Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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:

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:

I am contesting that this image meets NFCC criteria 8. The notes depict the Catsablanca scene, of which all the article has to says is "many of the original ideas were scrapped due to not being fun such as the train segment in "Catsablanca", which was implemented early but ultimately deemed not satisfactory for the final version".

The file's increase does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding.

It's also unreadable at a file size that's allowed on the project (< 100,000 pixels). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of this image is actually the poster for Avengers: Endgame, for which there isn't an applicable fair use claim in this article. If it showed lots of different movies, one could make a de minimis argument, I guess, but this is just the Avengers poster with some website structure around it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See File talk:HeartcatchPreCure.png. The question is: If there is a non-free logo on X-TV Series. Can there also be one at List of X-TV Series episodes. I would say no, however Andy Dingley does not agree. What does the community think? Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Unused, low quality image. Certainly cannot be qualified at WikiCommons, which hosts other, more better-quality pics of the same subject at Commons:Category:Ban Gioc Waterfalls. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is eight pieces of non-free media, which is not necessary. A single screen shot from the Genesis/SNES version to show gameplay is enough. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails NFCC #1 and #8. No evidence is presented that this file's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Possible free replacements include File:Holocaust train liberated by US Army.jpg and File:Dachau Death Train.jpeg, as well as many of the files in Commons:Category:Death marches (Holocaust). buidhe 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned image, the institution that it was created for has been renamed The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria applied to a simple logo that may not meet the threshold of originality. Compare "public domain" image File:New_Jersey_Devils_1982.svg. One of both is incorrectly tagged. This led to a possibly completely unnecessary edit war at Devils–Rangers rivalry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I originally PRODded the cover art of Jaki Graham's 1990s rendition of "Ain't Nobody", thinking that the image is non-free. The PROD was contested because having a separate lengthy section about a charted notable cover version of a song is an assumed justification to use a cover art and to help the cover art comply with NFCC. Then I realized that I did not consider the possibility about its eligibility or ineligible for US copyright protection, though the cover art is still eligible for copyright in the UK per c:COM:TOO UK, i.e. UK's originality bar is set very low. For that reason, Introspective's cover art (another example) is locally used in enwiki instead of Commons.

I uploaded the cover art of the as intended replacement of the (showing Ronald Reagan on the cover). However, my PROD tag on the US sleeve was contested, citing that original release is more preferable than reissues.

I'll explain why the 1991 reissue cover art should be the sole lead image for Should I Stay or Should I Go. First, the 1980s US releases of the single performed modestly, if not less than modest, on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Second, there were other concurrent releases outside the US, such as the band's home country, the United Kingdom. Third, I have not yet found one reliable source connecting Reagan and the song, which would have justified using the US ltd ed. sleeve more. ( mentions Reagan but not in the section about the song, which is ranked #19.) Fourth, the shows the other song "Straight to Hell" on the front cover and puts "Should I Stay or Should I Go" as part of the tracklist on the back cover; strangely, "Straight to Hell" is labelled the AA-side track, while the other is labelled A-side track. Neither image of that double A-sided release would adequately match the critical commentary contained within the article. The of the double A-sided release would not be suitable either; the song title above a picture of the band in one vinyl flip side would be harder to see in small size.

Fifth, the Levi's TV/radio(?) commercial helped the song receive greater attention from TV viewers and probably radio listeners, leading to the song's re-release and then success in 1991. I have worked on the article on the "Draft:" namespace primarily to emphasize and weigh more on the 1991 re-release. Sixth, I have used cover arts of the reissues of There She Goes (The La's song), Dreams (The Cranberries song), and Holding Back the Years, whose re-releases were much more successful than their initial single releases, though the more successful re-releases came one to two years after their own initial (less successful) releases. The greater example would be Etta James's recording of I Just Want to Make Love to You, which became a lot more successful in 1996 as the result of the Diet Coke commercial. I want to make it consistent with other articles that weighed more on more successful re-releases. If the examples aren't enough, how about It Must Have Been Love and Dolly Parton's version of I Will Always Love You? Well, each has sections about both original and re-releases (or re-recordings).

In short, if above is tl;dr for you, I will say that more weight should go for the 1991 re-release cover art mainly because it was much, much more successful in Europe (and New Zealand) than it performed modestly worldwide and the Levi's company, whose logo is shown on the cover, made the song more successful. Unless there's a reliable source proving explicit reference connecting the song to Reagan, I should favor the 1991 Levi's cover art and drop the 1982 Reagan one. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Decorative use of non-free cover art in Ezra Taft Benson#Civil Rights Movement which fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free book cover art is allowed to be uploaded per item 1 WP:NFCI, but generally only when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book in question. While ther types of non-free use or uses in other articles in not automatically prohibited, they do tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself to tie the article content to the image. This file was originally tagged for speedy deletion by JJMC89 and that tagging was challenged at File talk:The black hammer.gif by it's uploader and with this edit summary by Chris.sherlock. While I think those things were done in good faith, I don't they accurately reflect how this type of non-free use tends to generally be assessed per WP:NFCCP. Even though there is some discussion of the book in the "Civil Rights Movement" section of the article about Benson, there is nothing specific to the cover art itself or any controversy associated with it. There is a caption added to the file that is supported by a citation, but bascially only seems to leave to an archived version of the book (which actually might be a problem per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER) but which doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary about the book's cover. If this book meets WP:NBOOK and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a simple descriptive statement about the cover itself is added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am taking this to FFD because the original person who tagged this seems to believe that it has no place in the article. However, I wrote an entire part about this photo in the article Sylvia Rose Ashby. Other sources have cited this photo as well. What I wrote in the article is this:

In a later interview with Australian Women's Weekly, she showed two small wooden, jointed mannequins – one showing "Mrs. Right" and the other "Mrs. Wrong". Mrs. Right, she explained, "is erect, relaxed; the left arm (holding her bag and papers) is slightly to the rear; the right arm is forward; the head is slightly tilted – she is the epitome of confidence." Mrs. Wrong, however, "is a bundle of nerves; head downcast, bag clutched to her – the epitome of apologetic timidity." Those who displayed a lack of appropriate deportment, she maintained, would cause suspicion and sometimes hostility, and the interviewee would be unresponsive to questioning, leading to poor survey results.

This is literally illustrating this point, it is quite hard to see what she means without the photo. Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Four comic covers used in Strange Tales in violation of WP:NFCC#3. Per WP:NFC#CS, None of the covers are used as the main image, but one must be selected for said use and the other three deleted to satisfy policy. ƏXPLICIT 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion."

Also, File:Strange135.jpg is additionally being used in Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., and should be removed from those articles in accordance with WP:NFC#UUI#6, as it is being used in the main article Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (feature). ƏXPLICIT 01:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the case of a comic-book that has run since 1951 and gone through significant changes, the particular four covers here are necessary in order to give a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the changes this title experienced over decades of publication. Indeed, four is a minimal representation, as explained below.
First: These four cover illustrate the comic's origins as a 1950s "pre-Code" horror title; later in the decade, as one of early Marvel's signature Jack-Kirby-giant-monster books; later, in the following decade as the title that introduced the cornerstone character Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD, which in addition to other significance is the single continuing thread throughout the Marvel Studios movies; and two decades later, as a superhero title.
"Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D." became the first Strange Tales feature to receive its own cover logo below the main title, beginning with #135

I have yet to find a reliable source discussing various artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack. The artwork itself fails to enhance readers' understanding of the soundtrack itself, especially when details about the artworks are not yet found. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Also, it spiritually does the same purpose as the other artwork, regardless of differences between the two images, like having cast names in one cover and lacking them in the other. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#3a. FWIW, I prefer the one with cast names on the front cover, so this (other) artwork has to go. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

More troubling is that I could not find an album using this "cover" on Amazon or . I would suspect this image to be a fake unless I'm proven wrong. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Nthep with the reason "" FASTILY 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Image is not John Hart as the Lone Ranger but Fess Parker as Daniel Boone

The file shows 6 rail tickets in order to show the variation on "London". However, as stated in the fair use rationale, only the double arrow symbol is copyrighted in the UK. It is therefore possible to crop out the required station names, and upload them to Commons. The file will therefore be a violation of WP:NFCC#3b, and should be deleted 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The file fails to meet fair use. Per WP:NFCC#3 and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover:

"...use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information..."

"Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included"

This alternative cover is identical to the main cover already used on the article for the album, other than a "difference in poses". There is no significant critical analysis on this alt cover that merits its inclusion. I suggest we provide a link to an external image, as is one in other album articles such as Bangerz. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 12:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and if changing up the rules so that more album covers can be labeled as the alternative ones instead of leaving them out because they're similar is the way to go, then so be it. I just believe thay articles shoild convey enough possible information for the viewer, and this album cover rule is kind of ridiculous ~aardwolf68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As fair use is meant to be minimal (WP:NFCC#3), this copyrighted cover art does not pass the threshold for inclusion. It's included on the article for Eminem's album Music to Be Murdered By since one of the alternative covers of the album was inspired by this piece. However, the album as a whole is inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's work, noted through the inclusion of spoken samples by the director himself. A free image of Hitchcock could convey the same purpose of this cover art, and there isn't enough critical analysis at the time to merit the inclusion of this 1958 cover art on an article for a 2020 album. At the moment, the article only has two sentences about connecting this image to the album's explicit cover. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-free not published under a free license. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This file is licensed under non-free use rationale that most explaining how the file is used in a way consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. But this is a leaked recording that violated WP:NFCC policy #4, and should therefore be deleted. Premeditated (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Image fails NFCC#8, an image of an actor in character does not increase the readers understanding especially when the statement used in the caption is unsourced. Neither is the image being used in the way described in the FUR i.e. it is NOT being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. Nthep (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kernimage ken.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The user who initially reported this image was a sockpuppet of a user who was abusing multiple accounts. I took this picture. Are you seriously telling me that because it contains a PICTURE of Windows 10, that it must be deleted? Don't you think that this is a LITTLE ridiculous?StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Unused, low quality SVG (it looks like software tried to trace the source image automatically and did poorly) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned image of a magazine cover. The uploader claims to be the artist who created the cover artwork, but it is unlear how much creative work went into the magazine cover itself. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

But, this is not own work of the uploader. According to the Kristina Kovač article, the photo was taken by Kristina Kovač herself. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Superseded by File:Kijkwijzer 9.svg, no longer used in articles, no reason to retain or move to Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are already three pieces of non-free media in this article. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Way too much non-free media on this page. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Way too much non-free media on this page. One of these covers could be included but not all three. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Which one you prefer? Jhenderson 777 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Claimed to be a work of the US federal government, but description states it's a work of the Savannah, Georgia Police Department. In Georgia, local governments may claim copyright. Wikiacc () 04:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Geagea with the reason "" FASTILY 04:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unknown date. Unknown author. The license is ok if the photograph thaken before 01.01.1970. originally uploaded to he.wiki with fair ues rational

No proof of authorship, file small sized, very similar photos are out there in Google. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Flickr does declare CC-BY-2.0, but the flickr account is that of the subject not the photographer. There is no evidence the photographer has made any such license-release. Other files tagged "Alejandro Silva" on flickr have more-restrictive licenses. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 05:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Besides being of low resolution, the image appears to have been altered to include a sunburst or lens flare effect that obscures the subject and renders it an unsuitable image for encyclopedic purposes. This is a notable monument, for which many high-quality, freely-licensed images already exist. — AJDS talk 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Painting is mirrored for no apparent reason (original: ). Also falsely uploaded as non-free, should of course be PD-old. Correctly oriented copy already exists at File:Kolokotronis01.jpg. Fut.Perf. 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Superseded by File:Ebba Grön 1978 - 1982.svg on Commons. Not eligible for WP:CSD#F8 due to different file formats and for images not being similar enough. ƏXPLICIT 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

All the files listed here are about to be removed due to violating criteria #8 of the WP:NFCCP, which states that "the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". I asked the person who nominated the files for deletion to clarify on why here, but only got a vague response stating that they do not agree with the inclusion of two covers on the same page. This contradicts Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, which states that "an alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion". Although the template also states that the covers need to be that "the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion", the first two songs' album article provides sourced information on the German release, which are the first two files listed.

In regards to the files for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart", both songs were initially released in Germany, which peaked on their charts at numbers ten and four respectively. After the re-release of both songs in the US a year later, they peaked at number thirteen and fifty-nine on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart respectively. Readers who were unfamiliar of their start in Germany would presumably be unaware that both songs had a major presence there, which would meet the requirements for criteria #8, as they would recognize the exclusivity and popularity in Germany through the cover art. Although I am able to gather sources for the group's US expansion, I am unable to find many sources for their German debut, as most of them are found on magazines and newspapers published over twenty years ago, and are written in German, which I am unable to understand nor read.

For the "It's Gonna Be Me" file, the CD itself is stated to be a limited edition cover, which has been confirmed by Amazon, as well as WP:UGC sites such as Discogs and eBay. Although they aren't allowed to be explicitly referenced, the song's main album article provides a detailed explanation on the concept of the members portraying marionettes on the cover. This cover also meets the requirements for the extra album cover template, which requests for artwork significantly different from the original, as well indirectly meeting the subject of the sourced material for both the album artwork, and the cover itself from Amazon as the only source that doesn't require user-generated content.

In conclusion, the first two files were originally released in Germany and peaked at higher positions than in the US, warranting readers who are only familiar with the song's re-release to understand the origin and initial success of the songs. The last file is a special limited edition CD that depicts the band members as marionettes, similarly shown in the No Strings Attached album. Although I was unable to find sources that acknowledge the limited edition CD cover without violating WP:UGC, the album's article explains the concept of the members portraying marionettes in heavy detail, which can be potentially added as a caption. All three files meet the criteria for the album cover template, having covers that are significantly different from the original, and are widely distributed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Images fail per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; additional artwork is not required to further help readers understand the intent of the article. Images do not different greatly from main image included. Simply uploaded by user to have their own preferred uploads in article. livelikemusic talk! 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This contradicts Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, which states that "an alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion
Oh wow. That quote was actually helpful. The passive aggressiveness and assuming from earlier isn't, but the quote is.

Image was uploaded to circumvent current Commons undeletion discussion. Furthermore, OTRS as not been able to determine its copyright status under Ticket:2020031810005472. Ìch heiss Nat  21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is similar in status to the following photographs that you will see on these pages that were also taken by American photographers: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs2794 (talkcontribs) 16:20, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ZI Jony under WP:CSD#F9 with the reason: "find somewhere else" FASTILY 21:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No source or authorship information, inferior version of the widely used File:EmbryonicBrain.svg on Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Licence laundering of media available on Wikimedia Commons — JJMC89(T·C) 21:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. It's just a guy raising his hand. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in or under an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in or under an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in or under an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in or under an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. The rationale is just "visual ID". ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not used educationally, and no critical commentary, just decoration in or under an infobox. This does not enhance understanding from the text of the article enough to justify inclusion of this non-free media. This isn't even a scene in the actual episode, so it can't even be used for the boilerplate "identification of episode" rationale. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8: just used in an infobox with no justification. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is non-free media that in no way enhances understanding and is not used for critical commentary. This is non-educational. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't determine the date of this artwork so not sure if pd-art or non-free artwork. Currently orphaned but could be used on the Dan Muller article. Leaning towards delete as the artist only died in 1976 so very likely still non-free Salavat (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I previously brought both images to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 17, which resulted in deleting the cover art of the (misidentified as Australian) and keeping the Spain one. However, I begin to have doubts about whether the Spain single was commercially released in retail stores. I raised my concerns to an admin who deleted the Dutch one, who then undeleted it, so I'm retaking them both here for my newer concerns. I checked the images from and , which display labels showing "promotional use only" and "not for sale" in Spanish language. Neither nor can show more images in detail.

Not only the scarcity of confirming existence of the Spain retail single release is concerning, I'm also concerned about being cited for the info about the chart performance of "Hallelujah" in Spain. I don't see the song's Spain performance mentioned anywhere on the page; user comments aren't reliable by Wikipedia standards, so they don't count. The song might or might not have been charted in Spain, but neither shows chart history prior to 2004 nor makes singles easier to find as they list singles/songs in just PDF charts. Also, searching for the song in Promusicae website is very time-consuming.

In short, in light of my newer findings and concerns, I decide to switch my favors from the Spain artwork to the Dutch one, even though the song performed well on the Dutch chart in 2016, the year of singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen's death. Alternatively, maybe neither cover art should be used since I could not find any source calling the original Cohen version a "single" but instead a "song" (, , ). --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC); edited, 05:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an American cartoon published in 1933 with a valid copyright notice. Both the cartoon and the Betty Boop character are still under copyright in the U.S. Unless the copyright was not renewed (which needs to be proven), the cartoon's copyright doesn't expire until 2029. Kaldari (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @PlanespotterA320 with the reason "" FASTILY 08:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not PD under Russian law unless pre-1946 publication without attribution is provided (website could not possibly be from early enough). Not eligible for fair-use status unless biography article created. Remember that Soviet public domain statuses have been revoked

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ PlanespotterA320 with the reason "" FASTILY 19:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

NOT public domain under current law (PD-Soviet template is revoked), no biography article exists for fair-use, uploaded by prolific copyright violator, no indication of meeting current PD-Russia standards

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. It is not used in relation to the article subject (the film) but is in a subsection about a stage play adaptation. The reader can easily understand what is written about the film without it. Even what is written about the stage play can be understood without it. The rationale claims that the image illustrates the overall grotesque visual impression of the play, but this is not mentioned. The article only describes the play as eerie story was cast into an eerie show. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no indication that the photographer has released this image into the public domain. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the photographer released this under GFDL. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the photographer released this under GFDL. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Source website for the image does not indicate that it is public domain. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe the uploader is the photographer. Assuming, generously, that the photographer was 20 years old when this photo was taken, that would make Cmacauley a stately 100 years of age right now. In a previous discussion, the uploader indicated that he has uploaded a number of images he says he inherited, which he had claimed rights to and licensed PD/CC0. I believe this is one of those files. Thus, if so, the copyright and release information for this image is incorrect. Chubbles (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The use of the screenshot of the Jennings family in Pilot (The Americans) may not comply with WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Either use it in The Americans#Cast and characters and change rationale, or delete the screenshot. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Information provided by uploader states that this image was taken by the uploader in 1990 and was released GFDL. However, I located a prior image of the work in the Online Archive of California, dated 1987. See . Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned about other screenshots used in individual articles about their respective episodes of The Americans (season 1) and their compliance with WP:NFCC#8. A screenshot of the sex scene in one episode can be already conveyed without needing to see who's who or who's in it, right? And I don't think critical commentary of these screenshots suffices enough to justify using them. Also, I can assume text entries convey the plot points of the episodes sufficiently for most readers. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Uploader claims to have taken this photo. However, the source of this image is . The website states, "Anh Lê Văn Hưng gởi hình" (Mr. Le Van Hung sent the picture). The uploader is not Le Van Hung. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Uploader claims to be the author of this photo, Cameron Macauley. However, the source of this image is . The website states, "Photo courtesy of Le Van Hung". The uploader is not Le Van Hung. Chubbles (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Superseded by . File not in use and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.