Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/21

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
20 January 2024
22 January 2024
Deletion requests on 21 January 2024

January 21[edit]

File:2014 Subaru Impreza WRC 2001 a.jpg[edit]

Derivative Work of Original Model design by unknown manufacturer, per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:F.J.A. Hijink HGA.jpg[edit]

File has not been published before 1929, file is not in the public domain of the United States. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ステーショナリー.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 221.146.52.92 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10; in use at jaWP, so not speedy under f10 criteria, though one wonders about spam and copyright  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other files that should be part of the discussion

 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Advertisement on DMC.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pretzelles as Speedy (db-advert) and the most recent rationale was: |help=off  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

billinghurst (talk · contribs) Oppose: This screenshot was meant to illustrate content on the former satellite channel called DMC, currently known as Buddhist Network. The advertisement does not advertise for any commercial enterprise. It was never used, but it could perhaps be used in the future when the Wikipedia article in question is further expanded.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: I was simply the admin who declined a speedy deletion and put it before the community. No requirement to ping me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shoalhaven City Council Logo.jpg[edit]

copyright infringement Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan.jpg[edit]

no/missing source, tagged by date SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source of this image is the Victorian Government / Premier's Private Office itself. There are no other attributions or sources required. Jacinta Allan (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Can confirm that this is the Premier's official account (operated by both herself and her staff); there was a bit of a discussion about it on her English Wikipedia user talk page (see also her conflict of interest declaration on this article talk page and this post from her official Instagram account showing her editing the aforementioned article). The sourcing information is thus accurate. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 04:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Triton2.jpg[edit]

Image misattributes the author as NASA instead of "A. Tayfun Oner", who is mentioned as the copyright holder in the source link. The source explicitly says that "This image is Copyrighted © 1997 by A. Tayfun Oner. Any commercial/for-profit use of this image needs to be addressed to Calvin J. Hamilton", yet no evidence of permission is indicated in this upload. For this reason, this image is a copyvio and should be deleted. Nrco0e (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Triton2 altcrop.jpg[edit]

Image misattributes the author as NASA instead of "A. Tayfun Oner", who is mentioned as the copyright holder in the source link. The source explicitly says that "This image is Copyrighted © 1997 by A. Tayfun Oner. Any commercial/for-profit use of this image needs to be addressed to Calvin J. Hamilton", yet no evidence of permission is indicated in this upload. For this reason, this image is a copyvio and should be deleted. Nrco0e (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Posesión Directora Derechos Humanos.png[edit]

Uploaded to Commons on December 3, 2020 with a claim of own work. This photo was available at a web site at least as early as August 11, 2018 (archive.org), see copyright claim, "2018 © MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR". Also uploaded by a different user as File:GONZALEZ IVONNE.jpg, deleted for missing a license. Thuresson (talk) 04:05, 21 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:KPU Grace Natalie Louisa.jpg[edit]

low quality Ribut Trisyo (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: in use. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KPU Grace Natalie Louisa.jpg[edit]

low quality Ribut Trisyo (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Out of scope: Fantasy logos of fictional states

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantasy logos of fictional states are not unusual on Wikimedia Commons: Category:Coats of arms of fictional countries. So is art related to works of science fiction: Category:Science fiction art. The four image files I uploaded are not 100% AI-generated. Is it permitted to upload imaginary heraldry and science fiction art only as long as it does not incorporate AI? And is AI-generated art only permitted as far as it does not depict fantasy logos of fictional states? I created these images as illustrations related to the 1996 novel Infinite Jest by American writer David Foster Wallace. The categories under Category:Imaginary heraldry from fantasy literature are well populated. Therefore I argue for the aforementioned files not to be deleted. USOUS (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Like everything else, it depends on scope and notability. Something related to a notable fictional country, like Lilliput or Narnia can be in scope. If I decide to make something up, say the Coat of Arms of the Amphibious Republic of Froggystan, that would be out of scope non-notable personal fiction, and would not belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking, we only host fantasy graphics (flags, coats of arms, emblems, logos, etc) when the source text contains enough information about those graphics to know more or less what they would look like. I don't know enough about Infinite Jest to say whether these logos fall into that category, but the complexity and diversity of these images leads me to think they don't. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep I would argue that ONAN from Infinite Jest is a notable fictional country. I certainly did not make it up myself. -- USOUS (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Per nom. From what I can tell there's a fictional country called ONAN from Infinite Jest that actually has multiple seals, which anyone can easily find examples of by looking for "ONAN from Infinite Jest" on Google Image Search. Although it's unclear to me if they are "official" or not. Assuming they are, then these would be fictional in the sense that they aren't the ones from ONAN. But if they aren't, then these would be fictional anyway since ONAN wouldn't have seals to begin with. Let alone one's that look like this. Even if I bought that ONAN from Infinite Jest is a notable fictional country and one that has seals, it wouldn't make sense for non-official seals generated by AI to be in scope simply because the fictional country is notable. Otherwise it just sorta seems like larping, which is fine, but still OOS. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Lubny-Colonel-Gregory-Gamal.png[edit]

Duplicate. PNG file is of much worse quality than JPG File:Portrait of Grigory Mikhailovich Gamaleya.jpg. Seva Seva (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK KT 觀塘 Kwun Tong night 牛頭角道 Ngan Tau Kok Road 裕民中心 Yue Man Centre 馬蹄徑 Horse Shoe Lane shop 價真棧 PrizeMart August 2021 SS2 04.jpg[edit]

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2014-03-29 國立成功大學學生號召臺南人於該校南榕廣場集結 北上臺北市參與太陽花學運.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted poster in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hymens 2.jpg[edit]

Drawing of different types of hymen is circulating in social media and porn sites, source is unknown. Photos number 2 and 3 are courtesy of https://www.jpedhc.org/ Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc., its licensors, and contributors. (article: https://web.archive.org/web/20170812021102/https://www.med.unc.edu/pedclerk/schedules/clerkship-at-moses-cone/readings-and-resources/supplemental-readings/child-abuse/3-A%20Normal%20Ano-genital%20Exam.pdf). According to google lens search results photo number 1 is on https://lbstack.com/IFPro4/ImageFolio4_files/gallery/Chapter_15_-_Child_Abuse/, but I can't find it there. ZimskoSonce (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tipos normales de himen de mujer.png[edit]

Drawing of different types of hymen is circulating in social media and porn sites, source is unknown. Photos number 2 and 3 are courtesy of https://www.jpedhc.org/ Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc., its licensors, and contributors. (article: https://web.archive.org/web/20170812021102/https://www.med.unc.edu/pedclerk/schedules/clerkship-at-moses-cone/readings-and-resources/supplemental-readings/child-abuse/3-A%20Normal%20Ano-genital%20Exam.pdf). According to google lens search results photo number 1 is on https://lbstack.com/IFPro4/ImageFolio4_files/gallery/Chapter_15_-_Child_Abuse/, but I can't find it there. ZimskoSonce (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hinh-anh-cau-tao-mang-trinh.jpg[edit]

Drawing of different types of hymen is circulating in social media and porn sites, source is unknown. Photos number 2 and 3 are courtesy of https://www.jpedhc.org/ Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc., its licensors, and contributors. (article: https://web.archive.org/web/20170812021102/https://www.med.unc.edu/pedclerk/schedules/clerkship-at-moses-cone/readings-and-resources/supplemental-readings/child-abuse/3-A%20Normal%20Ano-genital%20Exam.pdf). According to google lens search results photo number 1 is on https://lbstack.com/IFPro4/ImageFolio4_files/gallery/Chapter_15_-_Child_Abuse/, but I can't find it there. ZimskoSonce (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dacoit Kanha Singh and Vel Singh.jpg[edit]

Out of scope as unusably low quality - nonsense clothing, nonsense facial features, nonsense weapons The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney)[edit]

OOS AI generated fake fan art of Donald Trump supposedly getting arrested. At least the descriptions say the images are false, but they still aren't educational regardless. Although one image is apparently being used in a Wikipedia article about his court cases, but really, so what? There's no reason it should be hosted on Commons regardless since it's clearly fake.

Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Strong keep. This deletionism is getting out of control. 1) It is COM:INUSE. This alone should be a reason NOT TO NOMINATE them to deletion unless there were COM:COPYVIO concerns (Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.) 2) It is fake (who would imagine images tagged with {{PD-algorithm}} were fake? Wow!), but still a clearly notable fake: [1], with almost SEVEN MILLION views on Twitter and covered by several RELIABLE newspapers: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], also mentioned encyclopedically here: Wikipedia:Deepfake#Donald Trump, etc. Careless and clearly abusive nomination that shows nominator, who apparently has something against AI-generated content, did not even try to search about it. And it is false that one image is apparently being used. Four of them (60%) actually are, 13 times, in seven different Wikipedias and in two Wikidata items. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that a few of these got some views on Twitter aside since I've addressed it below this comment, but I don't think it's necessarily useful or educational to include fake images of celebrities in Wikipedia. Let alone to host them on Commons regardless of if said image is being used in a Wikipedia article or not. Maybe you could justify it if there was some controversy over the image that had an effect on the celebrity in questions life or something, but no one thought these images were real and they have had zero effect on Trump as a person what-so-ever. There's nothing inherently educational (and that's the standard here BTW. Not notability) about random AI generated images of celebrities in fantasy settings or made up situations. Apparently the guidelines only apply to keeping images and not deleting them though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they are educational. They portrait Donald Trump, Midjourney, and deepfake. Even Trump himself (!!!!!) shared one of them. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except they aren't "deepfakes" and at least one of the images (File:Trump’s arrest (6).jpg) is clearly only being used in an article related to Donald Trump as a way to troll people. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have explained that below. It is perfectly contextualized and sourced in the article, not that this is a necessary condition to keep the file here. You apparently did not even read the article you mentioned. Please consider withdrawing this nomination. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Very notable examples of AI generated images and deepfakes, mentioned by the press. Obviously on scope. Darwin Ahoy! 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: (and this goes to RodRabelo7 also) I thought the standard here was "educational value", not "notability." Otherwise where exactly does Commons:Project scope say images that have had some arbitrary number of views on Twitter or been featured in news stories are inherently educational? And what exactly are these images educated anyone about? It's not like they are actually "deepfakes" to begin with anyway since everyone knows they are fake. Otherwise maybe you could argue they are good examples of people being fooled by AI, but no one thinks the images are genuine. All the news stories seem to be about how MidJourney can make fake images of celebrities, which everyone knows and has nothing to do with these particular images. Or should we just host every AI generated image of a celebrity that gets views on Twitter or someone includes in a news article about AI artwork? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is COM:INUSE, it has educational value. Have you read the page? A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. And next time please ping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Admittedly they contradict each other, but at least Commons:Project scope says "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" and "a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational." Personally, I'd argue these images aren't being used on other project in good faith since at least one of the images, File:Midjourney Photo of Trump's Arrest.jpg, is being used in part of an article about notable events that took place in 2020s having to do with "deepfakes" when the image isn't a deepfake to begin with and the 2020s weren't notable for trump getting dog piled by police officers.
The other uses aren't any different either. File:Trump’s arrest (6).jpg, which is an image of Trump running away from the cops, is being used in an article about the criminal investigation of The Trump Organization with zero context and the description "AI-produced depiction of Trump running from police." That's litterally it. It's just an AI generated image of Trump running from the cops that someone added to an article because they thought it was funny or something. It clearly wasn't added to the article in good faith and there's nothing eductional about an AI generated image of Donald Trump that was added to an article for no reason outside of trolling. Or we should just keep every random AI generated fantasy image of a celebrity that someone puts in an article even when it's clearly being done a joke or troll? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. File:Trump’s arrest (6).jpg is being used in the Reactions section with the caption “AI-produced depiction of Trump running from police” just before the text “Deepfake and other imagery created using artificial intelligence (AI) depicting Trump being arrested and/or perp walked circulated on social media with faux headlines, proving controversial and popular on both sides of the political spectrum, though for opposite reasons. Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins was banned from AI program Midjourney after he used it to generate depictions of Trump being incarcerated and his creations went viral. The Associated Press noted that the filming of a protest scene for Joker: Folie à Deux in New York City coincided with Trump's unrequited calls for protest.” PLEASE SHOW me where is the BAD FAITH here.
  2. File:Midjourney Photo of Trump's Arrest.jpg is used here with the caption “Advancements in AI have been rapid and fast-paced in the early 2020s. Generative AI has become mainstream during the decade, with synthetic media in the form of Text-to-image models, ChatGPT, and Audio deepfakes. AI techniques have now been used in music, including the Beatles' last song "Now and Then" (2023).” Once again, please show me where is the bad faith.
If all these images disturb you, consider discussing them on the Hebrew, Spanish, Greek, Esperanto, Portuguese, English, and Simple English Wikipedias. We are at Commons. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deepfake and other imagery created using artificial intelligence (AI) depicting Trump being arrested and/or perp walked circulated on social media with faux headlines Nowhere does the article that line is cited say anything about "faux headlines" (on social media or otherwise) saying Trump ran from the police. It also wrongly calls the images "deepfakes" when that's not what they are. Further if you scroll through the news article both it and the social media accounts they cite are clear that the images are fake. So it's a totally made up story that purely exits as click bait. Especially on the end of whomever added that part to the Wikipedia article. Since there were no "faux headlines" saying the images were real or that Trump otherwise ran from the police. That's also clearly a bad faithed usage. As it's being used in a way that isn't educational and totally mis-represents the facts. Just like your doing by acting like I'm disturbed by the images or whatever BTW. It would be cool if you skipped the verbal abuse and stuck to the subject. Otherwise I'm just not going to respond to you. I'm not here to be insulted. Thanks.
Generative AI has become mainstream during the decade, with synthetic media in the form of Text-to-image models, ChatGPT, and Audio deepfakes. Again for the 5th time, the images aren't "deepfakes" and no thought they were genuine. Using an image as an example of a "deepfake" or something that people thought was real when it isn't one and no one thought it was clearly isn't a good faith or educational usage. Just like it wouldn't be if I uploaded an image of a stick, added to an article about cats, and claimed it was a "deepfake" of a cat that everyone was fooled into thinking was real. ---Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, let’s see: first you nominate them to deletion because you thought they were out of scope. Now that it has been categorically proved they are on scope, you say they are used for trolling Wikipedia readers, even though anyone reading the articles you have brought here will see they are not used for that purpose. What’s next? If you think Wikipedia uses “deepfake” incorrectly, that’s their problem, not ours—why don’t you fix it? (Protip: Wikipedia is a collaborative project just as Commons!) Your arguments are starting to become pitiful. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RodRabelo7: it has been categorically proved they are on scope I don't think that's been proven. We'll have to disagree though. But about Wikipedia's usage of deepfake, per Deepfake "Deepfakes (portmanteau of "deep learning" and "fake"[1]) are synthetic media[2] that have been digitally manipulated to replace one person's likeness convincingly with that of another." The last time I checked these aren't images "hat have been digitally manipulated to replace one person's likeness convincingly with that of another." So there's nothing to correct on Wikipedia's end. Since again, the images aren't deepfakes even by their own definition! Like we can't delete an image on our end if it's being misused in a Wikipedia article by their own standards of what a deepfake is! Come on. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deepfake and other imagery… Have a nice day. Cheers, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you were arguing they are "deepfakes", not "other images." Your just being obtuse instead of admiting you were wrong about them being deepfakes. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 Exactly, well sourced notability. And obvious educational value, as notable examples of a concept. And COM:INUSE. This nomination was quite absurd. Darwin Ahoy! 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: They aren't notable examples of "deepfakes" though, since that's not what they are, which is what they are suppossedly educating people on. You can claim the nomination is absurd, but its more absurd to act like they serve any eductional value as "notable deepfakes" when that's not even what they are. You could maybe argue they are eductional in regards to AI generated memes of celeberities or something, but that's not the current usage. Nor what they are supposedly "notable" for. Although I still disagree that the images are notable to begin with or that it would even matter if they were. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1, explain where they are not used as examples of AI-generated media. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their used as examples of "AI-generated deepfakes", which technically count as "AI-generated media", but that's not the point or argument I'm making and you know it isn't. Your just moving the bar since your whole thing about how we should be following Wikipedia's definition of a "deepfake" turned out be wrong. They were "deepfakes" and should be kept as such only up until the point where your definition of the term was wrong. Now your making it about "AI-generated media" when that's not what the discussion is or was about. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A1Cafel is more involved in deletion requests then I am and that's saying a lot. Since I'm pretty active in the area. Whereas, looking over your last 500 edits you apparently have none. So who's really the one who's not adequately prepared for this? It seems you aren't. So maybe take your own advice next time and don't engage in deletion requests. The vitriol certainly isn't helpful. And it doesn't make a difference that you reverted the edit accusing A1Cafel of trolling. It shouldn't have been said in the first place. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that going to be the game now? Super petty way to deal with a couple of your uploads being nominated for deletion. I've said it already, but pinging people that who think will side with you in deletion requests is an extremely bad faithed and inappropriate thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning sign Warning Adamant1 and RodRabelo7, you've made your points, please disengage. This is rapidly becoming a conduct issue. RodRabelo7, pinging people uninvolved in the discussion to try to sway the DR is frowned upon. All it leads to is tit-for-tat pinging and it's entirely unnecessary; Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending exists for a reason. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete
  1. Eliot Higgins is british.
  2. he lives in the suburbs of Leicester, uk. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/64130/eliot-higgins-the-man-who-verifies
  3. Commons:AI-generated_media#United_Kingdom.
RZuo (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An email to Bellingcat has been sent. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realize that i have voted to delete AI images on multiple occasions? Trade (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep all, per RodRabelo7's rationale whom I 100% agree with while we usually disagree.
Also per Darwin's explanation. I would have found this DR without getting pinged and in regards to that note that this DR is categorized into a category that is browsable regularly by people. The images are clearly notable and useful where specific illustration uses-cases have already been explained or implemented; they are so notable that have even been reported on by media outlets. Nothing more needs to be said so this should be a speedy keep and I always oppose number of votes overriding policy and/or solid rationales. However, I'll add that they're clearly labelled as AI-made. If it isn't clear enough, things other than deleting them can be done about that.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Iraqi Governorates map in Edessan Aramaic (Syriac).svg[edit]

I can't read either language, but the text here looks like neither Arabic (category) nor Syriac (title), so I suspect that this is AI gibberish text overlaid over File:Iraqmapinsureth.png The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It it a vectorized vereion of File:Iraqi Governorates arc.jpg, which is also created by me and it's in Classical Syriac also known as Edessan Aramaic or simply Syriac as written in the Title. As why it's marked in the Arabic category, it might have been a mistake by me or other users. Kristian Lahdo (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have checked, the categorization was done by user "Enyavar" on the 4th of January 2024 at 18:37, feel free to check the details if you are as interested as you seem.
Greetings Kristian Lahdo Kristian Lahdo (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Faszination Wissenschaft.jpg[edit]

Out of scope: Nonsense AI illustration - the background math is gibberish The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Low quality, not useful, misgeneration, and gibberish text. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To address points below, it's not a good illustration of shortcomings of AI tools since there are better images that do so and Wombo AI is relatively low-quality with this image not being a good representation of AI art at the time but would misrepresent just how good AI tools were at the time. The abstract concepts aimed communicated in the image can be better illustrated with higher-quality images so I'd encourage the user to maybe also try other AI tools and regardless of which tool is used maybe try another time. The pencil is held wrong and mathematics does not equal science like the non-English file-title suggests. Lots of illustrations that were first in their category / the only of their type have been deleted without any or much opposition and this image honestly is just much less illustrative than these. It's not a telling example of fundamental shortcomings, since these are not fundamental shortcomings and the image was below common quality even at time of creation. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image serves to illustrate people being fascinated by abstract theories. The symbols being unintelligible is quite adequate, as it underlines the abstractness. People are often fascinated by symbols they do not know.
The image should also be kept as a documentation of the state of the art of generative AI in its early years. Rhetos (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good reason for deleting the image here are the misgenerated arms. I can see that. However, as AI improves misgenerated images can give some insight into the learning processes of AI.
In an aviation museum, some dead-end developments of early flying machines might be of some particular educational value, especially to experts in the field.
Please give this thought a consideration. If such misgenerated images are kept in categories limited to "bad images" or specific AI software, they won't clutter other categories and yet be useful for future analysis.
Therefore, removing controversial images from categories might be a good alternative to deletion. Rhetos (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, this image might be suitable as a telling example of the fundamental shortcomings of AI-generated images (at least at this stage). --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Alfajores salvadoreños.png[edit]

This photo was stolen from my personal page on Instagram mfac10 and likely other sources since this specific photo is only on my phone. Chanelno50 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Types of hymens.jpg[edit]

Drawing of different types of hymen is circulating in social media and porn sites, source is unknown. Photos number 2 and 3 are courtesy of https://www.jpedhc.org/ Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc., its licensors, and contributors. (article: https://web.archive.org/web/20170812021102/https://www.med.unc.edu/pedclerk/schedules/clerkship-at-moses-cone/readings-and-resources/supplemental-readings/child-abuse/3-A%20Normal%20Ano-genital%20Exam.pdf). According to google lens search results photo number 1 is on https://lbstack.com/IFPro4/ImageFolio4_files/gallery/Chapter_15_-_Child_Abuse/, but I can't find it there. ZimskoSonce (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Iconoclasten in Westelijk Vlaanderen.pdf[edit]

Spellingfouten Verloren16 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:YashwantShukla-Gujarati-Writer.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gazal world as no source (No source since) Krd 09:47, 21 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.

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

According to COM:FOP DRC there is no freedom of panorama in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Günther Frager (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

According to COM:FOP DRC there is no freedom of panorama in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Wdwd (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png[edit]

as per comments on UDR. I have also some doubt about the copyright status of this file. Yann (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per this undelete thread from just days ago, there are active members of the undelete team do not concur that this logo is above the threshold of originality. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete. The image does not have simple geometric shapes. There are lines that create an image of a tear, and I believe those lines take the image above TOO. I am aware of the copyright decision that rejected a registration for some stylish characters with random horizonal lines drawn over those characters. Those lines did not suggest anything other than additional lines, so I see that decision as distinguishable. Glrx (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bas van Pelt - pasfoto.jpg[edit]

Image is not available under the given license and is not in the public domain of both the source country, the Netherlands, and the United States. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Nationalpreis der DDR[edit]

Contrary to claims, this medal is not an official work of Germany in the sense of {{PD-GermanGov}} because it is not "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". Per [8] and [9], the Nationalpreis medals awarded starting in 1950 were designed by the sculptor de:Heinrich Drake (Bildhauer), who died in 1994. The files should therefore be deleted.

The photo can be restored in 2065; the 1983 drawing by an artist who is not named in the file desciption can be restored after 120 + 1 years in 2104, or 70 years pma if the name and death date of that artist can be found. Even if the artist's name was not credited in the original publication, that does not mean we can treat this as an anonymous work under German law, because pre-mid 1995 German works of the bildende Künste, like this one, cannot be anonymous or pseudonymous works because the old German copyright law, still relevant in these cases, said so. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works.

Rosenzweig τ 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Blue-haired-anime-girl.gif[edit]

Random anime character, unlikely to be in scope A1Cafel (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anime Liz - Comintell.png[edit]

Random anime character, unlikely to be in scope A1Cafel (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo da Azul Linhas Aéreas Brasileiras.svg[edit]

doubtful if the avant-garde south american map is below the threshold of originality 2804:14D:5C32:4673:597:79B8:DFB4:1D8D 15:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Keiichi Hiroishi signature drums.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG Japan, calligraphic signatures are copyrighted A1Cafel (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Delete as uploader, not only because of nomination but also because it is unused. I had requested a deletion for other unused files including a separate version of this one (File:Keiichi Hiroishi signature.svg). reppoptalk 21:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vanitas (2006) - Paula Rego (1935).jpg[edit]

The author/painter has died less than 70 years ago GualdimG (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Werner Würbel[edit]

These posters for the 1936 Olympic Summer Games in Berlin, published by the de:Reichsbahnzentrale für den Deutschen Reiseverkehr in Berlin, are often credited to an artist called "Franz Würbel", supposedly born in 1896. But there was no artist like that, and the posters were in fact created by Werner Würbel, born in Berlin in 1899 as the son of Austrian/German artist de:Franz Theodor Würbel (1858–1941). There is ample evidence for the authorship of Werner Würbel on the web, in books and even some Wikipedias, so the "Franz Würbel" (born in 1896) character is a fabrication, probably created by someone misidentifying the artist and people then simply copying from elsewhere and not checking.

Werner Würbel was declared to have died in 1945 by a Berlin court in 1976, his death date was set to December 31, 1945. While that means his works are now in the public domain in Germany, they were still protected on the URAA date for Germany in 1996. A search of the US copyright records at [10] for "Würbel" found one work of his father in the 1912 registrations, but no registrations for Werner Würbel or the 1936 Olympic Games posters, in fact hardly anything for the 1936 Olympic Games except for three books by American publishers. So there were no subsisting copyrights, and the URAA restored the US copyright for these posters, which runs to the end of 2031. So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2032.

Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Juegos Olímpicos 1936 - El Gráfico 890 2.jpg is actually a composite of two posters, the one by Würbel and another one with the bell, by an artist named Ernst Günt(h)er Bibernell, who was born in 1912. I could find him in the Hamburg phone books up to 1980, and he might have lived beyond that. So that one should not be restored before 2057, with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ernst-Günter Bibernell died in 1990, the file can be restored in 2061. --Rosenzweig τ 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Estrella de Hugo Lamadrid en el Walk of Fame de Hollywood.jpg[edit]

This is a joke photo, useless for encyclopedic purposes. Xia (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Open Source Way - Episode 1.pdf[edit]

Out of scope: plain text (following a title page). Omphalographer (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question Should the transcript be included on the page of the audio file as text instead? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the podcast were in scope, then yes, the transcript should be attached to the audio file (ideally as TimedText), not a separate file. But I'm not certain this is even in scope; at a glance, it seems like it's largely a promotional vehicle for SAP. Omphalographer (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pat Ast, Dennis Christopher, and Shelley Duvall (1975).jpg[edit]

Nothing in this photo implies prior publication. No production or distribution notes or anything like that. Let's treat it as unpublished till 2003 or thereafter, so it may still non-free until end of 2095. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Кириловских Александр Георгиевич.jpg[edit]

Own work!!! 200.111.227.223 20:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bessa Myftiu Wikipedia II.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Maimaid as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: uploader is not photographer
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence has been provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is one external hit, clearly predating (2013) our upload (2019), however, it has far lower resolution[11]. 2 other older hits (2008 and 2018) have also lower resolution[12][13]. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This photograph lookes like a highly professional work of a photographer, whose name and licence is not given. It is not credible that the person depicted has the knowledge, equipment and skills to photograph herselve in this way. Maimaid (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bessa Myftiu IMG 2852.jpg seems connected to this case. Rama (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:شهمیرزاد.jpg[edit]

unlikely to be own work. https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/6010695/%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B4%D8%AA-%DA%A9%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1 ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Students March Montgomery, 3-17-65.jpg[edit]

(c)(c)(c)(c) Svajcr (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:James Forman w MLK in Montgomery.jpg[edit]

(c)(c)(c)(c)(c) Svajcr (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:James Forman in Montgomery, March 1965.jpg[edit]

(c)(c)(c)(c) Svajcr (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stokely Carmichael in Alabama 1966.jpeg[edit]

(c)(c)(c)(c) Svajcr (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment If you have specific information about this being a copyright violation, please share it. I've spent some time looking and have not found specifics one way or another. File says from Encyclopedia of Alabama, Courtesy of Birmingham Public Library archives - seen Encyclopedia of Alabama, 2015 archived version which give no license info. I have not succeeded in finding this particular photo at Birmingham Public Library online [15]. The uploader's claim that this is CC-zero seems dubious if no support for it can be found. On the other hand, much US 1960s material has fallen into the public domain for lacking the registration or renewals required in the era. Better information would be needed to keep this image - or alternatively to delete it quickly as a clear copyright violation. Currently in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WMTV 15.svg[edit]

This is definitely not CC0-licensed, but is it above TOO? The station's prior-but-similar logo, File:WMTV logo.svg, is asserted as non-free on English Wikipedia, and if that version is above TOO I don't think it's because of the presence of the NBC peacock (which is absent in this version). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:The Bewitched[edit]

This is labeled PD-US-no renewal, but no US sound recordings needed to be renewed.

Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright on these recordings expired before the 1977 legislation that removed the necessity to renew copyright, and Partch died in 1974. The recordings were already in the Public Domain in 1977, and the legislation did not have the power to return public domain works to being copyright protected for a dead creator. Curly Turkey (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Federal copyright on these pre-1972 sound records didn't exist until 2018; see w:Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978 and w:CLASSICS Act. This gave copyright for 1966 recordings until 2067. w:Golan v. Holder (2012) established that Congress has the right to return public domain works to being copyright protected.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/21&oldid=849813815"