Wikipedia:Files for discussion - Wikipedia

Article Images

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.

WP:FFDO

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

September 16

File:Veljko Despot, portrait.jpg

[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Veljko Despot Wikipedia 2013.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 14:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

File:Screenshot of Arizona GOP promoting Springfield, Ohio cat-eating hoax.png

[edit]

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: keep. Nomination withdrawn and consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Easily replaceable with free version, fails NFCC#1~~ Withdrawn based on Rhododendrites and Rjj's comments on copyright relating to billboards. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable image published on social media by the Arizona GOP, there is no free version nor can there be -- any other images also be subject to their copyright. Feoffer (talk) Feoffer (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a billboard. A free use image of the billboard can be created and demonstrates the same thing. Unless there is some copyright on billboards that prevent their photography (I did check Commons which has multiple billboard images) there is no reason a free version cannot be created. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a cropped version of a notable social media post by the AZ GOP that was widely discussed in notable sources. A user-created billboard photo wouldn't be the image that was discussed in RSes. Feoffer (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption talks about a billboard not a social media post. The article does not require this social media post. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense: tracking down a specific billboard in Arizona is not "easily replaceable". Using the cropped image is fine. Toughpigs (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are twelve of them across Phoenix, Arizona. Many news agencies managed to create their own unique footage of the billboard which suggests it is not some tall task. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to follow Toughpigs's example and call your argument nonsensical, bu I see you're relatively new here! Welcome to Wikipedia.

By all means, we encourage you to solicit a free alternative -- if you can find one, we will likely all agree this image could then be called 'easily replaceable'.

But in the interim, there's absolutely no call to delete a cropped downrez advertisement, distributed for free on social media, from an article in which its discussed. Feoffer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some copyright on billboards - There is. There can be no free image of this unless the creator of the billboard image releases it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show the law or a policy page on it? I have seen quite a few billboard images on Commons. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a derivative work in the United States. Law:[1] Commons policy:[2] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how freedom of panorama would apply to a building but not a billboard but I'll withdraw this and deal with the Commons images there. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FOP laws vary dramatically by country. In the US, buildings are the only thing protected. In some countries, 3D public work is covered. In some countries, 2D public work is also covered. Typically lots of conditions like "permanently installed" and "outdoor". Regardless, a billboard displaying creative work is no different than a painting in the US. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you all have withdrawn this discussion. When does this discussion get closed and the template be removed? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what; ignore my above statement/question.

FoP definitely does NOT apply. Billboards ain’t covered. De minimus don’t apply because this is a picture of the billboard. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:FREER:

Another consideration for "no free equivalent" are "freer" versions of non-free media, typically which include derivative works. For example, a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work. We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art.

JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a strong opinion about whether this meets NFCC and/or should be deleted, it's worth debating whether a straight-on, squared-off photo of a rectangular 2D work is adding creative work or just a "slavish reproduction" (which doesn't get an additional copyright, e.g. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). All that aside, here's a wrinkle: if you look at the higher resolution image of this image here, it's actually a photoshop. They appear to just be announcing the billboards there, so put the graphic on top of a photo of the billboard. These are the actual photos (there are other better ones out there). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per @Rhododendrites and others. Whether or not the picture itself is copyrighted doesn’t really matter. What matters more is whether or not the billboard itself is copyrighted. If it isn’t; then we would need to delete this picture as fast as the admins know how; but if it IS copyrighted (which is what I suspect); then the copyright status of the picture itself will be irrelevant, especially considering that any Wikipedian who takes a picture of that billboard and uploads it would end up getting a copyright warning template/block. So I think NFF is met. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All billboards in the US are copyrighted by default -- we'd need evidence or an argument as to why it isn't copyrighted (explicit release by the copyright owner, below the threshold of originality, or old enough that its copyright expired are the typical exceptions here). Regardless, this is Wikipedia not Commons, so the debate is whether this copyrighted image should be hosted per WP:NFCC rather than whether it's copyrighted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And NFCC is what I am referring to. Clearly you’re not understanding my comment; so I’ll summarize it.

If there is evidence that the billboard image is NOT under copyright; then:

Since this image is presumably copyrighted;
and there would be a free replacement (any editor in Arizona would be able to snap a picture);
then this image would need to be speedy deleted.

But if the billboard IS under copyright; then:

This does meet NFCC because;
there would be NO free replacement: any editor would be committing a copyright violation by doing so.

See my point? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know this isn’t Commons. Believe me; I’ve been involved in dozens of deletion discussions over there. I know what Commons is like. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:38, 22 September 2024 (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.

August 21

File:Metro-epektaseis.png

[edit]

Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose deletion then? Normally, nominated files without at least one input still have been deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm still uncertain whether the map belongs to the officials. I'm just now defaulting to treating the file as unfree at this time and can assume that the map fails NFCC technically. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (Unstruck, 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [3] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Changing my stance to more likely PD as Greek government work per above evidence. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Nom's comment, 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
@Thryduulf and George Ho: Which license exactly? {{PD-GreekGov}} only applies to texts. ✗plicit 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I misread the tag. Reading c:COM:NOP Greece and the rest of the page, I couldn't find a suitable Commons tag that would label the map as free. Rather I now go for unfree by default again. Uncertain whether it meets NFCC, but the infobox has hidden/collapsed the map, which may affect the map's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: To me it looks like it does apply here. "[T]here is no copyright protection for official texts [...] nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." Emphasis mine. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The maps are more than just "simple facts and data". Maps require high intuition and skill, especially to perfect proximity and whatevs. As I see, the map looks very complex expressively, even if it's not artwork or... How do you call it? George Ho (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm not sure. Near as I can tell the copyright holder is the government, but unless someone who can read Greek comes along, dropping the relevant law here is all I've got: Η προστασία του παρόντος νόμου δεν εκτείνεται σε επίσημα κείμενα με τα οποία εκφράζεται η άσκηση πολιτειακής αρμοδιότητας και ιδίως σε νομοθετικά, διοικητικά ή δικαστικά κείμενα, καθώς και στις εκφράσεις της λαϊκής παράδοσης, στις ειδήσεις και στα απλά γεγονότα ή στοιχεία. Unless a Greek speaker comes along to say otherwise I'm going to have to agree with you. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it depends whether what Google is translating as "texts" is being used to mean "works" or specifically "textual works", both seem equally plausible - especially as Google offers an alternative translation as "official documents". Commons:Category:PD Greece contains lots of images, including maps, but that's not a guarantee the tag is being used correctly. Looking through the Commons deletion requests that link to the tag, all there were deleted were for reasons that don't help us here (e.g. not actually (or not certainly) works of the Greek government). Indeed the only deletion request there that I've found that appears relevant is Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellenic Coast Guard flag Rethymno.jpg, which was kept, but a photograph of a flag and a map are different enough that the precedent might or might not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel a bit silly: it's a map which means {{PD-map}} is the right license. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Dunno whether the court decision in a US case applies to non-US maps also. (By the way, an appellate court decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court. *ugh*) Commons insists that a work be free in both the source country and the US. Haven't seen yet a Greek court case about maps. George Ho (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is free in the US but not the source country (I don't know if that applies here) then we can keep it locally as {{PD-USonly}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would apply here except I finally found as good of an answer as we're likely to get. That it's governmental is probably irrelevant as it's a map and those rarely meet the Threshold of Originality, which means these are our answer: ToO in Greece and ToO of maps. So keep is my final answer. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the assertion that this map qualifies for PD-map, even by the threshold of originality standards of the United States. This one in particular includes complex elements like roads, highways, and other transport routes. It doesn't remotely resemble the map like File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif. ✗plicit 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct that this map and the appraisers one are quite different, take a look at the casebook. The only ineligible map is one of a fictional world and it's that world that is the subject of the copyright, not the map itself - because real world data cannot be copyrighted. This deletion request and discussion regarding charts and data may be of interest. Sure, this map has roads/highways/etc, but those things exist, their existence isn't in question and thus cannot be copyrighted, the question is whether adding the metro routes pushes it over the ToO in the US or Greece, and I don't think it does. Greece's ToO is:

[T]he work involves skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work.

The only creative choice here was what colors to use, and different colors wouldn't actually change the work (map). The background with the roads/etc is just a generic street map, and the routes are factual data, so, to quote the casebook:

This map represents data. All choices made in the creation of the map were based upon utilitarian and informational considerations.
~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the casebook, the list consists of just US court cases. I appreciate your interpretation of the Greek law, but I still think the law itself is too vague on maps. Well, the exact same work passage may be interpreted as inapplicable to maps, despite their close resemblances to each other. Has any court case from Greece itself addressed copyright of maps yet? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{PD-map}} or locally as {{PD-USonly}} — it's a map, and per Commons (and the above discussion) "Data-driven maps in particular are in the public domain. The map represents data. All choices made in the creation of the map being based upon utilitarian and informational considerations."

~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

GMA logo might be copyrighted as determined from File:GMA Network Logo Vector.svg. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert both to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} in accordance with c:COM:TOO US. The heart looks fairly simple and is not any more complex than, say, File:Jamba logo.svg. Things look shaky at c:COM:TOO Philippines, so these logos may be copyrighted in their home country and it's best to err to the side of caution. ✗plicit 14:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMA logo might be copyrighted as determined from File:GMA Network Logo Vector.svg. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert both to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} in accordance with c:COM:TOO US. The heart looks fairly simple and is not any more complex than, say, File:Jamba logo.svg. Things look shaky at c:COM:TOO Philippines, so these logos may be copyrighted in their home country and it's best to err to the side of caution. ✗plicit 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo is not deceased, so the given fair use rationale fails, and the use of the photo here is a copyright violation. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#1. User has uploaded multiple other photos that failed the criteria as well. reppop^talk 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source website does not indicate a Creative Commons license. Screenshot is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of permission, and orphaned now that BetSure (Uganda) has been deleted. hinnk (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as this poster's role of identifying Love Live! School Idol Project can be achieved with the free file c:File:Love Live! logo with line.svg on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Displaying the characters and the art style of the series contributes significantly to reader recognition and understanding of the topic. The logo does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. — Goszei (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An image displaying the characters and the art style of the series, such as this one sourced from Polygon,^[1] can be included in Love Live! School Idol Project § Characters to illustrate them. Infoboxes for Wikipedia articles on media franchises often include logos too simple for copyright protection, again per WP:NFCC#1 (for examples, see Star Wars, Harry Potter and Toy Story [franchise]). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The key issue here with WP:NFCC#1 is if it ...would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I would argue that a logo in the infobox does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose to introduce the reader to what this series primarily is, which is to say, an audio-visual anime series centered on the characters given in the image. Love Live! has just the logo in its infobox because it's the main article for the franchise (exactly like the Star Wars, Harry Potter and Toy Story examples given), but if this image were removed from Love Live! School Idol Project, it would then be equivalent to removing the movie poster from Star Wars (film), which of course wouldn't make any sense.--十八 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[I]f this image were removed from Love Live! School Idol Project, it would then be equivalent to removing the movie poster from Star Wars (film), which of course wouldn't make any sense.

Except, the use of a simple logo in the infobox and a group shot of characters in the body of an article for a TV series and similar is not unprecedented (see Bob's Burgers and Bob's Burgers § Main characters, Friends and Friends § Episodes, The Office (American TV series) and The Office (American TV series) § Characters, etc.). A series poster could be used in the infobox for all of the aforementioned cases and more, but none are used because they would fail WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false equivalency, edging on other stuff exists. Those examples you cited don't use the series' logo in the character images. This case does, so the infobox image serves the dual purpose to provide the logo, and also to give the reader an instant idea of what this series is about. Anime is so varied, with so many different styles, that an image in the infobox depicting the series' art style is often enough for even a casual reader to determine if the series is a moe series (like in this case) or is something like Psycho-Pass that is anything but. I do not believe a simple logo in the infobox is sufficient for this type of branch article (which already has a separate franchise article) and does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose (NFCC#1) that a simple logo would provide, which is basically nothing.--十八 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not opposed to including an image depicting the style and characters of the series. As I already mentioned in a previous reply, such an image would be included in the § Characters section in the article body similar to the other series I mentioned above. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I still feel that's splitting hairs. The first thing you see in an article, especially on mobile view, is going to be the infobox. The reader shouldn't have to be forced to scroll down to see if an image representing the series is even given if it's perfectly justified to have it in the infobox for a branch article, where you would expect to see some form of visual representation when the franchise article only uses the logo, as in Love Live!. Using Bob's Burgers as an example, it would be equivalent to not including an image of the DVD cover in Bob's Burgers season 1 because File:Bob's Burgers logo.png exists. I believe that's why NFCC#1 is worded the way it is, because "encyclopedic purpose" is inherently subjective, and is meant (I believe) to give editors latitude to determine what best serves the encyclopedia. I do not feel just a logo, on first viewing of a branch article of this nature in the infobox, serves the same purpose as the character art + the logo.--十八 06:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lee, Julia (February 25, 2020). "Love Live!, the Japanese anime idol series, explained". Polygon. Archived from the original on February 25, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2024.

A fair use image is not necessary to illustrate this mythical deity, especially a modern illustration Di (they-them) (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by higher resolution version (different file format): File:FM Center logo.png. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claims states "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929." However, the source listed is the Masters of Cinema blu-ray. I own a copy and in the liner notes it states "This product is licenced for private home use only. Any other use including copying, or reproduction in public in whole or in part, is expressly prohibited by applicable laws. While the film is out of copyright, we can't source home video copies like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For English Wikipedia, we go off the U.S. copyright status. The copyright notice on a UK release of the film isn't that pertinent, given that Metropolis remains under copyright there for another ~23 years. This file doesn't include the copyrightable elements of the release—the soundtrack is excluded, and you'll see that the subtitles don't use their English translation of the intertitles. The German intertitles use the original text as preserved in the German censorship records, the image faithfully reproduces the original footage, and any editing decisions made in previous restorations of the film were effectively undone by the discovery of more complete versions of the film. hinnk (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This product is still being sold online at a reasonable price. It should be possible to buy one and take a freely-licensed photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the image met WP:NFCC#1, the rationale's description of how the image meets WP:NFCC#8 is incorrect. hinnk (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Undeletion request regarding files deleted by Taivo, the 2017 logo should be deleted from Wikipedia and relicensed as (PD-US-1978-89) at Wikimedia Commons, because according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino, it become free through formalities. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.svg regarding the older variant of PBS logo, which also resulting in kept. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I successfully requested the restoration of File:PBS News Hour Square Logo 2020.svg on Commons. The two logos appear indentical. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1945 images (photos/film stills) from India, which were certainly still in copyright in India at the URAA cut-off date of 1996. Therefore their US term was extended until 95 years after their first publication, at present they continue to be under copyright in the US. GaiusAugustine (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as American copyright in this file has been restored by the WP:URAA. Felix QW (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not tagged for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Logo for a nonexistent TV channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WinehouseRehab.ogg exists as well; that sample is shorter and covers the song's chorus. Xeroctic (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file is above 10% of the song's duration, so we should one that isn't. hinnk (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AAFA cup trophy.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NTSB docket on the incident contains several photographs in PDF files. While most of them are lower in quality, any one of them could replace this non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has no FoP for 2D graphic works. Image is not used in any articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is September 24 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 24 – (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===September 24===" 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.