Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 April 16

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The lengthy discussion has not established a consensus that the image of a still-living person is somehow irreplaceable or that an exception should be made to policy; the presumption in policy is that a new image could be taken by appointment and published. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Viriditas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See WP:NFC#UULP. Just because a living subject is retired does not mean that taking a free photo of them is impossible. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This has already been addressed. Two previous "free" photos were offered on Commons. Both turned out to be non-free. Now the nom (Based5290) has recently uploaded an old newspaper image (which they claim is free) whose caption says the person depicted is Jerry Bird. However, the subject cannot be reasonably identified; they appear to be a blob of a man, possibly with a mustache. No discerning features are possible. Nominator's image is not an acceptable substitute for a non-free image in this example. As for the claim that a free photo of them is impossible, I spent exactly seven days searching for one and could not find a free photo that identifies the subject, including the one the nom uploaded, which I considered several weeks ago. The last time the subject was visibly a public person was ten years ago. Lastly, the subject is pictured in a video depicting an oral history interview about his role in skydiving. This is an image of Jerry Bird in an educational context and serves to represent the subject by showing the reader what they looked like. The replacement offered by the nom doesn't do this. Further, the owner of the image, the International Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame, says that fair use of their content is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd consider the bar set by WP:NFC#UULP to be comically high, basically only encompassing people who have gone missing, people serving life sentences in prison, and people who it would be illegal to photograph and then use here. A subject simply retiring is not enough to make a free equivalent impossible IMO. Regardless, I uploaded File:Jerry Bird 1974.jpg, which is even more of a free replacement than the one I previously uploaded. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Again, that image does not look like Jerry Bird either in the past or present. That image looks a cartoon character from The Simpsons. The reason that image does not work is because it is of such poor resolution and quality that it is missing half of the features embedded in the original. A better version of that same image would work. There remains no free equivalent at this time that reasonably represents the person in a way that anyone can easily agree upon. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Lean delete for both images. On the one hand, the policy cited seems to preclude the use of non-free images of living persons, if free images can be taken or obtained. It's possible to arrange a visit with the subject of an article in order to take a photograph, or perhaps to request the use of a personal photograph over which the subject has copyright, and can presumably release into the public domain for this purpose. It's not required that all articles about people include images of them, so if no satisfactory images can be located, it may be fine without one.

The policy indicates that for retired persons who were notable for their careers, photos taken when they were active are preferred. The disputed image here seems to have a skydiving-themed backdrop, though it looks like it might be post-retirement. The 1974 newspaper image might have been taken during his career, though it looks like it might be a yearbook photo that could predate his career. Contrary to the description here, it does not look like a cartoon character—it looks like a low-quality newspaper photo.

The quality is relevant to whether it's a good substitute for the photo under discussion; it's not a good substitute, may not be any more "timely" than a post-retirement photo, and would barely be adequate if no other images could be found. But it's also probably under copyright, despite the claim by the uploader that it was published without a copyright notice. It was published in the Wierton Daily Times, which presumably contained a copyright notice. So the uploader would need to determine whether that issue of the Weirton Daily Times is still under copyright, not whether there was a copyright notice visible with the photo in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm with visual comparison from other photos taken around the same in time in the Weirton Daily Times that the photo was taken reasonably close to 1974 (though his hair seems to be in better shape in this photo), when Bird was still active.

File:Jerry Bird 1974.jpg is hosted at Commons, so you would have to nominate it for deletion over there if the copyright status is in doubt. However, I double checked, and the only copyright notices in the entire issue are for a syndicated crossword and the comics. There is no copyright notice for the photo or the newspaper as a whole. This is to be expected; smaller newspapers frequently omitted copyright notices, as their business model did not rely on copyright to survive. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This comes down to a close reading of the applicable policies and guidelines. There is no question that the image file fails the requirements to be kept at Commons. However, the issue here is whether to keep it locally at the English Wikipedia, according to the policy at WP:NFCC. Looking at the copyright claims published by the copyright owner, , the claims taken as a whole do not fit with any standard copyright license, but Section 4 explicitly authorizes fair use. So the policy requirements at WP:NFCCP are met, with criteria 2, 3a, and 3b, specifically being satisfied. The argument given in the nomination here rests on criterion 1, and specifically the phrase "or could be created". The nomination cites the content guideline at WP:NFC#UULP where, although there is language stating that "may not be used in situations including...", it also indicates that this is a guideline that allows for a limited amount of flexibility, within the boundaries set by the NFCC policy. So the guideline that refers to "Pictures of people still alive" as where "taking a new free picture as a replacement" is "almost always considered possible" uses the words "almost always" instead of just "always". The subject of the photo is 83, and the copyright owner allows us to use the still image under fair use. The images that have been offered above, as potential free media alternatives, have been convincingly shown to lack the necessary encyclopedic content, and may not even be of the correct person, so they are not plausible free alternatives. Looking at the free-use rationale for including the image on the biography page, at the file page, that could stand being fixed up a bit, but I think that all criteria at NFCCP can reasonably be considered to have been met. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete F7 - Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 1 no one gave any reasons why anyone can't go take a photo of him. It also fails # 5, 8 as it is a terrible image and aint how he looked during his career

${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 21:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. It's literally the best image of him in the last 20 years. You should see the original image of him that they put on the recent biography that was published in 2025. The photo, brand new, was so bad they had to lower all of the levels and make it hazy and barely visible. This is because in the original photo, he was standing in front of an Instagrammable angel wing backdrop at the drop zone for the photo op and was covered in sweat that was leaking through his shirt. I literally captured the best image of Bird possible as a screenshot from the video, and I spent four hours trying to make him look good. You seem to think that getting old makes for a "terrible" image. I don't know what to say to that, but your words reveal a lot. It's not just ageism, you seem to believe aging is bad, even when it is depicted in a photo. I spent a week looking at every image of Bird available. I think he looks fantastic in this shot. Yeah, he's no longer 18, but hey, some of the people in this very discussion are young, and as we can see, youth is wasted on them. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I never said that, you putting words in my mouth, It is terrible because his eyes are nearly closed and his mouth is open, I can click at 5 random points in the video and get 5 better frames than yours. I don't know how it is even possible to spend 4 hours editing this, it's not like the video is in terrible quality, the image even looks less sharp despite the claim of sharpening, in the video it looks like he has a nice tan, with the brightness changes he just looks sunburnt. ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you cannot click at five random points in the video and get five better frames than mine, and no, you're the one putting words in other people's mouths, not me. I never said I spent four hours editing it, I said I spent four hours trying to make him look good, which means four hours looking for this image out of the set of all possible images. You also appear to be very confused about human physiology, as that involves the narrowing of eyes in some people depending on their muscles. You also seem to be completely unfamiliar with the open-mouth smile. I am curious how you can participate in an image discussion about aesthetics of photography poses when you don't appear to be aware of the variance involving the most basic human anatomy or types of smiles. This is very unusual to me. Do you think all people smile in the same way with their eyes and their mouths? Would it surprise you to discover that they are all different? Again, age plays a role in the musculature of smiling around the eyes and the mouth, and again, it sounds like you are implicitly criticizing the age of the subject while expecting them to smile like a younger person. In addition to your strange comments about smiling, your criticism of the colors is also off the mark. You are free to spend four hours perusing the color images of Bird, as this unusual coloring of his skin appears in all of them, which I compensated for in this case. Bird's skin tone problem is very common in light skin individuals. As I live in Hawaii, I am very much aware of it. Much ado about nothing it seems from your comments. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You said "and I spent four hours trying to make him look good" directly after "screenshot from the video" so I thought it referred to editing.

Am I supposed to know about all that to be able to say whether an image looks good or not? Anyway you making a set of wild assumptions about what I think, I would guess you also think that someone must be smiling and looking directly at the camera for a portrait to be good which is how you got just about the worst possible frame, 4:21, 4:22, 15:34 in the video are much better even though he not looking directly at the camera

Your comments about color just sounds like you think having darker skin is a problem. ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete living person, none of the mass of words above actually present a convincing case for making an exception to the normal rules against non-free images of living people. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 24 April 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.

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: relisted on 2026 May 30. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Guatemala National Football team badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Vinfast Minio-Green.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keane Verneth Calimlim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No indication of a commercial Creative Commons licensing at the source page. Simple statement at the bottom: "Copyright 2026 ©." No indication that it is "some rights reserved." If "all rights reserved," then this file is unfree. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 16 April 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Vinfast EC-Van.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keane Verneth Calimlim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No indication of a commercial Creative Commons licensing at the source page. Simple statement at the bottom: "Bản quyền thuộc về VinFast EV" (translated as "Copyright belongs to VinFast EV"). No indication that it is "some rights reserved." If "all rights reserved," then this file is unfree. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:45, 16 April 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.