XFD backlog V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total CfD 0 1 48 66 115 TfD 0 0 1 17 18 MfD 0 0 0 16 16 FfD 0 0 0 14 14 RfD 0 0 0 2 2 AfD 0 0 0 0 0 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 For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page: {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.) For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

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: How to list a file for discussion manually Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps: 1 Edit the file page. Add {{Ffd|log=2026 January 17}} to the file page. 2 Create its FfD subsection. Follow and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~ Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2026 January 17}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated. 3 Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}} Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2026 January 17}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion. State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include: Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2. Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1933, not 1927. Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3. Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}. Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here: Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright. Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin. NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements. Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page. Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise. 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.

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

• Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
• Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
• Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

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

File:Aalborg Kommunes logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aerrapc ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Too complex for PD-textlogo. Coat of arms is already in the article so this is not needed as a non-free file. Jonteemil (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo differs from the coat of arms, so both images are needed. If it's too complex for PD-textlogo, then it can qualify for fair use. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 23:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any other municipality in Denmark that has both its coat of arms and its logo in the infobox. Since a coat of arms already identifies the municipality, and often more so than its logo, I don't think the logo significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Hence delete per WP:NFC. Jonteemil (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both, as they're different enough to independently identify the subject.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  06:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But per WP:NFC do you really think its usage is justified? The use of non-free content should really be minimal and here we already have a free file which identifies the subject perfectly. Jonteemil (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not uncommon to have more than one logo/seal/coat of arms for an organization. They're different enough to me. On the flip side, who would having both hurt? The municipality?  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  21:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who it would hurt, if anyone, is irrelevant. And the fact that something has logo, a seal, a coat of arms and an emblem does not mean you can show them all in its article, even if they all four look nothing like each other and portray four different things. The copyright status matters. If they are free, then it's of course OK, but if they are copyrighted, then every file have to meet the US fair use criteria and the even stricter WP:NFCC to be included in the article. I don't think this logo meets WP:NFCCP#1 and also WP:NFCCP#8 since the logo just is a modernized version of the coat of arms with another color scheme. Jonteemil (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have a consensus that we can use 2-3 non-free images to identify cities/regions/educational institutions/sports teams and some others. — Ирука¹³ 08:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Tea Board of India logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VNC200 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader of this image states on the file description page that the image was taken from the company's official website. On the company's official website, this image was only available in .png format, never in .svg.

The image contains multiple distortions relative to the original image, which are more common when images are automatically converted to .svg. In this case, these are blurred tea leaves in the center, an uneven inner circle of predominantly white color when the original is , multiple watery-asphalt-like marks in the letters. All of this is clearly visible even on a 15-inch screen. Here is the image probably from the official website.

I believe that given the availability of an official, high-quality .png and its poor-quality reproduction in the "slightly better" .svg format, we should give preference to the former, as recommended by MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. — Ирука¹³ 08:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. due to inferior svg quality. The artifacts are terrible. Use the .png.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  20:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore previous version and then transfer to Commons – The logo is now out of copyright in India. The SVG version renders better but at higher resolution, which the previous deleted version used. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Go-To Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Timothy Chavis ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I brought this file here to determine whether this image has a "simple" design or should be deleted as WP:NFCC#8. — Ирука¹³ 08:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it's just text and simple shapes, I think it falls under simple logos. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Black Panther arcade.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sandman1142 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding;
Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); — Ирука¹³ 10:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fair use rationale is pretty clear. No way of replacing this with free content, and a textual description is not sufficient. Not sure how a screenshot of the object of discussion on the article is "primarily for decorative purposes".–DMartin (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NFCCP#3a (second image not warranted based on article content) and WP:NFCCP#1 (could easily be described in text). WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case then might it be better to delete the cover image, as this one accurately portrays the way the game looked.–DMartin (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For video game articles, per MOS:VGLAYOUT & Infobox video game's image parameter description: The ideal image is an English-language cover, so should keep the cover over the gameplay image. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Musica... fantasia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Driante70 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 10:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Image is used in the infobox of the article to identify the object of discussion. There is precedent for alternative covers to be kept under fair use.–DMartin (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I can see the second image being useful for identification since released with completely different title and cover. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The German version has a different tracklist, a different cover, a different title and an unreleased song. As with all Rondò Veneziano albums, there is an international version and a German or French version with unreleased songs.Driante70 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Korea Skating Union logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bgsu98 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is not a South Korean Figure Skating Championships logo and cannot be used in this article according to WP:NFCC#8. — Ирука¹³ 13:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing wrong with the use of this logo. Pinging User:Minorax. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from South Korean Figure Skating Championships, as it is not the logo of the championships, but rather Korea Skating Union. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Bobby Orr in mid-air (1970).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cole435 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fair use image used in 4 places, of which 3 are blatantly incorrect. Bobby Orr and Noel Picard article uses don't have a proper fair use rationale template and also violate WP:NFCC#8- do not significantly enhance the articles- and WP:NFCC#1- as free images of both of them exist and in better quality. Use in History of the National Hockey League fails WP:NFCC#8, as one article of one event doesn't significantly improve an article on the entire history of the NHL. Use in 1970 Stanley Cup Final is probably okay unless other free images from that event are found (could not see any at the moment, if found, this would probably fail WP:NFCC#1). Therefore I am seeking removal from the first 3 articles and discussion/consensus on whether to keep on 4th article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing these uses made me wonder if an article about the photograph itself ("The Flight") is warranted. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete from History of NHL, Orr, and Picard articles, as other free images are available.
• Keep on 1970 Final article if nothing else free available.

• Remove from 3 articles per nom arguments. — Ирука¹³ 13:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Unconditional-surrender-statue-metoo-graffiti-sarasota-police-department 83d40m detail.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo of three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, photographer's license is free, the object's license not. In the absence of a appropriate WP:NFUR, this file must be deleted after 7 days as WP:F4. — Ирука¹³ 11:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, blur the object in question, and move. Complete deletion is not feasible. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since Unconditional Surrender (sculpture) is public domain under c:COM:FOP US, the copyright status may be irrelevant. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from Sarasota Police Department, Florida has the Sunshine Law: (which is tagged: PD-FLGov) – The Grid (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure if the object needs a license, as it's a copy of another work. There are photos of the original sculpture on Commons that don't appear to need an object license, so I'm assuming it's not/is no longer under copyright. The photo appears to be from the Sarasota police, in which case the current license may be sufficient.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A derivative work of a copyrighted work is also copyrighted. Please provide the license status of the original work.

Commons is a wiki project, contributed by other participants: just because a file is on Commons today doesn't mean it will be there tomorrow. Please provide the DR of this statue with the "keep" result. — Ирука¹³ 08:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — police photographs are published as public record (copyright-free as noted in the file history comments); bet the police would love for you to identify the graffiti criminal to whom you wish to grant a copyright. A little attention to details could have saved time for several of us from having to engage in the debate — a good lesson for the challenging editor to absorb for future efforts and reminder for good faith. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, the graffiti was easily removed and the statue has been in a different place. Good faith isn't even the focus of this discussion. A good lesson is pushing away from your own comfort zone and being able to adapt through the years as an editor. – The Grid (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Meissen83d40crop.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m ( | 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). Unless the copyright status of each incorporated work is provided, the file must be deleted after Tuesday, 13 January 2026. — Ирука¹³ 12:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Don't jump into conclusions yet. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Snow clause? The image is not used on Wikimedia and the uploader has refused for years to move their content to Commons. – The Grid (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMMONS. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you tell them that especially when their name shouldn't be in the file name. It's ridiculous. – The Grid (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is actually banned from commons for harassment and wikilawyering. Their only activity on enwiki seems to be direly tagging of files and nominating for deletion for frequently spurious reasons. I don't know at what point that become disruptive, but it may be time to take this to ANI.–DMartin (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that explains everything. I didn't bother to check their status on Commons. – The Grid (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons, as the photography isn't noteworthy and object isn't likely copyrighted.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  18:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Or Delete if author doesn't want to move it to Commons.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — not a derivative, image taken directly of an antique object in a private collection as stated in the file history comments during upload. The accusation is unfounded. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't consider a photograph of a three-dimensional object a derivative work, then what do you consider one? — Ирука¹³ 08:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Tanora bottle by Stifle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stifle ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:PACKAGE FUR should be restored. — Ирука¹³ 10:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the decision at s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., the bottle is not deemed to be copyrightable in the US. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a link to a section of the rules with a dozen sentences outlining my position. Please copy and paste from the text you provided the sentences that support why bottle labels automatically enter the public domain in the US. — Ирука¹³ 06:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the design pattern is "so insignificant as to be incidental" and that the textual element would be a textlogo. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Widgetkid: If you're saying copyright applies then the image should be changed (back) to fair use, per nom, rather than deleted. Would appreciate if you could update your !vote accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or restore fair use rationale?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with a proper logo. The focus is the logo, and we don't like to host derivative works of logos if we can avoid it. JayCubby 20:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace, per JayCubby. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Château Meyney 1990.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geographer ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I brought this image here to determine whether we can license the label through {{De minimis}}+{{PD-simple}} or whether we should delete it under c:COM:PACKAGING. — Ирука¹³ 08:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under c:COM:PACKAGING. The name of the vineyard is just trademarked, but the logo is covered by copyright. Since the photo solely of the wine bottle, I don't think {{De minimis}} applies.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  14:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and migrate. Looking at File:EuroBasket 2017 - Fan Zone 5.jpg, which is the source of the File:New Miniminis.jpg, it seems like the size threshold is higher than that of the vineyard logo. The focus is on the bottle as a whole, rather than the one copyrighted design element, so I don't think there is an issue.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:The post-merger pledge pin of Phi Mu Gamma professional sorority.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jax MN ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo of three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, the design of the object is in the public domain and foto is non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one (example). — Ирука¹³ 11:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:GenesisKS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WebmasterBeth ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded just because the second cover includes different novel name to help with identification. The alternative title is already verified with a source, so I'm unconvinced why omitting this extraneous cover would impact readers' understanding of an entry of the Will Trent novel series (adapted into a TV series) (WP:NFCC#8). George Ho (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because people recognize & identify things via pictures, and there are two differently titled books in this article.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  04:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Textbook violation of WP:FREER. We don't need a non-free file to show that a novel was released under an alternate title in a different country. Seriously? ✗plicit 14:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[]

File:Iwan Salomon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Drkup(IMJ) ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If this photograph was published in 1931, then {{PD-old-100}} can not apply. Plus, the year of publication would mean this is still copyrighted in the United States due to c:COM:URAA. If no freely licensed image of this individual exists, it can be converted to fair use. ✗plicit 13:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but relicense as {{Non-free biog pic}} with {{Non-free use rationale biog}} added as the non-free use rationale for the file's use in Iwan (Yitzhak) Salomon. Without knowing more about the image's provenance (the source provided for the file isn't much help there), it's pretty much near impossible to assess whether this has entered in to public domain. The file's description states the image is from 1931, but the source seems to imply 1939. Neither date is old enough for {{PD-old-100}}; so, much more information is needed to assess this per c:COM:Netherlands#Standard terms. Even if treated as an anonymous work, Dutch copyright law still grants copyright protection for 70 years from January 1 of the calendar year following the year of creation; this means the photo, regardless of whether created/published in 1931 or 1939, would've still be under copyright protection on The Netherlands' URAA date (January 1, 1996) and thus it would've had its copyright restored under US copyright law. It seems the best that can be done here (without more info) is to relicense this as non-free, perhaps making note that it will enter into the public domain under US copyright law on either January 1, 2027, or January 1, 2035, depending on the date of first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

File:Flag of Kitchener, Ontario.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

The coat of arms on the flag is public domain, and the rest of the flag is below the threshold of originality. Canada's threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. With that said move this file to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons per nom. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons per nom. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 16:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Markham Ontario logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

this is below the threshold of originality. Canada's threshold of originality is very similar to that of the United States. Therefore this logo should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons per nom. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jess Glynne - If I Can't Have You.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Cover art of subsequent recording (of previously recorded hit song) unneeded. Version not that successful, and its impact on the song itself has been not yet proven at this point. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since not enough coverage to warrant additional non-free image. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no rationale for NFCC #1, #2, and #3. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No full non-free use rationale. Honestly, I believe speedy deletion isn't completely out of the picture. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 16:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nedelin catastrophe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Inkwell765 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to the article, this image was taken by an automatic camera. Such works are considered public domain in Russia (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#Threshold of originality). We could probably relicense this image if we can verify that it was indeed taken with an automatic rather than an automated camera. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camp Lunden (Michigan) historic marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Notorious4life ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. There is no evidence to suggest that the text, which is dated 1994, is freely licensed. As c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs states, "detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs [...] are almost always copyright-protected". ✗plicit 00:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabriele Ferzetti.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An editor mistakenly equates a film still with "simple photographs". Cinematographic works are entering the public domain in Italy 70 years after the death of their last creator. — Ирука¹³ 16:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close Frames of films created in Italy before 2004 are considered public domain after 20 years. This has been in the public domain since 1981. It is also public domain in the united states as it was first published outside the US, was published before 1978, and it in the public domain in its home country.–DMartin (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@dmartin969: Please provide the source of your information, as well as any quotes from it that you believe are relevant to this situation. — Ирука¹³ 10:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says it in the copyright template.–DMartin (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Tom gymnast.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sahaib ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I found no information that this photo "was published in the United States between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." — Ирука¹³ 15:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: here is the archive url. Sahaib (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per archive source - indicates active career fell in the period, and was published on USA Gymnastics site with no copyright.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  17:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what year photo was published on the USA Gymnastics site. — Ирука¹³ 09:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archived version of the page is from 2021, but clearly the picture was taken in the 50's.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  08:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't transfer to Commons but rather re-license as non-free – The archived link doesn't indicate when the photo was first published and which source published the photo first. The editor who voted "keep" may have incorrectly assumed that lacking a copyright notice always automatically means no copyright (anymore?). Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Unless a better source proves it to be out of copyright, this image should be, by default, non-free. George Ho (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with relicensing to non-free, but still keeping. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:White album front2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photographs were included on the fold of the original 1968 double album in both the UK and the US (see both original UK release and original US release on Discogs). The 1968 US release did not contain a copyright notice and was published within 30 days of publication in the UK, so the photographs are in the public domain per {{PD-US-no notice}} and ‹The template Template link interwiki is being considered for merging.› {{Simultaneous US publication}}. Thus, this album cover should be transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC) (edited 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gangnam Style Official Cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MageLam ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Gentleman cover artjpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These YG Entertainment single covers were published before October 25, 2013. Ergo, Ticket:2013102510001373 should apply; and, they should be relicensed as CC BY 2.0 and transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Please refer to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg and Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket:2013102510001373. There is no consensus yet on accepting this VRT ticket. -Namoroka (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding was that there was no consensus for covers released after October 25, 2013; while, those released on or before that date are definitely covered by the ticket. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow submarine songtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rockfang ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This album cover consists of the submarine from the PD cover of the 1969 album Yellow Submarine, simple text, and a blue gradient. It is likely too simple to attract copyright protection and should thus be transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese speaking clock.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trains2021 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I haven't worked with audio files enough to say how exactly this fragment isn't free. However, I've worked with Wiktionary enough to know that we can't simply grab a random audio file "from the internet" and illustrate the pronunciation of even a single word, let alone an entire phrase. — Ирука¹³ 13:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copyrightable audio file, as explained. This is similar to an IVR menu which is not copyrightable. This is not from the internet either.

It is a factual statement, with absolutely no expression and without 'creative input' (i.e. sound effects or background music). Thus this file is not eligible for copyright considering threshold of originality and there is no human creative input - the voice is robotic, monotone and there is nothing else.

The origin of the file is irrelevant, it does not change the analysis. Trains2021 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the nominator states they do not understand policy on this, so it is unclear why it was nominated for deletion. Trains2021 states that the file is not copyrightable, nor was it simply "grabbed" from the internet as assumed in the nom. It is a recording of words spoken by a robotic voice – there is no violation here. The file should be kept and is useful to readers, especially those with visual disabilities, it provides an educational purpose in keeping with the purpose of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered how it works:
This sound record has two licenses: text license and performance license. In this case, text part is simple and ineligible for copyright protection, while execution part is copyrighted. — Ирука¹³ 09:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both do not meet threshold of originality. Doesn't matter how many times you want to split it up, both the text and the performance (should not really even be called a 'performance' - no expressive output!) GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 01:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close No valid reason for deletion. Nominator has a history of making vexatious/spurious deltion noms.–DMartin (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion was closed at 03:11 this morning by Gommeh, a non-administrator. Because the discussion period of 1 week was not completed, there was no compelling reason for an early closure, and there are suggestions the closure was WP:INVOLVED, I, an uninvolved administrator, pursuant to the procedure noted at WP:DPR#NAC, am reopening the discussion for the remainder of the normal listing period. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:All I Want for Christmas Is You - LeAnn Rimes.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tbhotch ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 14:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to expand the article instead. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 16:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep This is very clearly fair use as it's the album artwork of a cover of the song by a famous artist. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – By keeping the cover art, this version by "a famous artist" is implicitly inheriting this "famous artist" 's notability. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Also, a cover art associated with the original version should already suffice, and critical commentary (about the Rimes version) is inadequate to justify using the cover art continually. If this cover art is deleted, intentionally, I'll merge both the Clarkson and Rimes versions as "Other versions". George Ho (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This cover version lacks significant independent coverage to warrant second non-free image. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steve Hurd TwitterShitter.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ache Erie ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

• Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука¹³ 14:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and the artwork isn't mentioned in the article. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article has plenty of other examples of the artist's work, and this one is isn't referred to in the article.–DMartin (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sixpencentr selftitled 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by QuestFour ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 14:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is an official (albeit alternative) artwork for the album. I doubt it is being used purely for decorative purposes. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because alternative album cover doesn't have any independent coverage nor significant discussion in article. It is indeed there for decoration, not identification. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Street Fighter II screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonny2x4 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not covered by text based on information from reliable sources and should be deleted for non-compliance with paragraph 8 of WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 15:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is an example of how the game is played and is used where the gameplay and other features are discussed in the article. Specifically, the text says Super Street Fighter II features a new scoring system tracking combos as an example of one of the new features added to the game, and the screenshot shows what the combo tracking feature looks like. This is even mentioned in the caption too: A new scoring system was implemented that keeps track of the number of hits a player performs during a combo. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The new scoring system is explained just fine with text, so doesn't warrant a second non-free image. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gommeh ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The race depicted in the image is described in a few sentences. The image itself is described in literally four words: furry anthropomorphic humanoid creatures. I believe this is insufficient to satisfy point 8 of WP:NFCC. Media files should not and cannot replace the text part of an article. — Ирука¹³ 17:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally an entire paragraph dedicated to these creatures in the article.

Genshin Impact also introduced creatures called Melusines to Fontaine, furry anthropomorphic humanoid creatures who generally help play the roles of police and security guards around the Court of Fontaine. Melusines are seen to get along quite well with humans in Fontaine, although this was not always the case as they had been discriminated against for a time before the game's events. They share the same name as the mythic water sprite on whom they are based. Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:All I Want for Christmas Is You.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 18:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep per my comment at #File:All I Want for Christmas Is You - LeAnn Rimes.png. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The filename omitting the singer's name is one thing, but assuming it refers to the Mariah Carey song is... I dunno. Anyways, by keeping this cover, the Kelly Clarkson version implicitly inherits the singer's (and the original version's?) notabilities. Unfortunately, I find the critical commentary (about the Clarkson version) insufficient to justify using the cover art continually. If deleted, sections about the Clarkson and Rimes versions, neither notable enough to have standalone sections or articles, should be merged as the "Other versions" section. George Ho (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This cover version lacks significant independent coverage to warrant second non-free image. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luigi Mangione social media photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IvanScrooge98 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See Commons:Category:Luigi Mangione, showing several free replacements. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As replaceable non-free media. Shame that all of the free options are significantly worse, but that's the way it is.–DMartin (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  He took the photo himself, maybe I'll write him a letter in jail to see if he can do a VRTS. Lol.–DMartin (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You could try contacting his legal team at https://www.luigimangioneinfo.com/ and see if they're willing to provide Wikipedia with a photograph of him. They might have better and more important things to do than send strangers copyright-free images of their client, but it's worth a try. Some1 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve tried to do it myself now, let’s hope they reply. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, see Talk:Luigi Mangione#Current photograph is bad. The remaining supposedly free image was removed from the page by another editor, and its deletion as well as that of all related images are currently being discussed on Commons. There are no other free pics available and none can be taken until he is released. So sorry but no, there aren’t “several free replacements” as you claim. Let’s at least wait until the Commons discussions are closed. Keep. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd only advocate the removal of photos which are under deletion discussion at Commons here on the Wikipedia article if it really is an unambiguous copyvio. In this case, Howardcorn33 has provided evidence that the files on Commons are freely licensed which casts doubt on the deletion, but I won't litigate it further here. If the files are kept, then they are of just barely enough quality that I think a random person, if shown another image of Mangione, would be able to recognize him based on the freely licensed image(s) alone. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How is this even a question? WP:NFCC is very clear. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the perp walk files on Commons ends up getting deleted then this can always be uploaded again. There is no benefit in keeping this file just in case. --Trade (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs). The rationale for deletion rests on the claim that there are "several free replacements," but that doesn't appear to reflect the current situation. The only purported free image has already been removed from the article, and the remaining files are under active deletion discussion at Commons, meaning their licensing status is unresolved. In the absence of a clearly available, unquestionably free replacement, preemptive removal here is premature. Wikipedia generally defers to Commons outcomes rather than anticipating them, particularly on biographies of living persons where stability matters. Until the Commons discussions are closed and an unambiguous copyvio determination is made, the existing image should be retained. — Hunter Kahn 14:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hunter Kahn Are you ignoring the part of WP:NFCC that says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created..."? Even if there were no freely licensed images, it would not mean that this image could be used. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is he is under arrest and his only public appearances are in court, where one would assume the only photographers who are allowed are from press agencies. Or at least that’s what it has been for a whole year now. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @IvanScrooge98 The policy doesn't say "if it's convenient and easy" just that it "could be created". That pretty much means as long as he is alive. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn’t say it’s hardly convenient or easy. I said it’s pretty much impossible as long as the current situation doesn’t change. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @IvanScrooge98 I'm just reminding you (and @Hunter Kahn) what the policy says. If a freely licensed image could be created, we can't use a copyrighted image. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And as of now it cannot. This is the whole point. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Someone could certainly break into MDC and create a free use image of Luigi. But I really don't think that should really qualify as 'an image could be created'. If someone is in prison, sequestered and unavailable to the public, I don't really think it reasonable or of any practical utility to claim that a free image could be produced. –Jdmvaawesome (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A clear violation of WP:NFCC. Even if we accept getting a new image of Mangione right now, in prison, is impossible rather than merely difficult, there's no such impossibility to obtaining a free use image from before he was in prison. Just because nobody has found a free equivalent yet doesn't mean that one can't be found. He was 26 when he was arrested and didn't spend the previous decade as a hermit living in a secluded forest. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:BettyBuckleyTenderMercies.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sure, the song "Over You" was Oscar-nominated. Betty Buckley's version, featured in the film, can be heard in the sample, but I'm concerned about critical commentary being sufficient to justify use of this sample. Also, the sample itself makes me wonder whether it helps reader fully contextualize the whole film... or one of the film's themes or whatever (WP:NFCC#8). After all, the topic is the film itself, not the Oscar-nominated song featured in the film. Furthermore, there's already another music sample (of another song) (WP:NFCC#3a). Is one sample insufficient to help readers contextualize (the music... or soundtrack of) the film? George Ho (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was the primary contributor who brought this article to FA status. The use of these clips was reviewed and approved by consensus during the FAC, where NFCC compliance is scrutinized more closely than at most other instances. (In fact, I don't believe the clips were on the page when I started the FAC, and in fact were added during that review in response to editor suggestions). While I know consensus can change, I would suggest removing long-standing, previously approved content requires a clear policy violation, not merely a different editorial judgment. In response to the policy arguments, the nominator cites WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), but I respectfully interpretation is narrower than policy requires. WP:NFCC#8 does not require the clip to contextualize the entire topic, but rather must represent a notable aspect of the topic, which significantly increases the readers' understanding of that topic. The topic here is the film Tender Mercies, and "Over You" as performed by Betty Buckley is not incidental to that topic. It is an Oscar-nominated song written for the film, not an existing song simply dropped into the movie. Buckley's performance is diegetic and central to the film’s emotional and thematic core (faith, grief, artistic expression, restraint). The clip illustrates the film's restrained and naturalistic approach to music, the way songs function narratively (not merely as soundtrack), and the performance style that critics singled out when discussing the film. I believe all this falls within what WP:NFCC#8 allows, illustrating a notable aspect of the film that cannot be conveyed adequately through text alone. With regard to WP:NFCC#3a, the policy requires "minimal use," not a specific restriction of "one per article," so the presence of another music sample doesn't automatically violate that policy. Each sample illustrates a different musical function in the film. The Duvall clip illustrates music as a form of internal self-expression and redemption for the protagonist, while the Buckley clip illustrates music as an external emotional and spiritual anchor, embodied through her voice (a key casting and thematic element of the film). Each clip demonstrates a distinct musical function within Tender Mercies, and together they significantly increase readers' understanding of how music operates narratively and thematically in the film. Removing either would materially reduce that understanding. (Apologies for the lengthy response. LOL) — Hunter Kahn 14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hunter Kahn, can you direct us to the FAC discussion regarding this clip? FWIW, I think the use of the Duvall clip is excellent. The Buckley one is a harder sell for WP:NFCC#8. Thanks! WidgetKid ^{chat me} 15:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Via Talk:Tender Mercies, found this FAC discussion where the nominator/uploader mentioned just uploading this Betty Buckley audio clip, and no further discussion about it there. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @George Ho. I was looking at some other films with multiple actors singing, like A Star Is Born (2018 film). That one only has one sample, and is supported by discussion of Cooper's voice. I think the same is true for the Duvall sample here, but not the Buckley one. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 20:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: That was a YouTube interview audio clip held by Commons. I still don't see an audio clip at A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack). (FWIW, you can read Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) and other singles for clips.) George Ho (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Information about facts only: who sang, who wrote, award, who re-sang; information describing the musical composition — how it sounds, etc. — is completely absent. It's not even WP:NFCC#8, it's NFCC#1, since it's fully replaceable by text. Furthermore, the audio fragment exceeds the permitted length. — Ирука¹³ 08:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not even WP:NFCC#8, it's NFCC#1: You mean the file is neither contextually significant (WP:NFC#CS) nor irreplaceable (WP:FREER), right? By the way, after all what Hunter Kahn said, you still agree with me about this audio clip, right? George Ho (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Yes" to both questions. But if you want to withdraw your nomination, I will withdraw my vote. — Ирука¹³ 11:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I'll just await the results of this discussion then. I was asking the latter because... well, the "Keep" vote by the uploader has the lengthier rationale. George Ho (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 20:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:West and East Philippine Sea.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toto11zi ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly WP:POVPUSHING, considering that the alleged boundaries of "West Philippine Sea" and "East Philippine Sea" do not correspond to the executive orders and laws of the Philippines, and the alleged "East Philippine Sea" does not conform to the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) definition. Toto11zi does seem to have POVPUSHING tendency, as reflected by their previous upload that has been deleted; see both Talk:Exclusive economic zone of the Philippines#File:Ph EEZ Map.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 19#File:Ph EEZ Map.png. These map files with no legal and official references do not deserve to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamia Faridia Islamabad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CitadelCurator ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims to have taken this photo themselves. However, this photo was published on a third-party website before its publication on Wikipedia. In such cases, confirmation via VRT is required. — Ирука¹³ 14:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulsa Roughnecks FC logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IagoQnsi ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Former logo that doesn't significantly contribute to article contents. The article has already a nfcc image of the current logo (File:FC Tulsa logo.svg) on infobox. Fma12 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, as there is significant discussion of the old team name and the new logo/nickname are significantly different, so argument could be made it's also helpful for identification. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  05:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Hutt City Council Coat of Arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Radicuil ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with free media File:Upper Hutt coat of arms.svg Traumnovelle (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since very different. Not sure which one is "more correct."

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  07:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its a coat of arms so neither is more correct, one is how the council uses the design but in heraldry any design based on the blazon is correct. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no strong feeling about it being replaced, but I will just note that File:Upper Hutt coat of arms.svg just depicts the shield of the Upper Hutt coat of arms while File:Upper Hutt City Council Coat of Arms.png depicts the full arms with the shield, crest & motto.-Radicuil (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian National Skating Championships logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bgsu98 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is not the 2026 Canadian National Skating Championships logo. — Ирука¹³ 15:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's right off the cover of the 2026 Canadian National Skating Championships program. Go find something useful to do. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from 2026 article. Fails WP:NFCCP#1 / WP:FREER - can easily be replaced by text, and is not contextually significant of a single year. May even be confusing since it also appears atop Canadian National Skating Championships. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 17:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drone shot of St Ignatius Orthodox Maha Edavaka.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parabelleum ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Given the editor's previous history, the file's lack of metadata and the image quality, I believe this is a screenshot from one of the videos on this page. — Ирука¹³ 11:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not I took it I am from that parish Parabelleum (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close Uploader claims that it's their own work, and I don't see any reason to not believe that.–DMartin (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, depends on outcome of AfD. If article deleted, this should go, too (or maybe transferred to Commons). WidgetKid ^{chat me} 15:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dan Vacek, Dennis Schuller, Anthony Walsh, Christopher Seymore, 2024.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Hammer of Thor ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is missing evidence of permission: Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard#File:Dan Vacek, Dennis Schuller, Anthony Walsh, Christopher Seymore, 2024.jpg. — Ирука¹³ 14:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem here? The photographer released full permissions. (Ticket #2024031910003125). - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - The sign in the background of the picture has also been released, by its creator. (Ticket #2024010810009626). - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Uploader has provided the ticket numbers regarding release of the file for use on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Link, just in case: click here. George Ho (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh. Just found out that the image is discussed at WP:VRTN (old id). George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above and Move to Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the reasons I've outlined, above. - :The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fredrikstad FK logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

This Greenland-like logo of this soccer team is below the threshold of originality and should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Law Order season six cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Law Order season fifteen cast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Law Order season nineteen twenty.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Law Order season twenty-five cast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I hate to list more remaining screenshots of the Law & Order cast, but then, after deletion of two other images, I guess I don't mind deletion (of all the above) if no one else opposes such, especially per WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise, at least one shall remain if someone favors whichever. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one. I would leave the most representative one - maybe the most popular season?

WidgetKid ^{chat me} 04:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell which season has been the most popular of all time, unfortunately. How about your preferred image instead? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've yet to list the cast of season one. I might... or might not after this discussion, but let's concentrate on the ones listed here first, especially to contrast with the very first season. —George Ho (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If at least one must be kept, I'm thinking season six cast and/or season twenty-five cast for now, though I'm unsure whether either of them has been popular amongst most viewers, especially casual and hardcore. Otherwise, (again) I don't mind all deleted. —George Ho (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful-liar-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Denenr ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is non-free but is depiction/use is not subject to critical commentary in the article. Its omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the article and therefore, it does not meet the requirements of WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, esp. WP:NFCCP#1. Also WP:FREER. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 04:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle ( | 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Survivor 47 Cast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JoyfullySmile ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Couldn't find this image on https://www.gettyimages.com. Possibly might appear on a photo agency's website, but I have to browse every photo agency to seek this photo previously used on Entertainment Weekly and credited to Robert Voets of CBS. Unsure whether its commercial opportunities have been respected (WP:NFCC#2). George Ho (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet our fair use policies. Could be replaced, is not a item being critiqued or the sole representation of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment: I think I might've found it being used previously at Paramount Press Express though in probably bad shape. George Ho (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC); expanded, 08:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zscout370 ( | 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)[reply]

Good luck Moxy🍁 03:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with free Commons version.  ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  17:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Keep per previous discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Survivor Guatemala Cast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JoyfullySmile ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May or may not have been used by photo agencies. Couldn't find the cast photo at https://www.gettyimages.com. Unsure whether the photo's commercial opportunities have been respected, despite appearing on Fandom's Survivor Wiki page. Unsure whether NFCC has been complied. George Ho (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to deletion: Objection withdrawn per WP:NFC#Images #1. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I need clarification as to why the use of the image is specifically violating WP:NFCC#2. Guessing, surmising, may or may not, and vague concerns, do not seem to be sound reasoning. All of Wikipedia could be stopped with those. If the argument is that only images of dead people that fall under Fair use/non-free can be used that needs to be stated or clarified. It would be hard to fault an editor for mistakenly using an image in violation when policy, or interpreting policy, is vague.

In light of a first reply from an Admin at a pre-RFC, "A cast photo of the characters in the show is a different matter, especially if the characters have a specific appearance that could not be replaced by simply having a photo of the actor." -- Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The quote by the admin was referring to fictional characters, not nonfictional ones, especially from reality TV. George Ho (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean #1 of WP:NFC#UUI, right? George Ho (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:2026 IPL logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neeelzzz20 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Generic IPL logo and not specific to the 2026 edition. Vestrian24Bio 13:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete generic logo that is not at all 2026-season-specific, so fails WP:GETTY point 14. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I uploaded the wrong one mistakenly. Neeelzzz20 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m ( | 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)[reply]

File:Concertissimo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Driante70 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. Previously deleted. — Ирука¹³ 16:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, due to having a different title, cover, and tracklist. It's almost like a different album. I think keeping it would be good for identification, but I know we also want to minimize non-free files. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 06:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've already shared my thoughts about Baby Records albums always having two different covers for the same album with different songs. Removing them isn't constructive, but destructive, but I've seen the others removed out of prejudice. The person in question has never responded to me privately to explain... incredibly rude. That doesn't happen on Wikipedia Italy; it's most likely different here, and they use a despotic approach. Driante70 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et0048 ( | 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Okay, I'll use Twinkle next time. — Arlo James Barnes 13:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tennessee Titans logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opertinicy ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This logo was included in a YouTube video by the Titans which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (see here). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal, what are you proposing? WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The logo should be relicensed and transferred to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is just because the Titans logo appears in a video with Creative Commons, that doesn't mean the logo itself has that licence. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Football League logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CoolKid1993 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This logo was included in a video by the NFL's official Brazilian YouTube channel which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (see here). It should thus be relicensed and moved to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is just because the NFL logo appears in a video with Creative Commons, that doesn't mean the logo itself has that licence. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Retag and move to Commons. CC BY allows the making of derivative works, such as the taking of a screenshot of a video. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roy Harford 1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sammyrice ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This work is not in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in the U.S. was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases). It is therefore still copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year it was initially published (or until 2047 in some circumstances). — Ирука¹³ 07:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PD in home country, and no evidence of commerical use under URAA. Has fair-use rationale.–DMartin (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair use if he's still alive? WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a copyrighted photo under normal circumstances, no. Since it's PD in it's home country, and I've seen no evidence of it being monitored in the US(even though that would be allowed under the URAA) I would argue that we're within fair use.–DMartin (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as fair use. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gp03dhk ( | 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)[reply]

• Keep and close per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama.–DMartin (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

File:Song of Healing (Majora's Mask).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NegativeMP1 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

• Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука¹³ 06:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Uploader keep. It does improve the reader's comprehension of the topic, actually. This file showcases how the song is depicted in game in terms of notes and also the scene where it is learned (the notes depiction basically makes this file comparable to using a cover art in an infobox). This serves identification purposes. Plus there is discussion in the article about how the song is used in-game. I think an image demonstrating the song being used in game, and how the song "looks", is perfectly fine and does meet NFCC#8. λ NegativeMP1 06:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NegativeMP1. Meets all points of the NFCC.–DMartin (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it could be replaced by sheet music (such as <score> tags). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's still copyrighted sheet music, no? λ NegativeMP1 16:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but it is WP:FREER than a still from a non-free video game. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I follow. The song is from a video game and the article talks about how it is used and depicted in game. So, either way, you end up with a non-free file (and I don't think it's that much freer). At that point it should become a debate of which one is more useful. Which I think the game depiction is more useful. λ NegativeMP1 19:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt it would result in a non-free file. See pre-existing usage of <score> tags at "Layla"#Writing and recording and Super Mario Bros. theme#Sheet music. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that a large part of the sheet music for a composition is very borderline on what is or is not non-free, but I digress.

  Another concern that should be brought up is that the image being nominated for deletion here is used in the infobox to help the reader identify the subject. Can sheet music tags be used in an infobox? λ NegativeMP1 20:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strawberry Lane Cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cucujik ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this image should be moved to Commons. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:C2c logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joe200576 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I believe this file can be hosted on Commons. If we can have something like the BBC logo on Commons, why can't we have this? Indetermite (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - just only the font in the logo. No additional elements were found. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeoStrauss.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wandering Courier ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File is tagged as fair use but a free alternative has since been uploaded to Commons, making this file no longer necessary and no longer pass scrutiny for fair use. It was previously used on the corresponding Wikipedia page for identification purposes but I have changed that to use the free image instead. ChromeGames (talk · contribs) 22:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bigbrother6usacast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phrasia ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm not sure how a group image on a page that only mentions that the people in a table is providing any sort of critical commentary on the image. Fails NFCC1 and NFCC8. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or delete – Honestly, I'm very concerned about claims of the image failing irreplaceable and "contextual significance". Unfortunately, as it turns out, this image appears on Getty Images as well as similar photos (photo 2,photo 3). Undoubtedly, this may go against WP:GETTY and WP:NFCC#2. Wanna gonna add the CSD tag, but.... George Ho (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:United States 2022 FIFA World Cup bid logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I think this is below the threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steven Wilson Insurgentes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GabrielBb5 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very uncertain about the CC BY-SA license. While Steven Wilson did release certain album covers under free licenses, I'm not sure if this file was also verified via VRT. Someone needs to check the VRT messages: if the permission is found, then keep the license and upload to Commons; if not, replace template with fair use and move on. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today is January 17 2026. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 17 – ()

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 "===January 17===" 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.