Wikipedia:Files for discussion

For files nominated today, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 September 30.

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	24	15	55	94
TfD	0	0	0	22	22
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	27	21	48
RfD	0	0	0	72	72
AfD	0	0	0	38	38

Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Nominated files are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus or the file may be deleted or removed if the nominator specifically requests it and no objections are raised.

If you want to nominate a file for discussion, follow the instructions below.

How to use this page

Reasons for nominating a file

While this list comprises the most common and uncontroversial reasons to discuss a file, any properly explained reason can be used. Examples of files you may request for discussion here include:

• Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.

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 or its copyright status, start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to nominate here

The majority of deletion and merge proposals concerning pages in the file namespace should be nominated at this venue. However, there are a few exceptions:

• In general, if a deletion is uncontroversial, use the Proposed deletion process; if your proposed deletion is later contested, then you can nominate the file here.
• For speedy deletion candidates, tag the file under one of the criteria for speedy deletion of files. These include duplicates, thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, and others
• If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
• For files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused, or are non-free without rationale, place one of the following tags on 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.
• For redundant or duplicate files, use:
  1. {{Db-f1|FILENAME}} (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
• For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
• If a file is nominated 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}}.
• For files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, use the Commons deletion request system.
• For file description pages with no local file, even if they are in the file namespace:
  1. For redirects, if none of the criteria for speedy deletion of redirects apply, nominate it at Redirects for discussion.
  2. For local description pages with no associated file, speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
  3. For local description pages for files hosted on Commons, speedily delete them under criterion F2 using {{db-fpcfail}}.
  4. For other local description pages for files hosted on Commons, nominate them at Miscellany for deletion.
• For appropriately-licensed files which could be usable elsewhere, copy them to Wikimedia Commons instead. Once copied to the Commons, you can speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
• For requesting the undeletion of a file, contact the administrator who deleted the file; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, use Deletion review.

Nominate a file

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an file on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate files!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate files, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.

Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a file for discussion. Do not include the "File:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related files at once, nominate the first file using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional files into the existing nomination.

You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the file should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. Only registered users can nominate files. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate files. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.

Methods

Twinkle

How to nominate a file at TfD

After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the file you want to nominate

Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!

The easiest way to nominate files for discussion is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:

1. Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
2. Go back to the file, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
3. Write a short nomination statement
4. If you want to nominate more than one file, enter the additional files into this tool

If Twinkle does not seem to work or you cannot edit the file, you are probably following the wrong process. Try this simpler process instead:

1. Copy the name of the file, for example, File:Weather balloon.png.
2. Paste it into the Wikipedia search bar, but replace File: with C:File: like this: C:File:Weather balloon.png.
3. Click ↵ Enter to perform the search. If the same file appears, it worked! Now you just need to click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Tools sidebar on the right of the page and explain why you think the file should be deleted.

Manual method

If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate files at FfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.

Manual instructions

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

1	Edit the file page. Add {{Ffd|log=2026 September 30}} to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Edit today's TfD log and nominate 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 nominating 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 a nomination of multiple files. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2026 September 30}} 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=2026 September 30}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

Discussion

In explaining their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

• WP:NFCC1 – Free equivalent is or is not available
• WP:NFCC1 – Significance
• WP:NFC#UUI – 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. 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.

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}}.

Old discussions

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

September 20

File:Ligue 3 logo.png

File:Ligue 3 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paul Vaurie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is probably below the threshold of originality in France and the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean you're gonna re-upload with a new justification? Just change the tag instead of deleting it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @Paul Vaurie, not really, because I need a consensus with other Wikipedians to change the tag or transfer it to Commons. Without it, I cannot process by myself. In addition, File:Logo de la Ligue 3.svg is available on Commons, but I have doubt if this file is above the threshold of originality in France or not. So, I think I'm going to propose this file for discussion too. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

September 18

File:Actor Peter Fraser (cropped).jpg

File:Actor Peter Fraser (cropped).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spectritus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:FREER as Peter Fraser appears to still be alive. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

He's actually in the possibly living people category as it is unknown whether he's still alive or not as there has been no news about him since the 2003 documentary the image is from. I asked Toby Hadoke on Bluesky and even he doesn't know if Peter Fraser is alive. Spectritus (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, if thats so then please update the file's description and I will withdraw the discussion. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 21:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Spectritus (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

September 17

File:Lowkey wr screenshot.png

File:Lowkey wr screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dwarfroe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot being used in the main infobx of Minecraft speedrunning that has WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) issues. While it's true that the vide game Minecraft itself is under copyright protection so that the images seen during game play need to be treated as non-free content, it is possible for someone (even the game's copyright holder) to take a screenshot during game play and then release that screenshot under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes while also using a non-free license for the game imagery. So even though the act of taking a screenshot itself is typically a mechanical reproduction that doesn't generate copyright protection in and of itself, such a file would still need to be treated as non-free because of the copyrighted game imagery it shows. This particular screenshot, on the other hand, is non-free not only because of the images seen during game play but also because the person who uploaded the video to YouTube is claiming copyright protection over their video. So, there's a double non-free aspect to the file with copyrights being held by two different copyright holders for two different reasons, and this is a problem (at least based on my understanding) per NFCC#1. This particular screenshot also has issues per NFCC#8. Even though it's a screenshot of the current (as of August 2026) world record, there's basically just a single sentence about the record added on to the end of the lede section of the article and a simple mention of the current record in Minecraft speedrunning#World record progression. Neither of these two things require the reader see a non-free screenshot to understand who the current world record holder is or what the current world record time is. Readers can more than sufficiently understand such content just from text alone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

About the problematic copyright of the screenshot, I can definitely reach out to skycrab for a VRT or something else, so that's (for now) a non-issue. Regarding the world record progression section, there is a similar table of world records on the Super Mario Bros. speedrunning page at Any% world record progression. That page also has a screenshot of the game from an old record (or record attempt). Readers can definitely sufficiently understand it from just the text, but I believe the images still help. Tagging @Dwarfroe. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg

File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GuesanLoyalist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Democratic Unionist Party ballot logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GuesanLoyalist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Redundant to File:Scottish National Party logo 2016.svg and File:Democratic Unionist Party logo.svg (the latter of which is an exact duplicate, except for being only black and white) so unclear exactly what adding these "Election symbols" to the infobox in addition to existing logos actually adds to the articles. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 Adding these symbols are still quite important as they are what a british voter sees on a ballot during election day GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I could handle the DUP's file getting deleted, but the SNP is quite differentiated from the main logo. There's a reason on why |symbol= is a parameter. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider the same symbol and the same "SNP" in the same font arranged slightly differently to be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC8. Regarding the symbol parameter we aren't obliged to use it. It makes sense for example for the likes of Muttahida Qaumi Movement – Pakistan (and other parties in Pakistan) where electoral symbols are different to the party's logo, but when the symbol is just a duplicate or similar to their logo it doesn't make much sense and just clutters the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 They still help the reader with understanding on what symbol does the target party uses to represent themselves. Might as well delete the other files uploaded by different people by that logic. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Other redundant symbols could well be deleted, but I'm dealing with these first. FDW777 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 and even if you were to go foward with these ideas, then other people who previously also uploaded other symbols will oppose your action. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 you reverted my edits reverting your edits and ignored my pings in the talk page of the afformentioned article (and not even redirect me to this page).

I'll contact someone at WP:3O about this tomorrow. I'll also revert and unrevert your deletion notice so that the file doesn't get deleted while we discuss about this. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg is not copyrightable in the United States, so it should not be subject to NFCC. Not sure about the United Kingdom, but supposedly the threshold of originality there has been raised recently. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 I will take note of that. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, this file fails the threshold of originality in the United States. But it doesn't means this file is eligible for Commons. Still copyrighted in the UK. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Firefighters at the wreckage site of Flight 763.jpg

File:Firefighters at the wreckage site of Flight 763.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaptain United (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Why is it necessary to show the wreckage of Flight 763? It doesn't do very well at doing that, and the most notable part of this flight is that was involved in a mid-air collision, which this also does not show well. This fails WP:NFCC8. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

September 16

File:Doom3shadows2.jpg

File:Doom3shadows2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kevin Lakhani (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free screenshot is intended to illustrate the game engine's shadowing effects. However, the commentary in id Tech 4 focuses on the effects in general and less on a specific game. A skilled game designer could create a freely-licensed tech demo. I suggest removal from at least id Tech 4. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

September 14

File:Skibidi Toilet Logo.png

File:Skibidi Toilet Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BitByte10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I suggest export to Commons since this is a text logo that is below the threshold of originality. The comicbook-like effect could be argued is creative enough, but I'd say not. (The four icons in the corner might not below TOO, but they are not essential to the logo so can be cropped out.) Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Commons is going to require that the logo be PD in both the US and the country of first publication. If the country of first publication is Georgia (country), then c:COM:Georgia needs to also be considered in addition to c:COM:US. Since there's nothing on Commons about Georgia's threshold of originality, I'm not so sure this logo can be clearly said to be too simple for copyright protection under Georgia's copyright laws. Some countries have a much lower TOO than the US; so, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that PD in the US means PD everywhere else. There are examples of the US TOO in c:COM:TOO US which could be used for comparison, but without similar examples for Georgia (again if Georgia is the country of first publication) I think it would be better to ask at c:COM:VPC first before moving anything to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've now asked for advice on two Commons talkpages that may be able to advice. Let's now wait for replies and see what people say. Rose Abrams (T C L) 17:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Pretty sure the US is the country of first publication. The logo was created and published long after Invisible Narratives (a US-based company) was assigned all rights to Skibidi Toilet.

  The four logos in the corner are pretty essential, they communicate core concepts from the series (the four major factions). So cropping them is probably not a good idea. — BitByte10 (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Keep local As a Commons admin, I would delete this image as a non-free logo above the threshold of originality. The logos in the corner push it over the edge, and when you crop out part of a logo, it stops being the logo and loses its educational value. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @The Squirrel Conspiracy: The file is currently licensed as {{Non-free logo}}, and its use seems to be in compliance with WP:NFCC; so, there's really no reason to delete it as long as it remains uncropped and licensed as non-free. The OP started this discussion because they felt the file was too simple to need to be treated as non-free and, therefore, proposed it be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and moved to Commons. If that were to happen, the file would indeed likely end up deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks. Fixed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

September 11

File:LeonDoliceChryslerBuildingPastel1945.jpg

File:LeonDoliceChryslerBuildingPastel1945.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Delabrede (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://bid.peterboroughauctions.us/online-auctions/peterborough-auctions-llc/leon-dolice-1892---1960-chrysler-building-new-york-city-1940s-7171452

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceRainyDayOil1940.jpg

File:LeonDoliceRainyDayOil1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Delabrede (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/landscape-paintings/leon-dolice-rainy-day-new-york-city-modernist-urban-cityscape-mid-century-street-scene/id-a_9907362/

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceEmpireStateBuildingFromMadisonSquareColorWoodcut1935.png

File:LeonDoliceEmpireStateBuildingFromMadisonSquareColorWoodcut1935.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Delabrede (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Shouldn't a search of records in the US Copyright Office be sufficient? (https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/) Delabrede (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've answered this question at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeonDoliceThirdAveElOil1940.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Leon-Dolice-Empire-State-Building-from-M/4ADD9C57AD37BA00E85CCE08CA125C07

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Torrent Project Screenshot.png

File:Torrent Project Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Distrait cognizance (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While the logo at the top isn't copyrightable (and is already on Commons), the text below is far, far above the threshold of originality. We wouldn't tolerate it being inserted verbatim into an article; it's no better encoded onto an image. —Cryptic 00:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The logo was tagged as being protected protected by copyright and being used under Fair Use for several years until I uploaded it to Commons and nominated the ENWP upload for SD. If anything it shows how ENWP have been slapping Fair Use justifications on virtually any logo with zero regard if the rationale is even valid in the slightest, knowing there is no consequences Trade (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete file and upload it to Commons. The text shown in the screenshot consists of short, generic descriptive phrases with no real originality or creativity. There are tens of thousands of in-arricle quotes on Wikipedia there are far longer and more complicated than what is being shown here meaning the whole argument for Fair Used have no basis in any ENWP policy or copyright law anywhere in the world. In other words, the short phrases depicted are noncopyrightableTrade (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cryptic: How is two sentences and a few short phrases "far, far above the threshold"??

Solomon Ucko (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't find the case but I believe a phrase that was something along the lines of '(Organisation) are awarding the player of the year (or something similar) after (team versus another team), so congratulations (person name)' managed to qualify for copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices addresses this in section 308.2 with examples in 313.4. The only example that is even in the same universe as the text on this image is "Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or other short expressions." in 313.4(C) (and paraphrased in our {{PD-textlogo}} template).

This is not that. There are thousands, likely tens of thousands, of ways this text could have been phrased while still conveying the same uncopyrightable ideas, even before considering which site of the "more than 300 others" to pick as an example.

The in-article quotes Trade refers to are just that: quoted, and attributed, and used under fair use. Were there any possibility that content of similar length was in the public domain, we would be using it for narration. Instead, we block users for copying less text than this into articles all the time. —Cryptic 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Commons. CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 192 (D. Me. 1995), "[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans" may not be copyrighted. The first sentence is a short slogan, while the second is functional description that is too simple and lacks any creative element to qualify for copyright protection. I suspect nom is not arguing about the other elements of the screenshot, so they don't need addressing. ✗plicit 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Move to commons. Uniquely creative phrases and sentences can be copyrighted. Most short sentences cannot. This is in that realm. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

File:NMIFA crest.svg

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

I want a discussion about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality and how the US Copyright Office would judge such a logo. Someone also uploaded a raster version of this logo to Wikimedia Commons, which I nominated for deletion as a way to start a discussion about this logo. You can have your opinion. If it's below the threshold of originality, the vector version will be moved to Commons. If it's above, the raster version will be deleted from there, and the vector will be kept locally at English Wikipedia as a fair use logo. You can also join the discussion at Commons here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sasquatch and Techie3 voted to keep the raster file at Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Look like below threshold, but could be wrong.Techie3 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esemono (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is in a bit of a weird spot. It's a German magazine republishing an image which may be hosted on Commons for the reasons outlined at File:St Paul's Survives.jpg. I'm not sure about German copyright and threshold of originality, but this can certainly be relicensed as PD-US-free if the block of text next to "Die City von London brennt!" is blurred. I'm not sure about a move to Commons, but I personally would not consider this a derivative work of the image in a legal sense. Therefore, we could have something like PD-text for the components of the German magazine (minus that block of text) and PD-US-no renewal for the image for a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

File:Spoonysingh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Profitoftruth85 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons The flip seems to come from https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=945cd22c17384fa3913d9e6854a7c48d&mediatype=photo. However, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News looks to be the actual originator of the photo, preceding the April publications by the AP by several months. This newspaper seems to have lacked notice, so the photo itself is PD.

However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.

If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also an interesting advertisement that is free by virtue of having no notice for it [https://www.newspapers.com/image/382105267/?match=1&terms=%22spoony%20singh%22/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.

As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.

So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Common face of one euro coin.png

File:Common face of one euro coin.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Auguel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I do not think this is non-free due to common (not national) sides of Euro coins being freely licensed. Reproduction of euro coins is allowed, and there are many free images of euro coins available on Wikimedia Commons. The only restriction that applies to Euro coins is prohibiting damaging the image of the euro, but that's only a non-copyright restriction. - MJGTMKME123 19:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - this side of the Euro coin seems free per COM:CUR Euro. Move to Commons if it does not already exist there? -Consigned (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There are many Euro coin images available on Commons that are similar to or identical to these (apparently) non-free images:

• File:Euro_1_cent.gif (free version) — File:1 cent euro coin common side.png (non-free version)
• File:Euro_2_cent.gif (free version) — File:2_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
• File:Euro_5_cent.gif (free version) — File:5_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
• File:Euro 10 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_10_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
• File:Euro 20 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_20_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
• File:Euro 50 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_50_eurocent_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
• File:Euro_1_coin.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_one_euro_coin_(first_series).jpg (non-free version)
• File:Piece_Comm-2Euro_(pile).jpg (free version) — File:Common_face_of_two_euro_coin_(2007).jpg (non-free version)

- MJGTMKME123 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Some of the photos on Commons don't have their authorship tagged correctly; see e.g. . It is questionable if they would survive a deletion request. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that we shouldn't use images of Euro coins under WP:NFC. However, I'm unsure if the enwiki photos are truly nonfree, or if commons:Template:PD-Art applies. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think a Wikimedia Commons user creating and uploading new, freely licensed euro coin photos would be better. - MJGTMKME123 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The PD-Art template is for 2D artworks, coins are considered as 3D artwork, so the pictures themselves could be copyrighted. Therefore, I think that the non-free EU coin common side images should be deleted and replaced with free ones (if they already exist, otherwise new ones can be created) Soviet Pepega (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  update: transfer to Commons, as coins scans are permitted on Commons without license. Janhrach (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  But are those coin scans or photographs? In any case, delete the non-free files and replace them with free ones. - MJGTMKME123 15:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  But are those coin scans or photographs? – Well, I don't know, Commons already does host near-identical pictures (ones linked above). Janhrach (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

September 10

File:Almond butter.JPG

File:Almond butter.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Glane23 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File can be replaced with File:Barney Almond Butter, Crunchy, 10 oz jar.jpg or File:MaraNatha Almond Butter .jpg which show Crunchy Almond butter, images File:Justin's Almond Butter, 16 Ounce Jar.jpg and File:Migdolų sviestas..jpg don't mention Crunchy but can still be replaced with those files either way, Not really seeing a reason as to why we need a NFCC image over freely available ones?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep As the uploader in 2009 of the image which I created myself, I don't really have a dog in this race, but wonder if my carefulness to avoid trade dress/trademark/copyright issues by posting under fair use poses that much of a problem. Yes, the others were uploaded to Commons without referencing potential trade dress/trademark/copyright issues, but is that because no one has yet noticed at Commons that there could be an issue with the images along those lines? And what is the problem with fair use images, properly sized and declared, as this one is? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem would be that non-free content should only be used if it cannot be replaced by free content. Regarding the other images, it looks to me like they mostly have text and fairly simple graphics, so are likely to be below (or at least arguably below) the threshold of originality required for copyright. This label, in contrast, has comparatively complex artwork that is likely above the threshold of originality. -- Visviva (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete The focus of the article is about almond butter, not the way its packaged or a particular brand. Using a fair use image here would be the equivalent of using a fair use photo of a Lay's potato chips bag on Potato chips. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete as non-free and replaceable, per nom. I think there would be a strong argument that the merger doctrine should apply here. There is considerable support for the general proposition that copyright cannot be extended to an uncopyrightable thing (here, a jar of almond butter) by wrapping it in a copyrighted thing. And excessive deference to these kinds of labeling copyrights is not great for our ability to do the work of documenting a world that is full of things like this that are wrapped in copyrighted labels. However, as far as I'm aware there are no cases that are really on all fours with these facts, nor would there be much upside to pushing the issue in this particular case. -- Visviva (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Those other images aren't free either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per PARAKANYAA. I'm struggling to see a reason why this image would be non-free while those are free; the copyright or lack thereof in the labels is the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails NFCC #8. Many of the images in the proposed replacement list are copyright violations and will be deleted on Commons shortly per commons:COM:PACKAGE. However File:Barney butter Jars.jpg is freely licensed (with a VRT ticket), and I've BOLDly replaced the image in the article with File:Breville Boss- Almond Butter (square crop).jpg, which - as unbranded almond butter in a jar - better shows what almond butter actually looks like. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

September 9

File:Los-Angeles-Herald-Examiner-14-October-1966.jpg

File:Los-Angeles-Herald-Examiner-14-October-1966.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werldwayd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

1962 and 1963 issues of this newspaper are in the public domain due to lack of renewal. IMO that's close enough to the last edition that those issues still constitute a free replacement (especially because we're using a 1966 issue right now). Additionally, from looking at other Hearst newspapers, there's a pretty good chance issues up to the 70s and 80s are actually in the public domain (though I don't have access to full scans to verify that). The Los Angeles Public Library appears to have full archives for the newspaper. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Transfer to Wikimedia Commons Newspapers.com has added it here I have verified this day has no copyright notice on it front page masthead 1 and 2 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 23:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nobo71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Months after the prior FFD was closed as "no consensus", I have still kept wondering why this generic-looking(?) title card is used instead of this poster (Facebook). Indeed, this title card is not as unique as one from an All-Star season, but perhaps I shouldn't be using the WP:OTHERIMAGE argument.

In the prior FFD, one "keep" voter insisted that there must be a plausible reason to delete this generic-looking(?) title card. If neither ordinariness of the title card nor using the poster as a replacement is a sufficient reason to delete this, then why couldn't I find a plausible reason to keep this image other than... "there's nothing wrong with this image"? (WP:HARMLESS is a shortcut to a section of WP:AADD instead of WP:AAIDD, to be frank.) George Ho (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it is the logo of the season, its based on the AI technology that the season's theme is based on. It was the titlecard in every episode. What the other person is trying to change it to is a promotional logo that was never used other than previews before the rebrand in the first episode. Nobo71 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thinking back about what you said, I can't help wonder whether replacing thematic title cards of Big Brother 27 (American season) (FFD discussion) and of Big Brother 28 (American season) with promotional posters were right decisions. Indeed, even representing a theme didn't prevent a such title card from deletion. BTW, the red ripples background thing (which I said in that FFD discussion) turns out to be a zoomed-in fingerprint. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

September 7

File:Paul McCartney - McCartney.jpg

File:Paul McCartney - McCartney.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MartinsElGrande672 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Multiple copies of the first US pressing of the album appear to have no copyright notice on it ( and more). The article states the album was published in the US 3 days after the UK. Unless someone can show original album copies were published with a copyright notice it should be moved to Commons with c:Template:PD-US-no notice and c:Template:Simultaneous US publication. There is no evidence on the file page that the album cover is under a copyright 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wcamp9 @Sundayclose @Based5290 @Howardcorn33 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

September 4

File:FC Girondins de Bordeaux logo.svg

File:FC Girondins de Bordeaux logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Minorax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

France has its own template regarding threshold of originality. This logo is below the threshold of originality and must be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

September 1

File:Conservatives logo.svg

File:Conservatives logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wereon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this logo is non-free, because I think the tree is likely copyrightable even in the US. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

August 30

File:Hainaut (new logo).png

File:Hainaut (new logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zee21y (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyright holder for this logo is the Belgian municipality, not the person who uploaded it to Logopedia.

Should be converted to fair use if decision is delete on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a non-free logo. If the file is deleted from Commons, it should be made PD-US. If it's kept, the file at Commons should become PD-textlogo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Evo.jpg

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

Apache licensed per GitHub JayCubby 18:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I recently uploaded this using the logo option of Special:upload which has it as fair use. I seem to recall noticing the Apache licence at some point but wasn't sure of the implications as that's not an option in that form. I have no objections to it being changed if that's more correct. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg

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

NFCC #8. Totally unnecessary image. This quote and its misappropriation is already discussed in its own section on the associated page. The resolution, when pushed down to meet NFC requirements, also literally makes the quote unreadable, further limiting its utility and making it all-the-more unnecessary. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This JPG serves as the main illustration at the top of the page Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. The fact that we show the poster to the reader emphasizes the fact that FFL has published lies to fit their point of view.

  The image shows the layout of the Campus Outreach poster used by FFL to promote their view on abortion. The layout of the poster is only shown in the image, not described in prose. There is more to this image than simple text.

  The poster's text being "unreadable" can be corrected by increasing the size of the scan as suggested by Diannaa six years ago at File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg. I should have taken her advice back then. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons If this image was non-free, I would 100% agree with deletion, since the bar for non-free media is that it must be a substantial improvement over text, which this is not (the design is not the main focus, it's the text itself). However, the primary component of this ad (the stuff in the black box) is not copyrightable. It consists of three elements, none of which are individually subject to copyright:

• an inverted version of File:Susan B. Anthony cph.3a46878.jpg with slightly different levels,
• the text "another anti-choice fanatic", which is too unoriginal,
• the quotation, published in 1889, fell into the public domain long ago

As an arrangement of three uncopyrightable elements, it is probably not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Now, I'm not nearly as sure about the white box at the bottom. Is the text there copyrightable? Even if we did say yes, we could just crop out of the white box or suppress it (similar to File:White House edits NY Times's Kilmar Abrego Garcia headline.png) and still communicate much the same idea. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

August 25

File:Hanoi Jane.jpg

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

There seems to be some confusion in reliable sources about which photo (or photos) gave Jane Fonda the nickname of Hanoi Jane and was the controversial one among the American public. The Guardian calls the non-free photo the infamous photo, but it then states that there were multiple photos and that There was outrage at the pictures (emphasis added). The Hollywood Reporter uses this public domain image and calls it The 1972 Photo That Turned Jane Fonda Into “Hanoi Jane”. The National Women's History Museum says it was the infamous photograph of Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft bomber appearing to aim at American planes, however, that caused this disdain to spread amongst the general public., which matches up with the description of the public domain image. The Telegraph describes the photo as a picture that was taken of her surrounded by Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft gun. Washington Times (yellow at WP:RSP) says the photo showed Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun targeting U.S. planes, laughing and clapping with enemy soldiers, which matches up with the non-free image.

I did go hunting for this image in contemporary newspapers to prove it was public domain, but I could not find this image at all. I'd argue this image either fails NFCC #8 (not being the correct photo) or NFCC #1 (the public domain image from the same event either also inspired the same controversy or shows how Fonda was perceived by the American public at the time). Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the photo. We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors, especially the Nixon administration, to paint her as treasonous. Hershberger says in the 2005 book Jane Fonda's War that it was any and all of the photos taken from a particular day in late July 1972 showing Fonda talking with and listening to young Vietnamese people outside of Hanoi. But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. So there's no reason to delete it, or search for a better photo. Note that Fonda would have been targeted as "Hanoi Jane" without any photo evidence at all; Nixon had it out for her. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors So just say that in text? We do not necessarily need to have every photo or even two photos of the same event to communicate that point.

  But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. But she's doing exactly that in File:Jane Fonda looking through anti-aircraft gun scope.webp. The point of this nomination is not to say that the public domain image is necessarily better, but rather that these two photos have the same encyclopedic purpose, meaning that the non-free photo fails NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  There are more options than deleting one photo. The photo in question was probably published without copyright notice in the same manner as the one you wish to replace it with. It can be moved to Commons in that case. Or another photo of the same event can be used; the book The Vietnam War The Definitive Illustrated History has a great one on page 275, showing more of the gun and the Vietnamese reporters holding microphones out toward her. The UK tabloid The Daily Mail shows this same photo and another related one. Tineye.com says there are 300 instances of the photo online. I'm making these suggestions because the free photo from Commons is terrible quality and fails to show the context. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Magnesium torch Cousteau.png

File:Magnesium torch Cousteau.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anachronist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This does not meet NFCC, as the purpose of the image is simply to showcase a device and how it is used. The subject being "the most notable user of such a device" is not relevant, unless the episode/exploration itself were the object of discussion. Free-licensed photos of underwater use of magnesium torches could definitely either exist or be created – in fact, the article already contains a photo depicting overwater use. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. The overwater use is a stretch, not the historically common use, and therefore not really relevant as a lead image. I searched several hours trying to find a free-license photo of underwater use and could not. I uploaded that single frame showing Jacques Cousteau because I could find nothing else; therefore I felt it qualified because I couldn't find an adequate substitute to illustrate scuba diving with a magnesium torch. The only other alternative would be to grab a frame from a black-and-white episode of Sea Hunt where magnesium torches were used at least once, but such an image would have the same issues. I also observed that the word "torch" has an unfortunate second meaning in the UK synonymous with "flashlight", causing searches for "magnesium torch" to be dominated by electric flashlights with magnesium cases. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your effort trying to find a replacement. If you want to put more effort into illustrating the article, I will leave you a tip: You could reach out to some authors of a good non-free photo and ask them to release under a free license – I often do that to illustrate topics I want to support and it often succeeds. I usually have the best luck with small-scale individual users at Instagram and Flickr. Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

August 19

File:1850 McElderry.jpg

File:1850 McElderry.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carolina6240 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo seems AI generated, and if it were AI-upscaled, I wasn't able to find the original photo. Endoftalk 02:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Endof: What make you suspect that? There's no metadata. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons It does have the vibe of AI upscaling, but an alternate angle from Find a Grave seems to confirm that the photo is legitimate and unaltered. Additionally, if it was AI upscaled, why only go up to 400x500 pixels? Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The Find a Grave photo has me a bit more convinced that the photo is real. Despite that, I feel the photo is AI-enhanced at least. The beard in the Find a Grave photo looks curly, while the beard in 1850 McElderry.jpg looks a bit more straight. The suit and skin in 1850 McElderry.jpg seem too smooth as well. More work should be done to establish the provenance, but I agree to move to Commons. Endoftalk 21:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

This logo is non-copyrightable in the United States. What about Mexico's threshold of originality? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is a thing. ~2026-52257-74 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

August 15

File:Atlanta MLS.svg

File:Atlanta MLS.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SounderBruce (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Maybe this logo can be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This logo is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Columbus Crew SC Logo.svg

File:Columbus Crew SC Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bojo1498 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo below the threshold of originality, should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:ColoradoRapidsOld.png

File:ColoradoRapidsOld.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuzzy510 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Below the threshold of originality, it should maybe be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: IMO, the soccer ball is included in the TOO. Ineligible for Commons. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The ball design is too simple. Nothing complex. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The ball in the logo is basically a reproduction of the design made popular by the Adidas Telstar. So it is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Okay. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Galaxy logo (1996-2007).svg

File:Los Angeles Galaxy logo (1996-2007).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Malpass93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How did/would the US Copyright Office judge this logo? Copyrightable or not? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Chicago Fire SC logo.png

File:Chicago Fire SC logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RedPatch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I searched the US Copyright Office's records and couldn't find a registration for this logo. Is this copyrightable or not in their view? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:El Paso Locomotive FC logo.svg

File:El Paso Locomotive FC logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonteemil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this logo copyrightable? I think not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolverhampton Wanderers FC crest.svg

File:Wolverhampton Wanderers FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JpTheNotSoSuperior (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this logo at least PD-US? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}: The TOO is not meet in the United States, but still copyrighted in the UK + Northern Ireland. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Star Wars, Starfighter logo.jpg

File:Star Wars, Starfighter logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EnDeeDoubleYou (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this is under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons, below TOO. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Evian logo.png

File:Evian logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matej1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

IMO, this file probably fails WP:TOO, could still be copyrighted in France, but not in the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

France has its own template regarding threshold of originality, so move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

File:ColinCampbellRossImage.jpg

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

In my opinion, there are doubts concerning the copyright notice of "fair use". However, it could not be eligible for Commons because this work could still be copyrighted in Australia, despite being PD in the United States only. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If that's a work by the Australian government or an Australian state, move to Commons, as crown copyright expires after 50 years. I think this photo was never published in the US before it could be copyrighted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

August 14

File:Robert Johnson.png

File:Robert Johnson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anetode (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I was reflexively going to replace this image with a definitely free replacement, but I am questioning whether this file is actually copyrighted by Delta Haze as stated. We know that this photo was taken by a photographic studio in 1936. If this photo was published in 1936 (in the legal sense of the 1909 Copyright Act), then it would have required a copyright renewal for continued protection. This renewal never occurred and thus the photo fell into the public domain. I would argue that when Johnson commissioned the studio to take a picture of him, the studio was essentially selling him that photo. As control over the physical photo left the hands of the copyright holder (the studio) and entered into the hands of a third party (Johnson) in 1936, I believe this image was first published in 1936, not 1989.

If consensus is that this photo is public domain, than this can be moved to Commons. Otherwise, this should be replaced the aforementioned free photo currently hosted on Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Commons. As per the listing rationale, and thank you for the research! This is an iconic photograph that I'm happy to see emerge from the labyrinth of copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

August 13

File:ST-TNG The Game.jpg

File:ST-TNG The Game.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cburnett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot of an augmented reality video game, whilst the main point of the episode, may be either replaceable by brief free text or not contextually significant to The Game (Star Trek: The Next Generation). George Ho (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s the single most memorable thing about the episode. ~2026-44291-74 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

How would deleting a screenshot of the most memorable thing impact the understanding of the episode in question? George Ho (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

File:National Basketball Association logo.svg

File:National Basketball Association logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Connormah (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was originally nominated under the theory that this was public domain but was closed as keep due to lack of evidence. I now have the receipts tickets to probably prove it. Tickets for NBA All-Star games from the 70s and 80s included the logo but routinely lacked notice (197019711985). Media guides from this era also included the logo and lacked notice (). Logopedia does note a 2017 change in typeface and colors from the 70s/80s logo, but those are not independently copyrightable. This logo is public domain and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290: I don't think we can move this file to Commons in any case as its a vectorization taken from elsewhere (brandlogos.net), and SVG code carries its own separate copyright from the thing it depicts. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Vectorization copyright is confusing to me, but if that's the case and we can't find a free vectorization, then we can upload a raster version as a stopgap and delete this file. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 and @Howardcorn33: I just overwrote the file with a vector version found at NBA's website. Properly done vector versions sourced from the owners of the logos, whether the logo is copyrighted or not, is always preferable. We should only use raster logos if a properly vectorized version can't be found. My stance is that vectorization doesn't generate a new copyright. I found the vector here, and adapted to remove the "Draft 2026" words. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if vectors of well known entities are deleted, other users would quickly upload a replacement vector. Discussions like that are silly. Major entities will almost always use vector versions when displaying their logo. Also, Wikipedia's policy for non-free logos is to say get vectorized versions of copyrighted logos from the owner of the logo or official sources. Using raster versions of major entities when vector versions are available from the entities themselves would degrade Wikipedia's quality, and it wouldn't be the branding intended by the entities. Logos should be high quality vectors.

The discussion should be about whether the logo is free or not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My stance on vector logos is similar to how Wikipedia treats reproductions of paintings: Simple reproductions do not generate a new copyright. Regardless, we should never use autotraced vectors ever. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

SVGs are code files and copyrightable just like other programs that is the opposite of Wikipedia:FREER 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If we follow your line of thought, many logos would end up in ways which don't meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands which are the subjects of articles. Reproductions of copyrighted paintings do not generate a new copyright for the reproduction, any faithful reproduction would have its copyright granted to the copyright holder of the painting. Similarly, any raster or vector version of a copyrighted logo would be copyrighted to the copyright holder of the design of the logo, not the vector or raster representation. The copyright is for the design of the logo, not its reproduction. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The visual output of the vector does not get a new copyright but the code does. Logos don't need to "meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands" they just need to be accurate 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Meeting the quality standards and respecting the intended branding by the entities is a legitimate part of the fair use of the logos here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you aint understand how SVG rendering works in here it does not display the SVG directly but generates a PNG at fixed resolution and shows it inspect element on any SVG file in wikipedia and you will see it you can get the same quality by exporting the SVG to png 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And also, SVG is a free format, and there are online converters from non-free formats such as .AI, EPS, CDR, etc... Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No SVG source code is non-free under Wikimedia rules as the format is free, but the output of each vector can be. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This is so wrong it is like saying all Android apps are free because android is Apache 2.0 look at c:Help:SVG#Copyright 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Although the Android logo has a registration (VA0001789579), the logo has a free license (CC-BY 3.0). The Twitter logo before Elon Musk acquired it and renamed it X also has a registration (VA0001950611) but is also under a free license (Apache License 2.0). The Nvidia logo was granted a registration, VA0001427710 (which I disagree as I think the logo is below the threshold of originality), but it also has the same license as the Twitter one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, source codes of anything are perfectly copyrightable, but SVG codes are under free licenses as the format itself is free (even if the output is not). See this page if you don't understand my argument. Non-free file formats are not accepted on Wikimedia projects. Other vector formats (.AI, EPS, CDR) are non-free formats and their source codes are therefore non-free too. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No it is not this is like saying code of all Android apps is free because android is Apache 2.0 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't buy Candidyeoman's arguments that the SVG code would not be copyrighted due to the file format being free. The issue is not with the format of the file but rather the content of the file, which was written and created by a third party. As with any other code, this can be protected by copyright separate from the design. Furthermore, they appear to be bludgeoning the discussion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Created a free vectorization. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting the discussion in any way and I don't want to. See this section, it formulates my argument here. It says that "US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo..." I even overwrote this file with one found at NBA's website, as recommended by the policy.

Also, when you click "Original file" on the page about the file, the original SVG appears.

I already run into some vandalisms of national soccer team pages where they insert non-free logos that shouldn't be there (child entities without their own branding).

I don't want to move this discussion off-topic, but I don't understand Wikipedia sometimes. For example, they kept the coat of arms of Canada out of the page about Canada itself...

If you see my page on Commons, I'm actually trying to get many logos vectorized, some since February.

Wikimedia projects have an exception for simple faithful reproductions of paintings. Since 2008, the skill and labour used to reproduce the painting is not considered.

I'm trying to give all my arguments, but they come to my mind in parts sometimes. Also, don't refer to me as a "they", I find it offensive. I'm a man.

Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vectorization concerns aside, can we address the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. Let's hope the NBA doesn't have a secret copyright to the design of this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

And let's hope I can convince the guy who created an alternate vectorization of this logo to help requests still pending at the graphics lab illustration workshop. If you don't want to use the official vectorizations, it must be manually traced, not autotraced, as a guy here did to the Chicago Bulls logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

He gave the same rationale at the discussion involving the Kansas City Chiefs logo (which I think is below the threshold of originality), but the logo was moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

And then he autotraced the Chicago Bulls logo using a paid software. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: While I go down the Commons copyright policy pages rabbit hole once again (rip), can I just mention, whether a logo is PD or not is dependent on the design of the logo, and not where the source of where the file was taken from. I swear, I saw a page internally on Wikipedia or Commons saying "vectorisation of PNG logos is a bit of a grey area/US courts do not make the distinction clear enough"... Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 11:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, File:Los Angeles Lakers logo.svg looks more complex than the NBA logo (because of the lines extruding from the letters), yet is in PD!? Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 11:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Multiple restrictions:

To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com

(turns out this was also stated here, lol)

Since we already have a proper SVG of NBA's logo (and literally every NBA team's logo), I believe Howard's comment and, IIRC, Based5920's idea (that the original PNG of the Bulls logo is PD and the vector is not) is irrelevant here and should be ignored in determining whether the NBA logo is PD or not Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 12:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

After saying all that (sorry for the multiple comments), and knowing that commons:File:Major League Baseball logo.svg, which shares similarities with the NBA logo (rectangle, blue and red, player, the ball), is PD, I'm going to lean support move to Commons as PD-textlogo. The only way I can see the NBA be not PD is the more detailed outline of the player, but I'm not too sure about that part being enough to be considered "complex" for copyright. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 12:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

August 11

File:George W. Grace.png

File:George W. Grace.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ThaesOfereode (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly freely replaced by File:George W. Grace with John Howe.jpg? On one hand, this photo is pretty low quality and depicts him wearing sunglasses. On the other hand, we generally opt for free use photos when they can replace fair use photos, even if it means a reduction in quality. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you know when the Honolulu Star-Bulletin registered for copyright (or where to look for such)? We might be able to find clearer images like you did for Sachio Ashida. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't checked the copyright status of later Star-Bulletin issues, but the problem is that there don't seem to be many photos of him at all, much less ones that aren't protected by copyright. Maybe there is a photo of him floating around in some yearbooks, but I don't have access to those. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Condensation Cube of Haacke.jpg

File:Condensation Cube of Haacke.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Move to Commons: the depicted artwork is not copyrightable because it is just a cube, and the condensation patterns on the cube's surface are not determined by a human author. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons On one hand, the threshold originality for 3D works seems to be fairly low in the US with the registration of Cloud Gate. On the other hand, it's a plexiglass cube with some water inside. There's a thousand producers of plexiglass cubes, and unless they've all seen this exact artwork, one would have a very difficult time arguing that this particular cube is copyrightable. I agree with the nominator that the patterns formed by the water on the inside of the cube are from a non-human author (if it is even correct to apply the idea of authorship to statistical processes), and one could imagine someone accidentally recreating a similar cube with condensation on the inside, which would defeat arguments that this arrangement is original. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

May keep: In my opinion, there are no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no question that the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for sculptures, but the nom is arguing that the sculpture is not protected by copyright at all (in the same way that many simple logos do not receive copyright protection). If the sculpture is not protected by copyright, it may be freely reproduced, including in freely licensed photography. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Opening crawl.jpg

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

Arguably public domain per C:TOO. Star Wars logo is already below TOO, text is too short and cut off to be copyrightable. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If it is PD under TOO, then I'll happily source a higher resolution version. Sceptre (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, this went absolutely nowhere, so I'm setting the license to PD myself. The description said that the third section of the image is a still, but I don't see any elements other than the text with a simple font, so it's surely PD. I frequent Wikimedia Commons, and this definitely looks like something that adheres to its guidelines.

Whoever sees this, feel free to close this discussion. @Sceptre, feel free to upload a higher resolution version, then I'll upload the file to Commons (as if done in reverse order, you would have to request permission to overwrite). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars; my only concern here is that the second sentence might surpass WP:LIMITED, but that fight is obnoxious to have on Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the phrase long and original enough to qualify for copyright protection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO if there is concern about the text at the bottom, it could be cropped to show two lines "It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking", which is probably below TOO for text and still mostly communicates the same point. Weak move to Commons for the current version, Stronger move to Commons if the crop I suggested is made. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there might be selection-and-arrangement copyright in the combination of the three frames, especially given the fictional nature of this work. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

August 8

File:We got the beat 1980.png

File:We got the beat 1980.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hostagecat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This 1980 UK/Portuguese release isn't necessary, IMO, and may have exceeded WP:NFCC#3a. Also, it's not a good substitute or replacement for the 1982 US reissue, which should reflect the song's greater notability. George Ho (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The song was originally released only in the UK and Portugal before being re-recorded for the wider release. "Take On Me" by a-ha is a song which has a very similar history to "We Got the Beat" in that it had an original single release which failed to chart before being re-recorded and re-released to wide success; its Wikipedia page shows the original 7" release's cover in the main infobox. In other instances where a band or artist changes an cover after release, Wikipedia tends to use the original version first (see Street Survivors, Creatures of the Night, Yesterday and Today).

Hostagecat (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(see Street Survivors, Creatures of the Night, Yesterday and Today)

Those are albums, not singles. Also, please be wary of WP:OTHERIMAGE arguments before making any more of them. Not all song articles use cover arts of original releases, e.g. I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song) and Should I Stay or Should I Go. Of course, I might have exemplified the OTHERIMAGE argument by doing so. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album states an infobox should include "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found)". I've provided the original cover here, so the reissue cover isn't needed. I'm aware that this is an article for a single rather than an album but I don't see any reason why this same logic wouldn't also apply to singles.

Hostagecat (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ahem! Neither Template:Infobox song nor Template:Extra album cover has said that an original (first) release should be the primary lead image. Furthermore, a more successful (re-)release may be more recognizable, especially to general readers, than a first one. I don't see the logic in applying "Infobox album" instructions to the song article. George Ho (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems it would be helpful if we could get a third party to weigh in. Hostagecat (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete One of the two needs to be deleted per NFCC #3a. I have no preference as to which. This one, however, is the one that's been nominated. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm concerned about the strength of your argument, i.e. "no preference" → probably "no consensus", but then I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

August 7

File:King Features retro.png

File:King Features retro.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Babelia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fair use rationale is wrong, as the infobox uses the new logo. I don't think there's much value in retaining this historical logo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

King Features Syndicate acquired its modern name in 1915. If the logo was used before 1931 it is in the public domain. However, I don't see any evidence of its use before 1959 at least on Logopedia, and I can't find a trademark registration for it either. I'd be happy for someone to do some research. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong Logopedia page. See wikia:logos:King Features Syndicate instead.

It says that one logo was used from 1929 to 1942. That one meets {{PD-1923}}. Then there's a gap with no information, and then the logo on Wikipedia was used from 1960 to 1972. I would say that the differences between the PD logo and the one on Wikipedia do not meet the threshold of originality, and most logos from that period meet {{PD-US-no notice}}, so it is probably in the public domain regardless. Should the logo nevertheless be copyrighted, the older logo could serve as a replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Good find, thanks! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Logopedia is user-generated and not a reliable source. Can we get a better source to verify publication details?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The letterhead used in 1929 featured the logo claimed to have been in use between 1929-1943, so that one is definitely in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

King Features Syndicate seems to have complied with all the formality stuff, so this ultimately a threshold of originality question. Compared to the 1929 logo, the new logo joins the two banners into one and moves the text closer together. I do not think this new logo is copyrightable as a derivative work of the old logo, since such changes are too simple to be original. I believe this file is PD in the US and can thus be a Move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Tintin and the Black Island - Unicorn Theatre Company.jpg

File:Tintin and the Black Island - Unicorn Theatre Company.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prhartcom (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violates WP:NFCC#8. The photo itself is not subject to sourced critical commentary. Policy requires that a non-free image both enhance the readers' understanding of the article text and that its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. This image lacks contextual significance. The uploader contested the original deletion tag on the file's talk page. ✗plicit 07:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Green Wing Poster.jpg

File:Green Wing Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SportsLover1967 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Says "Replaceable" in "Replaceable?", so clearly not compatible with WP:NFCC#1 and is High resolution with 770px × 395px, so it Violates WP:NFCC3B.

SportsLover1967 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the Files for discussion archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

The discussions in this section have been nominated for at least 6 days. After 7 days, they may be closed.

September 23

File:The Beatles at Tokyo Airport, 29 or 30 June 1966.jpg

File:The Beatles at Tokyo Airport, 29 or 30 June 1966.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JG66 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image states the source is believed to be UPI but there's no evidence provided. The linked source is a blog post which, as far as I can tell, does not attribute the photo. If this is indeed a UPI photo, then the image is likely PD. See c:cat:Category:United Press International photographs. Whpq (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Most Girls (Alternate).jpg

File:Most Girls (Alternate).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P4uthuwthuhhdfn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is an alternate regional cover for the single. The article already contains a non-free cover that serves the identification purpose, while this version is not the subject of sourced commentary or otherwise shown to have independent encyclopedic significance. Retaining two copyrighted covers for the same work therefore appears inconsistent with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. I recommend deletion. Sricsi (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

File:YouMakeMeSickSingle.jpg

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

The file is an alternate regional cover for the single. The article already contains a non-free cover that serves the identification purpose, while this version is not the subject of sourced commentary or otherwise shown to have independent encyclopedic significance. Retaining two copyrighted covers for the same work therefore appears inconsistent with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. I recommend deletion. Sricsi (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

File:PCD Don't Cha.png

File:PCD Don't Cha.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bronx Langford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Perhaps similar to PRODded image (File:The Pussycat Dolls - Don't Cha.png). This alternative cover art still is unneeded and non-compliant with NFCC. The other American cover art already suffices, yet the uploader may not have thought so. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't find the American cover art sufficient, as it was used only on a limited amount of pressings. In my opinion, if any cover should be deleted, it should be that one. The international one replaces both American covers on digital releases as well, and is now used as the default cover worldwide. Bronx Langford (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Pussycat Dolls is an American girl group. We can't use the international artwork just because it's been used in also later pressings, huh? Deleting the other American cover art feels unjust and wouldn't represent the American-ness of the group's single release, right? George Ho (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

but the once-international cover is now American on digital releases too (though the "American-ness" of it all is an odd hill to die on, if you don't mind me saying so) Bronx Langford (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Deleting the other US cover art wouldn't be right for me, especially considering discogs listing. Oh, and another US cover was used for a two-track CD release. Furthermore, CDs were still wide when the recording was first released in 2005. Let's then await others' opinions on this cover art. George Ho (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Recent nominations

September 24

File:Lady Haosi Namoinu being beaten up by her cruel stepmother.jpeg

File:Lady Haosi Namoinu being beaten up by her cruel stepmother.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Haoreima (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this non-free artwork itself is not the subject of sourced commentary of Haosi Namoinu. This misuse is in line with WP:NFC#UUI#3 A rose, cropped from a record album cover, to illustrate an article on roses. Wcam (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wcam: You’re slightly wrong. It actually fails WP:NFCC#1: This non‐free artwork has free equivalents or can have free equivalents made of it, meaning it can be deleted under WP:F7.

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 07:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

File:SonnyLim.jpg

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

The licensing section states that this is dual‐licensed under the GNU FDL and CC BY‐SA 3.0 licence, but the copyright holder in the metadata states that this can only be used with express written permission. If we follow the metadata, then this should be deleted, and if we follow the licensing section, then this should be moved to Commons. Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 23:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons I emailed the author, who confirmed the free licensing and that the metadata was an error. Given another file from this uploader was VRT confirmed, this should be kosher. Same with File:Harry Kim, Mayor of Hawaii County.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

September 25

File:Album cover artwork for Taylor Swift - The Life of a Showgirl - The Encore.png

File:Album cover artwork for Taylor Swift - The Life of a Showgirl - The Encore.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gemdation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#3a and #8. The original artwork upload (File:Taylor Swift – The Life of a Showgirl (album cover).png more than adequately conveys the "equivalent significant information" and the exclusion of the nominated file would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article in question (The Life of a Showgirl). livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, an image with all the 1989 versions is better. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  not a valid reason to nominate it for deletion Qwertyuiop2763 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't nominate it for deletion, but this album has several album covers (each representing minor additions to the track listings), and none is as relevant as the standard edition. I agree that "Minimal number of items" applies here. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This release is more than just a variant of the standard album, but an extended release in its own right, like The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology and A Matter of Time: The Final Hour. Elephantranges (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Uploader here, not voting since it is my own upload. I personally don't get Wikipedia's stigma against non-free images when it is an image that can be used to represent an important variation (deluxe) of an album. And has appeared before on projects such as on the Playboi Carti mixtape.

  I took a better look at the NFCC and saw that it is based on a document from March 23, 2007, like three months away from me being born and the first iPhone releasing, no wonder why Wikipedia feels so behind while Genius and publications get to have such high quality works. Gemdation (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing prevents you to make modifications to NFCC or contribute to Genius, am I wrong? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  To the NFCC, I'm sure it would. If someone were to replace those outdated "only use it as a last resort" meanings, it would most likely get reverted. Gemdation (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't mean it literal, you know. Policies change all the time because someone wants them changed and convinces the community about it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a deluxe cover. Against the terms of Wikipedia. It also serves virtually no visual distinction for viewers and the alternative album cover is naturally incurred to be a deluxe cover. Nickname27 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Elephantranges. The cover of a major alternate version is perfectly suitable for inclusion. (FWIW, I'm also inclined to agree with Gemdation about the NFCC, but that's a discussion for another time and venue.) Obsidian the Fox 03:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep!!! ~2026-51811-97 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, this cover definitely meets WP:NFCC3A as it's vastly different from the original. Plus, the reissue received a lot of coverage and it adds a substantial amount of content to the album, therefore WP:NFCC8 is satisfied. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep because this is the only extended version of the album with brand new material, so including this cover and not the other variants makes sense, as with The Tortured Poets Department. InsiderChiari (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Not the first time Swift has released a whole new cover for an edition of an album. In the case of the Tortured Poets Department, it was a double album with the number of new tracks of The Anthology matching the standard in volume. That's not the case here. The Anthology had a physical re-release; The Encore does not. Midnights also had a Til Dawn reissue which was also widely covered but its cover artwork was not included in the article. ℛonherry☘ 14:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  What are the other times Swift has released a whole new cover for an edition of an album? (An actual edition with new songs, not variants) Midnights' Til Dawn reissue used the same cover but with different colors, not a whole new cover like The Encore. Yes, this is not a double album case like The Tortured Poets Department, nor does it have a physical release (yet), but I'm not sure how this negates the purpose of showing the alternate cover. Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition is not a double album either, yet it also shows its reissue artwork. The Encore also has its own single as shown in the infobox, so displaying its artwork above is helpful and relevant. InsiderChiari (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – deluxe cover, not critically significant in its own right. No detriment to the reader from its omission. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Elephantranges. The overall purpose of having the deluxe cover is for people to actually see the artwork rather than have to find on the internet what the cover looks like. If the cover gets deleted, we quintessentially are causing a considerable waste of viewer's time just to see the cover and then they can't find it. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  "we quintessentially are causing a considerable waste of viewer's time just to see the cover and then they can't find it" Well, it is not lost media to claim something that drastic. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

September 26

File:ConcernedApe Logo.png

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

This image was uploaded and added to Eric Barone's page in 2023 to identify the subject in infobox. When the infobox image was replaced with a free photo of Barone in 2024, it got bumped out of the infobox and moved to the Stardew Valley section.

In recent times, I've been twice unsuccessful in removing it from the article (restored without edit summary). I won't bore you with the details, for this is not the place, but the gist of it is I didn't feel it adds encyclopaedic value in the page's present state and don't believe its non-free use rationale is suitable.

In particular, Wikipedia:Logos#Placement reads: A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, [...]. Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article. The discussion that guidance refers to is about university sports, which is clearly a different kettle of fish, hence I'd like to discuss this and see if I am missing anything.

Personally, I'd get rid. At the very least, the image's Use field must be updated to reflect the fact the image is not being used in a company infobox. I'm not convinced on the applicability of any of the preset values, but that's not my forte anyway. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

NB Use has now been changed from Infobox to Org. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete The closest analog I can come up with is Jaiden Animations, where the logo of her channel is used instead of a photo of her face. There, though, it pulls double duty and also shows Jaiden's artstyle (she also sorta permitted Wikipedia to use her channel's logo, but for NFCC purposes, that is immaterial). I believe the use of the logo satisfies NFCC there because she got famous by posting her art on the internet, so a sample of her work is necessary. ConcernedApe also got famous through art, but that art already has its own article. Therefore, I believe the use of the ConcernedApe logo is unnecessary. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I had ended up at Jaiden Animations via Wikipedia:Subjects reacting to their Wikipedia photos. I think a closer comparison would be Technoblade, who has both a biographical photo and a profile picture illustration. In that example, I think it has consensus per Q2 of the FAQ on Talk:Technoblade (in the big yellow box). Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Brillo-Boxes-by-Andy-Warhol.jpg

File:Brillo-Boxes-by-Andy-Warhol.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Twixister (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Freely replaced by File:Andy-Warhol-Stockholm-1968.jpg. Additionally, I am highly doubtful that this sculpture is copyrightable. The design of the original Brillo box lapsed due to failure to file a copyright renewal, meaning that only Warhol's work could possibly have a copyright claim. However, unlike his paintings of Campbell Soup, where there is creativity in the change of medium and dimensionality, his sculptures of Brillo Boxes transfer the design of the Brill boxes from boxes to...boxes. Plywood instead of cardboard, sure, but change of material is certainly not creative enough for copyright. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

September 28

File:Sad Elephant room in the game vvvvvv.jpg

File:Sad Elephant room in the game vvvvvv.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deffiants (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is being used decoratively and not being discussed in the current version of the article. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

September 29

File:Michael Nyman-Gattaca-The Other Side.ogg

File:Michael Nyman-Gattaca-The Other Side.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beyond silence (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample of a film score not contextually significant to the film in question. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Tanter.jpg

File:Lawrence Tanter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mwinog2777 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Freely replaced by File:Lawrence Tanter 1968.jpg? Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

September 30

File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg

File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikipedical (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader is not sure how our WP:NFCC works despite I provided them with a detailed explaination about it, mainly points 1 and 8. And I'm not going to wait indefinitely until it happens. The image depicts Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep arguing inside the restaurant J.G. Melon. It is claimed the image is famous and pivotal. The caption there read: "Hoffman and Streep at J.G. Melon in Kramer vs. Kramer. The article says "A tense crucial scene with Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman, in which Dustin Hoffman smacks his wine glass against the wall, was filmed at the restaurant for the 1979 Academy Award for Best Picture legal divorce drama film Kramer vs. Kramer", something not depicted by this specific still.

I am nominating this file for review as the nominator is upset(?) I decided to remove it from J.G. Melon despite it doesn't satisfy NFCC8 in the restaurant's page, and the uploader cannot justify its use there. Whether it has to be deleted, replaced with a file depicting what the articles say, and/or whether it is valid in the restaurant's page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Mechagodzilla Absolute Zero.png

File:Mechagodzilla Absolute Zero.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Armegon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May reflect critical commentary that cites heavily primary sources, putting its contextual significance to Mechagodzilla into question. De-PRODded under assumption that omitting the screenshot would affect readers' understanding of the fictional creature itself... and one of its features shown onscreen. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)