Wikipedia:Files for discussion
Wikimedia project page for file discussions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · |
| This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared. |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Instructions To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for discussion participation
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
| This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
March 11
File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg
- File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheVeganFromNorfolk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Likely PD in the US, maybe not in Canada, but should be converted. JayCubby 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep on enwiki; convert to PD; CCTV footage is public domain in the US per c:Template:PD-automated. No clue about Canada so should not be moved to Commons. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
March 10
File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif
- File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adam sk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Tagged by Chsdrummajor07 on January 10 with the reason:
This logo appears to consist solely of the text “CIO” and a very simple graphic design, which may fall below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. As such, it may not qualify as non-free content and should be evaluated for deletion or reclassification
but was never properly listed. Procedurally relisting now. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Photo of Mohammed Deif
- File:Mohammed Deif (Hamas).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candidyeoman55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Mohammed Deif.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shadow4dark (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Which photo should be used? Can any free replacement be found? The second photo glorifies this terrorist, the first doesn't. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- The second one is his official portrait and i don't see glorifying terrorism. Part of discussion was here [] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg
- File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image at the top of the article is a free replacement. Posing and background suggests this might be a US gov work, but I cannot identify the actual source (the NYT link is wrong). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Manchester City FC badge.svg
- File:Manchester City FC badge.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free football team badge being used a combined total of four times in three diferent articles: Manchester City F.C., Manchester City W.F.C., Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy#Elite Development Squad and Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy#Academy. The use in the article about the main men's team seems fine, but it's the other three uses use which may have issues per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI. UUI#17 basically deals with the use of logos in articles about parent entities and child entities, and trying to keep non-free use as minimal as possible per WP:NFCC#3.
In previous FFD/WP:NFCR discussions, a strict interpretation of UUI#17 in which the main men's team was considered the sole parent entity and everything else a child entity tend to be the consensus that was reached; however, given the growth that women's professional football seems to experienced over since its early days, perhaps it might be OK to have "two parents", so to speak, with respect to UUI#17 and football teams: one for each side of a club's family tree. If the main women's team has it's own separate branding that's different from the men's, then, of course, that would be preferable to simply reusing the same logo twice just to have a logo in the main infobox. If, though, both the men's and women's teams use clearly the same branding, which seems to be the case when it comes to the Manchester City FC and WFC teams, then perhaps it's not really contrary to policy to treat the women's team as a parent entity in its own right.
The two uses of the file use in the Under 21 team's article, however, are much more problematic and harder to justify per UUI#17 given that B/reserve/under-XX/academy/youth teams tend to be considered sub-entities of the main team, at least that's my understanding of football clubs tend to be organized. There's really no way to justify using the same file twice in the same article per WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, one of the uses technically fails WP:NFCC#10c since it's lacking the seperate, specific non-free use rationale that relevant policy requires for each use of non-free content. Getting rid of one of the uses and moving the file to the top of the article also has issues since the main function of these teams seems to be to prepare players and help them gain sufficient skill/experience so that they're hopefully someday called up to the main parent team. This seems kind of equivalent to relationship that Minor League Baseball teams and NBA G League teams have with their respective parent MLB and NBA teams. Of course, if a "child" team has it's own unique branding, then that could be used in its article, but I don't think the default should be to assume that just adding a non-free use rationale for the team to the parent team's badge/logo file page makes the use automatically policy-compliant. So, while I can see a possible justification for using the file in the main WFC article, I can't see any reason for using the file even once in the "Under 21s and Academy" article and think the file should certainly be removed from that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)- Speedy close this discussion. Under Wikipedia precedent, non-free soccer logos can only be used in the articles about the senior teams. I've removed the file from the article Manchester City F.C. Under-21s and Academy. No further action is necessary. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
John Walmsley book covers
- File:Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free book cover files currently being used in John Walmsley (photographer) whose respective uses fail WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3), but to perhaps different degrees.
The "Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover" is mentioned twice in the article: once briefly in the lead and once with a little more context in John Walmsley (photographer)#1967 A.S. Neill and Summerhill School, but I'm not quite sure whether this is a enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Given that Walmsley's Wikipedia notable is based on what he achieved as a photographer, though, it could be argued that this file could be seen as a representative example of his work and just needs to be moved the subsection where the book is discussed. This non-free use might be worth discussing in more detail.
The non-free use of "Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg" in John Walmsley (photographer)#Café Royal Books publications, on the other hand, seems to be a clear case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use which might also have issues per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3 because it looks like a user-created montage of the covers of the six of that particular series. I can't think of any way this could possibly be justified per NFCC#8 that would allow it to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad.png
- File:1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abovfold (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sourced to Reddit which is of course non-RS WP:UGC. Unless someone can fine a better source for this. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- If you are disputing that the image is what its purporting to be you should discuss it on the article talk page. If it cannot be verified it can be removed from the article, after which it will be automatically deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg
- File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esemono (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
(From top) Frame 1, 3, and 5 are PD, but some are probably not (not published in Life or anywhere else, I think). The PD frames are suitable replacements for the collection as a whole. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC) - Correction: the bottom frame is copyrighted, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandy-June-6th-1944-US-troops-assault-Omaha-Beach-during-the-D-Day-landings-6.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
March 8
File:MorellQuatermass.jpeg
- File:MorellQuatermass.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Garethheathcote (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I'm thinking the screenshot was uploaded simply because there had been no lead image for Bernard Quatermass. I appreciate the use of this image, but I wonder whether the uploader was aware of a past FFD discussion about another image that resulted in removal of that image from the article (link to FFD nom).
Regardless, I'm very uncertain about showing readers Morell's version of the character as the lead image. MOS:LEADIMAGE seems to encourage the most representative (yet appropriate) image of a topic as a lead image. However, multiple actors haven't portrayed the character for long, so I'm too hesitant to consider Morell's version the most representative.
Furthermore, I'm doubtful about its contextual significance to the main character of the Quatermass franchise. Indeed, if deleted, then the image may have failed to contextually signify that character very much, if not at all. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
March 7
File:A-Trak HWR Remix.jpg
- File:A-Trak HWR Remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DavFaithid (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails NFCC 3a and 8. RedShellMomentum 05:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Remix version was very successful - maybe even more than the original. Given it's called out on the "200 Greatest Dance Songs" in Rolling Stone, I think it's worth keeping. I actually recognized the remix cover from my own spins, but not the original. WidgetKid converse 06:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Nancy Guthrie Missing Poster.png
- File:Nancy Guthrie Missing Poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DocZach (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#3 and possibly WP:NFCC#8. The copyrighted image of Nancy Guthrie is already a separate file in the article, and this reuse is not necessary. The other images are from a PD video in the article, and the info in the text can easily be incorporated in the article if necessary. Sign² (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. US government works are public domain, so add a warning it has partial copyright, but move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's no way the photo of Guthrie is de minimis, so that needs to be taken out or blurred before moving to commons. The other photos fall under PD-automated. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is a tag at Commons that says: Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete or convert to fair use. De minimis is not applicable here as removing the copyrighted image would make the poster useless. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's no way the photo of Guthrie is de minimis, so that needs to be taken out or blurred before moving to commons. The other photos fall under PD-automated. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- The FBI did not create that family photo of Nancy, so that's not in the public domain. I also don't see why someone would upload copyrighted content twice. V. S. Video (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. Isn't the portion of the image that is copyright small enough to qualify for fair use even when the FBI image is 1,033 × 804 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Convert back to fair use, soft keep — As the original uploader of this file, I am not convinced that it qualifies as public domain. Simply appearing on an FBI missing-person poster does not automatically place the image in the public domain unless it was originally created by a U.S. federal employee as part of their official duties, or otherwise publicly documented and reported as an exhibit in a criminal case or investigation. For that reason, I believe the file should be reverted back to a fair-use rationale. And honestly, I would not object to removing this file entirely, and I can instead upload the images of the suspect from the doorbell camera separately, which do indeed fall under public domain. DocZach (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that this isn't in the public domain. But there's been no discussion at all on whether this meets non-free content criteria given that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC) - Move to Commons copyrighted image has been removed, leaving only PD-USGov and PD-automated works. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- It kinda looks ugly the result. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- You are free to take a crack at removing the copyrighted image yourself or explain why you think it's ugly. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- It kinda looks ugly the result. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
File:EuroLeague.svg
- File:EuroLeague.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Either Public Domain, or PD-US. I don't think the US Copyright Office would accept this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relist it or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)- I replaced the file at the page, so delete it now. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- With the same image but under the different filename: File:EuroLeague logo.svg? I have reservations about the logo's copyright in Spain since the logo's author, Euroleague Basketball, is headquartered in Spain, so I nominated the Commons copy you uploaded for deletion (click/tap here). George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I replaced the file at the page, so delete it now. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Re-license as PD-ineligible-USonly for now until Commons deems it okay to use in the project. If "kept" there, then this logo should be exported to Commons. George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
File:TNT Tropang 5G logo.png
- File:TNT Tropang 5G logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The "Tropang 5G" wordmark is just simple text with a few streak lines. In my opinion, this may not reach the TOO and it could belong in Commons. Not sure about the TNT logo, but it already has a Commons file. MarcusAbacus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Aerial image of a home swept away at EF4 intensity near Enderlin.jpg
- File:Aerial image of a home swept away at EF4 intensity near Enderlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrenadinesDes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Already one other fair use image in the article (see File:Violent EF5 damage to several full grain train cars near Enderlin.png). I'd argue that train cars being tossed off the tracks is more helpful to the reader as far as illustrating the power of the tornado goes. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, as it helps to illustrate the paragraph next to it. WidgetKid this is the way 23:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:1990 FIFA World Cup.svg
Italy has a high threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist this file, or move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Beaune-la-Rolande Transfer List 19 August 1942 ADLoiret 175W34121.jpg
- File:Beaune-la-Rolande Transfer List 19 August 1942 ADLoiret 175W34121.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aeengath (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
France has a reasonable TOO, and this should also fall under PD-anon-70-EU JayCubby 01:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @JayCubby, This was uploaded under non-free use out of caution as the archive does not explicitly state a public-domain licence. I agree it may qualify under PD-anon-70-EU, and I’m fine with it being relicensed and moved to Commons if that’s the consensus. Aeengath (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I uploaded the document under non-free use out of caution because the archive page doesn’t explicitly state a public-domain licence. Like I said before if editors think it clearly falls under PD-anon-70-EU or below the threshold of originality under French law, I’m happy for it to be relicensed and moved to Commons. Otherwise I believe the current non-free use in the Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp article meets NFCC as it illustrates a specific historical document. Aeengath (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons definitely PD in the US as a noncreative representation of facts. I doubt French ToO differs for a simplistic listing of individuals deported. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
File:ChottaRajan.jpg
- File:ChottaRajan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Liberal Humanist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This image is of a person still alive. The person is serving a life sentence, still. The source link is dead. It has no fair use rationale and nothing to indicate a fair use license. Babin Mew (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Photos of people who have life sentences are kept because the same rationale applies as to a dead person. Needs to have that added, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ok I added one. keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Dr. Tetelbaum.gif
- File:Dr. Tetelbaum.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nheroux (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The statement on the file page "Author: Natalie Heroux. I madet this picture. He belongs to me.
" may well explain how this picture uploaded here has been made. However artefacts in the upload suggest a scan or other reproduction of an original picture. This casts doubt on the ownership of the copyright which is easy enough to resolve - WP:VRT will work with the uploader to validate copyright ownership. I believe that, without VRT validation, this picture may not remain here, certainly under this licence. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- JayCubby Given Nheroux is the subject's daughter, and he's relatively young in this professional photograph, I find it unlikely that she took it (since she would have been a young child). It's certainly possible that she owns the physical copy, but there's no indication that the photographer relinquished their rights. What do you think? WidgetKid this is the way 16:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Baffinland illustrates its plan to feed Capesize freighters, moored offshore, from freighters small enough to ferry ore from Milne Inlet.jpg
- File:Baffinland illustrates its plan to feed Capesize freighters, moored offshore, from freighters small enough to ferry ore from Milne Inlet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Doesn't meet WP:NFCC1 "no free equivalent" - this image shows a smaller freighter and a larger freighter interacting. I'm sure this happens relatively often in many parts of the world, doesn't require a volunteer chartering a helicopter in a remote part of the world as the justification claims. Additionally, this can be fairly easily described in text - the image isn't crucial for understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC8 "contextual significance"). Consigned (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I couldn't find a Commons image of two ore freighters interacting like this. I can see how this illustrates what's described in the article, but linkage between text and supporting image could be stronger. WidgetKid chat me 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - replaceable with a text description so fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Verify the copyright status of these UK images. They're already Public Domain in the US.
- File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I had listed it before, but it was speedy kept because one of these files was in the main page one day. He died in 1946. Verify if these works have other known authors. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist this file or close it as move to Commons Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Re-license as non-free if there's no consensus on whether the images listed here are in the public domain.Unsure when the images were first published, honestly. Indeed, there's c:COM:PCP to consider. George Ho (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC); partially struck, 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)- Any of Baird's works have entered the public domain in the UK as he died in 1946. So I disagree with you. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Per c:COM:UK, US copyrights of most British works were restored in 1996 by the URAA, one year after their British copyrights were restored. That way, their US copyrights would have 95 years of protection after first publication. In other words, a couple of those images became copyrighted again in the US in 1996. Also, the Wikimedia projects have relied on infrastructure located in the US; c:COM:licensing should tell users that a work must be in the public domain in not just its source country but also the US. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- The first two were published before 1931. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- One was verified by a 1926 publication, provided by another editor. The other one... I hope you're right; too bad the source here doesn't detail when the photo was first created or published (https://web.archive.org/web/20110614090114/http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=314&feature). George Ho (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- The first two were published before 1931. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Per c:COM:UK, US copyrights of most British works were restored in 1996 by the URAA, one year after their British copyrights were restored. That way, their US copyrights would have 95 years of protection after first publication. In other words, a couple of those images became copyrighted again in the US in 1996. Also, the Wikimedia projects have relied on infrastructure located in the US; c:COM:licensing should tell users that a work must be in the public domain in not just its source country but also the US. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Any of Baird's works have entered the public domain in the UK as he died in 1946. So I disagree with you. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg can confirm 1926 publication in The Electrician. Also move File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg as noncreative combination of public domain elements (Union Jack, fleur de lis) and PD-text.
- No word on if File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg is PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Clarifying that for UK copyright, File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg likely falls under PD-scan of a work presumably by Baird, and File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg is either by Baird or an anonymous author; in either case, it's also PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- With all due respect about File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg, the originality standards is kinda low-ish in the UK (c:COM:TOO UK). The UK law has allowed very, very simple logos. Unfortunately, the screenshot in there might not be. Too bad the Wayback Archive has excluded this source (https://thetvroom.com/bbcuk/bbc-1-01-01.html), so uncertain when the title card first appeared publicly.
- Nonetheless, it's not protected as
a wireless broadcast made before 1st June 1957
. It's not a pre-1957 film exemplifying an "original dramatic work"... is it? If so, then... it might have expired in 2017. Same for anonymous artist works made before 1946 and ones whose authors died in 1946 or before. Speaking of artistic works, dunno exactly who designed and made the title card, but Baird broadcasted the programme. - The US copyright status you may have hit the spot on, especially due to the fleur de lis logo. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/invention-television-tv-baird dates File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg to March 19, 1925, and it's likely a Daily Herald photo, as shown here in a 1946 issue. However, this is the earliest publication I can find; a 1925 photo first published in 1946 would've been subject to URAA restoration. Delete File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg unless an earlier publication can be found. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Clarifying that for UK copyright, File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg likely falls under PD-scan of a work presumably by Baird, and File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg is either by Baird or an anonymous author; in either case, it's also PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete only the Apparatus image due to uncertainty about its first publication. Move "1st image" to Commons per evidence of early publication provided. Leaning toward moving the broadcast image to Commons due to possible un-originality. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Even if the image with an unknown date was published after 1931, I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice. For this reason (and others), move all three to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice.
- Unfortunately, those reasons aren't enough to make a non-US work exempt from the URAA. To further make it so, that foreign, non-US work should be published in the US either first or within thirty days after its first non-US publication (c:Template:PD-URAA-simultaneous/c:COM:URAA-restored copyrights#Are all foreign works affected?). Otherwise, such work made in 1931 or later will still be copyrighted, especially if partnered with a US ally. The chart from Cornell University should simplify things: click/tap here. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think it would be strange for URAA to apply to UK works, because I think the UK and the US have very long copyright relations, maybe the UK is one of the oldest copyright relations of the US, if not the oldest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Strange" to you, but the URAA has been effective since the mid-1990s. The Supreme Court upheld the law, so it's been upheld since. If you still have issues with the URAA itself and its application to British works, either WP:MCQ, c:COM:VPCOPY, WT:NFC, or WP:VPP should do. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think it would be strange for URAA to apply to UK works, because I think the UK and the US have very long copyright relations, maybe the UK is one of the oldest copyright relations of the US, if not the oldest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Even if the image with an unknown date was published after 1931, I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice. For this reason (and others), move all three to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Star Tours Logo.svg
- File:Star Tours Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I think this should be under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Arches at the top make it more than simple letters or geometry Elisfkc (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Spaceship Earth Epcot Logo.svg
- File:Spaceship Earth Epcot Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FA Jon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This should be under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG
- File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file does not appear to be licensed correctly. Per the source, The University of California, as the Department of Energy contractor managing the historical image scanning project, has asserted a continuing legal interest in the digital versions of the images included in the NARA accession, and, accordingly, has stipulated that anyone intending to use any of these digital images for commercial purposes, including textbooks, commercial materials, and periodicals, must obtain prior permission from the University of California-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, through photo@lbl.gov.
. WidgetKid chat me 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Zapluty karzel.jpg
- File:Zapluty karzel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darwinek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See Template:PD-Poland. By age, this should be in the public domain. JayCubby 13:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons per nom. WidgetKid chat me 02:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The earliest I can see that this was created is 1946 according to Reddit and per commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland, terms run to the end of year meaning that this was copyrighted on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 by a literal goddamn year. The old 50 year term applies since it's not a photograph (and, to be clear, I think the retroactive nature is absolute BS). It's out of copyright in Poland, but not in the US because of blasted URAA. I could very well be missing something as I only checked online sources since I can't read Polish for offline sources, but I'm not confident enough to move this to Commons myself so I reverted my close. I also saw that there's a claim that the artist actually made this poster, but I couldn't find any kind of evidence towards this besides art resellers and those aren't reliable. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg
- File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahtin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a photo of a Holocaust memorial located in the Ukraine taken by the uploader. The licensing for the photo itself is fine, but the copyright status of the memorial isn't clear. After discussing this with the uploader at User talk:Mahtin#File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, the uploader added a {{PD-UA-exempt}} license for the monument, but I'm not sure that license applies in this case. There's only limited freedom of panorama in the Ukraine per c:COM:FOP Ukraine, which places restrictions on commerical reuse; so, I don't think this file that can be kept as currently licensed, at least with respect to the monument. Sometimes in cases like this a non-free license can be added for the photographed work, but that can't really be done here because of WP:NFCC#9 (the image is currently being used in a userspace draft). If others can figure out a way to keep this file, then great; othereise, I think it needs to be deleted if the consent of the copyright holder of the monument can't be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's a wall with a few words in two languages on it. Not an architectural work. Probably OK for Commons too. JayCubby 20:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Paris Handball logo.jpg
- File:Paris Handball logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DroopyDoggy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The level of design is above the threshold of originality in France; it is more than simple geometric shapes. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- We would have to find out if this is copyrightable in the US. I think it'll likely be changed to Fair Use. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Maxine Carr Soham MurdersA.jpg
- File:Maxine Carr Soham MurdersA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kieronoldham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
As the person is alive, a photo for "visual identification" can be taken. The photo is therefore replaceable, and Wikipedia:NFCC#1 is not met. Schwede66 22:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. With all due respect, Schwede66, if you understand the subject in the image, she is now protected by a lifelong anonymity order, so I fail to see how a more recent/current "photo [of her] for 'visual identification' can be taken" without breaching the law. Therefore, how can anyone legally replace it? This image of her - widely circulated in the media since 2002 and to the present day - was taken upon her arrest and prior to the imposition of said anonymity order.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- You might want to read this story: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/News and notes
- As far as I know, that's the current state of affairs: "The Wikimedia Foundation stated in their 2008 resolution on licensing policy that non-free images of living people would almost always not be allowed." Schwede66 00:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Think you may be being a little pedantic here, but we will see how things develop. No freely released image of the individual in question exists, and the image has been - and continues to be - extremely widely circulated in broadcast, printed and online format for over 23 years.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Any free image of this person would be illegal! Not replaceable. Free images of living people are almost always not allowed, but for it to be literally illegal to make a replacement is in that 1% of situations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Muhammad Usman Malik.jpeg
- File:Muhammad Usman Malik.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Publicnote (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Claim of own work is dubious. This clearly a photo studio image. All of the other uploader's images had claims of "I own this file" or similar and have been deleted as copyright violations. Whpq (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hm. Well, couldn't find a match with google lens, and there is meta data. For some reason, date is different in summary and meta data. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Publicnote, could you weigh in? JayCubby 02:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png
- File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Contains PD photo File:Don McLean 1976.JPG plus some simple graphic elements, so it too should be PD. JayCubby 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png
- File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tollens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
There is reason to believe this file is actually free, at least in the US.
- The five cartoons on the thumbnails are by Carlos Latuff. Latuff has released the copyright to his cartoons per here.
- The WikiLeaks logo was released under a free license per here.
- The map screenshot is from OpenStreetMap, which is freely licensed per here.
- Other than the above, the web design itself consists of simple shapes and short excerpts of text.
Due to a lack of clarity about where the website is currently hosted, the file should not be moved to Commons. Rather, it should be marked as a free file on enwiki and have its file size set to normal rather than minimized. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: the bottom left Wikileaks logo may not be free, as I could not find a free license for it. This may need to be censored if the file is set to free. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Incredibles 2 screenslaver screen.jpg
- File:Incredibles 2 screenslaver screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Qwertyxp2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Empirically, the smallest important part of the image (the seizure-light patterns on the small TV screens) is legible at 100K-pixel resolution (about 387x258, or 53% current width). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC) - I have cropped and resized this image to better comply with WP:NFCC#3b. tjd (he) T/C 01:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
file:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png
- File:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et0048 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
If the deleted revision is undeleted, this can be moved {{to Commons}}. — Arlo James Barnes 19:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning toward moving to Commons – As I see, it was previously considered non-free (old id). Upon evaluation, I can see just plain colors, lines and a circle forming together, and simple(?) shapes. By the way, how about WP:Twinkle software next time for FFD listings? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll use Twinkle next time. — Arlo James Barnes 13:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think this is actually the insignia, or if it is, I can't find evidence of it existing. I'm planning to override it with the image depicted at the bottom of the NMSDF page on the state's national guard site, which looks like the official contact point and that is corroborated in file:Gen. Torres speaks during change of command.jpg. — Sennecaster (Chat) 05:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Do you mean the flag of New Mexico patch worn by the general at the lectern in a Universal Camouflage Pattern palette? There's also a variant of the current design at file:New Mexico National Guard patch.jpg, and on the wall in file:New Mexico National Guard (49883878833).jpg, so perhaps it is for the wider NMNG. Also in UCP palette in file:New Mexico National Guard educates Española youth against drugs, gangs 140621-A-LF132-001.jpg. — Arlo James Barnes 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)- Since the deleted revision has been undeleted, I am requesting closure of this ffd since it seems there is agreement that the design currently at the file page is below copyrightability threshold. Discussions about whether the image should be overwritten and with what can happen at Wikimedia Commons just as well as they could here, so that shouldn't be a blocker. Arlo James Barnes 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
February 18
File:Milorad B. Protic.png
- File:Milorad B. Protic.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I have procured a public domain image of him at File:Milorad B. Protić, astronomer.jpg. It is, admittedly pretty awful (though there is one at page 15 of that might be nice to have, too), hence why I've sent it here instead of tagging it with {{rfu}}, but it is technically a free substitute. I'm also fairly certain that an extremely thorough search could yield more PD images of him; I believe people would be more motivated to do so if the current photo was subpar. JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep until a sufficient-quality free alternative can be found. It's not reasonable to 'break' the image to force the procurement of a free replacement JayCubby 14:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Slightly unethical of me, but it might motivate his daughter, whose email address I have been given by the person who wrote the source of this image, to provide us with one. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
February 15
File:Washington Justice logo.svg
File is available at c:File:Washington Justice logo 2.png--Trade (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep .svg file. Delete .png file, per WP:USOP. WidgetKid converse 06:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I question whether c:File:Washington Justice logo 2.png really falls under c:COM:TOO US. It seems intricate enough to be copyrightable. – Pbrks (t·c) 12:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you truly believe there to be an issue i suggest you nominate the file for deletion then @Pbrks:--Trade (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons. And keep since this looks above TOO to me too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- ENWP is notorious for labeling virtual all logos in the US as protected by copyright, regardless of actual complexity. It doesnt mean much Trade (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- If you truly believe there to be an issue i suggest you nominate the file for deletion then @Pbrks:--Trade (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
File:Boston Uprising logo.svg
File is available at c:File:Uprising Academy logo.png--Trade (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep .svg file. Delete .png file, per WP:USOP. The logos are also not equivalent. The .svg is correct for it's article usage. WidgetKid converse 06:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Saying a file is .png instead of .svg fails NFCC #1. Also ENWP does not have authority to delete files to be removed from Commons based on unrelated ENWP policies Trade (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons. And keep since this looks above TOO to me too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Saying a file is .png instead of .svg fails NFCC #1. Also ENWP does not have authority to delete files to be removed from Commons based on unrelated ENWP policies Trade (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- "there is almost certainly no free representation" Yeah that's just a lie --Trade (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
February 10
File:Ras Mulugeta Yeggazu.jpg
- File:Ras Mulugeta Yeggazu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Indy beetle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Possibly PD, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia JayCubby 16:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons due to lack of copyright protection in the US, copyright expired in Ethiopia after 1961 at the latest. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Could those of you saying to move this to Commons please specify what license template on Commons would apply? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
February 1
File:Virtual Library museums pages logo.gif
- File:Virtual Library museums pages logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jpbowen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Should now be OK under the UK's now-lower TOO. JayCubby 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- This logo is by me, and I hereby give permission for its use. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jpbowen: Could you please specify under what license you are releasing it? Mere permission for Wikipedia to use isn't a factor in Wikipedia's file rules, other than being signified with {{non-free with permission}} * Pppery * it has begun... 22:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
January 15
File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG
- File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gp03dhk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work(s). — Ирука13 07:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and close per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama.–DMartin (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per c:COM:FOP China. There are also several images of this mural on Commons already. WidgetKid chat me 23:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука13 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: early, INVOLVED non-admin FfD close reverted per WP:REOPEN; see discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 16. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Hong Kong
- "According to Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
- Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука13 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Iruka13 Is it a good idea to argue this while you are indefinitely blocked from editing filespace? Your block is precisely due to exactly this behavior by you.
- I think your requests of other editors to quote the rules to you, and to apparently "prove to your satisfaction" that what they are doing is OK, is a very bad idea. The ANI thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concern_regarding_Iruka13 and the block indicate that you just might be wrong and you might be misinterpreting the rules. You should stop trying to patrol copyright and stop badgering other editors about copyright issues. David10244 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: @Iruka13 might be technically allowed to comment here, but in my opinion her comment (and any !votes by her) should not be counted as votes while she is banned for this behavior. See the ANI in my previous reply. David10244 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука13 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Nominator is currently banned from the file namespace for wikilawyering, nominating in bad faith, and other disruptive activities.–DMartin (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete there is no freedom of panorama in the US for 2d artworks, while yes images of this building appear on Commons they are on Commons per WP:DEMINIMIS, this image however does not meet that standard in my opinion as the angle primarily covers the artwork and not the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keepbut only because it has correct tags currently.De minimis would not apply here - the very title of the image states its focus on the mural. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)- The US does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- GFD. Delete. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
January 14
File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg
- File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unlikely to be free under US law after all. Based on Clindberg's insight at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg, older protections for architectural components might still exist (pre-AWCPA-era components or pre-1990). Since the artist of this work died in 1985, it is very unlikely to be a post-1990 work. Leicester v. Warner ruling only applies to post-1990 architectural elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify deleting this and I'm having a really hard time. Leicester v. Warner Bros. clearly established that architectural details (which stained glass windows obviously are) are allowable under US freedom of panorama. You seem to agree with that. OK so far. But you think because pre-1990 buildings in the US had NO copyright protections that the windows (which we agree are an integral component of the building) somehow magically gain stricter copyright protections and lack the freedom of panorama than they would have had if they had been created if they were built post-1990 because of Leicester v. Warner Bros.? There is no case law, statute, or legal principle which would suggest such a thing. It defies all common sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle that is per Clindberg's insights on the undeletion request. But do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed). Thus, its US copyright was restored through Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Do note the Leicester ruling relied on AWCPA, which is not retroactive. Pre-1990 buildings are PD under US law, yes, but any associated architectural art embedded within (stained glass for example) are bound for the pre-1990 rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- And again, US FoP only applies to post-1990 US buildings. All pre-1990 buildings are public domain. Concerning the attached artworks, only post-1990 architectural art elements can be freely reproduced through Leicester ruling, citing AWCPA. AWCPA does not cover pre-1990 ones, and therefore common pre-1990 US copyright rules cover those architectural elements. Foreign elements, like this Philippine stained glass, are unfree courtesy of URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see you are extrapolating this bizarre theory from an offhand comment by Clindberg which does not have any supportive evidence behind it. I am well aware that it is not a US work, but we are following US law on English Wikipedia. You bring up URAA, but URAA does not restore copyright on this building (as buildings were not copyrightable in the US in 1954) and this window is an integral part of said building. Of course AWCPA is not retroactive. AWCPA is what gives post 1990 buildings their copyright protection. If AWCPA was retroactive, US buildings prior to 1990 would have copyright. The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion. Thanks for the nomination, I've never seen this beautiful artwork and appreciate the chance. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Re-license as non-free by default, especially if "no consensus" at the end – Without clearer and consistent interpretation, hard to tell whether the depicted subject is free to use at this time, despite the photo's copyright status (as the photo itself, not the building or stained window). The "Keep" votes probably assumed this is a deletion discussion somehow... right? George Ho (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. holds here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- The nominator said this:
Even if there's hesitancy to enforce URAA, being a non-US work plays a factor here. However, the stained windows have been still part of the building made before 1990. Perhaps an international law also plays factor in this. Oh... Realized just now that it's part of a Philippine church. In the Philippines, buildings may lack freedom of panorama (c:COM:FOP Philippines).do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed).
- Unsure why you're citing the case, which the nom said:
George Ho (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.
- @George Ho I base this on the non-applicability of the Leicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again, Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which is not applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of @Clindberg:'s reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate the non-applicability of Leicester for pre-1990 elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred before Leicester v. Warner Bros. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice:
Do not use this template on copyrighted public artworks (like statues, sculptures, and murals)!
If you're gonna treat the stained glass windows like merely part of the building/ architecture, then I can't stop you. Nonetheless, hard to take the view into consideration when the windows have exquisite artwork with enough originality to garner some protection (as an artwork), especially in the Philippines. - Also, being tagged as "FOP-USonly" shouldn't prevent the file from being (re)licensed as non-free, should it, even when the photographer released the photo into the "public domain"? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what {{FoP-USonly}} and Leicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free because it is free under US law in its current 2D form. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resemble WP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.) George Ho (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mention WP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent to Leicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out with evidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright.
I worry that [what I perceive to be] JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images (particularly from the Phillipines) may sometimes cross over into ownership tendencies and produce a tendency to latch onto any novel argument that would seemingly justify further opportunities to delete architectural images.The problem is that the argument here does not actually pass legal muster. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to the lex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I felt that I framed the statement as being my interpretation of your behavior and my own personal opinions and worries. Maybe the first part of the statement was framed as being overly a statement of fact as opposed to just representing my opinion. I apologize for not framing it more as a statement of my opinion. To correct that, I have clarified the statement above with brackets. Given George Ho's query about I why I don't believe the opinion of multiple editors (after making clear that I did not disregard it out of hand), I did feel that the scope and history of your nominations of files I have uploaded was important to address, but in retrospect the statements you highlight are probably off-topic enough to not be helpful here. I have struck it. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to the lex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mention WP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent to Leicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out with evidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright.
- Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resemble WP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.) George Ho (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what {{FoP-USonly}} and Leicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free because it is free under US law in its current 2D form. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice:
- George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred before Leicester v. Warner Bros. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @George Ho I base this on the non-applicability of the Leicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again, Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which is not applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of @Clindberg:'s reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate the non-applicability of Leicester for pre-1990 elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- The nominator said this:
- You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. holds here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just as a background, from the Leicester case text: [The district court] declined to construe the 1990 amendments as Leicester urged, to leave intact the previously authorized protection for sculptural works that were "conceptually separable" from the building of which they are a part, concluding instead that the intent of Congress was to substitute the new protection afforded architectural works for the previous protection sometimes provided under the conceptual separability test for nonutilitarian sculptures (such as gargoyles and stained glass windows) incorporated into a work of architecture. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Warner Bros. Leicester has timely appealed. Before 1990, architectural works were not given any protection at all. To allow some protection of artistic works attached to buildings, it was generally recognized that "conceptually separable" works did get protection. The 1990 law giving protection to architectural works changed that; Leicester was arguing that the older protections should still exist in addition to the new architectural work protection, but the courts decided that was not the case. However, since pre-1990 buildings are still not protected at all, so that "conceptually separable" logic should still hold for older buildings. That is a bit fuzzier for foreign buildings though -- the window would have been PD immediately due to publication without notice. The URAA could have restored that, but did it restore the architectural work too? The wording of U.S. law however does not seem to apply the architectural copyright to pre-1990 buildings anywhere, but rather gives restored works the protection they would have had in the U.S. had they not fallen into the public domain. For a "conceptually separable" stained glass window (the court even named that specifically as an example of conceptually separable) on a pre-1990 construction, it seems like it would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. The text of the court case has a lot of discussion, referencing the House Report on the 1990 law which recognized the previously-available conceptually separable protection -- with somewhat ambiguous discussion there, which the court had to decide. Not sure I can find a copy of that online. Note that there was another case where a mural was added to a building later on; that was not considered as part of the architectural work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protection replaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? The original law (section 706) towards the end, says: The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- The legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection was replaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states: Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states: If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. The House Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned: A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses are de minimis or incidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildings while still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted in Leicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found in Leicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for architectural PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was for all architectural PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are still architectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you think might be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there is zero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Congress did not want the new architectural protection to inhibit existing practices of photographing buildings, from when buildings had no protection at all. "Conceptually separable" works were fully blessed by Congress to have protection. They made no pronouncements on freedom of panorama in general; they were more concerned about the new types of works gaining protection. The AWCPA was ambiguous on whether conceptually separable works still get the older PGS protections, or the new ones. Leicester pretty much answered that, in that separable works which are "part of" the architectural works got the architectural protection, and the 17 USC 120(a) limitations that went with them. That cannot have possibly affected anything earlier, as 17 USC 120(a) explicitly can only apply to architecture completed since 1990. Congress did nothing to change the status of existing works. I'm not making this up only by reading the law -- this has been stated by others, though having trouble finding the references at the moment. But it makes sense given that the 17 USC 120(a) is the only section of law limiting photographs of works, and that cannot bee applied to earlier works. Secondly, some other court cases have limited the scope of Leicester a little bit, in that simply being attached to a building does not make it "part of" it. One example isFalkner V. General Motors LLC, which was about a mural painting on an already-completed parking garage. They ruled the mural was not "part of" the architectural work, and is protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The parties settled after that ruling. So "part of" does mean integrated in some way, particularly at the time of construction. Before 1990, architecture was not protected at all, so photographing them was fine, mostly. You could photograph separable works if you were photographing the whole building, but photos which focused on those separable works were still a problem. Congress was mostly trying to keep that status quo, and presumably has no issue with the Leicester ruling. But they only altered the protection where other works are "part of" the architectural work -- not for works like the above mural, which are not "part of" the architectural work, and not for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an "architectural work" to be "part of" in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- How strange that you can't find these statements by others supposedly supporting your argument. I think that the last statement in your reply perfectly sums up the absurdity of this line of reasoning: "for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an 'architectural work'". In US law these objects were not copyrightable, but they are and were a meaningful class of work and the main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. would certainly apply to pre-1990 architecturally-integral PGS works per the common sense interpretation of congressional intent and court findings I outline above. I will finally add that the Falkner V. General Motors LLC citation has zero relevance here. That case is about a mural. No one is arguing that murals are architecturally integral works. Stained glass windows are. The consensus and longstanding practice on Commons is that murals are deleted and architecturally integral elements are kept where US law applies. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Congress did not want the new architectural protection to inhibit existing practices of photographing buildings, from when buildings had no protection at all. "Conceptually separable" works were fully blessed by Congress to have protection. They made no pronouncements on freedom of panorama in general; they were more concerned about the new types of works gaining protection. The AWCPA was ambiguous on whether conceptually separable works still get the older PGS protections, or the new ones. Leicester pretty much answered that, in that separable works which are "part of" the architectural works got the architectural protection, and the 17 USC 120(a) limitations that went with them. That cannot have possibly affected anything earlier, as 17 USC 120(a) explicitly can only apply to architecture completed since 1990. Congress did nothing to change the status of existing works. I'm not making this up only by reading the law -- this has been stated by others, though having trouble finding the references at the moment. But it makes sense given that the 17 USC 120(a) is the only section of law limiting photographs of works, and that cannot bee applied to earlier works. Secondly, some other court cases have limited the scope of Leicester a little bit, in that simply being attached to a building does not make it "part of" it. One example isFalkner V. General Motors LLC, which was about a mural painting on an already-completed parking garage. They ruled the mural was not "part of" the architectural work, and is protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The parties settled after that ruling. So "part of" does mean integrated in some way, particularly at the time of construction. Before 1990, architecture was not protected at all, so photographing them was fine, mostly. You could photograph separable works if you were photographing the whole building, but photos which focused on those separable works were still a problem. Congress was mostly trying to keep that status quo, and presumably has no issue with the Leicester ruling. But they only altered the protection where other works are "part of" the architectural work -- not for works like the above mural, which are not "part of" the architectural work, and not for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an "architectural work" to be "part of" in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildings while still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted in Leicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found in Leicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for architectural PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was for all architectural PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are still architectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you think might be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there is zero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- The legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection was replaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states: Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states: If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. The House Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned: A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses are de minimis or incidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protection replaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? The original law (section 706) towards the end, says: The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg
- File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zscout370 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
There is a free-alternative version by Sodacan for the coat of arms as they discussed about the Arms of Canada is currently under perpetual Canadian Crown copyright. Following both previous deletions (1 and 2) were kept as minimal use. Absolutiva 02:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Replace with free Commons version. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 3.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep – If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted. Honestly, coat of arms isn't my expertise, especially as an average reader. Nonetheless, I can't help wonder how well participated this discussion has been, contrary to the more crowded DRV. This makes me think that omitting this actual logo would devastate readers and deprive readers from learning which coat of arms is real or fake. Really wish those DRV participants re-participate in this discussion... George Ho (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- @George Ho: You heard about Cakelot1's response to the coat of arms below? Absolutiva 23:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: The article Coat of arms of Canada goes into great detail about official renditions of the arms, and it seems clear to me that a user-generated rendition would not serve the same purpose. Nothing has really changed since the last discussion. MediaKyle (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- (Summoned by a comment at WT:VEX) Delete not that I think it will matter much. Despite some confusion above this is not a logo but a Coat of Arms that is defined by a Blazon, with any Emblazonment that conforms to that written description being equally heraldicly correct (and not in fact fake?).
- I'm also not seeing any text at the Coat of arms of Canada that actually requires the presence of this NFCC, over the free content version (the only mention of the "official rendition" is in sentence like
The leaves were later redrawn in official depictions in 1957 with the current colour to be in line with the official colours of Canada
andwith mantling of white and red, stylized in the official version to look like maple leaves
both features in the sodacan emblazonment).
- Finally, If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted [sic] is not, as far as I can remember, an actual reason to retain NFC (please correct me if I'm wrong). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Cakelot1. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep @Absolutiva: Free alternative version was already there when last discussion took place. What changed from last time to start another discussion? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This file is not free. Same as Sodacan's version used in coat of arms of New Zealand (but the original remains copyrighted, but some are free in different licenses). Here's the current deletion discussion on Commons. Absolutiva 07:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- We know its not free, its written there. Its under fair use rationale. I didnt't get what changed there from your last response. NZ request is even more obscure and doesnt adress any issues solved previously at closed requests. ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This file is not free. Same as Sodacan's version used in coat of arms of New Zealand (but the original remains copyrighted, but some are free in different licenses). Here's the current deletion discussion on Commons. Absolutiva 07:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete the official version which is under Canadian crown copyright. Regarding the absence of the coat of arms on Canada article's infobox, if the Canadian state took Wikipedia to court, there would be "office actions" by the Wikimedia Foundation. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- 'Keep and delete File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg as a copyright violation there's simply no way it could look this close without referencing it to begin with..Moxy🍁 21:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've already tried getting the commons file deleted without success. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Correct just as this file has been nominated for deletion many times as well... it is concerning that Canadian and international copyrights are ignored on Commons. basics. It's clear to anyone with eyes that the so-called rendition is just a copy for here that's been enhanced and the official colors changed.Moxy🍁 18:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are you actually claiming that c:File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is a copy of ? The vector illustration on commons is quite clearly sodacan's own work, with an emblazonment style in line with his other work (C:User:Sodacan#Gallery) and notably different from the style the CHA has used for the illustration.
- I bring up the commons discussion because it demonstrates that quite a lot of people outside of the en.wiki-Canadian-pages-bubble (including commons admins) are not seeing this alleged copyvio that you keep claiming is obvious and
basic
. What I'm seeing is a continued insistence that a Canadian COM:NCR (which is what a law banning the use of any emblazonment of a coat of arms, even when it is an original depiction, created by a non-Canadian outside of Canada, would be) must be respected. This is also in line with COM:COA§Legal restrictions on usage. - And even if commons did delete it for that reason there's no reason it couldn't be uploaded locally to en.wiki where we only care about US copyright. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Correct just as this file has been nominated for deletion many times as well... it is concerning that Canadian and international copyrights are ignored on Commons. basics. It's clear to anyone with eyes that the so-called rendition is just a copy for here that's been enhanced and the official colors changed.Moxy🍁 18:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- You've already tried getting the commons file deleted without success. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
March 12
File:Leigh Bracket.jpg
- File:Leigh Bracket.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WBH (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leigh Brackett 1963.jpg Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Convert to non-free. JayCubby 21:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Free replacements at c:Category:Leigh Brackett Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: free alternatives available on Commons. ―Howard • 🌽33 02:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: clearly fair use per summary: Owned by WBH. Fair use applies.; free alternatives available per Howardcorn33 and Based5290. -- ozmoozmo@enwiki (u:uh:t:th:c:s) 07:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Recent nominations
March 13
March 14
File:Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh.png
- File:Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by UWMKEgypt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
She's alive, so no fair use for her. Yacàwotçã (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Does this change anything though? There are basically zero photographs available of her other than this one which was traced by the BBC. Keivan.fTalk 03:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. Unless a image is released for the public domain, this image will have to do. UWMKEgypt (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Keivan.f @UWMKEgypt I mean, the policy is clear: "free images may not be used in situations including the following: Pictures of people still alive [...] provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image"
- Iranian media can still come up with an image of her Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- You argued the same during the discussion to delete her article days ago, and it's still up. If someone does provide a public domain image of her, THEN this one can be deleted. Until then, we have to keep it. UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't think they took part in the AfD and the policies governing articles and files are different. But I guess my point still stands. There are still zero free or non-free pictures available of her other than this. Keivan.fTalk 21:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @UWMKEgypt please don't lie. I didn't vote on it. Yacàwotçã (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- You argued the same during the discussion to delete her article days ago, and it's still up. If someone does provide a public domain image of her, THEN this one can be deleted. Until then, we have to keep it. UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCCP#1 / WP:FREER. She is still alive and not in prison, so not valid use case. WidgetKid Converse 04:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: the Khamenei website regularly releases images under free licenses. It should not be considered impossible for a free image to be made eventually. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Spain women's NFT badge.png
- File:Spain women's NFT badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
This file maybe should be deleted or replaced. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Candidyeoman55: why? ―Howard • 🌽33 12:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is a copyrighted logo, and this has a vector version. So it should be deleted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
March 15
File:Fgw intercity map.svg.2010 10 31 16 01 45.0.svg
- File:Fgw intercity map.svg.2010 10 31 16 01 45.0.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tgtrains (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Transferred to commons. Sorry if I'm not supposed to then send the page to FfD. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 23:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
March 16
File:Anderson Elevator Fire Reading.jpg
- File:Anderson Elevator Fire Reading.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ray.lowry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The copyright statement for this image says it was first published prior to 1931 (1923, according to the uploader) — but the event in reference (according to the caption accompanying this image's only usage, and this source) occurred in 1936. I was unable to find an online source for this image, and the original uploader did not provide one; thus, the file may not be public domain by expiry as asserted on its page. Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Commons per publication in The Worthington Globe Oct 26, 1936 without notice. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Marvelous 3 logo.webp
- File:Marvelous 3 logo.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 2000chevymontecarlo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
A logo is not necessary enough for a band to pass NFCC. However, the metal effect and circle may not be enough to bring this above the threshold of originality in the United States, given the decision about the Cyberpunk 2077 logo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:USOP. There is now a better .svg file on Commons. WidgetKid Converse 04:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Henry Wells color portrait.jpg
- File:Henry Wells color portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CrypticBacon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Undated portrait; I could not ascertain who made it or when it was made; therefore its copyright status is unclear. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- The painting appears to be located in the Wells Fargo History Museum in Colorado (src), however it is not accompanied by a label which provides any info on its creation . ―Howard • 🌽33 20:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per current PD. Given Wells died in 1878, I think it very unlikely this painting was done after 1931. WidgetKid Converse 04:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- There is nothing indicating the painting was made during his lifetime, and it could very well be a modern portrait commissioned by the museum itself, eg. the museum of Louis Braille (died 1852) contains a painted portrait of him made by Lucienne Filippi (died 2023) which is still protected by copyright. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Howardcorn33, I confirmed with Wells Fargo historian - this was created during his lifetime, well before 1931. See File:Wells Portrait PD Confirmation.png. Once this discussion is closed, I can move it to Commons. WidgetKid Converse 14:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this email would need to go through the c:COM:VRT, but given that it is a question on copyright status rather than permission, I would personally be willing to accept it.
- Nevertheless, it should be moved to Commons rather than kept on enwiki as it is a work of American origin. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Howardcorn33, I confirmed with Wells Fargo historian - this was created during his lifetime, well before 1931. See File:Wells Portrait PD Confirmation.png. Once this discussion is closed, I can move it to Commons. WidgetKid Converse 14:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- There is nothing indicating the painting was made during his lifetime, and it could very well be a modern portrait commissioned by the museum itself, eg. the museum of Louis Braille (died 1852) contains a painted portrait of him made by Lucienne Filippi (died 2023) which is still protected by copyright. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
March 17
File:George Jefferson Hassell.png
- File:George Jefferson Hassell.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Redundant with Commons file Bremps... 04:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per CSD F8. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Stargate data centers.jpeg
- File:Stargate data centers.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ryan York (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This does not meet NFCC – the image itself is not discussed in the article, and a free equivalent could be created by anyone simply going to the place with a cheap drone. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Lucifer (Disney character).webp
- File:Lucifer (Disney character).webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IWannaBeSedated24 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails "not replaceable" criteria for non-free media. The image is being used as an example of a "feral anthropomorphic animal", which could be created by anyone. -- Reconrabbit 17:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely fails NFCC. I replaced the one in the article with a free one from Commons. WidgetKid Converse 05:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
File:MLP_clop_fanart_of_a_pony_version_of_Wikipedia.png
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Sexual image of a character who is a child. Check talk page of source article to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong venue: @Phlogiston Enthusiast, this file is hosted on Commons, and can't be deleted through this process. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- An admin told me to put this here. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Could you show a diff of that? Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- See User_talk:BD2412#Furry_'Cheese_Pizza'_image.. But it's now been handed over to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Could you show a diff of that? Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Opening of "Never Gonna Give You Up".mp3
- File:Opening of "Never Gonna Give You Up".mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per WP:SAMPLE, one of these has to go:
- File:Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up.ogg (uploaded earlier)
- File:Opening of "Never Gonna Give You Up".mp3 (uploaded newly)
WP:SAMPLE states There should be only one sample per song recording, [...]
and currently there are two. I am personally for deleting the file that was uploaded first because the opening of the song is more associated with Rickrolling (a page that will be using one of these), however if the more newly uploaded file “wins”, it should be deleted anyway so that it can be re-uploaded as an OGG file (also to comply with WP:SAMPLE).
I also know it's probably annoying, but once again, I will notify Vigilantcosmicpenguin (uploader of the newer file), dawnseeker2000 (uploader of the first file), ApexParagon (who replaced this file with the original file in the article Rickrolling), Skyshifter (who reverted the edits previously mentioned), thejiujiangdragon (who endorsed my deletion proposal of the newly uploaded file) and Trainsandotherthings. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 21:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete earlier upload, keep opening of the song as it is much more recognizable and meaningful in the context of the song itself and meme. Skyshiftertalk 21:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep version with opening. Delete other version. WidgetKid Converse 05:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete the earlier upload in favor of the more recent upload of the song's opening, by far the most recognizable portion of the song. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg
- File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raigeiki55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
A photo of the exact plane involved could be replaced by a similar-looking Seneca.
Philippines gov't works are not protected by copyright, so if there is a government photo of this plane, that could be used I suppose. JayCubby 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
March 18
File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg
- File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darkwarriorblake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Has rightly been replaced by File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg in the infobox. What is the significance of the 1982 re-release anyway? Per WP:FILMPOSTER we must use the original theatrical release poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Immediate closure of discussion: Image has been put back in place. No discussion was had over changing it while previous discussions have been had and it was kept. Posters are meant to be how it is commonly recognized. Existing image has been in place for years, including through FA, and OP should have opened a discussion on the talk page OR reviewed the previous discussions, instead of replacing it and then immediately opening this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose closure: No opinion on whether this should be deleted, but FFD is an acceptable venue for this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose closure as well. Though maybe not the best way to resolve it, it's here now. Let's have the discussion. WidgetKid Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Replace with original 1981 version (File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg, per WP:FILMPOSTER: "
Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article.
" FWIW, even Lucasfilms thinks it's the one fans recognize. WidgetKid Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC) - Comment: This was previously discussed here but I think it went nowehere. Linking it for reference. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Photograph cover.png
- File:Photograph cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tomica (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't think this meets the threshold of originality. It's just some rough black letters on a green, textured background. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 18:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
March 19
File:Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell.webp
- File:Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cornerstone1949 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFC#UUI, depicting two persons alive, one is deceased (Virginia Giuffre). Absolutiva 04:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: the relevant clause in WP:NFC#UUI says that non-free pictures of living people should not be used
provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement [...] would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image
. This is not the case here: the photo (which has been widely republished) is a key element of the scandal surrounding the former Prince Andrew and is central to the article that discusses it; no other image could serve that encyclopedic purpose. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC) - Keep, there is no possibility of taking a replacement photo as Giuffre is deceased. Even if she wasn't deceased, no other possible photo could serve to illustrate the same event. There is encyclopaedic discussion of photo itself at both Virginia Giuffre and Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. This clearly passes WP:NFCCP as there is clearly no free equivalent. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per everything above, esp. no reasonable alternative possible. WidgetKid Converse 14:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Footer
Today is March 19 2026. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 19 – (new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===March 19===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.