Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	15	91	106
TfD	0	11	11
MfD	0	4	4
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	8	75	83
AfD	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:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{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.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. 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}}.
4. 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 for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 March 26}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link 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=2025 March 26}}` 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=2025 March 26}}` 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 1932, not 1926.
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.

Instructions for discussion participation

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.

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

March 18

File:Miracle Brothers.png

[edit]

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]

March 16

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work of a wood carving by Swedish woodcarver Lars Trygg (1929–1999). Per c:COM:SWEDEN, "copyright expires at the end of the 70th year after the author's death". This work will not enter the public domain until 2070 ✗plicit 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to Fair Use. Having both an example and the detail of the art he was known for makes sense. It appears to be the only image in the article and meets NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could do with only #1, but I guess it depends how important the detail is. Jay Cubby 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the image is being used in the infobox in the article about the artwork itself, the use of a non-free media file of the piece must be accompanied by sourced critical commentary. ✗plicit 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

File:McFadzeanVC.jpg

[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP UK, there is no freedom for graphic works in the United Kingdom. A lack of publication date and author make it difficult to determine if this mural is old enough to be in the public domain. ✗plicit 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it appears to be based on an image which might be under expired Crown copyright. I say delete, replace with the actual portrait. Jay Cubby 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

File:Socalcntyhighlighted.JPG

[edit]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Southern California counties in red noshade.png. ✗plicit 00:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, original file. House1090 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons - No English wikipedia articles currently use this file. Many articles on other language Wikipedias use the other file. It seems like this is a lower quality graphic, compared to File:Southern California counties in red noshade.png, which displays the same information. This file does not violate any of the criteria at WP:NFCC. There's not much in WP:IMAGEPOL to govern whether this file should be deleted or not, except in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images: Wikipedia:Files for discussion "may be used for images that are low quality, obsolete, unencyclopedic, likely to remain unused, or whose use under the non-free content rules is disputed" (emphasis is mine). Since it was published under a free license, it can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons if it is useful. Transferring the image to Commons seems to be the best action, per policy, for this file. - tucoxn\^talk 11:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

[edit]

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark PD. Mere reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the tattoo design may be too ancient for copyright but the design is on the preserved body of a person. The photo is not merely a shot of a 2-D tattoo but of the arm on which the tattoo was placed. The photo itself is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an arm here. I see the skin removed from the flesh and laid out (stretched?) Buffs (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Whpq?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 07:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 as a non-free file. I've been on the fence regarding the possibility as marking this with a free license for this for a while, but I think Whpq is right. This isn't a faithful 2D reproduction – the skin has various bumps, folds, ridges, and similar details that would make it ineligible to qualify as such. Additionally, the lightening choice, be it by the photographer or that of the museum which displayed it, also indicates that this is a photo which has its own separate copyright to that of the tattoo. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

March 19

File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg

Dubious own-work claims. The initial upload of File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg indicates that the image was lifted from an unspecified website. File:Thomas Kallampally.jpg is a portrait photograph that has been so heavily edited, from the background to the subject's seemingly distorted face, that authorship is doubtful. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Buffs (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hylaeus paumako DNLR 2025.jpg

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 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#1 as anyone in Hawaii with access to the reserve can picture the bee. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wildlife reserve is closed to the public. Nobody in Hawaii has access to the reserve except for a few individuals from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and because it is so remote and isolated it is rarely visited except to fix fencing and maintain the firebreaks. In fact, the area is so remote and isolated, this bee was only found in this area because it was the first major survey of that area in a century or so. I should also note that the bee is rare and the number of individuals is unknown. After capturing specimens for identification, a second trip to the wildlife refuge was planned. The second trip yielded no sightings of the bee. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The file actually does pass NFC#1, per the reasons just given by Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per tryptofish. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 19 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.

File:Warner Communications Inc..svg

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBS Records.svg

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer an orphan, this file is now being used in the article CBS Records (2006). - tucoxn\^talk 10:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machine Girl MG1.mp3

There is no sourced critical commentary to justify the inclusion of this file. Skyshiftertalk 15:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fails WP:NFC#8. Skyshiftertalk 20:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

Replaceable with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:InfoboxHez.PNG violating Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#1 Is la🏳️‍⚧ 19:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Buffs (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in this one beyond saying the replaceable option provided says "This symbol is fictitious", so it shouldn't be used. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not actually replaceable, see for example the article Flag of Hezbollah. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectfully, what the hell? It's the definition of irreplaceable. Jay Cubby 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is important to have the actual flag used, making this not easily replaceable. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg

Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. Jay Cubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. E_F⁵ 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. Jay Cubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the 2011 Joplin tornado article is valid) was that tornado photos almost always will qualify under NFF criteria as long as no free-to-use photos/videos exist. This consensus and admin confirmation came following a very huge and long RFC on the Commons, after the deprecation of a copyright template that was highly-used for tornado photographs. To me, the free-cam-video found by JayCubby would indeed mean Poplar Bluff's NFF does not pass the criteria. However, no evidence has been presented of Tylertown having free-use-videos/photos, so under WP:AGF & WP:ONUS, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.

To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t even visible in that video. E_F⁵ 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — E_F⁵ 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. Jay Cubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. E_F⁵ 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JayCubby Yes and no to your NFCC8 concern. NFC criteria is "most generous" (admin words) on English Wikipedia, for being more like a "low-bar" to pass. NFFs of tornadoes cannot just be for decoration. However, it is extraordinarily common (i.e. extremely rare if not) for RS to use a specific adjective with tornadoes. For example if you hear "large tornado". That does not really give a clear picture in the readers mind of what size the tornado is. An NFF of said tornado showing what "large" actually means passes NFCC8, since it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC8). That was why, generally speaking, tornado NFCs are allowed on Wikipedia; since adjectives are almost always associated with tornadoes (in a ton of reliable sources), and a photo of the tornado clears up what that adjective actually means. Random proof of that can even be seen during Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (happened days ago). One of the first news articles I found in a generic google search of "Kentwood" & "tornado" (one of the stronger tornadoes during the outbreak), I found WVUE-DT publishing an article literally titled "Large tornado tears through small town outside Kentwood; no injuries reported". Hopefully that better explains what the Commons consensus was on tornado photos. In reality, only free-to-use photos actually prevent a single (not multiple) NFC tornado photo from being used in an article/section on a tornado, given the fact adjectives are always used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. Jay Cubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. E_F⁵ 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. Jay Cubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Will do. To clarify on the NFCC8 thing, we use "similar" planes because they are the same model, correct? The paint job may be different, but the model is similar. Tornadoes don't come in "models" ("classifications" vary wildly, a wedge tornado can be anywhere from 0.5 to 2.6 miles wide) and I genuinely couldn't tell you two tornadoes that look exactly alike or are of the exact same width. Sure, the color of the tornado (paint job) may be the same, but no tornadoes are created equal. Saying "a tornado that looks kind of like the one that hit so-and-so" in an infobox is just doing a disservice to readers. That also doesn't account for the fact that we are already seriously lacking on free and recent tornado photos. E_F⁵ 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Weather Event Writer Buffs (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

March 20

File:2017 Charlottesville, Virginia car attack photograph.jpg

Free video exists (a screenshot could be made of it if neccesary). Only one sentence in the article mentions the photograph, which is hardly enough for a NFF. E_F⁵ 00:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query Where is the free video? Buffs (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the article. E_F⁵ 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I missed it. If it is replaceable, it fails NFCC: Delete. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would probably be justified in the body if there was a bigger section about the Pulitzer Prize winning photo, but there isn't, and are other free images to illustrate the article with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odnt.webp

Fails NFCC#8 because this is a secondary image, not the primary image at the top of the page. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

File:SOUR Target Edition cover.png

WP:NFCC 3&8. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renaissance LP Cover Art.png

WP:NFCC estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per WP:NFCC, any non-free cover must be justified by critical commentary and it's omission must harm the topic at hand. All over the article and in the infobox itself, there is substantive critical commentary, which includes substantive discussion about the imagery used and it's importance to the topic of the article. The nominator should review WP:NFCC throughly and ensure that any nomination to delete a non-free image has a proper explanation of what specific bit of the NFCC policy is in breach. Simply saying "delete because of NFCC" is not an adequate argument.

>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NFCC #3a Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. The standard cover conveys all the information needed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:STV logo 2014.svg

Logo of STV, not in public domain, not copyright-free Vestrian24Bio 07:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nomination made by a blocked user Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be below the TOO and so PD in the US. I can see it being borderline in the UK though, so the current tags marking it PD in the US and possibly non-free in the UK seem correct. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --112.207.123.170^{'Talk to me!} 04:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kept as is This is how the logo described that. This is below US TOO while questionable for the UK one. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:STV Player 2019.svg

Logo of STV Player, not in public domain, not copyright-free Vestrian24Bio 07:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nomination made by a blocked user Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change to PD-US Only. The only way this differs from the STV logo above is the addition of the word "Player" which is very obviously not copyright eligible, making the whole thing below the TOO in the US but borderline in the UK. It's also worth noting that contra the nomination statement this isn't presently being claimed as PD or otherwise free of copyright. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relicensed as PD-Ineligible-USOnly per Thryduulf. For this image, the claim of "fair-use" is flawed, due to fact that whole design of the logo below TOO and copyright ineligible in the US. Additionally, this nomination was done by a 72-hour blocked user. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan Borgwardt in 2024.jpeg

Guy is alive and not in prison, there is no non-free rationale here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:NFCC and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. This person is most emphatically alive (despite his attempts to make it seem he died). We make no special exemptions to WP:NFCC for people who are in prison (and he's not even convicted yet; and is out on bail). While free license imagery might not exist right now, this clearly fails the "or could be created" portion of WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion, stuff like Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_August_18#File:Lucy_Letby_mugshot.png happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In basically every FfD I have seen photos of people who have life in prison without parole are usually voted as keep for the same reason as a dead person would be. And sometimes people with lesser sentences (e.g. Chauvin) for reasons that evade me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used that as an example because I nominated it for deletion because his term is short enough that he will probably get out of jail alive - and yet they voted keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alive and not imprisoned. No theoretical reason he could not be photographed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hammersoft and PARAKANYAA--112.207.123.170^{'Talk to me!} 04:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:NM PBS logo.png

Duplicate of c:File:NMPBS 2019 logo.png Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect. Buffs (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

File:Bombo Radyo Cebu logo.png

Logo of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUdffTxVvs, Blatant violation of WP:NFCC, De-Orphaned non-free images by an user. 112.207.123.170^{'Talk to me!} 09:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supercell symbol.jpg

Per WP:BANDLOGO. Wcam (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

File:Sk8erBoiSingle.jpg

Fails NFCC#8 because it is a secondary piece of non-free artwork, not "the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article". Nothing in the article talks about this alternate artwork as special or significant. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added this file, because of now deleted line: "(···)

Lavigne then throws the Portalomaniac.669 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

guitar onto the road and looks up at the helicopter, where a shot was taken for the single's artwork.<ref> {{cite web|title-CMJ New Music Report 9 September". It was important to add it, because cover used in this article doesn't show that and many people could be confused by that. Also sorry for two comment, but Wikipedia broke something with these comments Portalomaniac.669 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the WP:SECONDARY source commenting on this artwork, saying that it is special for some reason? All I'm seeing here is your own observation that the alternate artwork appears to be taken from the music video. Its importance is not proved that way. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spectra Prime Rise of Algorithm logo.png

Looks like a WP:COPYVIO of one of the Transformers insignia, which would mean its been uploaded with the incorrect licence at the very least. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a unique logo made in that style. While there certainly are some similarities, it doesn't appear to be the logo in question. Example, the forehead is a diamond, not a triangle. If this is a transformers logo and not an original, please show us where it is used. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo doesn't look like the Autobots, it's true that it's a rhombus and not a triangle, but you should have looked at the lines on the cheeks and the top has sharp corners, so it doesn't look like the Autobots Spectra321578 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:TBrady2.jpg

Unused file with a broken source link and no evidence of permission. It looks like it was related to this file that was deleted in 2008 for copyright violation by Utcursch. cyberdog958^Talk 22:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

File:Bolshevik Party Anthem.mp3

Vasily Lebedev-Kumach died in Russia at 1949, so the song was public domain after 70 years since the author's death. The song entered public domain in Russia in 2019. In the case of U.S, if the song as no copyright notice, it would most likely be public domain and thus, allowing transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, the copyright will expire in 2035 if it has a copyright notice for the U.S. But how did the user Noctawny labeled this file as fair use? Should we also alter the file "Life Has Become Better.mp3" BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was back in 2022; I didn't know much about copyright stuff then. Do what you need. Noctawny (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flow movie poster.jpg

This file does not pass Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1. c:File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png is a free image that shows the same artwork, same scene in the movie in higher quality.

File:Flow (2024 film) poster.jpg was previously deleted but @Areaseven reuploaded it here and they and and @Jon698 keep re adding it to the article, with the claims that "film posters are used in the infobox of film articles" and "No written policy is needed as it is the de facto way of doing this.". They haven't cited any policy or even a discussed consensus that posters must be used in the infobox. So how is this de facto usage supposed to override Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? 999real (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single film on Wikipedia made after the 1930s uses the poster in the infoboc regardless of the copyright status of the film. It is fundamentally wrong to change that here. The infobox image is understood to be for the poster and nothing else. Jon698 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists will not make this particular poster pass NFCC. The image parameter of Template:Infobox_film states "Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD or VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used." 999real (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FYI, I did not reupload the film poster. The original file used the Latvian title Straume and had the cat in a different pose. I merely uploaded a different film poster from a different source. Get your facts straight before making another false claim, @999real.

Now, in the case of the Blender 4.4 splash screen, while it features the cat from Flow, it is not representative of the film, as it is primarily used to promote the open-source software Blender. Cropping the image like @999real suggested in a different discussion is also out of the question, as that will affect the image's CC license. - Areaseven (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you uploaded another poster of the same film, after the other one was deleted.

"Cropping the image will affect the image's CC license" is not true. See the legal code of the license and files like c:File:SpongeBob_SquarePants_character.png 999real (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator for deletion has failed to properly argue how we should ignore the precedent of all other film articles on Wikipedia. Jon698 (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has failed to provide any reason that this precedent should override Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. 999real (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand what precedent is?? Jon698 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown any precedent that non free film posters should be used in the infobox for films when a free, representative image of the film exists. 999real (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the onus is on you as you are the one making the deletion claim, here is a short list of films that stand in opposition to your policy Abraham Lincoln (1930 film), Algiers (1938 film), Africa Screams, The Amazing Mr. X, Angel and the Badman, The Animal Kingdom (1932 film), At War with the Army, Attack of the Giant Leeches, The Bat (1959 film), Beat the Devil (film), Beau Ideal, Becky Sharp (film), Behind Office Doors, The Big Wheel (film), Bird of Paradise (1932 film), Blood on the Sun, Blue Steel (1934 film), Bowery at Midnight, A Bucket of Blood, Captain Kidd (film), Charade (1963 film), The Chase (1946 film), Conspiracy (1930 film), The Deadly Companions, Dementia 13, Dixiana (film), Father's Little Dividend, A Farewell to Arms (1932 film), 2001: A Space Odyssey, Night of the Living Dead, The Last Man on Earth (1964 film), McLintock!, The Terror (1963 film), 12 Angry Men (1957 film), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Dr. Strangelove, ad infinitum. Now show me a single example of your proposition. Jon698 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already established that the poster of Charade (1963 film) is in the public domain, contrary to your claim, and that the trailer of 2001: A Space Odyssey can not be used for a good replacement of the poster. If you really looked through all the free content and concluded all the posters are actually under non free use and none of the films have free content representative of them, good for you. The simple fact is that whatever precedent there may be, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy and it and Template:Infobox film do not support that precedent. 999real (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are dodging the question because you have no answer. Please provide a single example of your claim in practice. The image you provided IS NOT a substitute for the poster. Jon698 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it over and over isn't going to make it true. Template:Infobox film allows using screenshots or "film-related image"s. You want to ignore that, ignore Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and ignore the fact that an administrator deleted the previous version of the poster, all because Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and for what? So that we can use a lower quality version of the same artwork with some unreadable text on it! 999real (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question remains dodged. Jon698 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasig Revolving Tower, Mega Market (Pasig; 04-26-2021).jpg

Better cropped version (with focus on the subject) locally imported as File:Pasig Revolving Tower, (Pasig; 04-26-2021).jpg. This may be considered as duplicate of the cropped (and more focused) version. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File is in use. A narrow focus on the tower and a broader focus on the tower and surrounding city context are both valuable in different situations. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teenage Devil Dolls (movie poster).jpg

Does not meet WP:NFCCP#1. Definitely not PD, as here on Ebay, on the reverse side, there is a copyright notice dated 1987. This could possibly be a free replacement, since I could not find any related copyright renewal/registration, and it does not carry a copyright notice. Janhrach (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southeast Iowa Superconference logo.jpg

Orphaned replaced by File:SEISC.png on Commons. Appears to contain an artifact from scanning, and the off-white background isn't transparent. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per F8 -Samoht27 (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Room 93 - Alternative cover.jpg

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estar thank you for your worries, it is understandable if does not pose significant information. However this album cover is also used internationally, as I've seen it just as much as the original in the infobox prior to the alternative's upload. The source provided from the image as the alternative's cover is from Amazon[1], I can find other sources if you believe the file can remain. Itsirlpidge (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorde - Solar Power (Alternate cover art).png

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chemtrails Over The Country Club (Target Exclusive).jpeg

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806, consider nominating the files found with https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/92059, though I haven't looked through all of them. Jay Cubby 23:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

File:PreviouslyHeldTerr RussianEmpire.PNG

Orphaned map, accuracy disputed on the file talk page. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. Uploader's account is globally locked. ✗plicit 00:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I feel like any use this file could have is overtaken by file currently used on the Russian Empire article. -Samoht27 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:WWIII.png

Entirely fictional elements, no use outside of user-space, little probable encyclopedic value, -Samoht27 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no obvious use and has not been created based on any obvious source other than the user's own ideas. This also applies to File:North America, post-Second Great War (Southern Victory).jpg but maybe not File:Race invasion.png which is based on a work by Harry Turtledove (but isn't currently used on any mainspace pages). Recon rabbit 14:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear use for Wikipedia. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gliding Over All Breaking Bad.jpg

This file's use in the Gliding Over All article is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. No critical commentary regarding this shot exists within the article, and a readers understanding of the topic is not enhanced by this image (illustrating the plot does not count). An example of an episode article that has a clear justification for an image would be Ozymandias (Breaking Bad), Granite State (Breaking Bad), Face Off (Breaking Bad), and a few other select examples. Those articles have images because of significant critical commentary regarding those shots (e.g. analysis sections or awards). But nothing about this specific shot of this specific episode warrants having this image. Maybe there's some critical commentary out there for this shot (hard to tell, the articles for almost every Breaking Bad episode are quite frankly terrible), but at present it's a pretty clear failure of NFCC. See also: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 1#"Breaking Bad" images. λ NegativeMP1 17:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Withers album covers

Both album covers were originally published in the US without an attached copyright notice (sources: Discogs [for Just As I Am], Discogs [for Still Bill]). They are thus in the public domain due to failing formalities and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghastly Photo-ov ...jpg

This image has a clearly displayed copyright claim. In the 20 years since it was uploaded, no evidence has ever been added to the image page that an OTRS ticket was ever filed for this image. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lurking-in-the-Mirror--E.jpg

This image has a clearly displayed copyright claim. In the 20 years since it was uploaded, no evidence has ever been added to the image page that an OTRS ticket was ever filed for this image. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FogCam website.png

Even the previous version should be PD-automated + PD-simple (the text is mere statement of fact). I don't think the webcam is movable, and unless California laws are different, this should be a clear-cut case for PD-automated. Jay Cubby 22:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, I considered labelling it under PD-automated, but did not due to the following factors. The webcam is just an old camera on a tripod--I'd consider it movable. There is also more of an artistic intent in its placement than that of simple CCTVs. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, I'd say withdraw, I didn't realize it was semi-movable. Fair concern. Jay Cubby 01:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have a comment on the "fixed and movable" stance. Since the website relaunched in 2021 it is always pointing at the Campus Park with minor adjustments to zoom. Can a single piece of blue tape make a camera called "fixed"? 1 2 3 It's like I changed my Ring camera from one place to another and the camera needed to be installed in a new place near. Hyperba21 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assume NFC and treat accordingly. Not clearly PD. Buffs (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assyriansinholland2.jpg

File:Assyriansinholland2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I request the deletion of the image Assyriansinholland2.jpg for the following reasons:

This image was not taken in the Netherlands but rather in France/Belgium, as evidenced by the French text on the banners.
The source of the image is unclear, and it is unknown whether it is copyrighted or not, as the link it references is no longer accessible.

Due to these concerns regarding misleading information and potential copyright issues, I kindly request its removal. Kivercik (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + WP is not an image hosting site + nonencyclopedic Buffs (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Optibus.jpg

Fails WP:NFCCP 1 - the wordmark logo and plenty of images of the buses are on Commons that can be used instead of this. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + unused. Buffs (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

File:AS Roma - Luciano Spinosi, Luciano Moggi and Roberto Pruzzo.jpg

{{PD-Italy}} requires photographs to have been created prior to 1976 to be in the public domain in the United States, but this is dated as being taken in 1978. As such, this photo had its copyright restored per c:COM:URAA and is non-free in the U.S. That's makes this a non-free file, but it would not qualify for fair use for violating both WP:NFCC#1 and 8. ✗plicit 00:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Withers - Live at Carnegie Hall.jpg

This album cover was originally published in the US without an attached copyright notice (source: eBay). It is thus in the public domain due to failing formalities and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by 100jan0vski

Likely web downloads; user has uploaded multiple copyvios marked "own work"; for many of the uploads, the user uploaded without a source, added URLs, then changed the owner to themselves after they were tagged "no permission"

Today is March 26 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 26 – (new nomination)

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 "===March 26===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

March 19

Recent nominations

March 20

March 21

March 22

March 23

March 24

March 25

Bill Withers album covers

March 26

Uploads by 100jan0vski

Footer