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: keep. ✗plicit 12:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stone Brewing Co. Year Round Beers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shamiejerlock ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image of packaging in high resolution that is not used for fair use usage. The art on bottle is not de-minimis. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The art on the bottle is indeed de minimis with respect to the entirety of the image. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: What could be relevant here is the case s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and what side of the fence you fall on regarding its interpretation. The Ets-Hokin decision seems to have ruled that when a product (and thus its labeling) is part of a larger scene and not the sole focus of the photo (i.e. a crop of just the label), an argument can be made that any copyrightable element (e.g a product lable) associated with the product is considered to be incidental (which technically seems to be different from de mininis per se) and thus OK to freely photograph without worrying about any copyright infringement. There are some possible "problems", however, with this photo in my opinion that might make it hard to argue incidental in this case.
  The first problem is that the background has been entirely blurred out; so, it seems that the intent of the photo was indeed to focus on the bottle (including its label) itself; it would be really hard to make a valid argument that the anything else (e.g. the counter) in the photo is the intended to be the focus of the photo in my opinion. The other problem is that this is of a photo of a single bottle, which again makes it seem as if the bottle and its labeling is the focus of the photo; a photo of a store shelf full of multiple beer bottles showing their labels (regardless of branding) in which this particular one was just one of many would seem to make a much stronger case of being incidental. So, whether this file can be kept could depend on whether it can be treated as non-free content.
  Whether this can be treated as non-free content then depends on whether a valid non-free use for the file can be found. If we assume that the uploader is actually the person who took the photo, then WP:FREER isn't an issue, and all that's needed would be a non-free license and non-free use rationale for the labeling. Given the file is currently only being used in User:Minorax/files and User:Notwise/sandbox, however, a valid non-free use rationale can't be written for either of those uses per WP:NFCC#9. It's also unlikely that a valid non-free use could be written for simply using the file in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in an article about the brewery making the product, which seems to be the intent in "User:Notwise/sandbox" should that ever become an article. In my opinion, the only valid non-free use for something like this would likely be if a stand-alone article about the beer itself was created and the file was used in the main infobox of that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for me -- this seems squarely in line with the Ets-Hokin decision. It's a photo of the entire bottle. It's not de minimis exactly, but incidental -- the point was to photograph the entire bottle, and the label is unavoidable. Whatever the label happened to be, it would be in the photo. The court case in mention was about exactly this -- a photo of a bottle, with the label quite prominent (it was supposed to be a product photo for the bottle, so all else was excluded, much like this one). That particular label was not copyrightable, but the ruling explicitly said that was immaterial -- a similar photo with a copyrightable label would have been the same result. A photo focusing on the label, cropping out parts of the bottle, could be an issue (similar to de minimis then, a crop may be an issue even if the entire photo is not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yap Singapore Experience RZ Location Fig 3-p8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mariordo ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I looked up an archived version of the paper where the image came from, and it's copyrighted, meaning that this image is too. The map isn't a good candidate for fair use, as the zone could be shown on a free map. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Replaceable. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miracle Brothers.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xx elv ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODded by an admin user without a rationale. A South Korea TV Series posters may be lack of promotional poster supported by critical commentary or unnecessary when brief description already illustrates (without NFC) how the South Korea TV Series was released, In other words, the image might not be contextually significant after all. 120.29.79.68 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A poster for the TV series used in the infobox about said series. Per WP:NFC#cite_note-3, Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. ✗plicit 11:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Explicit. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 2025 March 25. ✗plicit 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assyriansinholland2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:People gather at the site of a US strike in Yemen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abo Yemen ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Shows damage by the American attack in Yemen" is not a valid fair use rationale. The damage won't disappear in a hurry and it is therefore entirely possible to take a freely licensed image of the situation, thus negating the fair use rationale. Schwede66 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I'd love to use freely licensed image of the situation if any exists 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That none exists isn't a rationale for helping yourself to a photo that can be taken. Schwede66 19:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can dig up the PD-USGOV video of the drone strike. Also CCTV footage. Boom! NFCC #1 no longer met! JayCubby 13:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: would be nice if you do that actually 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen, done & done: File:US striking Houthi positions in Yemen.webm & File:CCTV Footage allegedly showing the recent U.S. strikes in Yemen today..webm

If you'd like to categorize them, that would be greatly appreciated. JayCubby 02:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.