👁 Skip to Table of Contents

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

Shortcut WP:FFDWP:FFD

👁 Image

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

XFD backlog v t e V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total CfD 0 0 38 0 38 TfD 0 0 4 0 4 MfD 0 0 5 0 5 0 4 32 0 36 RfD 0 0 57 0 57 AfD 0 0 3 0 3 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 Add {{Ffd|log=2026 April 4}} to the file page. 2 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=2026 April 4}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated. 3 Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}} Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2026 April 4}} 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 1933, not 1927. Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3. Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}. 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.

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:

👁 Image

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

[edit]

File:Minnie Mouse Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Pluto (Disney) transparent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). .

File:Horace Horsecollar Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Clarabelle Cow Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These Disney characters pre-date 1931, the cutoff for content to pass into the public domain in the USA. These fair use images are therefore replaceable by free (copyright-expired) images from 1930 and earlier that exist of them, and indeed such images are already present further down the article. Though at point of upload, there may not have been any free images available, there are now, and it is not appropriate to use non-free content decoratively or because it is "better" or "a more modern representation" of the character when free images are available, even if the free images are considered somehow less desirable or representative. See for example Mickey Mouse, where a 1920s image has been used for some time. Also see precedent for replacing non-free images with slightly less desirable free images at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 17#File:Sheriff_Woody.png and following.

Uploader improperly removed {{di-replaceable non-free use}} tag so referring to here.

Note: As non-free images, consensus is required to keep these files; see WP:NFCCE. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

It's been a while since I dealt with a nonfree dispute. I'm used to WP:BRD. But, it's better to have this discussion centralized anyway.
Among other reasons, we have fair use content for identification. If a reader is only familiar with modern iterations of Minnie/Pluto/Horace/Clarabelle, would a screenshot from Steamboat Willie allow them to positively confirm they arrived at the right article? I doubt that. If a reader views File:Rover (Pluto), The Picnic 1930.jpg and then encounters an image of modern Pluto "in the wild"—will they be able to identify the cartoon dog as Pluto? I severely doubt it.
When versions of the characters that are much closer to the modern day versions enter the public domain, this evaluation will shift. But today? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Alexis Jazz raises good points. I think it's likely a case-by-case basis. My $0.02 on the images above:

• Pluto: I think the old Pluto still is just fine for identifying even the modern Pluto, so remove the non-free one.
• Minnie: I think the old Minnie sketch is fine for identifying modern Minnie, so remove non-free one.
• Horace: I think a reader would struggle to identify modern Horace from the old still on the page.
• Clarabelle: I think a reader would struggle to identify modern Clarabelle from the old still on the page.

I also noticed that the Mickey Mouse article still has modern non-free versions, but they're tied directly to a section's discussion, e.g. regarding appearance changes over time. In that case, I think it's totally appropriate to keep the non-free image. I think one way to save the modern images would be to add a section about appearance changes over time (assuming sources exist - I would think they do for Minnie & Pluto, not sure about Horace and Clarabelle). WidgetKid ^Converse 19:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Declaration of Conformity (Wellwater Conspiracy album - cover art).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:WellwaterConspiracy-DeclarationofConformity2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Either a CD or vinyl edition, both using different artworks, should be used. If no consensus on which one, then let's use the CD edition by default since CD was a popular format in the 1990s. Meanwhile vinyl struggled and floundered (before the vinyl revival), but keeping the edition might appease vinyl seekers amid the current vinyl revival/digital era, IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep both to help with identification of the subject, due to being vastly different visually. WidgetKid ^Converse 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Umm... I'm unconvinced that being vastly different visually is enough for an alternative cover to comply with WP:NFCC#3a... and instructions seen in this one: Template:infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover. The vinyl edition apparently wasn't widely released but rather sold in shops that still sold vinyls, probably secondhand ones. George Ho (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  George Ho: Looks like a pass to me: An alternative cover that is from the original and is widely distributed and/ has generally been held to pass this criterion. (my emphasis/underline added) 👁 Image
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WidgetKid ^Converse 05:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Unfortunately, the text-only album cover with white background replaces the original vinyl cover, which was used for the back cover of the 2023 vinyl reissue. Meanwhile, the original CD cover is still used on Spotify. Will upload that text-only cover art soon... but only as "PD-ineligible-USonly".... George Ho (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Or we could include all three. The second replaced the original, and the third replaced the others. I don't see why all three can't be included since visually very different, and any could be key to identification by a reader. WidgetKid ^Converse 06:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Well... Let's await other people's opinions on this then. George Ho (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Uploaded File:Declaration of Conformity by Wellwater Conspiracy 2023 reissue.jpg just now as "PD-ineligible-USonly". George Ho (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:1962 Daytona 500 program cover and logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nascar9919 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No relevant renewals related to the 1962 Daytona 500, NASCAR, or any other plausible search term, meaning this can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:The Times Union 11-22-1963.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stalmannen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Times-Union did not receive copyright renewals. The photos on the page are likely AP photos, which also did not receive renewals. This can therefore be moved to commons as a PD-scan of a public domain work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:RHONY Season8Cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kelege (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derives from the other image seen in Getty Images (link), which violates WP:GETTY and WP:NFCC#2, but with a different background and layout. Default to delete if in doubt about this listed image. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep. Passes WP:NFCC#2, because it's a low-resolution image. A 300x300 image isn't going to take away any commercial opportunities from Bravo or Getty. Not sure if WP:GETTY applies. Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others. This one is credited to Bravo. Given it's use as the image on Apple, this is similar to an album cover, so fair use in the context of the season (but nowhere else). WidgetKid ^Converse 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others.

  Nonetheless, other cast photos seen in Getty have been deleted. So was a promo image of Steve Urkel that I uploaded years ago. Of course, I'm using WP:WHATABOUT argument, eh? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Oh, almost forgot: If a photo belonging to NBCUniversal appears on Getty Images, most likely NBCUniversal—which currently owns Bravo, NBC, and Telemundo—has very deep commercial interersts in that photo. (Not to be confused with Comcast's spun-off company Versant.) George Ho (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  I don't think Bravo/NBCUniversal's commercial interest in the photo is disputed. Them having a commercial interest is different than us taking away from their commercial opportunities, which I don't think we are by displaying a 300x300 low res pixel version. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Even being 300x300 didn't stop such images from being deleted. A use of an image seen on Getty Images should either, in certain circumstances, follow... or fail WP:GETTY. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Appropedia-the-sustainability-wiki-03-14-2026.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Majobselan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsure about licensing. Part of the footer reads, "Content is available under CC-BY-SA-4.0 unless otherwise noted." thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 23:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Some of the images appear to be in that "otherwise noted" category. In particular:

• https://www.appropedia.org/File:Brush_byHeatherBrown.jpg has no license and has a "courtesy of" statement which makes me doubt its licensing status.
• https://www.appropedia.org/File:Bikepic3.jpg has no license statement
• https://www.appropedia.org/File:Bpack_bike_trailer_-_demo_1.jpg has no license statement
• https://www.appropedia.org/File:Tibial_Shaft_Transverse_Fracture_Simulator_v5.0.jpg is labelled as CC BY-SA 4.0 but somehow has an unknown author?
• https://www.appropedia.org/File:Habitatpark006.jpg says "used with permission", which would be a VRT problem at Commons, perhaps?

These probably need to be removed or censored before being moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darkwarriorblake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Has rightly been replaced by File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg in the infobox. What is the significance of the 1982 re-release anyway? Per WP:FILMPOSTER we must use the original theatrical release poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Immediate closure of discussion: Image has been put back in place. No discussion was had over changing it while previous discussions have been had and it was kept. Posters are meant to be how it is commonly recognized. Existing image has been in place for years, including through FA, and OP should have opened a discussion on the talk page OR reviewed the previous discussions, instead of replacing it and then immediately opening this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Oppose closure: No opinion on whether this should be deleted, but FFD is an acceptable venue for this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Oppose closure as well. Though maybe not the best way to resolve it, it's here now. Let's have the discussion. WidgetKid ^Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Replace with original 1981 version (File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg, per WP:FILMPOSTER: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." FWIW, even Lucasfilms thinks it's the one fans recognize. WidgetKid ^Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Comment: This was previously discussed here but I think it went nowehere. Linking it for reference. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raigeiki55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A photo of the exact plane involved could be replaced by a similar-looking Seneca.
Philippines gov't works are not protected by copyright, so if there is a government photo of this plane, that could be used I suppose. JayCubby 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Anderson Elevator Fire Reading.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ray.lowry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyright statement for this image says it was first published prior to 1931 (1923, according to the uploader) — but the event in reference (according to the caption accompanying this image's only usage, and this source) occurred in 1936. I was unable to find an online source for this image, and the original uploader did not provide one; thus, the file may not be public domain by expiry as asserted on its page. Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Move to Commons per publication in The Worthington Globe Oct 26, 1936 without notice. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheVeganFromNorfolk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely PD in the US, maybe not in Canada, but should be converted. JayCubby 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep on enwiki; convert to PD; CCTV footage is public domain in the US per c:Template:PD-automated. No clue about Canada so should not be moved to Commons. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Mohammed Deif (Hamas).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candidyeoman55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Mohammed Deif.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shadow4dark (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Which photo should be used? Can any free replacement be found? The second photo glorifies this terrorist, the first doesn't. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

The second one is his official portrait and i don't see glorifying terrorism. Part of discussion was here [[1]] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Delete the second one, and use the first. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Nope we should follow WP:NPOV you should had use talk page before your upload, i asked on your talk page for reasons but you just ignored. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image at the top of the article is a free replacement. Posing and background suggests this might be a US gov work, but I cannot identify the actual source (the NYT link is wrong). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

https://monster-island.net/2006_03_01_archive.html

This suggests image has been in circulation since at least early 2006, I am still looking for the origin. Minermatt122514 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I haven't figured it out yet, but I did find another mugshot I have never seen before on this document here. https://www.scribd.com/document/13949990/T5-B57-T-Eldrige-Primary-Docs-20th-Hijackers-2-of-4-Fdr-Muahammad-Qahtani-Withdrawal-of-Application-for-Admission-InS-DOJ Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Never mind, what I just found is not a mugshot. Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Manchester City FC badge.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free football team badge being used a combined total of four times in three diferent articles: Manchester City F.C., Manchester City W.F.C., Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy#Elite Development Squad and Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy#Academy. The use in the article about the main men's team seems fine, but it's the other three uses use which may have issues per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI. UUI#17 basically deals with the use of logos in articles about parent entities and child entities, and trying to keep non-free use as minimal as possible per WP:NFCC#3.

In previous FFD/WP:NFCR discussions, a strict interpretation of UUI#17 in which the main men's team was considered the sole parent entity and everything else a child entity tend to be the consensus that was reached; however, given the growth that women's professional football seems to experienced over since its early days, perhaps it might be OK to have "two parents", so to speak, with respect to UUI#17 and football teams: one for each side of a club's family tree. If the main women's team has it's own separate branding that's different from the men's, then, of course, that would be preferable to simply reusing the same logo twice just to have a logo in the main infobox. If, though, both the men's and women's teams use clearly the same branding, which seems to be the case when it comes to the Manchester City FC and WFC teams, then perhaps it's not really contrary to policy to treat the women's team as a parent entity in its own right.

The two uses of the file use in the Under 21 team's article, however, are much more problematic and harder to justify per UUI#17 given that B/reserve/under-XX/academy/youth teams tend to be considered sub-entities of the main team, at least that's my understanding of football clubs tend to be organized. There's really no way to justify using the same file twice in the same article per WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, one of the uses technically fails WP:NFCC#10c since it's lacking the seperate, specific non-free use rationale that relevant policy requires for each use of non-free content. Getting rid of one of the uses and moving the file to the top of the article also has issues since the main function of these teams seems to be to prepare players and help them gain sufficient skill/experience so that they're hopefully someday called up to the main parent team. This seems kind of equivalent to relationship that Minor League Baseball teams and NBA G League teams have with their respective parent MLB and NBA teams. Of course, if a "child" team has it's own unique branding, then that could be used in its article, but I don't think the default should be to assume that just adding a non-free use rationale for the team to the parent team's badge/logo file page makes the use automatically policy-compliant. So, while I can see a possible justification for using the file in the main WFC article, I can't see any reason for using the file even once in the "Under 21s and Academy" article and think the file should certainly be removed from that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Speedy close this discussion. Under Wikipedia precedent, non-free soccer logos can only be used in the articles about the senior teams. I've removed the file from the article Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy. No further action is necessary. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free book cover files currently being used in John Walmsley (photographer) whose respective uses fail WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3), but to perhaps different degrees.

The "Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover" is mentioned twice in the article: once briefly in the lead and once with a little more context in John Walmsley (photographer)#1967 A.S. Neill and Summerhill School, but I'm not quite sure whether this is a enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Given that Walmsley's Wikipedia notable is based on what he achieved as a photographer, though, it could be argued that this file could be seen as a representative example of his work and just needs to be moved the subsection where the book is discussed. This non-free use might be worth discussing in more detail.

The non-free use of "Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg" in John Walmsley (photographer)#Café Royal Books publications, on the other hand, seems to be a clear case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use which might also have issues per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3 because it looks like a user-created montage of the covers of the six of that particular series. I can't think of any way this could possibly be justified per NFCC#8 that would allow it to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esemono (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

(From top) Frame 1, 3, and 5 are PD, but some are probably not (not published in Life or anywhere else, I think). The PD frames are suitable replacements for the collection as a whole. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Correction: the bottom frame is copyrighted, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandy-June-6th-1944-US-troops-assault-Omaha-Beach-during-the-D-Day-landings-6.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:MorellQuatermass.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Garethheathcote (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm thinking the screenshot was uploaded simply because there had been no lead image for Bernard Quatermass. I appreciate the use of this image, but I wonder whether the uploader was aware of a past FFD discussion about another image that resulted in removal of that image from the article (link to FFD nom).

Regardless, I'm very uncertain about showing readers Morell's version of the character as the lead image. MOS:LEADIMAGE seems to encourage the most representative (yet appropriate) image of a topic as a lead image. However, multiple actors haven't portrayed the character for long, so I'm too hesitant to consider Morell's version the most representative.

Furthermore, I'm doubtful about its contextual significance to the main character of the Quatermass franchise. Indeed, if deleted, then the image may have failed to contextually signify that character very much, if not at all. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:A-Trak HWR Remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DavFaithid (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC 3a and 8. RedShellMomentum 05:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep. Remix version was very successful - maybe even more than the original. Given it's called out on the "200 Greatest Dance Songs" in Rolling Stone, I think it's worth keeping. I actually recognized the remix cover from my own spins, but not the original. WidgetKid ^converse 06:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Nancy Guthrie Missing Poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DocZach (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3 and possibly WP:NFCC#8. The copyrighted image of Nancy Guthrie is already a separate file in the article, and this reuse is not necessary. The other images are from a PD video in the article, and the info in the text can easily be incorporated in the article if necessary. Sign² (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep. US government works are public domain, so add a warning it has partial copyright, but move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

There's no way the photo of Guthrie is de minimis, so that needs to be taken out or blurred before moving to commons. The other photos fall under PD-automated. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

There is a tag at Commons that says: Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Delete or convert to fair use. De minimis is not applicable here as removing the copyrighted image would make the poster useless. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• The FBI did not create that family photo of Nancy, so that's not in the public domain. I also don't see why someone would upload copyrighted content twice. V. S. Video (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Comment. Isn't the portion of the image that is copyright small enough to qualify for fair use even when the FBI image is 1,033 × 804 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Convert back to fair use, soft keep — As the original uploader of this file, I am not convinced that it qualifies as public domain. Simply appearing on an FBI missing-person poster does not automatically place the image in the public domain unless it was originally created by a U.S. federal employee as part of their official duties, or otherwise publicly documented and reported as an exhibit in a criminal case or investigation. For that reason, I believe the file should be reverted back to a fair-use rationale. And honestly, I would not object to removing this file entirely, and I can instead upload the images of the suspect from the doorbell camera separately, which do indeed fall under public domain. DocZach (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that this isn't in the public domain. But there's been no discussion at all on whether this meets non-free content criteria given that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Move to Commons copyrighted image has been removed, leaving only PD-USGov and PD-automated works. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

It kinda looks ugly the result. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

You are free to take a crack at removing the copyrighted image yourself or explain why you think it's ugly. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Agree ~2026-18688-27 (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• The removed image is already in the infobox at the article, so I'm not sure it accomplishes a great deal. I'd revert and retag as partially fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

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

Either Public Domain, or PD-US. I don't think the US Copyright Office would accept this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relist it or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I replaced the file at the page, so delete it now. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

With the same image but under the different filename: File:EuroLeague logo.svg? I have reservations about the logo's copyright in Spain since the logo's author, Euroleague Basketball, is headquartered in Spain, so I nominated the Commons copy you uploaded for deletion (click/tap here). George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Re-license as PD-ineligible-USonly for now until Commons deems it okay to use in the project. If "kept" there, then this logo should be exported to Commons. George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  If there's no response by anyone else until 12 April, you can move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Why setting up a deadline? Do you plan to move the file yourself? George Ho (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  I forgot there was a backlog. Sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:TNT Tropang 5G logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The "Tropang 5G" wordmark is just simple text with a few streak lines. In my opinion, this may not reach the TOO and it could belong in Commons. Not sure about the TNT logo, but it already has a Commons file. MarcusAbacus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• Move to Commons per TOO. WidgetKid ^converse 00:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Aerial image of a home swept away at EF4 intensity near Enderlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrenadinesDes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Already one other fair use image in the article (see File:Violent EF5 damage to several full grain train cars near Enderlin.png). I'd argue that train cars being tossed off the tracks is more helpful to the reader as far as illustrating the power of the tornado goes. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep, as it helps to illustrate the paragraph next to it. WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 23:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:1990 FIFA World Cup.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Italy has a high threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relist this file, or move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

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

This image is of a person still alive. The person is serving a life sentence, still. The source link is dead. It has no fair use rationale and nothing to indicate a fair use license. Babin Mew (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Photos of people who have life sentences are kept because the same rationale applies as to a dead person. Needs to have that added, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Ok I added one. keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Dr. Tetelbaum.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nheroux (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The statement on the file page "Author: Natalie Heroux. I madet this picture. He belongs to me." may well explain how this picture uploaded here has been made. However artefacts in the upload suggest a scan or other reproduction of an original picture. This casts doubt on the ownership of the copyright which is easy enough to resolve - WP:VRT will work with the uploader to validate copyright ownership. I believe that, without VRT validation, this picture may not remain here, certainly under this licence. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete if not confirmed. Clearly a scanned photo. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep, Own work is not implausible given Heroux's edits. JayCubby 18:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

JayCubby Given Nheroux is the subject's daughter, and he's relatively young in this professional photograph, I find it unlikely that she took it (since she would have been a young child). It's certainly possible that she owns the physical copy, but there's no indication that the photographer relinquished their rights. What do you think? WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 16:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[]

{{PD-heirs}} could apply. JayCubby 17:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Baffinland illustrates its plan to feed Capesize freighters, moored offshore, from freighters small enough to ferry ore from Milne Inlet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC1 "no free equivalent" - this image shows a smaller freighter and a larger freighter interacting. I'm sure this happens relatively often in many parts of the world, doesn't require a volunteer chartering a helicopter in a remote part of the world as the justification claims. Additionally, this can be fairly easily described in text - the image isn't crucial for understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC8 "contextual significance"). Consigned (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Weak keep. I couldn't find a Commons image of two ore freighters interacting like this. I can see how this illustrates what's described in the article, but linkage between text and supporting image could be stronger. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete - replaceable with a text description so fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I had listed it before, but it was speedy kept because one of these files was in the main page one day. He died in 1946. Verify if these works have other known authors. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relist this file or close it as move to Commons Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Re-license as non-free if there's no consensus on whether the images listed here are in the public domain. Unsure when the images were first published, honestly. Indeed, there's c:COM:PCP to consider. George Ho (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC); partially struck, 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Any of Baird's works have entered the public domain in the UK as he died in 1946. So I disagree with you. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Per c:COM:UK, US copyrights of most British works were restored in 1996 by the URAA, one year after their British copyrights were restored. That way, their US copyrights would have 95 years of protection after first publication. In other words, a couple of those images became copyrighted again in the US in 1996. Also, the Wikimedia projects have relied on infrastructure located in the US; c:COM:licensing should tell users that a work must be in the public domain in not just its source country but also the US. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  The first two were published before 1931. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  One was verified by a 1926 publication, provided by another editor. The other one... I hope you're right; too bad the source here doesn't detail when the photo was first created or published (https://web.archive.org/web/20110614090114/http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=314&feature). George Ho (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Move to Commons File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg can confirm 1926 publication in The Electrician. Also move File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg as noncreative combination of public domain elements (Union Jack, fleur de lis) and PD-text.

No word on if File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg is PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Clarifying that for UK copyright, File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg likely falls under PD-scan of a work presumably by Baird, and File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg is either by Baird or an anonymous author; in either case, it's also PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

With all due respect about File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg, the originality standards is kinda low-ish in the UK (c:COM:TOO UK). The UK law has allowed very, very simple logos. Unfortunately, the screenshot in there might not be. Too bad the Wayback Archive has excluded this source (https://thetvroom.com/bbcuk/bbc-1-01-01.html), so uncertain when the title card first appeared publicly.

Nonetheless, it's not protected as a wireless broadcast made before 1st June 1957. It's not a pre-1957 film exemplifying an "original dramatic work"... is it? If so, then... it might have expired in 2017. Same for anonymous artist works made before 1946 and ones whose authors died in 1946 or before. Speaking of artistic works, dunno exactly who designed and made the title card, but Baird broadcasted the programme.

The US copyright status you may have hit the spot on, especially due to the fleur de lis logo. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/invention-television-tv-baird dates File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg to March 19, 1925, and it's likely a Daily Herald photo, as shown here in a 1946 issue. However, this is the earliest publication I can find; a 1925 photo first published in 1946 would've been subject to URAA restoration. Delete File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg unless an earlier publication can be found. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete only the Apparatus image due to uncertainty about its first publication. Move "1st image" to Commons per evidence of early publication provided. Leaning toward moving the broadcast image to Commons due to possible un-originality. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Even if the image with an unknown date was published after 1931, I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice. For this reason (and others), move all three to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice.

  Unfortunately, those reasons aren't enough to make a non-US work exempt from the URAA. To further make it so, that foreign, non-US work should be published in the US either first or within thirty days after its first non-US publication (c:Template:PD-URAA-simultaneous/c:COM:URAA-restored copyrights#Are all foreign works affected?). Otherwise, such work made in 1931 or later will still be copyrighted, especially if partnered with a US ally. The chart from Cornell University should simplify things: click/tap here. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  I think it would be strange for URAA to apply to UK works, because I think the UK and the US have very long copyright relations, maybe the UK is one of the oldest copyright relations of the US, if not the oldest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  "Strange" to you, but the URAA has been effective since the mid-1990s. The Supreme Court upheld the law, so it's been upheld since. If you still have issues with the URAA itself and its application to British works, either WP:MCQ, c:COM:VPCOPY, WT:NFC, or WP:VPP should do. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Spaceship Earth Epcot Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FA Jon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This should be under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Retag as public domain. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to be licensed correctly. Per the source, The University of California, as the Department of Energy contractor managing the historical image scanning project, has asserted a continuing legal interest in the digital versions of the images included in the NARA accession, and, accordingly, has stipulated that anyone intending to use any of these digital images for commercial purposes, including textbooks, commercial materials, and periodicals, must obtain prior permission from the University of California-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, through photo@lbl.gov.. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

In US; there is no new copyright when making a digital version. The question is, is the original image copyrighted? Christian75 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• The University of California can go pound sand; there's no new copyright created by a scan or other "slavish reproduction". However, it is insufficiently proven that the photographer was a federal employee, or that the image was taken in the course of their duties. Accordingly, delete. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

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

See Template:PD-Poland. By age, this should be in the public domain. JayCubby 13:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Move to Commons per nom. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 02:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Move to Commons per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[]
• Comment: The earliest I can see that this was created is 1946 according to Reddit and per commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland, terms run to the end of year meaning that this was copyrighted on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 by a literal goddamn year. The old 50 year term applies since it's not a photograph (and, to be clear, I think the retroactive nature is absolute BS). It's out of copyright in Poland, but not in the US because of blasted URAA. I could very well be missing something as I only checked online sources since I can't read Polish for offline sources, but I'm not confident enough to move this to Commons myself so I reverted my close. I also saw that there's a claim that the artist actually made this poster, but I couldn't find any kind of evidence towards this besides art resellers and those aren't reliable. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahtin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a photo of a Holocaust memorial located in the Ukraine taken by the uploader. The licensing for the photo itself is fine, but the copyright status of the memorial isn't clear. After discussing this with the uploader at User talk:Mahtin#File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, the uploader added a {{PD-UA-exempt}} license for the monument, but I'm not sure that license applies in this case. There's only limited freedom of panorama in the Ukraine per c:COM:FOP Ukraine, which places restrictions on commerical reuse; so, I don't think this file that can be kept as currently licensed, at least with respect to the monument. Sometimes in cases like this a non-free license can be added for the photographed work, but that can't really be done here because of WP:NFCC#9 (the image is currently being used in a userspace draft). If others can figure out a way to keep this file, then great; othereise, I think it needs to be deleted if the consent of the copyright holder of the monument can't be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[]

It's a wall with a few words in two languages on it. Not an architectural work. Probably OK for Commons too. JayCubby 20:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Maxine Carr Soham MurdersA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kieronoldham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As the person is alive, a photo for "visual identification" can be taken. The photo is therefore replaceable, and Wikipedia:NFCC#1 is not met. Schwede66 22:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep. With all due respect, Schwede66, if you understand the subject in the image, she is now protected by a lifelong anonymity order, so I fail to see how a more recent/current "photo [of her] for 'visual identification' can be taken" without breaching the law. Therefore, how can anyone legally replace it? This image of her - widely circulated in the media since 2002 and to the present day - was taken upon her arrest and prior to the imposition of said anonymity order.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

You might want to read this story: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/News and notes

As far as I know, that's the current state of affairs: "The Wikimedia Foundation stated in their 2008 resolution on licensing policy that non-free images of living people would almost always not be allowed." Schwede66 00:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Think you may be being a little pedantic here, but we will see how things develop. No freely released image of the individual in question exists, and the image has been - and continues to be - extremely widely circulated in broadcast, printed and online format for over 23 years.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep. Any free image of this person would be illegal! Not replaceable. Free images of living people are almost always not allowed, but for it to be literally illegal to make a replacement is in that 1% of situations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et0048 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

If the deleted revision is undeleted, this can be moved {{to Commons}}. — Arlo James Barnes 19:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Leaning toward moving to Commons – As I see, it was previously considered non-free (old id). Upon evaluation, I can see just plain colors, lines and a circle forming together, and simple(?) shapes. By the way, how about WP:Twinkle software next time for FFD listings? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Okay, I'll use Twinkle next time. — Arlo James Barnes 13:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Comment: I don't think this is actually the insignia, or if it is, I can't find evidence of it existing. I'm planning to override it with the image depicted at the bottom of the NMSDF page on the state's national guard site, which looks like the official contact point and that is corroborated in file:Gen. Torres speaks during change of command.jpg. — Sennecaster (Chat) 05:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

  Do you mean the flag of New Mexico patch worn by the general at the lectern in a Universal Camouflage Pattern palette? There's also a variant of the current design at file:New Mexico National Guard patch.jpg, and on the wall in file:New Mexico National Guard (49883878833).jpg, so perhaps it is for the wider NMNG. Also in UCP palette in file:New Mexico National Guard educates Española youth against drugs, gangs 140621-A-LF132-001.jpg. — Arlo James Barnes 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Since the deleted revision has been undeleted, I am requesting closure of this ffd since it seems there is agreement that the design currently at the file page is below copyrightability threshold. Discussions about whether the image should be overwritten and with what can happen at Wikimedia Commons just as well as they could here, so that shouldn't be a blocker. Arlo James Barnes 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Milorad B. Protic.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have procured a public domain image of him at File:Milorad B. Protić, astronomer.jpg. It is, admittedly pretty awful (though there is one at page 15 of [2] that might be nice to have, too), hence why I've sent it here instead of tagging it with {{rfu}}, but it is technically a free substitute. I'm also fairly certain that an extremely thorough search could yield more PD images of him; I believe people would be more motivated to do so if the current photo was subpar. JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep until a sufficient-quality free alternative can be found. It's not reasonable to 'break' the image to force the procurement of a free replacement JayCubby 14:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Slightly unethical of me, but it might motivate his daughter, whose email address I have been given by the person who wrote the source of this image, to provide us with one. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit] File is available at c:File:Uprising Academy logo.png--Trade (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• Speedy Keep .svg file. Delete .png file, per WP:USOP. The logos are also not equivalent. The .svg is correct for it's article usage. WidgetKid ^converse 06:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

  Saying a file is .png instead of .svg fails NFCC #1. Also ENWP does not have authority to delete files to be removed from Commons based on unrelated ENWP policies Trade (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[]

  I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons. And keep since this looks above TOO to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• "there is almost certainly no free representation" Yeah that's just a lie --Trade (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Ras Mulugeta Yeggazu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Indy beetle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly PD, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia JayCubby 16:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Move to Commons due to lack of copyright protection in the US, copyright expired in Ethiopia after 1961 at the latest. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Could those of you saying to move this to Commons please specify what license template on Commons would apply? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

[edit]

File:Virtual Library museums pages logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jpbowen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should now be OK under the UK's now-lower TOO. JayCubby 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[]

• This logo is by me, and I hereby give permission for its use. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[]

  @Jpbowen: Could you please specify under what license you are releasing it? Mere permission for Wikipedia to use isn't a factor in Wikipedia's file rules, other than being signified with {{non-free with permission}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

File:Clayton Lockett.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I tried nominating this file for speedy deletion, but it was challenged on the talk page, so I am nominating it ordinarily instead.

In WP:NFCI, we read images from news and pressphoto agencies should not be used unless they are the subject of sourced commentary as they fail the criterion of WP:NFCCP#2 otherwise. It specifically mentions A.P. This doesn't only apply to images owned by the photographers and publishers on these pressphoto agencies, but also any images redistributed by them as they are typically obtained through paid means (read WP:News agencies and fair use). This image does not have a very low commercial value contrary to what George Ho thinks. Originally yes, but it was distributed by A.P. for an economical purpose.

Furthermore, when looking at legal fair use conditions more broadly, we see the use of this file fails the fourth factor. Looking at the crash course by the University of Texas at Austin (which has been linked to at the bottom of page WP:NFC), we read “less favourable use” is when it “Avoids payment for permission (royalties) in an established market for licences of the type that you desire”. The use of this mug shot unquestionably avoids paying for a licence.

Widgetkid argued this file is from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and not A.P., however, as I mentioned, WP:NFCI no. 10 encompasses files not only owned by news agencies that sell licences to use them, but also those that acquire the files and the rights to sell them through paid means.

In conclusion, the use of this file fails “respect for commercial opportunity”. and essentially claims it free of charge instead of paying properly. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 10:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Uploader's comment – Per AP Newsroom's page, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections made this mugshot. However, I'm now worried that any mugshot by that Department would be treated like any cast photo made by NBCUniversal, Warner Bros., etc. I.e. cast photos have already failed WP:GETTY. Can the same apply to mugshots? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Keep per AP Newsroom page, "AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS". Just being distributed by AP doesn't mean it isn't also public domain or can never be fair use. WidgetKid ^Converse 02:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep. AP does not take mugshots! GETTY applies to photos they made, regardless of who distributes them. It applies to their files distributed by others, but not AP distributing it without owning the rights. AP does not own the rights to mugshots it distributes, that is done for free. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Keep NFCC asks that we give respect for commercial opportunities, not commercial realities. By this argument, any state mugshot could fail NFCC, as the state could enter into a licensing agreement with a photo distributor like the AP. The reality, of course, is that states do no such things, even in this case; the mugshot was put out for the purposes of public dissemination, not to net a police department a couple dollars in licensing fees. The AP is simply providing ease of use to news websites and such, who no longer have to directly contact the police department or track down a handout. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

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

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Ryan Preece Daytona flip.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chicagosports2004 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Speedy delete Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7b AP photo not the subject of sourced commentary wrongly declined by @Sennecaster 👁 {\displaystyle 999}
  REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy delete per F7. F7 does not make an exception for NFCC1. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

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

• Speedy delete Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7b AP photo not the subject of sourced commentary wrongly declined by @Sennecaster 👁 {\displaystyle 999}
  REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy delete per F7. Agree that it was wrongly declined as F7 does not make an exception for historical portraits. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Mary Richardson Kennedy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Speedy delete Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7b AP photo not the subject of sourced commentary wrongly declined by @Sennecaster 👁 {\displaystyle 999}
  REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy delete per F7. Agree that it was wrongly declined as F7 does not make an exception for historical portraits. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Damaged substation fence in Moore County.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DiscoA340 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Speedy delete Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7b AP photo not the subject of sourced commentary wrongly declined by @Sennecaster 👁 {\displaystyle 999}
  REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy delete per F7. Agree that it was wrongly declined as F7 does not make an exception for "difficult to replace/historical image". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

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

• Speedy delete Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7b AP photo not the subject of sourced commentary 👁 {\displaystyle 999}
  REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy keep The image is not being used here as a generic press portrait. It appears in Great Lives from History: Inventors & Inventions (Salem Press, 2008), a reference work, in direct connection with Jarvik's development of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart. The image shows Jarvik holding the device itself, which is the subject of his notability, and is therefore contextual rather than merely identificatory. I would also note that the Alamy listing cited does not appear to be the same image. That version is credited as "AP Photo/Forrest Anderson", whereas the image used here is credited "AP/Wide World Photos" in its publication context. AP distributed multiple photographs from such events, often with different photographers and crops, so a superficially similar stock listing is not sufficient to establish that this specific file is a routine wire-service image within the meaning of F7. In the absence of evidence tying this exact image to a generic press distribution (as opposed to a purely generic press image, given its contextual use depicting the subject with his principal invention), and given its clear relevance in depicting Jarvik with the device central to his notability, I don't think the F7 criterion is clearly met in this case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]
• Speedy delete: F7 is met here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  F7 requires a routine press agency image. Here the image is used contextually, depicting Jarvik with the Jarvik-7 rather than as a generic portrait. It's also not clear the Alamy listing cited is the same image (different credit line). On that basis, it's not clear-cut that F7 applies. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  It is clear cut that F7 applies. Wide World Photos is simply the name of a previous press agency purchased by the AP in 1941, whereas Forrest Anderson is the name of the individual photographer. The only exception for F7 is if the photograph itself is the subject of sourced commentary. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  F7 isn't limited solely to whether the image itself is discussed in sources. It also concerns routine, replaceable press images. This isn't a generic headshot but a contextual image showing Jarvik with the Jarvik-7, i.e. his principal work, which goes beyond a purely routine portrait. On that basis, it's not a clear-cut F7 case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  F7 explicitly says "Non-free images or media from a press agency or photo agency (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  That clause applies to routine press images, but not every AP photograph is automatically treated as such in practice. Images that are used contextually, for example depicting a subject with the work they are known for, are typically assessed under NFCC rather than treated as clear-cut F7 cases. Given that this image shows Jarvik with the Jarvik-7 itself, it's not simply a generic press portrait, so it's not an unambiguous F7. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  Every AP photograph should be automatically treated as such, regardless of how it is in practice. F7 is explicitly clear on this. If you point out any such AP image, they should be nominated for deletion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  If it is not the subject of sourced commentary, this applies equally whether it's "generic" or "special". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  F7 is applied to clearly routine, replaceable press images. It isn't treated as an automatic bar on all AP photographs in practice. Given the contextual nature of this image, that's a matter of judgement rather than a clear-cut F7 case, so it's best left to the closer. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  F7b does not state it is only for "routine" or "replaceable" press images. Nowhere in F7b does it say that. The single exception it does make is for "where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

  For what it's worth, I found an actual public domain photo and uploaded it here: File:Robert Jarvik and William DeVries on Good Morning America (1981).jpg. A cropped version is available here: File:Robert Jarvik (1981) (cropped).jpg. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete per WP:F7. Photo itself is not discussed and is owned & distributed by AP. Also WP:FREER, given other image available. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Yahoo screenshot 1994.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim42 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be well below TOO JayCubby 21:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Lottie Gilson.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC1 as a non-free file, given the existence of File:Lottie Gilson - DPLA - 77712d7bfe0abad942b2a326914bf703 (page 1).jpg, among others. However, given the fact that this can't have been taken before 1912, and it's a publicity photo, this is quite likely to have fallen into the public domain. Assuming we can track down a non-Find a Grave publication date. this can go to Commons. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:1985 Land Day poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yue (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#8 since the article comments or mentions nothing about the illustration. Fails NFCC#1 since anyone can create an artwork that similarly commemorates the event. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Nothing in the poster is shown that can't be said (or already is said) with words. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Land Day poster Abdel Rahman Al Muzain 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tiamut (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#8 since the article comments or mentions nothing about the illustration, thus no critical commentary and solely for illustration. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Nothing in the poster is shown that can't be said (or already is said) with words. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Human Cumshot.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jimmy257 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is redundant to the significant quantity of media already present at Ejaculation, also WP:GRATUITOUS as this obviously does not portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position when compared to the media already present (e.g. the anatomically labelled diagram that is considerably more informative than this.) Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Speedy delete per WP:GRATUITOUS I assume Jimmy257 really enjoys people watching that. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Georgia O'Keeffe, Black Iris, 1926, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hekerui (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

On what grounds is this image not a US work? A work made by an American author and seemingly only ever exhibited in the US does not seem to have any way to be considered a foreign work. For completeness, I can confirm that this painting was reproduced in a 1963 newspaper, presumably with permission of the museum, given the number of works reproduced. Even if the original exhibition was not considered publication, reproduction in a newspaper would constitute publication and would therefore require renewal for continued copyright protection, which I was unable to find, so PD in the US. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Metal Gear 2000 cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheSplïtter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uncertain whether this American cover art is reflected in the overall text. Regardless, can't use more than one cover art per WP:NFCC#3a. Indeed, I intend to replace this cover art with the original Japanese one seen in this source. Recently, the article was renamed to Metal Gear: Ghost Babel, which the Japanese release has used. While WP:VGBOX guideline says to use an English-language cover art, exceptions and common sense can be made per WP:GUIDES policy. (Don't wanna use other examples here per WP:OTHERIMAGE... yet.) George Ho (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I agree, and I like the one you've proposed. If we're going to be ignoring the WP:VGBOX suggestions though, what about this new one that was recently released by Konami? It's the same artwork, but without the additional text, stickers and Game Boy signage. --LiquidSevens (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hmm... Which base source is using what you're proposing? Honestly, I'd like the Japanese GBC version's cover more, but... Oh, wait... The artwork you suggested would be assuming that the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover. However, the game hasn't been individually reissued or re-released in other platforms yet. The latest 2026 release is part of a compilation, so that... may not count to me. George Ho (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

"Which base source is using what you're proposing?" No clue what you mean by this, but this image is promotional art used for the upcoming Master Collection Vol. 2 version of Ghost Babel, specifically the Japanese edition. It's the same promotional art that was adapted for the original GBC cover. The new USA cover art is different, much closer to the image being contested. "The artwork you suggested would be assuming that the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover." Again, unsure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the lack of a platform banner in this image would lead the average reader to assume that the game isn't exclusive to a particular console (which it currently is)? Or are you referring to the regions in which it was released? LiquidSevens (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

No clue what you mean by this, but this image is promotional art used for the upcoming Master Collection Vol. 2 version of Ghost Babel, specifically the Japanese edition. It's the same promotional art that was adapted for the original GBC cover. The new USA cover art is different, much closer to the image being contested.

Oh... Didn't realize that there's the other USA cover art. I'll rephrase: The URLs you provided are just image-only. I'm seeking a webpage that carries either image you provided. This one contains neither. I'm thinking the JP image came from this Japanese source, right? Same for the one carrying the US artwork.

Again, unsure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the lack of a platform banner in this image would lead the average reader to assume that the game isn't exclusive to a particular console (which it currently is)? Or are you referring to the regions in which it was released?

Well... Personally, I'd prefer a more authentic physical release, but.... I'll try to compromise for a more recent digital artwork, especially for today's contemporary readers. Nonetheless, as I'm more worried, the re-release of Ghost Babel would be just a port of the Game Boy Color version... wouldn't it? If so, then... I might lean toward the original Japanese GBC version.... unless I'm convinced that the newer, clean-looking US artwork for the port (re)release is the way to go. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Oh, I understand you now. Yes, those two webpages are the sources for both of the images I linked. As for whether it will be a port — it's probably going to be nothing more than the original game contained within an emulator, maybe romhacked to change the menu screen. Not too different from what was done for Metal Gear Solid (PSX), Metal Gear (NES), and Snake's Revenge for the Master Collection Vol 1. Just speculation, though. LiquidSevens (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Went bold and uploaded File:Metal gear ghost babel game boy color Japanese.png as the nominated image's replacement. If still willing, then please feel free to use either the Japanese or American artwork taken from either webpage. I won't try to oppose either one. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

No contest. LiquidSevens (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Actually, I would like to note that the file you replaced was the US cover (of course), but the file history betrays that it was originally the JP cover, before someone uploaded a new version only a few months ago. The JP cover was in the infobox for about 10 years until 2025. It was pretty much the same picture you uploaded. I had a feeling that was the case, but wasn't quite sure about it until I checked. Anyway the files which were replaced were purged, so your new upload should suffice. LiquidSevens (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill logo, 2025.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bailmoney27 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

https://www.unc.edu/posts/2025/11/05/the-universitys-new-mark-is-anything-but/ shows several much older public domain designs resembling this logo. The 1930 license plate, in particular, proves to me that even if the logo could have received copyright protection, it no longer has it; derivative works generally have to clear a much higher bar to receive copyright protection independent from the underlying work. Simply curving some lines does not seem to meet that threshold. This should be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Somehow didn't notice on first read, but the 1892 picture shows a logo on a sweater with an even closer design (perhaps even the same design?). Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I'd also say that 1892 picture shows the exact same design. In that case I'd say you're probably right that the mark falls into the public domain. Bailmoney27 ^talk 13:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opertinicy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to https://blogs.lib.unc.edu/hill/2016/05/12/the-history-of-the-university-seal/, this seal design was adopted in 1944. Therefore, copyright renewal around 1972 would have been required for continued protection, but no such renewal occurred, meaning the logo is public domain. This can be moved to Commons (unless the vectorization itself is copyrightable, in which case this should be deleted as a free vectorization could be made). Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Dale Chihuly Hyacinth Basket 2020 unique hand-blown glass sculpture 4¼ h × 8¾ w × 8⅛ d inches (11 × 22 × 21 cm).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pixelated Glitch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The rationale for this non-free image of Dale Chihuly's work states that there is no free alternative available, however, there are literally dozens of examples of his work available on Commons, as seen here: [5] Netherzone (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

• Speedy delete. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. WidgetKid ^Converse 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Il-171 0007 10-11 t24-C-R0150.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Câmara (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low-quality duplicate of existing Commons files, e.g. File:Terra Nova e Labrador 03.jpg JayCubby 14:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

• Replace with Commons file. WidgetKid ^Converse 22:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:AsiaBasket Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The logo only consists of lines to form a basketball and the letters A and S. I think it is simple enough for it to be moved to Commons due to it being under TOO. MarcusAbacus (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

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

Per WP:NFCC#3a, [m]ultiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information, where File:JoJo's Venture sales flyer.png suffices. Also fails WP:NFCC#8, as the latter file already significantly enhances readers' understanding of the game whereas omitting a video game cover would not be detrimental to [readers'] understanding [of the topic]. thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unlikely to be free under US law after all. Based on Clindberg's insight at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg, older protections for architectural components might still exist (pre-AWCPA-era components or pre-1990). Since the artist of this work died in 1985, it is very unlikely to be a post-1990 work. Leicester v. Warner ruling only applies to post-1990 architectural elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify deleting this and I'm having a really hard time. Leicester v. Warner Bros. clearly established that architectural details (which stained glass windows obviously are) are allowable under US freedom of panorama. You seem to agree with that. OK so far. But you think because pre-1990 buildings in the US had NO copyright protections that the windows (which we agree are an integral component of the building) somehow magically gain stricter copyright protections and lack the freedom of panorama than they would have had if they had been created if they were built post-1990 because of Leicester v. Warner Bros.? There is no case law, statute, or legal principle which would suggest such a thing. It defies all common sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  @IronGargoyle that is per Clindberg's insights on the undeletion request. But do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed). Thus, its US copyright was restored through Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Do note the Leicester ruling relied on AWCPA, which is not retroactive. Pre-1990 buildings are PD under US law, yes, but any associated architectural art embedded within (stained glass for example) are bound for the pre-1990 rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  And again, US FoP only applies to post-1990 US buildings. All pre-1990 buildings are public domain. Concerning the attached artworks, only post-1990 architectural art elements can be freely reproduced through Leicester ruling, citing AWCPA. AWCPA does not cover pre-1990 ones, and therefore common pre-1990 US copyright rules cover those architectural elements. Foreign elements, like this Philippine stained glass, are unfree courtesy of URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, I can see you are extrapolating this bizarre theory from an offhand comment by Clindberg which does not have any supportive evidence behind it. I am well aware that it is not a US work, but we are following US law on English Wikipedia. You bring up URAA, but URAA does not restore copyright on this building (as buildings were not copyrightable in the US in 1954) and this window is an integral part of said building. Of course AWCPA is not retroactive. AWCPA is what gives post 1990 buildings their copyright protection. If AWCPA was retroactive, US buildings prior to 1990 would have copyright. The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep per discussion. Thanks for the nomination, I've never seen this beautiful artwork and appreciate the chance. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Re-license as non-free by default, especially if "no consensus" at the end – Without clearer and consistent interpretation, hard to tell whether the depicted subject is free to use at this time, despite the photo's copyright status (as the photo itself, not the building or stained window). The "Keep" votes probably assumed this is a deletion discussion somehow... right? George Ho (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. holds here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  The nominator said this:

  do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed).

  Even if there's hesitancy to enforce URAA, being a non-US work plays a factor here. However, the stained windows have been still part of the building made before 1990. Perhaps an international law also plays factor in this. Oh... Realized just now that it's part of a Philippine church. In the Philippines, buildings may lack freedom of panorama (c:COM:FOP Philippines).

  Unsure why you're citing the case, which the nom said:

  The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.

  George Ho (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  @George Ho I base this on the non-applicability of the Leicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again, Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which is not applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of @Clindberg:'s reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate the non-applicability of Leicester for pre-1990 elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred before Leicester v. Warner Bros. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice: Do not use this template on copyrighted public artworks (like statues, sculptures, and murals)! If you're gonna treat the stained glass windows like merely part of the building/ architecture, then I can't stop you. Nonetheless, hard to take the view into consideration when the windows have exquisite artwork with enough originality to garner some protection (as an artwork), especially in the Philippines.

  Also, being tagged as "FOP-USonly" shouldn't prevent the file from being (re)licensed as non-free, should it, even when the photographer released the photo into the "public domain"? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what {{FoP-USonly}} and Leicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free because it is free under US law in its current 2D form. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resemble WP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.) George Ho (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mention WP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent to Leicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out with evidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright. I worry that [what I perceive to be] JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images (particularly from the Phillipines) may sometimes cross over into ownership tendencies and produce a tendency to latch onto any novel argument that would seemingly justify further opportunities to delete architectural images. The problem is that the argument here does not actually pass legal muster. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  @IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to the lex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  I felt that I framed the statement as being my interpretation of your behavior and my own personal opinions and worries. Maybe the first part of the statement was framed as being overly a statement of fact as opposed to just representing my opinion. I apologize for not framing it more as a statement of my opinion. To correct that, I have clarified the statement above with brackets. Given George Ho's query about I why I don't believe the opinion of multiple editors (after making clear that I did not disregard it out of hand), I did feel that the scope and history of your nominations of files I have uploaded was important to address, but in retrospect the statements you highlight are probably off-topic enough to not be helpful here. I have struck it. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Just as a background, from the Leicester case text: [The district court] declined to construe the 1990 amendments as Leicester urged, to leave intact the previously authorized protection for sculptural works that were "conceptually separable" from the building of which they are a part, concluding instead that the intent of Congress was to substitute the new protection afforded architectural works for the previous protection sometimes provided under the conceptual separability test for nonutilitarian sculptures (such as gargoyles and stained glass windows) incorporated into a work of architecture. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Warner Bros. Leicester has timely appealed. Before 1990, architectural works were not given any protection at all. To allow some protection of artistic works attached to buildings, it was generally recognized that "conceptually separable" works did get protection. The 1990 law giving protection to architectural works changed that; Leicester was arguing that the older protections should still exist in addition to the new architectural work protection, but the courts decided that was not the case. However, since pre-1990 buildings are still not protected at all, so that "conceptually separable" logic should still hold for older buildings. That is a bit fuzzier for foreign buildings though -- the window would have been PD immediately due to publication without notice. The URAA could have restored that, but did it restore the architectural work too? The wording of U.S. law however does not seem to apply the architectural copyright to pre-1990 buildings anywhere, but rather gives restored works the protection they would have had in the U.S. had they not fallen into the public domain. For a "conceptually separable" stained glass window (the court even named that specifically as an example of conceptually separable) on a pre-1990 construction, it seems like it would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. The text of the court case has a lot of discussion, referencing the House Report on the 1990 law which recognized the previously-available conceptually separable protection -- with somewhat ambiguous discussion there, which the court had to decide. Not sure I can find a copy of that online. Note that there was another case where a mural was added to a building later on; that was not considered as part of the architectural work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[]

That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protection replaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? The original law (section 706) towards the end, says: The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[]

The legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection was replaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states: Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states: If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. The House Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned: A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses are de minimis or incidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[]

The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildings while still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted in Leicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found in Leicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for architectural PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was for all architectural PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are still architectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you think might be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there is zero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Congress did not want the new architectural protection to inhibit existing practices of photographing buildings, from when buildings had no protection at all. "Conceptually separable" works were fully blessed by Congress to have protection. They made no pronouncements on freedom of panorama in general; they were more concerned about the new types of works gaining protection. The AWCPA was ambiguous on whether conceptually separable works still get the older PGS protections, or the new ones. Leicester pretty much answered that, in that separable works which are "part of" the architectural works got the architectural protection, and the 17 USC 120(a) limitations that went with them. That cannot have possibly affected anything earlier, as 17 USC 120(a) explicitly can only apply to architecture completed since 1990. Congress did nothing to change the status of existing works. I'm not making this up only by reading the law -- this has been stated by others, though having trouble finding the references at the moment. But it makes sense given that the 17 USC 120(a) is the only section of law limiting photographs of works, and that cannot bee applied to earlier works. Secondly, some other court cases have limited the scope of Leicester a little bit, in that simply being attached to a building does not make it "part of" it. One example isFalkner V. General Motors LLC, which was about a mural painting on an already-completed parking garage. They ruled the mural was not "part of" the architectural work, and is protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The parties settled after that ruling. So "part of" does mean integrated in some way, particularly at the time of construction. Before 1990, architecture was not protected at all, so photographing them was fine, mostly. You could photograph separable works if you were photographing the whole building, but photos which focused on those separable works were still a problem. Congress was mostly trying to keep that status quo, and presumably has no issue with the Leicester ruling. But they only altered the protection where other works are "part of" the architectural work -- not for works like the above mural, which are not "part of" the architectural work, and not for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an "architectural work" to be "part of" in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[]

How strange that you can't find these statements by others supposedly supporting your argument. I think that the last statement in your reply perfectly sums up the absurdity of this line of reasoning: "for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an 'architectural work'". In US law these objects were not copyrightable, but they are and were a meaningful class of work and the main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. would certainly apply to pre-1990 architecturally-integral PGS works per the common sense interpretation of congressional intent and court findings I outline above. I will finally add that the Falkner V. General Motors LLC citation has zero relevance here. That case is about a mural. No one is arguing that murals are architecturally integral works. Stained glass windows are. The consensus and longstanding practice on Commons is that murals are deleted and architecturally integral elements are kept where US law applies. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or relicense to non-free?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gp03dhk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work(s). — Ирука¹³ 07:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Keep and close per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama.–DMartin (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Keep per c:COM:FOP China. There are also several images of this mural on Commons already. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука¹³ 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Comment: early, INVOLVED non-admin FfD close reverted per WP:REOPEN; see discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 16. Owen× 14:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Keep per COM:FOP Hong Kong
  • "According to Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
  • Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука¹³ 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    @Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    Thank you for the clarification. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    @Iruka13 Is it a good idea to argue this while you are indefinitely blocked from editing filespace? Your block is precisely due to exactly this behavior by you.

    I think your requests of other editors to quote the rules to you, and to apparently "prove to your satisfaction" that what they are doing is OK, is a very bad idea. The ANI thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concern_regarding_Iruka13 and the block indicate that you just might be wrong and you might be misinterpreting the rules. You should stop trying to patrol copyright and stop badgering other editors about copyright issues. David10244 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[]

    Note: @Iruka13 might be technically allowed to comment here, but in my opinion her comment (and any !votes by her) should not be counted as votes while she is banned for this behavior. See the ANI in my previous reply. David10244 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Note: Nominator is currently banned from the file namespace for wikilawyering, nominating in bad faith, and other disruptive activities.–DMartin (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Delete there is no freedom of panorama in the US for 2d artworks, while yes images of this building appear on Commons they are on Commons per WP:DEMINIMIS, this image however does not meet that standard in my opinion as the angle primarily covers the artwork and not the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Keep but only because it has correct tags currently. De minimis would not apply here - the very title of the image states its focus on the mural. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]
• The US does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]
  • GFD. Delete. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[]
  • The image was taken in Hong Kong. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

    For locally hosted images we are only concerned with US copyright, for Commons an image needs to be free in the US and the home country, regardless this image is free in neither. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete. Freedom of panorama exception doesn't apply to 2D works. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

• Delete per US and HK (via UK) FOP laws. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]
• Delete – No freedom of panorama for billboards and murals, especially in the US and per c:COM:FOP HK. Will nominate other similar images hosted on Commons for deletion after this discussion. —George Ho (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tollens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is reason to believe this file is actually free, at least in the US.

1. The five cartoons on the thumbnails are by Carlos Latuff. Latuff has released the copyright to his cartoons per here.
2. The WikiLeaks logo was released under a free license per here.
3. The map screenshot is from OpenStreetMap, which is freely licensed per here.
4. Other than the above, the web design itself consists of simple shapes and short excerpts of text.

Due to a lack of clarity about where the website is currently hosted, the file should not be moved to Commons. Rather, it should be marked as a free file on enwiki and have its file size set to normal rather than minimized. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Note: the bottom left Wikileaks logo may not be free, as I could not find a free license for it. This may need to be censored if the file is set to free. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Support Raync (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Support relicensing as a free file and unhiding the high res revision. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Contains PD photo File:Don McLean 1976.JPG plus some simple graphic elements, so it too should be PD. JayCubby 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

• Move to Commons per nom. Logic is solid. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]
• Do not move to Commons, i.e. remain as-is (non-free). Discogs reveals in crisper version use of crooked lines on the background and all in some paint or whatever. Anything but simple, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Trans Soyjak.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ns1sou (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I really dont see how this bizarre image substantially helps the readers understanding of the topic it's used on--Trade (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

• @Pbrks, Pppery, and Widgetkid:--Trade (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]
• Delete per WP:NFCC#3a, as the written description does a fine job and there are other non-free files used in article already. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Two Soyjaks Pointing.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TalkTuahLunchly (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

• Delete per WP:NFCC#3a --Trade (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:UEFA Champions League.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I would like to find out how high or low Switzerland's threshold of originality is. Whether this can actually be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Barrowblitz2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevvvv4444 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is following up from a DMCA takedown of one of the images detailed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#DMCA_takedown_on_enwiki.

There is no rationale for whether the image is replaceable with a free image, but it could potentially be an implied rationale. In any case, it would be great to double check that indeed the image is non-replaceable and delete otherwise. Aasim (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Barrowblitz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevvvv4444 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is following up from a DMCA takedown of one of the images detailed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#DMCA_takedown_on_enwiki.

There is no rationale for whether the image is replaceable with a free image, but it could potentially be an implied rationale. In any case, it would be great to double check that indeed the image is non-replaceable and delete otherwise. Aasim (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

File:Cowboy Xbox.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Judynicole65 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

AI-generated image with no obvious use. Copied from https://disneyfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Cowboy_Xbox. Article this was related to, Cowboy Xbox, was deleted under WP:G3. -- Reconrabbit 20:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Today is April 4 2026. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 April 4 – (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 "===April 4===" 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=1334877328"