Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	2	87	89
TfD	3	33	36
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	9	9
RfD	0	47	47
AfD	0	2	2

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

What not to list here

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

Instructions

To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:

How to list a file for discussion manually

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 December 6}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 December 6}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2025 December 6}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

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

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

November 28

File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg

[edit]

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

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

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

November 27

File:Johnston banner.jpg

[edit]

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

File:M by Judi Dench.jpg

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. The free photo of the actress conveys her image in the film well; there is no need for a non-free image. — Ирука¹³ 23:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

1967–1970 Beatles album covers

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support. Agreed with the logic of moving to Commons.

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

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

File:1982 FIFA World Cup.svg

[edit]

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

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

File:Football Association of Serbia logo.svg

[edit]

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

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

November 24

File:Logo - Brasileirão Serie A (2024).svg

[edit]

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

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

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

Keep as is. The design is too complex. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the home country of it is Brazil, and it has a high threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not produced a single example of what Brazilian courts have deemed too simple for copyright. ✗plicit 13:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, below T.O.O. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

File:Estonian Football Association logo.svg

[edit]

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

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

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

November 12

File:Old Man (Neil Young single - cover art).jpg

[edit]

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

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

Keep - The single covers show a more complete image of the single cover than the Canadian single release alone. Instead, Delete the Canadian singles File:Old man by neil young Canadian vinyl side-A.webp and File:The Needle and the Damage Done Neil Young Canadian vinyl side-B.webp as they are redundant. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.

Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long before cassette singles and then CD singles arrived in stores. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. Like Black Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it on Discogs, seen here. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels fail WP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than one prominent aspect of the subject, right?

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

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

It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...? George Ho (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per George Ho's rationale. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

November 29

File:A Chinese imitation pearl peddler in Milan, 1920s.webp

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

File:The Ballroom Blitz.ogg

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

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

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

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

File:Melanie C - I Don't Know How to Love Him.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent nominations

November 30

File:KPop Demon Hunter Deluxe Cover.jpg

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

Remove. Agreed - second cover unnecessary.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

File:L(eonard). C(harles). Bowkett.jpg

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

It is PD in UK, as "70 years after publication (unknown author)".

It is PD in US, as "95 years after publication (URAA restored)". — Ирука¹³ 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:STANAG 2116, Ed. 6.pdf

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

Delete per 3 and 8 points of WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 03:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary images of Miss Moneypenny

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. The images are obviously purely decorative. Less than one sentence describes each image. — Ирука¹³ 01:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These images are worth keeping if you've only seen one run of Bond, for example (Casino Royale is more on the public mind than Octopussy, after all). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Moneypenny didn't appear in the 2006 film adaptation of the novel, unfortunately. Did you mean perhaps the 1960s spoof (of the same name)?

if you've only seen one run of Bond: This is pandering to Bond-fandom, isn't it? Honestly, I've yet to see you explain (further) why deleting the screenshots would impact the understanding of the character. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batch 1871.jpg

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

December 2

File:Shirley Bassey Diamonds Are Forever.jpg

Turns out this cover art may be of a British promo-only release (Discogs). The British retail single hasn't been proven to ever use a picture sleeve but rather a generic one (Discogs, 45cat). Unless I'm proven to stand corrected, the cover art shouldn't be used, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, @George Ho, replace it if pictures make you sad.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think does this cover art make me "sad"? George Ho (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the crying? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 07:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This says a lot about the way you've interacted with and thought about me. Meanwhile, I've replaced this non-free picture sleeve with a freer portion (File:Diamonds are forever by shirley bassey UK vinyl solid centre.webp). I've neither been sad nor cried over the non-free image. I've never been surprised as well by the way you've described this image without specifying whether it was used for retail or promo-only editions. Well, almost any other editor would simply use a cover art just probably because it's in front of the user the whole time... right? George Ho (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[ hands over tissue ] ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 04:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KristianMenchaca.jpg

There is no evidence that this image is taken or made as part of U.S. Army employee official duties. Removed from Commons for the same reason. Cannot be used under FUR. — Ирука¹³ 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agreed - nothing about the source (Blogspot) indicates any link to official US Army work.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 08:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

File:St. Vincenzo Grossi.jpg

Per c:COM:FOP Italy, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Despite my searches, I could not find any author information or date of publication (prior to 2015) to conclude that this portrait is old enough to be in the public domain. ✗plicit 00:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:HongSaIkTrial.jpg

Impossible to determine if this photograph is in the public domain. Lacks author information and date of publication. Since this trail took place in the Philippines, it may have first been published in that country. If that's the case, this might be in the public domain there per {{PD-Philippines}}, but copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA. If it was published elsewhere first, we need a source to confirm that. ✗plicit 11:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB27OfficalUS Logo.png

I'm thinking that this promo poster (Facebook) gives out more context to Big Brother 27 (American season) than this title card, despite red ripples background and a magnifying glass representing an "O". Unlike logos of Big Brother UK, one of US logos or title cards may not be well discussed by a reliable source after all. George Ho (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sia - Fame Won't Love You cover art.jpg

File available on Commons as File:Sia – Fame Won't Love You cover art.png. Listed here due to uploader's reversion of {{Di-replaceable non-free use}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the Commons copy itself for deletion (DR discussion). --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Little Farmer Ad.jpg

One of the frames of the advertisement that does not reflect its main idea (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука¹³ 22:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, the image isn't critical but without it there is no depiction of the add besides the description in the article, which can only do so much. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to note that the frame is one of the most common depictions of the advert that I have seen and I pulled it from an article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblem of Kluang North District Council.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The emblem section is written entirely from a primary source, which is no longer a good thing (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Based on this, as well as WP:WEIGHT, I propose deleting the outdated images by 3, 6 and 8 points of WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 23:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added them because they have historical value that otherwise would not be adequate for me to explain the emblem's evolution. Hongqilim (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emblem of Kluang Municipal Council (2001–2018).png

The emblem section is written entirely from a primary source, which is no longer a good thing (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Based on this, as well as WP:WEIGHT, I propose deleting the outdated images by 3, 6 and 8 points of WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 23:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to keep the old municipal emblem while deleting the district council emblem. Is that ok? Hongqilim (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

File:CESC Limited Logo.svg

The uploader of this image states on the file description page that the image was taken from the company's official website. On the company's official website, this image was only available in .png format, never in .svg.

The image contains multiple distortions relative to the original image, which are more common when images are automatically converted to .svg. In this case, these are watery-looking artifacts along the edges, turning the headlights into a blurry mess. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is the original .png image from the official website.

I believe that given the availability of an official, high-quality .png and its poor-quality reproduction in the "slightly better" .svg format, we should give preference to the former, as recommended by MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука¹³ 01:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yung Xavi nation mello.jpeg

A blocked user's selfie with no encyclopedic value. — Ирука¹³ 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. See also File:Yxn mello.jpg and File:Yxn mello 2.jpg at Commons, uploaded by same account. Wikishovel (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1977 Southern Television Vrillon broadcast intrusion audio.mp3

1) The file has no reliable source.
2) There is no evidence that the audio recording was officially published in the US and, therefore, is in the public domain. — Ирука¹³ 07:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The -1 Reason Xiaomi YU7 Beats Tesla Model Y in 2025.webm

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English-speaking Wikipedia, so it's not useful. Also, it's been repeatedly added to the Xiaomi YU7 page in what is essentially an edit war between two users. ZaLink700 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maroon 5 Moves Like Jagger cover.png

File:Maroon 5 Moves Like Jagger cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Below the threshold of originality, only text. The country of origin is the United States. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheRedOne.jpg

This should be PD by way of age. Jay Cubby 22:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly pd in the us. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

File:CA Paulistano.svg

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

Below threshold of originality. Move to Commons. The country of origin of this work is Brazil. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

File:Ancestral House Collage x6.JPG

unused since 2013; is on Commons — Ирука¹³ 03:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover of the first LP 12 inch vinyl disc by The Red Onions Jazz Band, 1965.jpg

The album cover is being used in the musical group The Red Onion Jazz Band's infobox to show what the musical group looked like and not as means of identification of the album itself, thereby failing WP:NFCI #1. The album cover has an incorrect rationale because it states that its purpose is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." and an incorrect licensing because it states it is "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". Aspects (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is December 6 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 6 – (new nomination)

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

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

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

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

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

1967–1970 Beatles album covers

Discussions approaching conclusion

November 29

Recent nominations

November 30

December 1

Secondary images of Miss Moneypenny

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

Footer