Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21

May 21

File:Sarah T Hughes Portrait.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: convert to {{PD-US-no notice}}. ✗plicit 14:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably replaceable. We have File:LBJ-Hughes.jpg, which is a decent substitute. Jay Cubby 00:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would normally !vote "delete" for this kind of thing, but given the supposed date the photo was taken (February 1972), there's a possibility that this file doesn't need to be non-free and can rather be treated as {{PD-US-no notice}}. The source URL attributes the file to the State Bar of Texas, and it looks the photo might originally come from here. There's also a signed version of the photo found here, which could be another indication that the photo was "published" without a copyright notice. Moreover, given Hughes was born in 1896 and began her career circa 1920, there's also probably a really good chance that there are other photos of her (like this one from 1949 or this one from 1956 (note the back of the 1956 photo)) that are "PD-US-no notice", {{PD-US-not renewed}} or maybe even {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}, the latter particularly given she was the federal judge who gave Lyndon Johnson the oath of office on a plane en route to Washington DC after JKF was assassinated and there are several photos of her online with JFK and LBJ. Anyway, the non-free use in List of Goucher College people fails WP:FREER and WP:NFLISTS, and the file should be removed from that article even it's kept as non-free for use Sarah T. Hughes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep/relicense to PD I see no evidence provided that this is NOT a free photo in the first place. For a photo of that era, we need to see that it IS copyrighted, not that we should prove it's not. I can find nothing in the copyright archives to indicate that this image was ever copyrighted in the first place; as such it is PD, not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 21 May 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:Ahmed al-Sharaa (revolutionary, politician, born 1982).jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this non-free photo is not itself the subject of sourced commentary, and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic - Fall of Damascus (2024) (the event) or Ahmed al-Sharaa (the person). It is used in decorative manners that do not convey information of contextual significance. Wcam (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the use in both articles are purely decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wcam Kaliper1 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg

This photo is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The lack of a photo in the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Simply claiming it is an historical photo does not mean it meets WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Following very long discussions at the Wikimedia Commons, there was a clear determination that tornadic photographs did pass all NFC criteria. The opening to the tornado’s section is “This large, devastating, and long-tracked tornado caused major destruction to Somerset and London… (emphasis mine). What does “large” actually mean? This photograph is describing what “large” looks like, and therefore, does indeed increase the reader’s understanding of the topic. @Rlandmann: (Wikipedia administrator) agreed that this logic was sound for NFC criteria, which is why dozens tornado photographs have been uploaded as NFCs, including ones deleted from the Commons, such as File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg and File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png. The bar for tornadic photographs was determined to be the description which is used by media outlets, since descriptive words like “large”, “small”, ect… do not clearly explain to the reader what the tornado looked like. This topic was discussed discussed extensively through RFCs and numerous deletion requests in 2024. So yeah, keep. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) - General concensus on Commons and here is that non-free images of tornadoes always satisfy NFCC guidelines. See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. ^EF⁵ 14:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What happens on Commons well sort stays on Commons in that it's not really relevant to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects; applications of Wikipedia policy need to be discussed/determined here on Wikipedia just as applications of Commons policy needs to be discussed/assessed over on Commons. Similarly, a local consensus discussing a the use of a particular image in a particular article on its corresponding article talk shouldn't be equated to a community-wide consensus; if someone is seeking wider clarification or a general consensus regarding non-free tornado images, it should be done at WT:NFCC, or in at least a discussion that involves more that would looks to be only three users. In addition, linking to a category page showing a bunch of non-free photos just means such photos have been uploaded; it doesn't mean their uses are WP:NFCC compliant any more than the fact some of the photos had been previously deleted means from Commons means they're NFCC compliant. I randomly clicked on File:Photo of the 2022 Winterset tornado.png, one of the files on that category page; the file has non-free use rationale's for two uses (which isn't prohbitted by current policy), but clicking on one of the articles it's supposed to being used in shows File:Winterset Tornado Wedge.jpeg (another non-free image of the apparently the same tornado) being used there instead: two non-free images of the same tornado aren't really necessary per WP:NFCC#3. So, claiming non-free images of tornados always satisfy NFCC guidelines is really an oversimplification of this and could indicate a misunderstanding of NFCC policy and how it's applied: non-free use is never condsidered to be automatic, and each use of non-free content needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
This discussion is about (or should be about) this particular photo and how its being used. As the nominator points out, simply saying something is an historic photo doesn't make it one per WP:ITSHISTORIC. The file's description states the creator of the video where this screenshot was taken has given "free permission" to use it to some media outlets under certain conditions; perhaps the creator would then give their WP:CONSENT for this particular screenshot to be used. The tornado also happened last week, which means there could be other images of it eventually showing up, one of which might possibly be already free or have the potential to become free. More images appearing, even non-free ones, and being used in various media reports, really weakens (in my opinion) any claim that this particular one is historic and should be the one Wikipedia uses. So, it would be helpful to assessing this particular file's non-free use if more clarification could be provided as to why using it is more justified than using any other photo for examples, the photo itself is the subjecr of sourced critical commentary or its the representative photo used by most media outlets (even now) in discussing the event. More clarification would be also appreciated as to how this photo can't be replaced by a free equivalent photo of the same tornado capable for serving the same encyclopecic purpose or even why textual description is in and of itself insufficient. Many Wikipedia readers probably have seen an image of a tornado, and most probably can understand what words "large" and "devestating" ("long-tracked" seems to be tornado-specific but not sure) mean. How does seeing this photo significantly improve the reader's undestanding of such context to the point that omitting the photo would be detrimental to that understanding? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To point out, tornadic NFC photos have general acceptance. Several have passed GANs and are in use on several GA-level articles (examples of tornado NFC on GAs include 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, Greensburg tornado (also in a GA topic...also a level 5 vital article), 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado, 2024 Sulphur tornado). So, there is a decent precedent and already a general consensus that tornado photos do pass NFC criteria.
Marchjuly you started by saying what is on the Commons, stays on the Commons. Well, that is why I pinged an English Wikipedia administrator (not a Commons administrator) who participated in this discussion on the Commons, where it was determined that tornado photo did qualify for an NFC on English Wikipedia. That is why it exists now as an NFC (File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg). Since that discussion occurred on the Commons, should we just disregard it entirely, despite the discussion being heavily about English Wikipedia's NFC policy, including an EN-Wikipedia administrator? Personally, I say that discussion is valuable for this discussion. In short, this is not as simple as "do we delete or not". This new deletion discussion is reopening what was closed and decided last year. If this photo does indeed not meet NFC criteria, then we need to have a larger RFC to actually determine what tornado photos meet NFC criteria vs not. The current consensus, even including an administrator in agreement, was that tornado photos almost certainly do qualify for NFC criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons and (English) Wikipedia are sister projects, but they're still separate projects with their own respective policies, guidelines, and communities: so, while there is some overlapping in certain areas (particularly when it comes to some free image licensing matters), there are also some important differences. Commons is more considered about the copyright status and c:COM:SCOPE of the files it hosts; Wikipedia is also concerned about such things, but it's also concerned about the encyclopedic use of the files it hosts. Things posted on Commons aren't necessarily totally irrelevant to what's being discussed on Wikipedia, but decisions related to files hosted locally on Wikipedia need to be made locally on Wikipedia; when it comes to non-free files, this means decisions need to be made in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In a similar, manner English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't apply the various other non-English Wikipedia. Some of those Wikipedias allow non-free content to be used while others don't; for those that do, the use of such content needs to be done it accordance with the policies/guidelines established by those projects.
For reference, the user who nominated this file for discussion is also a Wikipedia administrator; moreover, they're a user who has done lots of work in the files namespace (including issues related to non-free content) that predates their even becoming an administrator. Their being an administrator doesn't, however, give their assessment any more weight than someone who's not an administrator; so, what matters more to this discussion isn't whether someone is an administrator per se, but whether the argument they're making is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
As pointed out in WP:ITSFA, non-free use isn't automatically OK just because the file in question is being used in a GA or FA article. For sure, images used in GA or FA reveiws may end up being discussed, but more often than not these discussion are rather cursory and apply to how a particular image might be being used in a particular way in a particular article. Such reviews don't equate to be a community-wide consensus that all such image use is OK or has "general acceptance". Just for reference, you state 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado (a GA) as being an example of a non-free image of a tornado being "generally accepted", but there doesn't seem to be a single mention of any non-free files or how they're being used in Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado#GA Review. When the same article, however, underwent a FA review about a month later, one of the reviewers stated they had significant concerns about the use of non-free content in the article and specifically mentioned that an article passing a GA review doesn't make any non-free files used in it policy compliant. In an attempt to address this reviewer's concerns, you removed the non-free image in question (which was File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png), but you then added another one (File:The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.jpeg) to take its place after the FA review failed because "Commons determined NFF of tornados is ok", even though Commons has nothing to do with non-free content assessment that extends beyond c:COM:FAIR. FWIW, I'm just pointing this out as an example of why GA/FA reviews shouldn't, in general, be considered a way to establish any type of "general consensus" for this type of non-free use.
If you're looking to start a broader discussion about this type of non-free use, the probably the best place to do so would be at WT:NFCC (the talk page corresponding to relevant policy page). Whether a RFC would be productive is unclear: an RFC that asks "Should all non-free images of tornados be considered to meet the NFCCP" would certainly fail, but perhaps there is another question that could be asked. RFCs tend to work best when the question being asked is pretty straight forward (i.e., there are clear "yes" or "no" answers); they don't seem to work very well and can easily get bogged down when there is lots of gray involved. Since relevant policy requires non-free use be assessed on a per use basis, it might be hard for such a thing to get resolved via a RFC, unless it's about a particular use of a particular file. Such a thing, however, is exactly what this FFD is designed to do.
Generally, a single use of non-free content is considered already quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, and most of the time a non-free image of an "event" seems to have really been only considered appropriate per WP:NFCC#8, assuming all of the remaining NFCCP are met, when used for primary identification purposes at the top or or in the main infobox of a stand-alone articles about said event; using such an image in other articles or other ways, where the event might be mentioned, tends to be much harder to justify not only per NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. So, those are the things this discussion is going to attempt to resolve.
Finally, if you want to let others know about this discussion you may do so per WP:APPNOTE. In addition to relevant WikiProjects (which you've already notified), I suggest adding {{Please see}} templates to WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC. Before careful, though, about pinging/notifying individual users unless you're going to make an effort to notify users who might fall on both sides of the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted a lot (perhaps too much) in this discussion, but I'm going to add some comments on the other GA articles you cited above. 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was upgraded to GA status in September 2013, but the non-free image being used in the article's infobox was uploaded in November 2024; in other words, the file wasn't used in the version of the article that underwent the GA review. The current infobox image for Greensburg tornado was also added after the article was upgraded to GA status; in this case, its seems to be a replacement for the the non-free File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado.jpg and its replacement File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado 02.jpg. (The current infobox image was, for what it's worth, actually uploaded to Commons as File:Greensburg tornado on the highway.jpg, nominated for deletion by its uploader, who then re-uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free.) The GA review doesn't really have much of an in-depth discussion of the non-free use of images in the article and it involved just two people. Something similar could be said about the GA Reviews Talk:2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado/GA1 and Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado/GA1, both nominated by the same user and reviewed by the same user; neither of these reviews involved anything more that a cursory discussion of the use of non-free content in the corresponding articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because as stated above, general consensus is that NFFs of tornadoes are generally acceptable. And please ping me when you mention me; makes it seem like you are talking about me behind my back. ^EF⁵ 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other good examples just from me are 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2011 Cordova-Blountsville tornado 2011 Ringgold-Apison tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado, 2023 Selma tornado, among others. And them being nominated by me doesn’t change the fact that these are all GAs. ^EF⁵ 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a general consensus established about any such thing. Two or three editors discussing this type of thing on Commons or an article talk page doesn't equate to being a general community-wide consensus at all. Several editors discussing this at WT:NFCC, on the other hand, could lead to something approaching such a consensus. As for the additional examples your citing, once again, a non-free image being used in an FA/GA doesn't mean is the use is policy compliant as explained in WP:ITSFA: a detailed assessment of the file's non-free use in such a review could help explain why its use is considered justifiable, but GA/FA reviews are usually more focused on prose than image use, and non-free content is pretty much never discussed in much detail if it's discussed at all. The GA reviews for two of the articles ("Cullman-Arab" and "Ringgold-Apison") were cursory at best and the GA review for the "Robinson-Sullivan" article doesn't seemed to have discussed non-free use at all.
The first example 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado isn't currently using any non-free images. The non-free one apparently used at the time of its nomination was subsequently replaced by a free equivalent image within a month of the GA review, which indicates (at least to me) that the justification for non-free use was pretty weak per WP:FREER to begin with and probably should've been discussed more in the GA review of the article. The same thing could be said with respect to 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado; the non-free was that was used in that case was replaced by a free equivalent a few days after GA review was completed, which once again indicates the justification to use it was pretty weak. As for the remaining three examples, the use of non-free images in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the individual tornadoes themselves could possibly be OK, but they're not really historic images per se; so, their licensing probably should be tweaked to something like {{Non-free fair use}}. Moreover, the uses of the two of those three images in subsections of the other articles 2011 Super Outbreak and Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 is pretty questionable per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, and items 5 and 6 of WP:NFC#UUI; there's really no need to use any non-free images in subsections of more general articles, particularly when the subsections have WP:HATNOTES linking to individual stand-alone articles and most of the content just basically summarizes what's written in the stand-alone articles.
Finally, the Somerset-London tornado non-free image which started this FFD has also subsequently been replaced by a free equivalent, which means it's now fails WP:NFCC#7 and is orpaned non-free use subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. The fact that it was being used in a subsection of a more general article about a several tornados occuring over the same period already brought its non-free use into question, but being replaced by a free equivalent (at least what someone perceives to be a free equivalent) less thana day after it was uploaded means any justification for using it was really weak to begin with per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On your Cullman point:
See the talk page, it was established that a NFF was allowed in the first place. It was removed because a relatively unknown CCTV video resurfaced online, meaning the NFF failed WP:NFCC#1 after the piece was found. Nobody in good-faith knew the video existed.

Same thing with the Ringgold tornado, except there was no talk page discssion.
On your outbreak page point:
At Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023, NFFs are treated the same as they would given the tornado that is the subject of an image doesn't have a page. Same with 2011 Super Outbreak. I'm not sure how that fails NFCC1, nor NFCC3. UUI5&6 says nothing about subsections and instead talks about "wars" and "images with their own articles", which is irrelevant in this context.

Now that CCTV of the London tornado has been found, speedy delete, but the big point is that people don't know which tornadoes have CCTV videos of them and which don't, which satisfies the "no free equivalent is available" at the time of upload. CCTV can take years to surface online (did they ever release that September 11, 2001 gas station video near the Pentagon?) so it's physically impossible to guess if or when CCTV video of a tornado will be found. — ^EF⁵ 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Having looked at thousands of photos of these things over the last 9-10 months, my position is that the distinctive appearance of many (most?) tornadoes does bring them (barely) over the edge of detracting from a reader's understanding of a topic if it were not illustrated.
This is especially true of tornadoes that were not widely photographed and which, consequently, the same photo or photos become highly recognisable as the tornado in question.
As I pointed out previously to a couple of the folks participating in this thread, the case for keeping these images would be considerably strengthened if there were features of the tornado visible in the photo that were commented on or pointed out in the text. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the points you make could be reasonable justification in terms of WP:NFC#CS for using a non-free image; however, I think any text content about a tornado's features should, in principle, be reliably sourced per WP:NOR, and any contextual connection between such content and a non-free image should be strongly sourced. If, for example, a single representative photo is being used by all major media outlets in their coverage of a tornado or perhaps is the only known photo of a tornado, then that too would strengthen the case for non-free use; however, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of images for most major weather events these days given that so many people have the means to rather easily take photos and so many seem to be willing to do so even a great risk; so, singling out one non-free over another also seems OR-ish (at least to me) absent any kind of sourced commentary about the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble with your take here; we're in broad agreement, and my keep is marginal. To clarify my position slightly, though: I'm not suggesting that contributors add their own OR-ish take on what's interesting or significant in the image, but that the NFC case is strengthened if the image captures features of the event that are already noted in the RS that the article is built from (in general; not the case here). An RS that comments on the specific image itself would be the gold standard here, but that's exceedingly rare and well beyond what's actually required by NFC policy, IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zochrot at the former Lydda ghetto.JPG

File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_17#File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg that files are deleted via a PROD. But because of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_5#File:Zochrot_at_the_former_Lydda_ghetto.JPG script will not allow a PROD so I made this instead. MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allowances are made per WP:F8 as a courtesy for users who want to tag their own images with {{Keep local}} for whatever reason (e.g., some image providers have had bad experiences with Commons), and there's not a pressing need to stop doing so even if the uploader is deceased given the licensing is VRT verified. In addition, the file was moved to Commons by someone other than the uploader back in April 2021, which appears to be roughly when the uploader was dealing with the illness that ultimately was the cause of her death. Even though the uploader's deceased, it seems like it would be a good idea to add a notification of this dscussion to their user talk page; some of those watching the page who were good friends with the uploader might be able to speak to the possible reasons why the uploader tagged this file as "Keep local". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]