage of this cover art. (see Explicit's explanation here) However, I'm doubtful that's the case here.

As shown in the article (old ID link), the section barely covers essential content that would've made omission of this cover art unjust Rather I've seen info about her performance and recording of the song. If the section were a standalone article, I would've redirected the page to the parent album article as potentially a less notable topic in question. Furthermore, I would've orphaned the whole cover art.

The matter isn't about the section itself but rather the cover art's contextually significance to the previously recorded/performed song made for an off-Broadway musical. If no objections, then the cover art may have failed to contextually signify the song after all. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added just now this free alternative (File:Mel C arriving at the Royal Albert Hall.jpg) neither as intended replacement nor for the section's infobox but for the section itself. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Section about the Melanie C cover could be it's own small article - there is significant discussion and sourcing for it. Since it could be it's own article, the cover is warranted for contextual significance.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KPop Demon Hunter Deluxe Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StationSquareYT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This deluxe cover is claimed to be used for "primary means of visual identification at the top of the article" but that is already done by the standard cover, failing WP:NFCC#3a. The deluxe cover is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary so fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:L(eonard). C(harles). Bowkett.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DynamoDegsy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid license. Image is not PD as the work was created after 1930. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:STANAG 2116, Ed. 6.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JurKo22 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The user tried his best, but I doubt that he's right about a need and a possibility to use this file. See also ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право#Оформление_лицензии_для_официальных_документов_НАТО. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miss Moneypenny by Caroline Bliss.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insomniacpuppy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Miss Moneypenny by Samantha Bond.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Insomniacpuppy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

Images of other actresses portraying Miss Moneypenny may not contextually signify much about this fictional character. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They may be very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film with a particular actress portraying the character.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very contextually significant to someone who has only seen a film. "Contextual significance" (WP:NFC#CS) doesn't limit to such demographic but applies to everyone else, especially those who've yet to see the films. Well, it says that screenshots should significantly increase readers' understanding of the fictional character herself enough to make omitting such screenshots detrimental to understanding this character.

As I see, this character has been just a secretary to "M". I'm afraid I have found images of portrayers not much of improvement but rather.... decorative perhaps. How do the screenshots (of actresses portraying the same role) improve your understanding of the character... besides what she looks like differently? George Ho (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batch 1871.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CLWE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC8 for context and understanding. The picture as it stands is a non-sequitur, lacking even a caption. For those who don't know, the character Father Ted Crilly has told his housekeeper Mrs Doyle that he is about to move to America. She then appears for a second like an innocent little girl asking if she can come too. This scene isn't even mentioned in the plot. It could theoretically be noted if there were sources for the production that described the camera trick to make her short, whether the actress liked the costume, but we'd have to cross that bridge first. Additionally there is another still in the article already (that one's purpose is pretty tenuous, but at least the event is mentioned as a plot point). Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is December 1 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 1 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===December 1===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

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