Wikipedia:Files for discussion
![]() | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
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]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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 |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
[edit]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
[edit]Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
[edit]The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
- File:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anetode (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This probably meets the UK threshold of originality, but the design seems simple enough that it could be used as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. hinnk (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Metro-epektaseis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfera1022 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nom's comment – Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you oppose deletion then? Normally, nominated files without at least one input still have been deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I'm still uncertain whether the map belongs to the officials. I'm just now defaulting to treating the file as unfree at this time and can assume that the map fails NFCC technically. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (Unstruck, 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC))
- Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [1] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Changing my stance to more likely PD as Greek government work per above evidence. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Nom's comment, 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)- @Thryduulf and George Ho: Which license exactly? {{PD-GreekGov}} only applies to texts. ✗plicit 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [1] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Crap, I misread the tag. Reading c:COM:NOP Greece and the rest of the page, I couldn't find a suitable Commons tag that would label the map as free. Rather I now go for unfree by default again. Uncertain whether it meets NFCC, but the infobox has hidden/collapsed the map, which may affect the map's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- So is the issue just one of which template to use? So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer drew the sketch (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany). Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
[edit]Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
August 25
[edit]- File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Species is not extinct, and could be observed in the future. This makes the image replaceable and an NFI violation. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:FriendRichardson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OCNative (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails NFCCP#1, as the article itself has a free image, as well as Commons hosting 7 other free images. reppoptalk 22:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. I'm gonna be annoying and note that Commons has 2 other free images, most of the files there are copies of the one in the article. But yeah, the one in the infobox is enough and including an official portrait doesn't do much to help readers understand Richardson's governorship. hinnk (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not a good image of the Philippine Arena, obscured by trees. Poor representation of the arena. The only instance of use, at Bulacan article, will be replaced by File:Philippine Arena - Front View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg shortly after this nomination. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The suggested replacement is fine, but not a whole image of the stadium. I understand that English Wikipedia is not a file repository, but given that the original is deleted from Commons, having a limited selection of images of {{FoP-USonly}} buildings provides a source for future editorial choice. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
- File:Ph-bulacan-bocaue-philippine arena front.jpeg
- File:Philippine Arena - side view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front (Bocaue, Bulacan; 05-05-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - night view, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - Distant View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg (this is closer to the file I nominated)
- With seven images of this stadium, plus the image I suggested, it is already more than enough to illustrate enwiki. Enwiki is not an indefinite file hosting service, notwithstanding the local exemption doctrine (WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE). I think these images are enough and there is no need for more images of this stadium (unless the stadium's appearance is altered sometime in the future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The nominated image does a good job of capturing the juxtaposition of stadium and surrounding ecology. None of the images you cite do that. I will add that your note saying WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE is misleading, as WP:NOTFILESTORAGE explicitly allows files which could be used in articles. I don't think we're maxed out on potential usage when talking about the world's largest indoor arena. Nine images are not that many, and many of the ones you cite are much more similar to one another than the nominated image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle the boilerplate notice on top of WP:FOP explicitly states it is not a policy, so it is still inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting." It should first be made as a policy for it to complement with WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of the difference between a policy and an information page. Thank you. I am saying that the policy page explicitly endorses unused but potentially usable images like this. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle the boilerplate notice on top of WP:FOP explicitly states it is not a policy, so it is still inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting." It should first be made as a policy for it to complement with WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The nominated image does a good job of capturing the juxtaposition of stadium and surrounding ecology. None of the images you cite do that. I will add that your note saying WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE is misleading, as WP:NOTFILESTORAGE explicitly allows files which could be used in articles. I don't think we're maxed out on potential usage when talking about the world's largest indoor arena. Nine images are not that many, and many of the ones you cite are much more similar to one another than the nominated image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
Recent nominations
[edit]August 26
[edit]- File:Team USA ceremony uniforms at the 2024 Summer Olympics.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevencocoboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
As per Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_August_16#File:Team_USA_ceremony_uniforms_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics.jpg. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me, what's problem with this photo? This is a logo of an item which is about Team USA ceremony uniforms at the 2024 Summer Olympics. I believe that we can use it in wikipedia.--Stevencocoboy 02:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason has been stated in the previous nomination, which you did not participate in. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 11:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NFCC#1 (someone could licence an image of the uniforms) and also WP:NFCC#8. If this is the same as the deleted image, then WP:G4 would apply. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Napoli1927.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daddy Kindsoul (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Possibly published before 1929, the file indicate 1927, but there are no futher information. The file needs more verification. Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- What are you requesting? PD-US? Wikiacc (¶) 01:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment fair use rationale is invalid, as it doesn't use a proper NFCC template that addresses all of those criteria, and in particular, WP:NFCC#8 fails for it's use on team article. So if it's pd-US, it should be retagged that way, else deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Anastasiya Prikhodko Mamo.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jaan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
May not contextually signify the singer who recorded the song. Sample not included in the song article, but such use would've failed the criterion, anyways. Contextual significance ≠ portion/song identity or recognition. George Ho (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Zhou Jiangyong pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:FAIRUSE for living person image. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale directly addresses why this image of a living person would not be replaceable, and the nomination hasn't really addressed it at all. hinnk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
August 27
[edit]- File:Joan Peace Babalanda.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc1705 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Deletion rationale on c:File:Dr. Babalanda Joan Peace.jpg is "12:18, 26 August 2024 Túrelio (A) talk contribs deleted page File:Dr. Babalanda Joan Peace.jpg (Copyright violation: Stated source is "Opensource Institutional Repository" but without details we cannot verify this. Thus no obvious right to upload here. Please use COM:VRT to lodge permissions in which case, if deleted, this will be restored. COM:PCP applies) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)" In this diff there the deleting admin there was asked to verify the image here as identical with that deleted. They did so.
Full camera details notwithstanding, it seems that on the balance of probabilities the uploader does not have the rights to be able to upload this file here, nor anywhere.
If they have these rights they should provide them via WP:VRT, or the file should be deleted. I recognise that Commons operates under a more stringent regime that Wikipedia. I do not believe we can use the doctrine of Fair Use on this image here. The subject is living and this the image is replaceable. FU has not been used so far 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:CFL CAL Jersey 1989.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmm3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file was deemed non-free in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 8#File:CFL CAL Jersey 1989.png because of the logo on the helmet. The purpuse of use is To illustrate the jerseys worn by the team. I don't think that's an acceptable use of non-free content so either delete or remove the logo from the helmet and hide previous versions with the logo on the helmet. Jonteemil (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
August 28
[edit]- File:Juan izquierdo en cndef.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fma12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No evidence this meets WP:NFCC#1. This person played 115 matches, and so anyone at any of those matches could licence us a photo. Also, NFCC#1 justification on the non-free template is incorrectly listed as for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article
- which is not a valid reason for this criteria. We shouldn't be just farming images off the Internet just after people die when free images of public figures could be obtained. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've seen that games in some South American countries are covered by national press agencies who release the photos into free use. As he played in continental championships, there's a possibility there could be multiple images available. Also, he was at one of the big two teams in Uruguay, a football crazy country - even if his appearances were low, surely fans would see him at training, on the bench, outside the ground? Compared to when I've uploaded files for 1960s players, the chances of a free replacement here are high. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Could not possibly have exhausted options for a free alternative just a day after his death. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission can be used to ask photographers for permission.—Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Izquierdo had been a professional footballer since 2018. If any free image of him has been found to date, what makes you think that it will magically appear? I've done a search on Commons database (specifically in categories of teams where Izquierdo played such as players of Peñarol, or players of Nacional, and even in Uruguay national team starting line ups with no successful result.
- I think that leaving the photograph there until a free image can be found (if that happens), would be the most reasonable decision. Fma12 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think every free photograph in human history has been uploaded to Commons? He played for Uruguay's big two - the equivalent of playing for Celtic and Rangers in Scotland, a country of similar population, football fandom and big team domination. So yes, I do think that many people in Uruguay have a photo of him, either at a game, training, fan event, trophy celebration etc. that they could upload just like many millions of other players. He was a key player when Liverpool Montevideo won their first league title in over a century - did nobody go to the parade? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You continue talking about suppositions, no real facts. There are loads of key players with no free images of them available for use, wheter they are notable or not. Fma12 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Still not a policy based argument. Facts? It's a fact no fan ever took one photo of him, ever? Do people not have mobile phones in Uruguay? This was not the Loch Ness Monster, this was a player for the two biggest clubs, a title winner at a third club, and someone who played away at huge grounds in South America. Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are a lot of footballers that have played for some of the greatest clubs in the world and there is not a single licensed-free image of them. I can guess you're Uruguayan, aren't you? because your arguments are based on a fan's point of view rather than a neutral one.
- Izquierdo played for Peñarol and Nacional, it's true. But he was not notable (in terms of fame or repercussion) like Francescoli or Cavani (just to name two examples) so finding free photographs of him could not be as easy as you suppose. Fma12 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Still not a policy based argument. Facts? It's a fact no fan ever took one photo of him, ever? Do people not have mobile phones in Uruguay? This was not the Loch Ness Monster, this was a player for the two biggest clubs, a title winner at a third club, and someone who played away at huge grounds in South America. Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- You continue talking about suppositions, no real facts. There are loads of key players with no free images of them available for use, wheter they are notable or not. Fma12 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think every free photograph in human history has been uploaded to Commons? He played for Uruguay's big two - the equivalent of playing for Celtic and Rangers in Scotland, a country of similar population, football fandom and big team domination. So yes, I do think that many people in Uruguay have a photo of him, either at a game, training, fan event, trophy celebration etc. that they could upload just like many millions of other players. He was a key player when Liverpool Montevideo won their first league title in over a century - did nobody go to the parade? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Marc Vivien Foe was also a player who played in the top flight of a very popular league and played for their national team yet no one uploaded a free picture of him yet, Manute Bol was a basketball sensation and legend and his wiki still has a fair use image, same to Tupac, same to Biggie. It doesn't really make sense why we are discussing fantastical situations where we should ask every person who attended a game where Izquierdo was in and ask for permission if they took a photo of him. We can wait and eventually a free picture may appear (this happened in Selena Quintanilla page) but as of now, the Fair Use rationale is ok, maybe just change the wording to better comply with NFCC#1. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is what I have been trying to explain since the beginning.... If there is any free image of a dead person, what is the problem with uploading a NFCC one? Or should we wait indefinitely to someone upload a photograph? Discussing such a thing is really a waste of time. Fma12 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Hyperba21. Plenty of famous people have no known free images available. We don't define any kind of standard around how famous someone was during their life that we can assume there must be free images available, and I don't think we should, considering how subjective that is. Fma12's argument makes more sense to me than Bagumba's—we shouldn't be presuming that no search was made during Izquierdo's lifetime, and a free image isn't significantly more likely to appear for a person whose death was recent. Instead of trying to define some kind of WP:BDP-like period after someone dies, we should require an actual replacement image be provided. hinnk (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Nintendo 64 Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KUsam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:FREER#Multiple restrictions: vector format non-free logo from Brands of the World Wcam (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
August 29
[edit]- File:Pascal Paoli Corsica Linea.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChemicalBear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not a logo as declared. Image can be replaced so fails NFCC1 --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
August 30
[edit]- File:SojanJoseph.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parabelleum (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I could not find the said license at the source https://www.ashfordlabour.org.uk/ and thus cannot be moved to Commons. The subject is alive and thus not suitable for non-free criteria — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 19:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
August 31
[edit]This is an alternate version of File:Shakira - Shakira (2014).png for the expanded edition of Shakira's 2014 self-titled album. The differences are very minor. 81.79.96.215 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#3. One version of this image is enough. This doesn't differ significantly from the standard cover, and the text in Shakira (album) § Release and promotion explaining that the guitar is red can be easily understood without illustration. hinnk (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:HankWorkman.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coingeek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Challenged F7. This is a textbook WP:NFCC#2 violation. The image is not a Forbes image as claimed. The image is from Getty as can be seen [2] here. If the uploader had bothered to actually include a URL to the Forbes article, it would likely be this article which credits the photo to Getty. Whpq (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per item #7 of WP:NFC#UUI. These types of images are almost always speedily deleted per F7, and I'm not seeing any reason why this shouldn't have been the case this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
September 1
[edit]Footer
[edit]Today is September 1 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 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 "===September 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.