Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	14	15
TfD	0	16	16
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	100	100
AfD	0	0	0

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

What not to list here

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

Instructions for listing files for discussion

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 August 6}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 August 6}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 August 6}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

July 29

File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg

[edit]

This file was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 68#File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg back in July–October 2015, and I closed the discussion as "no-consensus". I think though this probably should be discussed some more because it seems like this cover art would be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use here on English Wikipedia given c:COM:TOO United States even if it's considered protected in the UK and can't be moved to Commons per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. Pinging George Ho, Black Kite and Masem as a courtesy because they participated in the NFCR discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I'm guessing Black Kite may be correct about the UK copyright, but a text label and white rectangle against a solid background would be safely beneath the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

July 30

File:Bang Xiao.png

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bx.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yale at Princton football ticket stub 1953.jpg

This might fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}, but if not, it should probably be deleted based on WP:NFCC#1 and 8. The image doesn't illustrate anything about Princeton–Yale football rivalry except to confirm that they played a game in 1953. hinnk (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked uploader on his talk page whether he can check the physical ticket for a copyright notice. It could be a useful image to have on Commons, I think. Felix QW (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

July 31

File:Trinidad Tecson relief marker Malolos1.jpg

Derivative of a possibly-copyrighted prose. This FB post hints about the memorial marker being made by both sculptor Jose Giroy and conceptual design by historian Isagani B. Giron, both of which are still alive today. No FoP in the Philippines for all works:; more so, this certainly has U.S. copyright established by Uruguay Round Agreements Act and U.S. does not have Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architectural works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anacleto Enriquez Malolos1.jpg

Derivative of a possibly-copyrighted prose. This FB post hints about the memorial marker being made by both sculptor Jose Giroy and conceptual design by historian Isagani B. Giron, both of which are still alive today. No FoP in the Philippines for all works:; more so, this certainly has U.S. copyright established by Uruguay Round Agreements Act and U.S. does not have Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architectural works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deodato Arellano1.jpg

Derivative of a possibly-copyrighted prose. This FB post hints about the memorial marker being made by both sculptor Jose Giroy and conceptual design by historian Isagani B. Giron, both of which are still alive today. No FoP in the Philippines for all works:; more so, this certainly has U.S. copyright established by Uruguay Round Agreements Act and U.S. does not have Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architectural works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:General Eusebio Roque1.jpg

Derivative of a possibly-copyrighted prose. This FB post hints about the memorial marker being made by both sculptor Jose Giroy and conceptual design by historian Isagani B. Giron, both of which are still alive today. No FoP in the Philippines for all works:; more so, this certainly has U.S. copyright established by Uruguay Round Agreements Act and U.S. does not have Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architectural works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

File:ACC Premier Cup Trophy.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as does not significantly enhance the article. This is an article about a competition, and so a tournament logo would be acceptable as non free content, but not the associated trophy. Also likely fails WP:NFCC#1 as someone could take a free image of the trophy if/when it is on public display. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin McSheehan.png

Image is tagged as own-work and with the author as being Kevin, suggesting that User:Aerno (who wrote Kevin McSheehan) has misrepresented the photo as being their own work. I am willing to withdraw the nomination if they confirm that they are Kevin McSheehan. jp×g 🗯️ 11:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Kevin but Kevin did provide the photo to me for use. Aerno (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)@Aerno: If you didn't take the photo yourself, then you shouldn't really be claiming it as "own work" and uploading it under a "{{self}}" copyright license. The copyright holder of photo (i.e. its "author") is, in principle, the person who actually takes it; it's not the subject of the photo, anyone posting the photo online, anyone possessing a physical copy of the photo, a friend/relative of the copyright holder, etc. So, the subject of the photo sending it to you doesn't necessarily make them or you its copyright holder, unless they or you can show that copyright of the photo was somehow formally transferred by the person who took it. FWIW, the photo was removed from Kevin McSheehan for encyclopedic reasons that aren't really related to its copyright status; so, even if this photo's copyright licensing can be sorted out via WP:PERMISSION, a WP:CONSENSUS to re-add would likely still need to be established at Talk:Kevin McSheehan. My suggestion to you here is to nominate the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7 using the template {{db-g7}}. Just say in the edit summary, you made a mistake with the file's licensing and it's not your "own work". Then, wait to see how the article fares at AfD because there's probably no point in uploading another photo if the article ends up deleted: whether an photo is being used in the article has nothing to do with why it's been nominated for deletion. If the article is kept, then perhaps see whether you can proccur a better photo with a more clearly defined provenance and copyright status. If the subject of the article wants to provide one, then that's OK but it should be something whose copyright status can be verified. There's some examples of ways to do this in MOS:IMAGES#Obtaining images. A non-free photo almost certainly won't be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content policy; so, the photo would need to be freely licensed (see c:COM:L for more). Ideally, the photo should be uploaded by its copyright holder to Wikimedia Commons because freely licensed photos are better hosted there, but it can be uploaded to Wikipedia instead. The photo should be uploaded in as high of resolution as possible (or at least as high as the copyright holder wants) and with complete Exif data (if possible). If anyone other than copyright holder uploads the photo, it would probably be a good idea to ask the copyright holder to send a WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) email to Wikimedia VRT for verification purposes. There's still no guarantee that others will want to use the photo, but there might be less resistance to using it if it's decent (i.e. allows the subject to be clearly identified) and properly licensed. I can see you've had a Wikipedia account for many years but also see you've made very few edits and have only uploaded just this one file; so, I'm just assuming you're not too familiar with uploading files and image licensing. My apologies if I'm just posting stuff you already know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles – "Hello Goodbye"/"I Am the Walrus" single

Both files are replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:The Beatles - I Am The Walrus & Hello Goodbye ad.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. These are essentially the same files I listed for discussion on July 22; as such, the arguments listed in that discussion should be considered here as well. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Both files are not replaceable. I'll point to a discussion from two years which cast doubt on the logic of differentiating picture sleeves from album covers. You will need to come up with a convincing case differentiating between those two.

What's more, because these sleeves were printed in the US in 1967 without appropriate copyright tags, it is unclear if they are even under copyright. Ojorojo discusses that my earlier link. Tkbrett (✉) 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josef von Sternberg.jpg

Contested removal from Josef von Sternberg. This file fails WP:NFCC#1 since it can be replaced with any image of the subject from c:Category:Josef von Sternberg. hinnk (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FREER. @Hinnk: This probably didn't need to be discussed here and instead could've been tagged for speedy deletion with {{rfu}} per WP:F7 for future reference. It would also probably be a good idea (even just as a courtesy) if you notified the uploader of the file of this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has a talk page notice asking people not to post notices about prods or AfDs, which I'd interpret to include this. hinnk (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

File:Modern digital painting depicting Rai Ahmad Khan Kharal by Arsalan Khan.jpg

Non-notable fan art of an historical figure. Should have no place under fair use (we barely allow artistic depictions of unknown provenance).

Also copyright on Artstation is borne by the artist and that website i.e. "The artist has already published this artwork for free on their website." is not a valid rationale. Gotitbro (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1, and this depiction of Kharal isn't the subject of any commentary. hinnk (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jinju logo.png

According to South Korea's copyright law and recent cases involving copyright, it is speculated that the logo is most likely a work in the public domain. This is because it is a coat of arms created by the South Korean government that is not eligible for copyright protection, and the design of the coat of arms is too simple. It is recommended to remove the fair use label and replace it with {{PD-KRGov}}{{PD-shape}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is quite small due to being fair use; I suspect we may be better off deleting and reuploading under those copyright licenses you propose. seefooddiet (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Fishing Network old logos

Non-free former logos for World Fishing Network. File:WFN 2014 logo.svg is being used for primary visual identificaiton in place of these former logos. These former logos are not the subject of significant sourced crtical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

File:Mohamed Amin Didi presidential portrait (cropped).jpg

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Amin Didi presidential portrait (cropped).jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geastram australe 28538.jpg

The file has been deleted at the source so it is not possible to verify the license. The file can perhaps be replaced by one of the files in c:Category:Geastrum australis. MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image should be kept and moved to WikiCommons, and the local version should be deleted by pressing F8. In addition, as for authorization, the revocation of authorization for files authorized under free copyright is usually invalid. You can refer to WikiCommons' handling of some Flickr files. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons files from Flickr is reviewed by either a bot or another user so there are two users that confirm the license was free. I moved File:Psilocybe galindoi.jpg to Commons a few days ago to get a license review. With this file here we only have the word of a user with very few edits that the file was under that license. I added a PROD to a few other files with similar issues (they were unused) and they can be seen in Category:Proposed deletion as of 2 August 2024. --MGA73 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMS Niobe launching.png

This is a German image from 1899, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have to believe that this was published anonymously? The fact that you don't know now who took the photo does not mean that it was published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMS Niobe in harbor.jpg

This is a German image from 1902, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have to believe that this was published anonymously? The fact that you don't know now who took the photo does not mean that it was published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.jpg

This is a German image from 1905, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have to believe this image was published anonymously? The first page in the source seems to imply that Weyer produced them, and it clearly states that he retained all rights. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you did not mark the correct author of the file when uploading it, but thought that the file was uncertain. In addition, since the image was published in Germany, German copyright law stipulates that works enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; I said the page implies that Weyer drew the sketches, but it's not clear.

Yes, indeed; when did Weyer die? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

File:The Goddess and the Bull cover.jpg

Non-free album cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Michael Balter#The Goddess and the Bull. Non-free book cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about books, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular book cover anywhere in the article, which means there's no real justifiction for its non-free use. The file was prodded for deletion by was deprodded here by Joe Roe; so, I'm bringing its non-free use up for discussion here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Do you realise WP:DECORATIVE links to "arguments to avoid in file deletion discussions"?

Anyway, the book is notable, as shown by the multiple reviews cited in the article. We could have a standalone article, in which case using the cover in the infobox would be uncontroversial. Following WP:PAGEDECIDE, I decided to cover it as part of the author's biography instead, because this gives better context for the reader. If we can't use this file in the same way in that article, then I think I'll just split it off to its own article and use it there. Meaning the decision of whether to have a standalone article based on the non-free content policy rather than WP:PAGEDECIDE, which sounds pretty backwards to me. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware what page that short-cut links too, but that particular section also explains why decorative non-free is not really considered policy compliant. I also linked to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#CS above to further explain why I think the use is "decorative". Anyway, if the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, then splitting the article off might be the best thing to do. The book cover would almost certainkly be OK for the main infobox there, and a WP:HATNOTE or regular Wikilink could be used to link the two articles together for contextual/encyclopedic purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be okay in an infobox on a standalone article. We have thousands of files used that way. Do you not think it's a bit nonsensical to say that that's okay, but using it in exactly the same way in a section of another article is "decorative"? I don't think we should be making decisions on how to organise coverage based on what files we can use where, but that is what you're forcing here. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The image would be unobjectionable fair-use content on an article about the book, but I think the use case for an article about the book's author, even with a paragraph about the book, is too indirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

File:Yvonne and James II, 2021, Jordan Casteel at Met 2022.jpeg

This painting is not discussed in the article it illustrates (except a mention in a bullet-pointed list). Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entire section is discussing her oeuvre, and the image illustrates several features described there (the varying skin tones, the pose and direct gaze, the palette). I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 to say that because the section has a critical analysis her work as a whole, an image of one of her works wouldn't significantly increase readers' understanding. hinnk (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed justification on the file is “To support encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article.” But this work is not discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To wit, it seems a lot like OR for you to claim this work represents her style when no cited sources are saying that. What if experts think it’s atypical for her oeuvre? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting like that doesn't help anyone. The full statement says, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Key example of the artist's figurative paintings of Black families, photographs, and communities, for critical analysis of the artist's style", which seems like a perfectly valid justification. If a different painting is more typical of her work, then replace it with that instead of proposing this very strained interpretation of the non-free content criteria. hinnk (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the portion that was untrue, and it is. Further, my point is not that either of us as individuals should decide what’s representative, but that we would need reliably sourced material discussing its relevance. As is required by our upload form on which the uploaded would have selected, “This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article.” It’s just not. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's my upload so I'm probably not supposed to weigh in, but I would note that there are quite a few notable examples of NFC that don't have a direct, textual reference to the work in question.

One of the broader problems here is that much of the scholarship that would establish individual paintings/works of art as typical of an artist's style are created by the museums/institutions that own said work. I've run into many editors who seem to believe that anything produced by a museum about a work owned by that museum is a non-objective source, and can't be used on Wikipedia. So, in the eyes of some editors, to establish that this painting is indicative of Casteel's style - which the Met explicitly says in their listing for the work - we would need a second, completely separate source. In the past I've tried going that route - adding specific references sourced via a museum - and have had the contributions immediately reverted by other editors because the source is "too close to the subject." I could rant for days about the ways museums work and the ethics of arts scholarship, but a lot of editors take an extremely hard-line approach (if a museum owns something, anything they write about that object is non-usable), which can make it very difficult to add visual elements to artist bios, arguably the most important element when trying to learn about an artist. So I've often just added images that I know to be typical of an artist's style - information gleaned from the museums that own the works - without going down the textual reference route to avoid any editing conflicts. May not be the best approach, but it's been generally accepted so far.

But obviously I defer to the group on this. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. 19h00s (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't find WP:OR to be applicable in that way, and I would only evaluate against the WP:NFCC, not the file upload wizard. I don't think Innisfree987 and I are presenting new arguments at this point, so I'll leave it there. hinnk (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captain Kohl leading the Herfylking.jpg

The immediate source for this image makes no reference to its provenance. There is no mention of it dating to the 19th-century, no description of it as a propaganda image, and no identification of the author. The image was first uploaded to the internet in 2005. My guess, barring additional information, is that the image was created shortly before then. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AMD GPUOpen Logo, Jan 2016.png

GPUOpen now has a relatively simple new logo that likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Given the non-free logo no longer seems to be the primary one, I think it could be replaced. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harbou Metropolis 1926.jpg

This image is a book cover currently tagged as public domain in the U.S., but unsuitable for Commons because the book's author is Thea von Harbou (1888–1954). I don't think she would be considered an author of the cover though, only the artist Walter Reimann (1887–1936), whose signature you can see at the bottom and whose work is public domain in Germany. hinnk (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see the signature when I put the don't transfer until as the birthday of hers, if it was Walter who made it it should be suitable for commons and PD in the US and Germany Wiiformii (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch, this is now on the Commons under the same name, delete on Wikipedia. Hekerui (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whisper Aero HQ 2020-2022.jpg

The article Whisper Aero has 7 non-free images, only the logo seems to meet NFCC requirements. The others show the company's headquarters and its products, failing to meet NFCC 1 and 8. Bestagon ⬡ 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, will find images that fit policy Bapple4747 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

File:Base Esperanza.png

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones#5

The Argentine government's public works are usually licensed to the general public through Creative Commons and can be used for free for commercial purposes and can be modified and reproduced. The Base Esperanza coat of arms is not a music album cover, but is the public intellectual property of the Argentine government. Unless otherwise stated, intellectual works of the Argentine government are licensed under CC-BY-2.5/CC-BY-4.0. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is August 6 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 6 – (new nomination)

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

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

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

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil 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