Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
23 January 2024
25 January 2024
Deletion requests on 24 January 2024

January 24[edit]

File:정율성01.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Korea -EditQ (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it really copyrightable? Taivo (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zengids- territory1174.png[edit]

Nothing in that link shows any sort of licensing or allowance to use the map, might be copyrighted. In fact, the link is a pininterest link to the same Commons map with a different name, which suggests it has already been deleted before. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems you really have it out for me huh I'm more entertained than bothered. Edit warring, trying to undo edits new and old and trying to get a wiki commons page deleted (all of this violating Wikipedia's anti hounding rule).

I'd say get familiar with Pinterest's copyright rules. There is no violation on my part, neither had this map been "deleted before" have a look at the map and the column with the date on the left bottom corner and figure why I found it appropriate to call it "Zengids-territory1174". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsecurity39 392 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons and Wikipedia have different rules (also, pretty ironic of you accusing me of WP:HOUNDING, dont throw stones when you're in a glass house). Also (not that it matters) I saw this map of yours weeks ago, but didn't nominate it since I didn't want more attacks. This has nothing to do with Pinterest's copyright rules, everyone can upload something there, own work or not. You just happened to upload a image that is linked to a deleted Commons map. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sol pais.jpg[edit]

Ja, ja das Bild ist ein own work 186.172.89.138 01:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete. Not own work. Taivo (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete. Delete, per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

File:Ronnie McNutt on phone.jpg[edit]

Eigenes Werk 186.172.89.138 01:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete. Not own work. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

WW2 or similar era photos described by the creator as "own work". It is very unlikely the uploader, who also wrote a bio for this subject (about to be deleted from Wikipedia due to notability) was the photographer. The uploader should properly describe the source (family archive, museum) and try to establish copyright status (if they ever come back, please read User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright).

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete all. No evidence of anonymous work, no publication data. If the photos were ever published in Poland before 1994, then they are in PD, but are they published before upload into Commons? When and where? Taivo (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You wrote: "No evidence of anonymous work", but you cannot prove a negative. I ran a Google Image search and Tineye search and found no attributed photographer, nor did I find anyone making an active copyright claim. Due diligence has been performed to satisfy our burden of proof. You can always come up with more "What Ifs", but we generally rely on Occam's Razor, we accept the simplest explanation and we don't delete on hypothetical speculation. If you want something deleted, you need to provide actionable evidence not Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which could be used to denigrate any image. For instance: Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release. In the end due diligence has shown the the image is anonymous and case law has ruled that images are "made public" when they leave the custody of the photographer. --RAN (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anonymous work is enough well proven, if a respectable institution, for example museum or newspaper, says so. Googling is here not enough. And I do not need to prove anything. Uploader must give proper authorship and first publication data. The photos are not anonymous by default. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". Your generalized FUD does not rise to "significant doubt", you have not provided any actionable evidence, just fear, uncertainty, and doubt, that can apply to any of the over 10,000 images using this license. Tineye and Google Image Search looked at over 15 billion images, and that constitutes legal due diligence to meet our burden of proof. There is no "museum or newspaper" rule. --RAN (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually there's really no museum or newspaper rule. If ANYBODY familiar with history of the photo says: anonymous, I would generally agree, but here's no such person. Anonymity needs always evidence. I repeat: photos are not anonymous by default and googling is here not enough. What if photographer's name is on backside of photo? Uploading backside of photo into Commons would be an argument for anonymous work. This constitutes a significant doubt of copyright violation and, really, significant part of photos with the same license must be deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can play the "what if?" game endlessly, but that is not significant doubt or actionable evidence, as I already pointed out above. We have never has a rule "anonymity needs always evidence", epistemology says that it is impossible to prove a negative. With an near infinite amount of rocks to turn over, there is always one more rock to look under. We have relied on Occam's Razor and due diligence for over 100,000 images with this license. Over 15 billion images were searched with Tineye and Google and no active copyright holder was named. Actionable evidence would be finding a copy of this image in a commercial archive like Getty Images. Both the EU and US allow a claw back from the public domain should a named creator be found within the active copyright period. We are just repeating our arguments, so lets hear from other people. --RAN (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Vislupus[edit]

Vislupus (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:

There is no freedom of panorama in Bulgaria and the photos violate sculptor's copyright. Sculptor Metodi Izmirliyev died in 2018 and the photos are protected with copyright until 2089 (70+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Delete per nom. Not obvious enough for speedy. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Raiden32[edit]

Raiden32 (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

VRT-permission from author jlois and others (see author field of infobox) is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Dlinevitch[edit]

Dlinevitch (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

No evidence, that the license applies. No evidence of anonymous work, no evidence, that author died more than 70 years ago. In addition, USA demands 95 years from publication, which has not passed. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Vladimir I. Tukhvatullin[edit]

Vladimir I. Tukhvatullin (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

Photos of photos, copyright violations. ru:Тухватуллин, Ильдус Шагитович was deleted due to non-notability, so mostly out of project scope as well. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Cobalt1031[edit]

Cobalt 1031 (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:All India Reporter.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. In India copyright lasts at least 60 years, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is text-only cover and threshold of originality must be considered. COM:FOP India says: "India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts". The text is long, but quite unoriginal. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sculptures of Metodi Izmirliyev[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Bulgaria and the photos violate sculptor's copyright. Sculptor Metodi Izmirliyev died in 2018 and the photos are protected with copyright until 2089 (70+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bust of Nayden Gerov, Koprivshtitsa[edit]

Bust of Nayden Gerov, Koprivshtitsa

There is no freedom of panorama in Bulgaria and the photos violate sculptor's copyright. This is 1960 bust. Sculptor's death year is unknown, but the bust is not yet in public domain. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Taivo, the Bulgarian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights allows “non-commercial uses only of images of permanent works in public spaces”. This monument of Nayden Gerov (a prominent Bulgarian educator, scientist, activist of the Bulgarian national revival) is in a public space – in front of the house of Gerov family (without a fence) on the main and longest street of the city, just a meter from parked automobiles. So these photos are allowed.
Further information: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria#Freedom of panorama

--Elkost (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every file in Commons must be usable for commercial purposes, see COM:L for more. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of Siamhistory9[edit]

Here are last remaining contributions of Siamhistory9 (talk · contribs):

Small photos without metadata and derivative works. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep These three:File:ลิ้มบุนนาค.jpg and File:อิน สุขะศิริวัฒน์ .jpg and File:Image of Boonnag Lim .jpg, they meet PD-Thailand, more than 50 years from creation.

Files of Syed muhammad manan[edit]

Here are last remaining uploads of Syed muhammad manan (talk · contribs):

Small photos without metadata. I suspect different photographers' copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files of SusanaRojasTorres[edit]

SusanaRojasTorres (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

Unused art of non-notable artist, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 24 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:Anthonij bonebakker-1584142931.jpg[edit]

Low quality old file. In addition, a file from the Amsterdam Museum is now being used of the same portrait. Amsterdamszilver (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imho no need to delete. This is the only version isolated from the frame as can be noted in Category:Anthonij Bonebakker Ellywa (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ellywa. Lidewij (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: consensus for keep. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anthonij bonebakker-1584142931.jpg[edit]

New version of higher resolution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthonij_Bonebakker_(1730-1797),_objectnr_7478.jpg + https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:.._DAT_Collectie_images_S_7478_000_(1).jpg Amsterdamszilver (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gaumont.svg[edit]

no official logo, HenriGosselin (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete. Surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jan Voorhout Maagdenhuis.jpg[edit]

very bad quality, very low resolution, better File:Jan VOORHOUT (1647-1723), Samson and Delilah.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smaragdsteeltjes-associatie als inslaggemeenschap in eutroof grasland.jpg[edit]

Deze redirect is onzinnig om te behouden. Industrees (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pintura de Fidel.png[edit]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo stagione 2016.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Janik98 as Copyvio (copyviol) and the most recent rationale was: TV program logo, obviously not an "own work" COM:TOO Italy? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 19:46, 24 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:Claire-fagin-president-of-the-university-of-pennsylvania.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Licensing, Commons only accepts files that are explicitly freely licensed or in the public domain. The restrictions the uploader has placed in the file description, " ***WARNING*** RESTRICTED USAGE --- - PERMISSION NEEDED FOR EACH USE" and "Permission required for reuse", are therefore incompatible with this file being hosted on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shot This image of Claire Fagin on an assignment for the New York Times. I have the right to use it and upload it to Wikipedia, and I updated the description accordingly. BillCramer (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the update! Marbletan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination: Since the re-use restrictions have been removed, I think the issue is resolved. Marbletan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Claire-fagin-president-of-the-university-of-pennsylvania.jpg[edit]

"Warning: Restricted..." - see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. This was addressed by the uploader yesterday; see above. Omphalographer (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. I uploaded a new image where I added metadata for the photo. Please check if everything is okay now. Thanks! BillCramer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dent Blanche - Monstrueuse coquette.jpg[edit]

File published in 2022 under copyright on www.thomascrauwels.ch. Espandero (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Espandero,
I am the author of the picture and I gave the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International rights on this particular file.
Thank you for being concerned that somebody may have used it without my autorisation, it's very kind of you. Thomas Crauwels (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
copy/paste of my message on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nadelgrat and Beyond.jpg: Hello Thomas Crauwels, thanks for confirming that it is in fact you who posted this image. I'm just worried that since you already published this file under a non-free licence on your website (with both mentions "© 2022" in the file description and "© 2010 - 2024 Thomas Crauwels. Tous droits réservés" at the bottom of the website) then this file might not be eligible for a Creative Commons licence. I think mentioning the free licence on your website as well would be a good step towards assuring we can keep this picture here, although I'm not 100% sure you can change licencing of a file like that. (@Achim55: for info). Thanks, Espandero (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep per above. --Achim55 (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nadelgrat and Beyond.jpg[edit]

File published in 2022 under copyright on www.thomascrauwels.ch. Espandero (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Espandero,
I am the author of the picture and I gave the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International rights on this particular file.
Thank you for being concerned that somebody may have used it without my autorisation, it's very kind of you.
Is it possible to remove the deletion request ?
Thank you! Thomas Crauwels (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Thomas Crauwels, thanks for confirming that it is in fact you who posted this image. I'm just worried that since you already published this file under a non-free licence on your website (with both mentions "© 2022" in the file description and "© 2010 - 2024 Thomas Crauwels. Tous droits réservés" at the bottom of the website) then this file might not be eligible for a Creative Commons licence. I think mentioning the free licence on your website as well would be a good step towards assuring we can keep this picture here, although I'm not 100% sure you can change licencing of a file like that. (@Achim55: for info). Thanks, Espandero (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep per above. --Achim55 (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:National Eisteddfod of Wales 1929 poster.jpg[edit]

1929 British poster, FOP in the UK doesn't cover 2D graphical works like this. Poster could be public domain in the UK if the author died before 1954, regardless, it had its US copyright restored under URAA and will not be public domain in the US until next year. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jelle Dierickx Veerle Declerck Marcel Kocken.jpg[edit]

I don like it (the source) 200.111.17.97 20:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific? I knew that this photo existed, I asked the festival staff if I could use it, and they sent it to me with all the specific copyright informations. RDiependaele (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. 200.111.17.97 20:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LUN23drukwerk1.jpg[edit]

You will never walk alone 200.111.17.97 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Banner Musica Divina 2018.jpg[edit]

I don accept posters 200.111.17.97 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Poesia Divina 2018.jpg[edit]

Poesia Divina (PD) 200.111.17.97 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by E. Hărdăuț (talk · contribs)[edit]

Book covers. Not own work.

Gikü (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tütüncü.jpg[edit]

Reasons for deletion request -Emreculha (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC) There is no CC sourceReply[reply]

File:Tütüncü.jpg[edit]

Kaynak bilgisi verilmemiştir Emreculha (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Trentbarton Optare Solo M920 (FE02 KFL).jpg[edit]

Falsely claimed as 'own work'; original image license also incompatible with Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/191843720@N04/53429836720 Hullian111 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Valve Jaagus.jpg[edit]

from Facebook. Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amra Ram Sign.png[edit]

India protects signatures with copyright and en:Amra Ram is still living. Abzeronow (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Original Diels-Alder reaction 2.svg[edit]

svg isn't displaying right, will upload png instead Michael7604 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Brac University Logo.png[edit]

This is my personal design property. I don't want to make it free license. White Coffee Bean (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tigre 1995.jpg[edit]

Image taken in Argentina in 1995 and published afterwards (summary does specify when). Probably it is in the public domain in Argentina (photos are protected for 20-25 years after publication), but they are clearly not in the public domain in the US due to Berne Convention. We can only keep it, if there is evidence that the copyright owner released under a free license. Günther Frager (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Notes to You (1941).webm[edit]

Features Porky Pig. The original character is still under copyright until at least 2031. Other elements of this short might remain under copyright longer. SDudley (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Media Art History AI placeholder 3.jpg[edit]

out of scopeː no educational value RedAuburn (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree to a degree. The image is used as a placeholder in the absence of an image of an artist or an artwork in the pages for Media Art History in Finland. The image symbolically represents an anonymous digital creation, and it will be replaced with the correct image when the artist agrees to share an image of their artwork or themselves openly. An AI-generated placeholder is thematically quite fitting.
I am curious to see how this policy develops, but more urgently I hope the files will not be deleted as I will be presenting the project to the artists in the project on Friday. Best regards, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Not out of scope, COM:INUSE, and a beautiful modern novel-type/method artwork useful for illustrating art style(s) as well as useful and valuable for other reasons. I suspect the comment above is also arguing for a keep. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete. Use in Meta wiki is like use in a Commons gallery or on a userpage. It doesn't convey automatic project scope in the same way that mainspace usage in a project does. This should be replaced by one of the many images at Category:Persons placeholders for the person entries and another placeholder for artwork entries. I am adding the following two images to this DR:
I tried to boldly replace the images myself, but they are buried behind so much template code that I wasn't sure if I was making the correct edits. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that is not true. Nothing in COM:INUSE suggests meta wiki uses would be like Commons galleries or userpages. These images would be within scope, for example as good-quality examples to illustrate AI tools for abstract art, even if they weren't in use. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One Piece graphics[edit]

These graphics are all derived or copied from the manga series w:en:One Piece and its spin off anime/film franchises, and are beyond COM:TOO. Other files in Category:One Piece may have other problems with Commons policy, but I'm not as familiar with the justifications, and limit this nomination to those that require the most precaution for the project. Others I left out explicitly as they do not seem beyond TOO (the "Berries" currency symbol ; the MARINES text logo), but they might be debatable as well.

Copies or recreations of symbols and graphical elements[edit]

Photographs and video of merchandise[edit]

Photographs of first party promotional works[edit]

Photographs of third party promotional works[edit]

Unsure[edit]

These contain simplified representations of elements (specifially: a non-descript straw hat with a red band; a generic skull and crossbones), but it's not clear to me if these violate policy or not.


--Cmprince (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete all, except for the following three files:
Delete all the other files because they are images of non-free designs that are protected by copyright, see COM:TOYS. A de minimis rationale is unlikely to be valid if 'One Piece' is mentioned in the file name or the desctiption or the file categories, see COM:DM. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't File:One Piece Train in Kuala Lumpur.jpg covered by Freedom of Panorama in Malaysia? I'm not sure whether a train counts as a permanent work. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep all of these:
all way below COM:TOO
per above
not because of FOP but because a partially obscured image of Luffy is clear de minimis. The advertisement in front of the train is more of a copyright concern (but I’d also say it’s DM) Dronebogus (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ounfvtgh.svg[edit]

Test image, fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 23:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mamie Van Doren American actress.jpg[edit]

Low-resolution copy of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mamie_Van_Doren_US_actress.jpg - obviously not uploader's "own work" at all Pinkbeast (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems likely all the uploader's other files are equally bogus - can someone do the lot, or should I nominate them individually? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HypospadiasAdultMale.jpg[edit]

No longer relevant. Do not want this attached to this account. AngryGlizzy (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/24&oldid=849689305"