Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 10

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 April 15. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif (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⚡ 00:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:SERVED Drinks Campaign 2024 (cropped).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paradisetoshutdown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Using non-free image is unnecessary to put in sections. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the image is to represent the product and campaign discussed in the section, properly avoid misrepresenting both of them. Paradisetoshutdown (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Even if an image of the campaign in question was needed (which I doubt), the current image does not actually have the false health claims discussed in the text, so it is not contextually relevant. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:29, 14 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.

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: retain the first image, as the second has been deleted separately. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

Delete the second one, and use the first. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Nope we should follow WP:NPOV you should had use talk page before your upload, i asked on your talk page for reasons but you just ignored. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone uploaded a third file and I undid his edit. Both images will be used in the article right now until the dispute is solved. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Not really a third photo. It's the same as one of the photos in question, but with the promotional background removed. The fair use rationale applies only to the face, not the promotional background. Off and running (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's do the third picture without the propaganda background and delete the first 2 pictures. And close this discussion. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If possible, I would recommend using both images:

• The first image is a true representation of the person showing his injured eye.
• The second image (either with or without the promotional background) may be AI generated or enhanced to remove the injured eye.

That's why I think both images add value, but I'm not sure if two fair use images are allowed on a single article. Off and running (talk) 16:19, 21 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 Still lacks proper sourcing information so we don't know the license. Wikipedia:Precautionary principle applies. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

https://monster-island.net/2006_03_01_archive.html

This suggests image has been in circulation since at least early 2006, I am still looking for the origin. Minermatt122514 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't figured it out yet, but I did find another mugshot I have never seen before on this document here. https://www.scribd.com/document/13949990/T5-B57-T-Eldrige-Primary-Docs-20th-Hijackers-2-of-4-Fdr-Muahammad-Qahtani-Withdrawal-of-Application-for-Admission-InS-DOJ Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, what I just found is not a mugshot. Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:42, 23 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.

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: remove from the articles other than Manchester City F.C. and Manchester City W.F.C. Stifle (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Beland (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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: no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg (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⚡ 00:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Glenn Seaborg seaborgium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Double sharp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Wrong license; see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chemist Glenn Seaborg (14678590682).jpg. Also, the image doesn't appear to be useful, considering it is unused at the moment, and transferring it to Commons doesn't sound like a great idea when the same image on Commons is currently nominated for deletion. That the Wikipedia version is 33% smaller doesn't not make it a copyright violation. Fair use is not claimed and seems difficult to justify, because free alternatives exist. Renerpho (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - the EXIF on the Commons file includes a copyright notice "©1996 - 2014 American Academy of Achievement. All Rights Reserved" which makes it very clear that Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not hold the copyright, and there is no evidence that the copyright holder released it under the CC license claimed. This image was originally uploaded as non-free content for use in the article "Seaborgium, but the stated purpose "To serve as the primary means of visual identification of a historical circumstance involving the naming of element 106" is not really compliant with WP:NFCC#8 so reverting back to non-free is not an option. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 13 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Remaster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kelvin 101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC1 violation in Remaster. Remaster of free content could obviously be shown instead. This particular film is not discussed in the article. No opinion on use in Hong Kong Legends. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - This fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable for its use in the article "Remaster". There are large number of movies in the public domain that have been remastered. With respect to its use in "[[:Hong Kong Legends]]", the non-free use rationale provided for it is the exact same wording for its use in the "Remaster" article, including the claim that its use is in article about remastering, but Hong Kong Legends is a movie distribution company. This fails WP:NFCC#10c, and is not correctable as there is nothing in the article to support the image's use, so fails WP:NFCC#8 as well. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 13 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.