Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
14 January 2024
16 January 2024
Deletion requests on 15 January 2024

January 15[edit]

File:Yashwant Rao Holkar I.jpg[edit]

Likely copyright violation. Based on style it is a piece of modern art, but no date or author for the piece is given but supposed licensing claims it was published before 1928. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Centralize (talk · contribs)[edit]

Files with vague claims of own work, may not be free.

Spinixster (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, we are a agency working for Arden Automobilbau GmbH and Burg Zelem. We are editing and uploading the pictures in the name of the said companies. So I would be very thankful, if the media doesn't get deleted. I will add the source "Arden Automobilbau GmbH" on every marked pricture.
Thank you very much!
Best regards
Max from Centralize Digitalagentur Centralize (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Centralize: Because it is not obvious from your user name that you are representing that company, please send an E-Mail to COM:VRT to confirm that. Then that attribution can be stored in our archives and it is clear that you had the right to upload them. Please do not add watermarks to the images, that is discouraged here. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @PaterMcFly, I'm sending an E-Mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that correct? Centralize (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you should get a ticket number as a reply and eventually further questions if things are unclear. Since that Mailbox is handled by volunteers, expect some delay. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Issa Rae Black Girls Rock.jpg[edit]

source: https://library.uintah.gov/Author/Home?author=%22Rae%2C%20Issa%2C%22. identical watermark ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep That link likely got it from File:Issa Rae.jpg, which was uploaded by the same uploader a few years ago; the images are identical except for color balance, and Issa Rae.jpg has all the metadata. The uploader states in their EnWiki edits that they took the photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AfghanTurkestan.png[edit]

Нет АИ. В Туркестан включены таджикские и памирские земли. 212.154.56.32 03:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of South Turkistan.svg[edit]

Нет источников. Выдуманный флаг 212.154.56.32 03:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MTV OMG.png[edit]

Unfortunately, MTV OMG closed down in July 2020, just 13 months before the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. 2605:BA00:4138:155:FD66:6234:D89A:C194 21:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Speedy keep, for the same reason we don’t delete all photos of dead people because they are dead. Also, COM:INUSE (Here’s hoping this was the last time I wasted time dealing with a DR filed in by an ip.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MTV OMG.png[edit]

The logo is non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom. 84.15.184.24 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:EightTNOs.png[edit]

Wrong license and missing attribution, compare file talk page. Renerpho (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I modified an original with extended bodies and moon scaled to best estimates. What do you suggest we do? Remake it all from scratch? User:tomruen 2601:447:CE00:89B0:6475:80D2:2B36:1C13 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know anything about licence or attribution and I do understand that these things are important, but I would request that if it can't be fixed, we hang on until it is replaced by something similar- people really do want something like this that gives a relative picture of the big TNO's to get perpective on Pluto not being a planet etc.
  • IceDragon64 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What I don't understand is why we can't just change the license and attribution; why is a deletion needed here? If it's simply unusable in its current state, I would be happy to do a public-domain illustration to replace the wrongly licensed images in question. Exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be honest, I've started to dislike this graphic because it relied on inaccurate artists' impressions that were made long before we found out about the properties of these TNOs. For example Quaoar, which was originally colored blue in the 2002 NASA/Caltech press release and then later being crudely recolored a pinkish-red in a 2004 NASA/Caltech press release. Although it attempts to depict Quaoar's "reddish" color, the depiction is still inaccurate—what "reddish" really means is a dark beige color to the human eye, resembling the true color image of Pluto. All the other "red" TNOs depicted in this graphic are also exaggerated: Gonggong, Sedna, and Makemake appear far too red instead of beige. If you're wondering how I know this, the true colors are derived from the TNOs' visible color indices and spectra with the help of my friend's "True Color Tools" software. With the recent news of the true color of Neptune and @CactiStaccingCrane: 's (and my) efforts in using them across Wikipedia, I feel that depicting true colors is necessary to dispel any misconceptions about these astronomical objects.
True colors aside, I also don't like how the phases of the objects are inconsistent. It's not possible to fix this if you only use publicly available artist's impressions; there aren't enough of them out there. With all these issues I've pointed out, I think it's better to recreate this graphic from scratch—I'll be the one to do it. My plan here is to hand-draw the objects digitally—I have some experience with digital art. I'll try to have the new version depict the ten TNOs' latest true colors, albedos, dimensions, and predicted/known surface features. I'll make sure to provide links to the scientific papers justifying the illustrated details in the file description. Nrco0e (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love these picture and information. Until you can get into orbit and take your own pictures I don't see how you can judge these dipictions of space objects. Get real! The only reason you would have to have exact information is if you were planning a visit. Sandie Hardman (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File talk:Cafcivitynsw.png[edit]

Screenshot off a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOzRPynRgoM&t=489s&ab_channel=TheTrainGuy4), which in turn doesn't appear to credit the original author either. Per File talk:Cafcivitynsw.png, the original uploader of this image (User:DeRailer50) appears to consent to file deletion, as I originally suspected that this was a copyvio due to the lack of image metadata and blurry image quality. Fork99 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karl emich leiningen, nicolaï III.png[edit]

Low resolution, missing EXIF, uploaded by user, whose all other contributions are blatant copyvios. Komarof (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023" distorted images[edit]

These are copies of File:Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023 33.jpg and File:Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023 36.jpg, but digitally distorted (color/brightness balance). They are unused and unlikely to be used in light of the unedited versions (33 and 36), and the distortions add no educational value.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understood your considerations, I would love to keep number 35 - I do think it has a unique artistic effect. The rest can be waived. Chenspec (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wendelgard-von-Halten.jpg[edit]

Crudely edited image by a user with bad history, no mention of retouching, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a photograph of a deformed person in a play. If necessary I can make the picture a little nicer. Andreas.stockhausen (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, are you the photographer? Could you please upload the original image with complete EXIF data? Then I don't understand the need to show this "deformation". May be you can explain (even in German if you like). Yann (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Musikschauspiel-Wendelgard-Zeichnung.jpg[edit]

Not own work. Not sure if this is old or new. See https://www.wendelgard.com/ Yann (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wurde durch Rudolf Volz erstellt.
Genehmigt. Andreas.stockhausen (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andreas.stockhausen: Then we need the formal written permission by Rudolf Volz. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure (can be done in German).
(Google translation) Dann benötigen wir die formelle schriftliche Genehmigung von Rudolf Volz. Das Verfahren finden Sie unter COM:VRT (kann auf Deutsch durchgeführt werden). Yann (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Science fantasy wizard flying into a base.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:" happy-looking Gandalf" The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep It's not low-quality and is one of the only few images illustrating the concept of science fantasy genre fiction and art among several other subjects. Like the other image and even more so the person in the image does not look like Gandalf at all and neither like "Dumbledore".
There are thousands of photographs of the same thing including mundane things like pencils or low-resolution random streets but other aspects of human culture can't even have a mere handful of images of high-resolution modern digital art?
It illustrates science fantasy in that the wizard is using alien technology, implants, and aircraft like advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke's three laws) (especially when not understood even by the user) and moreover is flying into a base on some Moon or planet of the Solar system in a fantasy context. There are nearly no other images available that could be useful illustrating this notable genre and this approach and that they are here doesn't mean they need to be used on Wikipedia. There isn't really a proper deletion nomination either. I'm not sure Gandalf was even used in the prompt but if it was, it was just as a workaround technique to make it have a wizard hat because that term is centric to the images it trained on where the figures had wizard hats not samurai hats or whatever the tool generated as hats earlier; it wasn't meant to look like Gandalf nor does it look like him. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete OOS fantasy image -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And illustrating fantasy, art genres, and the depicted subjects can also be valuable, useful and educational.
    Why would it be out of scope? You just say OOS but don't support it with anything but your vote such as quoting some policy or providing an explanation for why it would be OOS. There's also lots of other fantasy art even though artists only rarely license their images under CCBY. Like I said it can be useful for example for illustrating Science Fantasy among other things. I don't think I've ever seen you vote/… for delete in any AI-related DR so I consider it possible you indiscriminately vote delete for all images of that kind. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete The image is unused personal fan art that serves zero educational usefulness. And no an image doesn't magically become educational or in scope just because it can supposedly be used to illustrated some artist genre or whatever. Every image illustrate a genre of art. Plus this image is based on pre-exiting, copyrighted IPs anyways. But the main issue here is the lack of educational usefulness. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I described why it is useful above. No, not every image illustrates a genre of art. It's not based on copyrighted IPs; if you don't know what a wizard is it can help to name a few examples. Moreover other art images are kept and usually have far more images available to illustrate the respective genre or are missing images as well. In contrast to other Keep discussions, specific educational uses have been described in detail and explicitly. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Stop responding to everyone you disagree with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:SciFantasy wizard commanding aircraft with gestures.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:" happy-looking Gandalf" The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep It's not low-quality and is one of the only few images illustrating the concept of science fantasy genre fiction and art among several other subjects. Like the other image and even more so the person in the image does not look like Gandalf at all and neither like "Dumbledore".
There are thousands of photographs of the same thing including mundane things like pencils or low-resolution random streets but other aspects of human culture can't even have a mere handful of images of high-resolution modern digital art?
It illustrates science fantasy in that the wizard is using alien technology, implants, and aircraft like advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke's three laws) (especially when not understood even by the user) and moreover is using gesture control to control a ultra-speed aircraft. There are nearly no other images available that could be useful illustrating this notable genre and this approach and that they are here doesn't mean they need to be used on Wikipedia. There isn't really a proper deletion nomination either. I'm not sure Gandalf was even used in the prompt but if it was, it was just as a workaround technique to make it have a wizard hat because that term is centric to the images it trained on where the figures had wizard hats not samurai hats or whatever the tool generated as hats earlier; it wasn't meant to look like Gandalf nor does it look like him. Gesture control in the context of science fantasy rationalizing "magic" is also a WMC-unique subject of the image. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete OOS fantasy image -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And illustrating fantasy, art genres, and the depicted subjects can also be valuable, useful and educational.Why would it be out of scope? You just say OOS but don't support it with anything but your vote such as quoting some policy or providing an explanation for why it would be OOS. There's also lots of other fantasy art even though artists only rarely license their images under CCBY. Like I said it can be useful for example for illustrating Science Fantasy among other things. I don't think I've ever seen you vote/… for delete in any AI-related DR so I consider it possible you indiscriminately vote delete for all images of that kind. "illustration[s]" are useful, I'd argue especially useful, and relatively rare among the giant volume of photos on WMC. (Same comment as in other DR.) Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep illustrative of science fantasy Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete as barely illustrating any of the mentioned concepts. The intended focal point of the image - the hand that is gesturing - is badly malformed, and the Minority Report gesture user interface part of the prompt seems to have been skipped, it looks more like he's a passenger trying to order a drink from the cabin crew. Belbury (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well you have a point there, not arguing about this but just as a brief note to consider:
things like that are (and especially will be) easily correctable using img2img&txt2img editing and a new revision could be uploaded over the imperfect image which could be tagged with Template:Bad AI. I just haven't got much of a handle of the post-generation editing (btw maybe somebody else has) where one can e.g. use inpainting to regenerate only the hand so that the image doesn't only visualize the concept but is also free of any 'bugs' so to say. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Wizard taking a mandatory trip.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:" happy-looking Gandalf" The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep It's not low-quality and is one of the only few images illustrating the concept of science fantasy genre fiction and art among several other subjects. Like the other image and even more so the person in the image does not look like Gandalf at all and neither like "Dumbledore", he even has a substantially Asian face.
There are thousands of photographs of the same thing including mundane things like pencils or low-resolution random streets but other aspects of human culture can't even have a mere handful of images of high-resolution modern digital art?
It illustrates science fantasy in that the society around the wizard is using alien technology and aircraft like advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke's three laws) (especially when not understood even by the users) and moreover is hinting at a bureaucratic less-fantastical or even dystopian society as in social science fantasy. There are no other images available that could be useful illustrating that, this notable genre and this approach. That they are here doesn't mean they need to be used at all or on Wikipedia in particular. There isn't really a proper deletion nomination either. I'm not sure Gandalf was even used in the prompt but if it was, it was just as a workaround technique to make it have a wizard hat because that term is centric to the images it trained on where the figures had wizard hats not samurai hats or whatever the tool generated as hats earlier; it wasn't meant to look like Gandalf nor does it look like him. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete OOS fantasy illustration -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And illustrating fantasy, art genres, and the depicted subjects can also be valuable, useful and educational.
    Why would it be out of scope? You just say OOS but don't support it with anything but your vote such as quoting some policy or providing an explanation for why it would be OOS. There's also lots of other fantasy art even though artists only rarely license their images under CCBY. Like I said it can be useful for example for illustrating Science Fantasy among other things. I don't think I've ever seen you vote/… for delete in any AI-related DR so I consider it possible you indiscriminately vote delete for all images of that kind. (Same comment as in other DR.) "illustration[s]" are useful, I'd argue especially useful, and relatively rare among the giant volume of photos on WMC. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why? Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. IMO this is an image that if seen some places on social media might get a reaction "that looks cool" but that is not a reason for it to be on Commons. IMO it is no more in scope than make believe flags of make believe countries that some people create for their own amusement and sometimes mistakenly believe should be uploaded to Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay but above I just explained at least one use-case for which this image is useful: illustrating the genre 'science fantasy' and an approach of it.
    Whether or not such images get such social media feedback is irrelevant but if anything would further support the case that this is useful and matches human evaluations of quality, subject relevance, and usefulness.
    Lots of other images that you supported to be within scope would seem to rather utterly fail this definition if this image doesn't even make it where I'd then ask why these, for which neither a use-case has been elaborated nor is clear, are within scope and this one is outside the scope. This one would clearly meet this quote and that scope policy since there is at least one realistic usefulness case for an educational purpose and, going even further than what the policy, there are nearly no other available images here that could be used for that purpose. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IMO any old 20th century pulp cover would be a much better and appropriate illustration of the genre "Science fantasy", even if the artwork was mediocre, for the simple reason that it was created to illustrate actual published science fantasy. Commons has a fair sized collection of such illustrations already. We clearly have different perspectives on this (as is evident from your uploading this file). Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes and why can't there be pulp covers as well as images showing contents in high resolution? Why do you need to delete everything that you think is not as appropriate for illustration? I consider this far more appropriate especially when considering that those covers don't even show any science fantasy and are basically near useless for illustration (except as in 'this magazine had science fantasy contents' which is not an illustration). And no, WMC doesn't have that. That it's on WMC doesn't mean it has to be used on WP. Policies don't matter it seems, what matters is the subjective opinions of DR voters. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep illustrative of science fantasy Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Chen Meeting Former VP.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://news.owlting.com/articles/307835: Not the same picture. 0x0a (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ethical culture fieldston school orange & black logo.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Billinghurst as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: appears to have design element, and not pur geometric - Converting to DR to get more eyes on this one The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Other speedy deletions

Originally tagged speedy by Silent Wind of Doom with the rationale: "Images of sports uniforms have been ruled fair use as per this discussion."

The images appear to be original works, but derivative of the actual uniforms worn by the players. Some of these uniform designs appear to consist solely of common property shapes (regular clothing and simple geometry), colors, and text. Others may have more complicated designs and should be considered for deletion.

Guanaco (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh. Deletion requests look so different on Commons than the main site.
I was notified about a discussion happening there about my uniform images. A recent (at the time) U.S. Supreme Court decision, namely on the case Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the design elements of a uniform are subject to copyright. As such, the designs of these uniforms are under copyright by their teams, their leagues, and the various manufacturers, whether it be Majestic, Reebok, or New Era.
The discussion came to the consensus of properly licensing uniform images as non-free sports uniforms with rationale and to remove them from Commons. As someone disrupted the ordered file names for the uniforms, and to be more precise, I reuploaded the files under new names, properly licensed them, and tagged the Commons images for deletion as per the discussion ruling them non-free. The ones that weren't moved have already been speedy deleted under request of creator. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Silent Wind of Doom: The decision about Commons images has to be made on Commons, as this wiki is autonomous. It may be more expedient to standardize and host local copies on English Wikipedia as fair use. However on Commons, we should follow the Supreme Court's ruling and apply the test to each image: "[A] feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated." The court did not address whether they met the threshold of originality, so we can evaluate these in the manner of simple vs. complex logos. Guanaco (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Silent Wind of Doom, you seem to misunderstand how copyright works. For a picture of a uniform, there are two copyrights:
    1. The copyright of the design of the uniform. However, per COM:TOO, some minimal originality is required, and if the design is too simple, then the design is not protected by copyright and so pictures of those designs can be posted to Commons and shouldn't be listed as unfree on English Wikipedia. The designs listed in this deletion request look very simple, although it could be debated that a few of them maybe are sufficiently complex.
    2. The copyright of the picture itself. The person who makes a drawing of a uniform needs to choose a free licence for his contribution to the image. This is the case even if the design of the uniform is copyrighted, and images which are uploaded to English Wikipedia without a free licence chosen by the artist get deleted per w:WP:FREER. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: none of the uniforms here strike me as above the COM:TOO. Just fancy text, plain colors and a stripe or two. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Other speedy deletions

Out of scope pictures.

Arthur Crbz (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Other speedy deletions

This file was initially tagged by BrunoBernardino as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: <G7> The limit has been way past 7 days, not eligible for speedy.

1989 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 11:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl

This file was initially tagged by Kontrollstellekundl as Speedy (sla) and the most recent rationale was: Outdated maps of districts of Styria, Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files nominated for speedy deletion by Davey2010

These files were initially tagged by Davey2010 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: author req

Moved to DR as G7 doesn't apply to files older than a week.

CptViraj (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Kept 3 as requested. --Minoraxtalk 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files nominated as speedy delete by Sturm

This file was initially tagged by Sturm as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: No inside pictures are / were allowed. Per COM:FOP Brazil this should be fine, definitely no speedy deletion case.

GPSLeo (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete I was personally in charge of this photowalk. Although we were allowed to photograph, we were asked, a posteriori, that the photos were not uploaded to Commons. Among all other participants, we agreed not to upload these pictures. Sturm (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete as above. I have uploaded most of the images and we have agreed to delete them at the request of church's maintainers. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 00:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Aren't we past the courtesy takedown period, at this point we have to rely on copyright and FOP laws. I see nothing that would violate privacy, I see images of floor tiles and stairs, and walls. I think the church should file an official takedown notice and explain why these images should be hidden from view. That way we have the name of an official from the church, and not possibly some random parishioner complaining about privacy, that does not represent the view of church council. I would assume most churches would want a visual inventory of their interiors in case of theft, vandalism, or catastrophic destruction. --RAN (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete I also attended to this event and I have heard about the conversation with the Father responsable for the church. He was emphatic about not publishing the photos of the interior of the church. Here is the thing: the Father contacted us with this request after the photowalk; in the meantime, some pictures were uploaded. Moreover, as much as I know about the scenario of cultural heritage in Brazil (I have studied the issue for more than 10 years now), most churches in rural areas do not disseminate their interiors and their collections because these buildings are settled in the middle of nowhere and have no security systems neither watchmen. The cases of robbery, fire and other vandalism are too many in Brazil. We must avoid wikis to be the reason for other losses... Sintegrity (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I'm shocked those images aren't being hidden, pending the results of an appeal. As for this, the analogy I'd give is that we often grant courtesy deletions to uploaders well beyond the official period when they are allowed to reconsider their uploads on Creative Commons licensing. Let's hide these photos as a courtesy deletion for the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Imagesdomainepublic[edit]

Uploader request well after 7 days, all unused. To be clear, I am not the uploader, I just converted to DR after the uploader tagged for speedy deletion.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Why would we want to delete beautiful PD flower pictures? Some of these images are quite good and potentially usable as thumbnails in articles. If you'd like to request the deletion of specific images you think are not useful, please do that, but I definitely oppose the wholesale deletion of all of these images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User:Dairokkan9's COM:CSD#G7 requests[edit]

Speedy deletion was requested per COM:CSD#G7, but these are too old, so converting to DR.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Out of scope as excluded educational content.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting here that I converted these from speedy deletion nominations by Omphalographer as I felt that COM:CSD#G1 didn't apply to any of them, and no speedy criterion applied to most of them. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of these files are Wikipedia pages printed to PDF, then uploaded to Commons. My take is that they're "redundant content [...] used for testing" (CSD G1) - they're redundant to the Wikipedia pages they were printed from, and they were most likely created as a result of the user messing around with the "download as PDF" and "upload file" sidebar links, rather than as a deliberate process. I can certainly send these to DR in the future if that'd be preferred. Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Converted from speedy deletion requests. These are all a few-month-old 20px by 20px images, requested for deletion by the author, and in use on template pages created by the author. These logos are so low-resolution to prevent their educational use, and are therefore out of COM:SCOPE, so they should be deleted.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete all. These are all resized versions of images which are, in many cases, non-free, e.g. File:AGI-VN.png is a tiny version of vi:File:Logo tỉnh An Giang.svg which is used under a claim of fair use. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Converted from User:Atcovi's speedy request. Too old for COM:CSD#G7, reason for deletion?

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm not familiar with Commons all too well, so I didn't realize there was a time limit to G7. I simply want these audio clips to be deleted because the "Mujawwad" recitations are in use and these audio clips are not avaliable on any page (therefore serving no purpose). -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Nominated G7 by uploader, but ineligible due to age. These are high quality, hand drawn works and could be within scope, so kicking them to DR.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Speedy delete all because those variants are unnecessary. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC); edited: 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Malozemovvstudii.jpg[edit]

unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment It appears to be Серге́й Алекса́ндрович Малозёмов (Ru.Wiki), which would make it within scope, but I have doubts that the uploader owns the copyright to any of their uploads, including this one. They're from a variety of cameras and are mostly professional. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tinzi Wharf in ‘30s.jpg[edit]

Two different wharfs. No redirection 水餃喵 (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1970 East West MLB Classic.jpg[edit]

I doubt that this file is licenced under CC-0 by it's original author. From the "TERMS OF USE" subpage of the source section "COPYRIGHT": "Material on Our Site is protected by copyright law. Except as expressly indicated otherwise in these Terms or on Our Site, you may download one copy of articles, podcasts, and other information posted on Our Site ("Site Content") solely for your limited, personal, non-commercial use as long as you do not alter the Site Content or remove any trademark, copyright, or other notices displayed on the Site Content." D-Kuru (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D-Kuru, if it doesn't meet the requirements of Wikimedia, I'm fine with deletion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: The issue is that only freely licenced material is allowed on Wikimedia Commons (local Wikipedia project may differ). Freely licenced material are files that are already in the public domain or copyrighted material that are published by the author or the copyright holder under a free licence. You as the uploader has to check and ensure that your file follows these guidelines. --D-Kuru (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D-Kuru, I will keep this in mind. I don't tend to upload images because I struggle to understand which license applies where. I uploaded this one for an article I'm working on and I found this program image on numerous sites (not just baseballhall.org - which I used as the source), including on e-commerce sites.
If you don't mind, would you guide me as to which license, if any, could apply here? If none does then I would support the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: In general all material is protected by copyright and it's reuse is prohibited unless you are allowed to do so. A file can be in the public domain due to age (last famous example would be the very first Mikey Mouse clip), but this would more than likely not apply here since it's not old enough (usually it's author's year of death + 70 years). A file can also be published under a free licence by it's author or copyright holder. This could apply here, however I see no indication for that. Just because the file is used on multiple websites does not mean that it's freely licenced. You have to check the source website if there is any note on that. The only indication I could find on the website is that the file is copyrighted (and therefore not freely licenced). Information on a website with a freely licenced file could look like this image on flickr: On the right side you see a Some rights reserved note which links you to the webpage of a Creative Commons licence that tells you what you are allowed to do and which restrictions apply to this image. Since I have no idea where information about copyright for this image could be found I can only help you that far. If you find a different note, I can check if there is a licence on Commons that can be applied here. --D-Kuru (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D-Kuru, I will take a look and get back to you if I can find one with a different note. And thank you for your help; much appreciated! Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LOGO ROMA 24H 2024 BASE BIANCA.jpg[edit]

The design looks above COM:TOO, even for Italy (the Roman helmet in particular. No VRT permission from the organizers. Ruthven (msg) 11:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non capisco il problema circa il nostro logo. HuntJames86 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HuntJames86 I diritti d'autore del logo appartengono probabilmente all'organizzazione dell'evento. Serve la loro autorizzazione scritta per poter pubblicare il file. Ruthven (msg) 12:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sono il Responsabile della Comunicazione e Co-Organizzatore dell'evento. Che autorizzazione devo mandare? HuntJames86 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HuntJames86 Vedi COM:VRT. In pratica devi scrivere all'indirizzo indicato un'autorizzazione a pubblicare il logo in base ai termini della licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione-Condividi allo stesso modo 4.0 Internazionale. Pensa a usare una mail "ufficiale" della competizione e non la tua email personale. Saluti Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Victor Buono 1969.png[edit]

Image lacks COM:EVIDENCE of being Own Work/Creative Commons. No other uploads from this user. Muzilon (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:정율성03.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Korea for the steel plate artwork in the center. -EditQ (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The building was constructed absolutely no later than 1914 (likely well before) and is extremely simple and utilitarian. Almost certainly in the public domain both due to age and lack of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Liebenstein11 Kultur-Hotel Kaiserhof Pic3.JPG[edit]

Die Datei ist schon vorhanden als WAK BALI 031.jpg EACC80 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep This version is of a much better quality. Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works by Dandolo Bellini[edit]

These works were created by the Italian artist Dandolo Bellini, who died in 1982. According with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy, copyright lasts for the author's life and for until 70 years after his death. Previously these files were tagged with {{PD-Italy}}, but that clause applies only for "simple photograhs" and Dandolo Bellini's works doesn't look to be photographs, but watercolors or engravings. We can undelete these files in 2053, when 70 years since Bellini's death had been passed. 83.61.247.43 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Istanbul Financial Centre.png[edit]

Not own work. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x71la9ni8OY&t=22s) 22nd second and later MarinaMann (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Istanbul Financial Centre (IFC) in Istanbul.png[edit]

Not own work. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x71la9ni8OY&t=22s) 22nd second and later MarinaMann (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not correct: If you look at the position of the EMAAR buildings in the background at right, their placement in relation to the buildings in the foreground is different. 88.244.92.193 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the height is different. 88.244.92.193 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Benderlogo.jpg[edit]

Not the good licence, not own work. AT (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foto is geen copyright violation of screenshot uit de video. Ik heb deze foto zelf gemaakt en kan daar het bewijs van opsturen :)
Foto is gemaakt op 3 december 2023 tijdens het anti Geert Wilders protest. Original File: 20231202_131159 {internal storage} Ik ben zelf Journalist en was daar toevallig. Mocht u bewijs willen kunt u mij een mail sturen samydury@journalist.com
Ik zal later nog fotos op wikipedia zetten van die demonstratie :)
Own Work I can send GB's of files and data made that day Samy Dury (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Antonius6317 please send me an email Samy Dury (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoi @Samy Dury, Uit de foto die u bedoeld kon ik niet de indruk wekken dat die zelf gemaakt is. Mocht u zelf toch de fotograaf hiervan zijn dan raad ik u aan contact op nemen met VRT door een mail te schrijven naar: permissions-nl@wikimedia.org .
Hier bekijken ze dan uw vraag of de foto toch op Commons mag staan en er de juiste toestemmingen aan verleend kan worden.
Voor de zekerheid kan je altijd al je bezwaren, bewijzen en uitleg over de foto meesturen die ervoor zorgen dat de foto er op mag komen staan.
Ik zou de foto (of de titel: File:Benderbij tegenover Luka van LS Nieuws.jpg ) dan voor de zekerheid meesturen.
Echter wil ik wel benadrukken dat ik niet de behandelaar van jou casus dan ben omdat ik simpelweg niet tot dat team behoor.
Meer informatie kan je bijvoorbeeld ook op https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contactpunt/Mijn_eigen_afbeelding terug te vinden.
ps: dit overleg vind nu plaats op een pagina van een afbeelding waar je vraag niet over gaat voor de volgende keer kan je dit beter op de overlegpagina van de betreffende foto of nominator/verwijderaar stellen als het bestand al is verwijderd.
Ik hoop je voldoende te hebben geinformeerd bij vragen of verdere antwoorden, mag je me altijd een bericht sturen. (Dit kan ook op Nlwiki onder dezelfde naam :).)
Met vriendelijke groeten, AT (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-vot.svg[edit]

It is doubtful that the creator of this image knows Votic, considering it is likely based on material of the now-deleted Votic Wikipedia, which was deleted recently due to language inaccuracies. 2001:999:2E0:6E7:4BBC:73B:9420:8A4 17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Votic wikipedia.png[edit]

It is doubtful that the creator of this image knows Votic, considering it is clearly based on material of the now-deleted Votic Wikipedia, which was deleted recently due to language inaccuracies 2001:999:2E0:6E7:4BBC:73B:9420:8A4 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:VoticWPLogo.png[edit]

It is doubtful that the author of this actually knows Votic, and the image is very likely based on texts from the Votic Wikipedia, which was recently deleted due to language inaccuracies. 2001:14BB:A4:5F8:E804:E151:9A0A:777F 17:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Puliesteban (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible F10, The model is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gerardo Techera picture.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Mostafa Ghazal (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Virginiaconti1 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: the model is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WZJZ Magic 100.1.jpg[edit]

Not a CC-licensed "own work"; this is the logo for radio station WZJZ, and that stylized "splotch" (for lack of a better word) in the background might be above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WMIA-FM Magic 93.9 logo.png[edit]

Not a CC-licensed "own work"; this is the logo for radio station WMIA-FM, and that stylized "splotch" (for lack of a better word) behind "93.9" might be above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hatikvah- National Anthem of State of Israel - With Lyrics.webm[edit]

No information on copyright Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a free license at source. Why would it not be valid? Yann (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
License laundering and derivative work of unfree source material Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that uploader has previously shown zero concern for copyright Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Francesco.tonucci.jpg[edit]

The source is https://ulp.edu.ar that has a CC-BY 2.5 license, an image dating back to 2011. However, an older version from 2008 is found here with a slightly better resolution, and what it is more important it is not cropped (see the doorknob). The older page has, no free license as far as I can see. Günther Frager (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2019-05-22 at 20.17.42.png[edit]

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--hjdhLL5bA ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Liis Järv (talk · contribs)[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

Estopedist1 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/15&oldid=847174900"