Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
7 November 2023
9 November 2023
Deletion requests on 8 November 2023

November 8[edit]

File:Vietcombank Tower, Saigon (20230705 1508).jpg[edit]

Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons, architect César Pelli died in 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I removed potentially copyrightable parts, leaving only the silhouette, similarly to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puhane_Eiffelturm_Nacht-censored.jpg Could be stitched to the 2 other similar pictures to give an overall view. Syced (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I don't see much educational use on this. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Vietcombank Tower, Saigon (20230705 1508-1).jpg[edit]

Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons, architect César Pelli died in 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I removed potentially copyrightable parts, leaving only the silhouette, similarly to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puhane_Eiffelturm_Nacht-censored.jpg Could be stitched to the 2 other similar pictures to give an overall view. Syced (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I don't see much educational use on this. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Vietcombank Tower, Saigon (20230705 1508-2).jpg[edit]

Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons, architect César Pelli died in 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I removed potentially copyrightable parts, leaving only the silhouette, similarly to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puhane_Eiffelturm_Nacht-censored.jpg Syced (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I don't see much educational use on this. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:TV Malaysia logo from 1963–1969.svg[edit]

Appears to be too complex for PD-textlogo The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete Yeah, too complex almost anywhere, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep. Work of Malaysian government from more than 50 years ago is in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for that. Then it just needs a different template than PD-textlogo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сташинский.webp[edit]

Not own, not 2023 Lesless (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arnt Jensen (mf) til BAFTA-uddelingen i London 2017.jpg[edit]

Given history of deleted uploads from user, not own work but taken from the internet e.g. here. 80.62.117.42 06:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This photo is taken by me at the Bafta awards. I have the rights myself.
I have not uploaded photos here without permission, but the rules in relation to licences etc is really difficult. Haugethor (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1998 Page Plant.jpg[edit]

Probable copyright violation, unlikely that the Flickr uploader owns the copyright of the photograph used for this ticket. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Led Zeppelin (GB, London 1968) Aktuil-052-1970.jpg[edit]

Unreliable public domain declaration, unlikely that this was first published in Indonesia. Appears to be a promotional image of the UK band Led Zeppelin. File name includes 'London'. Declared source does not attribute the image.[page 22] Alamy attributes the image to ZUMA Press, Inc.[1] Iimage had since been used for a CD cover.[2] Verbcatcher (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep We have ruled on similar images prior. We had album covers in ads in Billboard magazine that were public domain from lack of copyright symbol. The lowres ad image was public domain, but the hires image from the album cover with copyright symbol remained copyrighted, and the hires publicity image with copyright symbol remained copyrighted. --RAN (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ADTECstudents.jpg[edit]

Probably not an own work (many other user's uploads are deleted as copyright violation). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No copyright violation here Editing and contributing (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ADTEC Dormitory.jpg[edit]

Probably not an own work (many other user's uploads are deleted as copyright violation). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No copyright violation here Editing and contributing (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Adtec Auditorium 2.jpg[edit]

Probably not an own work (many other user's uploads are deleted as copyright violation). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the right for the images concerning ADTEC. No copyright violations here. Editing and contributing (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only two was, the U8 Spider Tool and The image of the lake was not my own. A mistake on my end. Will not happen again. Editing and contributing (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Autorità Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali o GDPR.jpg[edit]

Original digital artwork by the uploader, out of scope Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license 6[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (Mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua. Needed link where this fotos (document) published at Mil.gov.ua. The source of the photos is a document on drive.google without any indication of copyright, author or any free license. Another link is copyrighted by "Janes 2021325".--Kursant504 (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment These are my uploads. Please defer taking any action on these files and then align the decision to the discussion here, which involves the same issue. If those files are kept or deleted, these should have the same treatment. Streamline8988 (talk)

File:Bozza, disegno del Grande Mare.png[edit]

Original digital artwork by the uploader, out of scope. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Первые сотрудники САО.png[edit]

Not own work, picture from the internet Leokand (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gaetan Roy.jpg[edit]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture belongs to my organization JMS and I have the right to use it. Gaetan.roy (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gaetan.roy Please provide that proof to COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Gaetan.roy (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pictures belong to my organization netzwerk-m and I have the rights to use them. Gaetan.roy (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gaetan.roy please provide that proof to COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Johan Manuel Marquez Gutiérrez Músico Multipercusion (talk · contribs)[edit]

DW, all images need sources, unlikely to be own work

Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UralAirlines wheat field 2023 3.jpg[edit]

No evidence of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International in source. Drakosh (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually this picture is taken from official Telegram-channel, created by press-office of Ural Airlines. They have put there in that post several videos and pictures and commented it like this "Уважаемые журналисты, вы можете использовать эти видео в своих материалах без ограничений". Translation "dear journalists you can use these videos in your works without any limitations". Actually - no any limitations is a "{Copyrighted free use}" analogue. But it is using Google maps or Yandex maps under it (probably), and in that case it's copyrighted. Not sure how this should be handled.
На русском. Это изображение взято из официального телеграм-канала пресс-службы Уральских Авиалиний. Они в одном посте разместиили несколько видеофайлов и изображений и в подписис указали "Уважаемые журналисты, вы можете использовать эти видео в своих материалах без ограничений". Это может быть истолковано как аналог разрешения на полностью свободное использование. Но, возможно, при изготовлении ихзображения они использовал Google или Яндекс-карты. В этом случае изображение коммерчески лицензировано, и здесь его использовать нельзя. Не уверен, как поступить.
P.S. Вероятно, загружу непосредственно в русскую вивкипедию на условиях добросовестного использования.
Foreignyakin (talk) Foreignyakin (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:62751338058089.Y3JvcCw0ODAsMzc1LDE2LDY1.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 0x0a as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G2. Original uploader is Dienthoaiquangcao62 and redirect creator is 0x0a, so the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion and I create a regular deletion discussion. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tomas Niklasson Autoportret, 2015, eksponat Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach.png[edit]

No proof of licence Ariam (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MK FB ASAP Part of HCLTech Logo weiss 20230907.png[edit]

Datei wird für den Beitrag ASAP Gruppe nicht benötigt, da visuell nicht passend. Bitte um Löschung der Datei. ASAP Gruppe (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karl Adler Ausschnitt aus einem Bild von einem Chor.jpg[edit]

wrong author, wrong date . Picture obviously taken from here https://www.lexm.uni-hamburg.de/object/lexm_lexmmedium_00001115, where no author or date is given Goesseln (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Awatar czyli zamiana dusz Michal Tadeusz Golanski.png[edit]

This is not own work, ot on this year, copyvio Ciacho5 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my own creation. Vitja GolaSS (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Plakat Drugi człowiek autor Michal Tadeusz Golanski.jpg[edit]

copyvio. This is old poster. Ciacho5 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my own creation from this (2023) year. Thank You. Vitja GolaSS (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Does this mean that you are the painter? Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rebeca Silva Durán.jpg[edit]

Image of this 1955-born is unlikely own work by uploader, nor from 2023; no metadata and uploader's history. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same problem with:

File:1ο Δημοτικό Σχολείο Αλεξανδρούπολης.jpg[edit]

The photo isn't an own work, but it is a crop of wikimapia photo. That photo was uploaded in wikimapia by a user who was blocked for repeated copyvios. Given the small size and the history of the original uploader, it is probably a copyvio, and thus delete due to precautionary principle. C messier (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stefan Malzkorn, Hamburger Fotograf.jpg[edit]

Duplicate of File:Stefan Malzkorn Hamburger Fotograf und Journalist.jpg Till (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Penis and clitoris size compared.png[edit]

This image has a fundamental mistake, showing only parts of penis and clitoris, but not their full length. Bad quality and wrong. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Male and female gonads.png[edit]

This image has a fundamental mistake, showing only parts of penis and clitoris, but not their full length. Bad quality and wrong. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Male and female urinary bladders in lateral cross-section.png[edit]

This image has a fundamental mistake, showing only parts of penis and clitoris, but not their full length. Bad quality and wrong. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Penis corpus cavernosum and clitoris compared.png[edit]

This image has a fundamental mistake, showing only parts of penis and clitoris, but not their full length. Bad quality and wrong. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:E.A. Sherman.jpg[edit]

This image (and its crop) are allegedly of E. A. Sherman (died 1916), but sourced and licensed to be the 2020 creation of User:Siouxlandheritage. If this is a portrait of Sherman, then it cannot be properly sourced & licensed, but if that's the case, then we also lack provenance that the file even represents who it purports to be. Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Please just fix noob errors, if we deleted every public domain image that used the upload date as the creation date, we would not have many new uploads. --RAN (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't fix what I don't know, though. If Siouxlandheritage created this, then it cannot be a photo of Sherman. If it is a photo of Sherman, we need the original source to verify both that fact as well as the original publishing date to apply correct licensing. It could be a hoax; I have no way of testing that without more information. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have edited the FDP to say it was taken circa 1915
    date QS:P,+1915-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902
    by an explicitly anonymous photographer, while also somehow being the product of the presumably supercentenarian-contributor Siouxlandheritage. Where did you find that additional (and contradictory) information, when the original upload has been Siouxlandheritage's only contribution? Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep. Sherman died in 1916 at age 72. I found another image of Sherman in this book from 1915. Given that Sherman looks about 15 years younger in the picture currently under discussion, we are safely in {{PD-old-assumed}} territory. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Candidates-Tournament-2020-round-6-Nepomniachtchi.jpg[edit]

© 2023 ChessWood.ru - in the bottom of site Brateevsky {talk} 14:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:پارسا سلطانپور.jpg[edit]

این فایل، عکس من است که به صورت اشتباهی آپلود شده و خواستار پاک شدنش را دارم. خیلی متشکرم 5.237.28.251 14:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stefano "Steo" Marando.jpg[edit]

Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Apache-pulsar-logo.svg[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a completely free image, it has restrictions on its use. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Turnierteilnahmen.jpg[edit]

I used it to practice the handling of files for wikipedia. Unfortunately, the diagram contains the author's real name in the metadata and should therefore be deleted. Derspiegel (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gwenola Santina Morin.jpg[edit]

copyright? Is the user Arman Molavi who has the copyright according to the metadata? Wouter (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Julien Santina.jpg[edit]

copyright? Is the user Arman Molavi who has the copyright according to the metadata? Wouter (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Out of scope: plain text, dubious mathematical claims.

Omphalographer (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These articles are from my book Jan Lubina "Number Symmetry", published on Amazon. Najanibul (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Out of scope: additional similar plain text content.

Omphalographer (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These articles are from my book Jan Lubina "Number Symmetry", published on Amazon. Najanibul (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg[edit]

I don't think this map is of much use, as it is basically just a copy of File:Political Divisions of the Indian Empire, 1909.jpg with an overlayed red rectangle in Bhutan. Doesn't realistically show the animal's distribution. Current usage is only a an en:WP draft page that the uploader has stopped working on in 2007? Enyavar (talk) 16:58, 8 November 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.

File:Gynecomastia001.jpg[edit]

The image filename is misleading and implies that this is an image of gynecomastia in a male, but almost certainly it is not; actual gynecomastia doesn't look like that, as the numerous other images here will attest. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed the filename is misleading, but the Chinese description says "Feminine breasts" (Google translate), which fits with what the image shows. The English translation is wrong. The problem can be solved by deleting that English word and renaming the file to for example 女性化乳房.jpg Wouter (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep and rename.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep - it's in use so someone thinks it's useful. If the filename is wrong then rename it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete For a possible rename I checked whether 女性化乳房.jpg already exists in Commons. It appears that it existed and has been deleted. It has been uploaded by the same user so I suspect that 女性化乳房.jpg and Gynecomastia001.jpg are the same image. See also this image. The link http://113.34.24.37/m/m/38497/img/0025783484.jpg for "other versions" is not available (for me). The file Gynecomastia001.jpg is the only file uploaded by the user that has not been deleted sofar. Google gives also many hits. As this all is very suspect, I tend to suggest to have this file deleted. Wouter (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Yann: would you like to advise, as the deleting admin? The only sidebar I'd like to make is that this is an old upload. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Unless if @Fæ, Jeff G., and Mattbuck: can explain why this has other educational means than sexual organs, or how this is fairly high definited, the COM:NUDITY applies, that said, low quality nudity images are not Commons needed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I have not voted in this DR, only asked an involved admin for clarification. --Fæ (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Liuxinyu970226: very simple - it's in use on other projects, and COM:INUSE states 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, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Super. Go ahead and swap the usage to the photographs you think are superior, before making the point about COM:INUSE. Make sure you add notes to the related talk pages so you don't just get reverted. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fæ: You can see why I oppose your opinions here by reading 18 USC § 2256, § 2257 and § 2257A. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: What makes you think the subject is underage?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: This file may be more useful where it is COM:INUSE in Japanese and Chinese language Wikipedias than File:Weibliche brust en.jpg because that file has English language writing on it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: We can translate words of Weibliche brust en, and hence multiple versions have same level of qualities and shares knowledges of breasts in many languages, why a dark breast image is "more useful" than light one? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Please feel free to do so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Liuxinyu970226: I don't know what makes this image more useful than others, I only know that it is in use, and therefore it is within our scope. Further, I would say that even if you were to replace every usage of it, it would still be in scope, because it had been in use (and frankly it's not our place to decide what files other projects use so long as they are suitably licensed). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use, therefore in scope. Rename if necessary. --Yann (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gynecomastia001.jpg[edit]

Dubious copyright and the source page cannot be checked. All other images by this uploader have already been deleted. TadejM (t/p) 17:02, 8 November 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.

File:KFSF66.png[edit]

A image of the same logo has been uploaded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFSF_Unimas_66.webp OWaunTon (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Other image is not on Commons. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KFSF66.png[edit]

The image is already on Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KFSF_Unimas_66.webp OWaunTon (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KTFK-DT (2021).png[edit]

The logo has already been uploaded to Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KTFK_64_Unimas_logo.webp OWaunTon (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KTFN (2021).png[edit]

A SVG image is already on Commons and not PNG here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KTFN_2021_logo.svg OWaunTon (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:YouTube 100k subscriber letter.jpg[edit]

Missing evidence that the uploader is Neal Mohan, CEO of Youtube, or has acquired his copyrights. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias: Every letter is signed by the CEO, and this letter was given to me and it is my photo. I'm not familiar enough with copyright to tell if that is enough, however. Panamitsu (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ecuador-trofeu-libertadores-2022-flamengo.jpg[edit]

Não é uma imagem livre: https://www.espn.com.br/futebol/libertadores/artigo/_/id/11150425/flamengo-volta-mundial-cumprir-pacto-jorge-jesus-elenco-estrelado-maduro-mais-opcoes Sepguilherme (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:66 Infantry Division Insign of Bangladesh Army.svg[edit]

Uploaded without permission, copyvio. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify: I created this file. Rishad Talukdar made a request on my talk page (after requesting it in the Illustrator's Workshop) to have this image vectorized, but because of copyright concerns (Bangladeshi government insignias are copyrighted) I uploaded the file to Wikipedia under fair use rather than Commons. Other people at the Illustrator's Workshop have voiced similar concerns. You can view the old thread here. After this he deleted the comment chain and several weeks later uploaded the file under his alt, Rishad 57pymr, claiming to be the artist. (As an aside, the file on enwiki now redirects to Commons and its file history starts at the 23rd, is there a way for an admin or something to see the file history on enwiki before that?) ReneeWrites (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Brendan at Popkomm.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author as per the metadata, Also, the metadata is in German, and the adress of the uploader is in Spain CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ohio Issue One Election Results 2023.svg[edit]

Redundant to File:August 2023 Ohio Issue 1 results map by county.svg and has some inaccuracies. Elli (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Old maps of Chennai[edit]

Low quality photographs of a map reproduction, File:1717 map of Madras by Hermann Moll.jpg is a scan of the original with higher quality. All unused.

Enyavar (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Δηλώσεις του Πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη με τον Πρωθυπουργό του Ισραήλ Benjamin Netanyahu.webm[edit]

This file was initially tagged by A1Cafel as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|Seems an error occurred, only a small pixel video can be uploaded}. Is this user allowed by community consensus to do speedy deletions now? Ooligan (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=686372916#Second_appeal_on_the_topic_ban
Notes by the closing Admin states,
"Per this discussion, A1Cafel is now allowed again to create regular deletion requests (DR). Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. If after three months from today, A1Cafel has shown that their newly created DRs are constructive and successful, the overall topic ban may be appealed at this board. Such an appeal shall include the notification of all participants in the original TBAN discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)"
I cannot find any appeal since 31 August 2022, like that stated above. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mahno sans date.jpg[edit]

Derivative of the deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dybenko & Makhno.jpg czar 18:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PONS EDUARDO JPG.jpg[edit]

wrong date, copyright violation? see source. Xocolatl (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep PD-Uruguay-anon, you can just fix yourself, instead of nominating for deletion. --RAN (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Not having determined the author is different than being anonymous. We have no reference of the alleged publication, either. Platonides (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alessandro pesquera tocando el piano en uno de los conciertos donde interpreta una de sus obras.jpg[edit]

"own work"? nope... Xocolatl (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The members of 1980s rock band Tales of Terror.jpg[edit]

Possible copvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sacred Arts of Navigation album cover.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:56, 8 November 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:2008 in Thailand[edit]

OOS personal images of someone's family vacation to Thailand that were imported from Flickr.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Some of these, like File:Spires (2288176268).jpg and File:Bangkok Panorama (2287990977).jpg, seem like they could potentially be in scope. I agree that most are OOS personal photos, though. Omphalographer (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a problem with those two images, or really any others, being kept if they are potentially in scope. I'm just never sure where the line is and some clearly aren't. So I thought it would be easier to nominate them as a batch and let other people decide which particular images from the group might be educational or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't necessarily have an issue with keeping a few of the images you mentioned, but with File:After the wedding (2297683606).jpg in particular the background is blurry and saying it's in scope because of the "motif" when you can't even make out the details because of it seems a little questionable. Although really the same goes for rest of the images you listed. What educational value is anyone suppose to take away from the image of a banana cooking in coconut milk? Regardless, I've been multiple times now that I can't upload random images from family vacations over the years because they aren't in scope. So I don't see why these images would be any different. Except somehow it's cool because they imported from Flickr instead of uploaded by an actual contributor. I can guarantee that if I uploaded most of these images under the guise that I just wanted to use Commons to host personal images of my trips to Hawaii or wherever that they would be deleted as OOS on sight though. Oh, but hey, one of these images has rocks in the background. So lets just keep all of them on principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think showing the process of cooking is not in scope? Well it clearly is. My remarks stand, and those are just the photos I looked at at the beginning of the list. I haven't even looked at any of the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Showing "the process" of cooking is in scope. A random image of a banana in a pot deviod of context or any other images related to the process of what exactly is being cooked doesn't show "the cooking process" though. Regardless, I think you'd see that a lot of the other images are pretty medicore quailty and aren't educationally meaningful if you look through them. I'm fine with removing the image of the banana in the pot from the nomination if its inclusion triggers you that much, but its extremely bad faithed and unfair to me to act like the whole thing is invalid just because you only looked at the first two images and thought they shouldn't have been included. A good portion of them clearly don't belong here regardless. I guess I could renominate them seperately later, but I'm sure there'd just be complaining about how they should be kept because they were already nominated for deletion recently if I did. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you count only two images that I mentioned? And what is this about "triggered"? I'm just saying it's an overbroad deletion request. If all these images are deleted, it won't change my life, but I don't believe in nominating a whole bunch of images, at least some of which are IMO clearly in scope, just because they were shot in 2008 as vacation pics and therefore are not professional-quality 2023 digital images. Your last sentence suggests that you think I'm operating in bad faith. I've made my points and see no reason to continue this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I meant to say "the two images you looked at that might be in scope." I just didn't phrase it well. Sorry. Anyway, it's fine if you think it's an overbroad request. But it the images are part of a series of family photos from a vacation and the guidelines are clear that such images are OOS. Even if a few might be in retrospect. But I didn't know that at the time and I certainly don't think they are myself. So it seemed worth nominating them all for deletion in the same DR at the time. Although I'll at least grant you that it probably would have been better to nominate them in smaller sets. All it takes is one image that's even slightly ambiguous for someone to claim the whole DR is spurious though. But I'll probably split the images up into smaller DRs next time anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this image is high quality and in scope huh? Same goes for this one to I guess. A fuzzy image of a non-notable person holding a beer is totally high quality and in scope. Sure. And as to your claim that my comment about nominating the images in a batch sounds inherently disruptive, Commons:Disruptive editing says "creating multiple deletion requests when it could've been opened as a single request containing multiple files instead." My bad for being disruptive by following the guidelines though. I can guarantee people like you would have made the same argument if this was split into multiple deletion requests. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, the guidelines do not say: "as to save your time, check a couple images and then nominate for deletion the whole category without checking the rest". If you wanted to do a mass deletion req, you should have first checked all the images and then selected those that deserved to be deleted (excluding the ones which should had not). So yes, disruptive and not following guidelines. Going to ignore the "I can guarantee people like you would have made the same argument if this was split into multiple deletion requests" because arguably it does not make sense. Cavarrone (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Which is why I didn't just check a couple of then nominate for deletion the whole category without checking the rest to save time like your claiming I did. I actually checked every images before I nominated them for deletion. Some of them are clearly low quality and not in scope. The others at least IMO are borderline, which is why I nominated them for deletion along with the rest. The whole point in this is to have people discuss if particular images are in scope, of good enough quality to be included on Commons, and some probably will be. That's finee. I'm more then willing to remove whatever images from the DR that you or anyone else thinks shouldn't have been included. But just because some happen to be in scope after we discussed doesn't mean I would have known it at the time or that the hole DR is totally meritless. Let alone does it justify your comment on in the ANU complaint. All you had to do was say which images you thought were in scope without making it personal and I would have been totally fine removing those images from the deletion request. Heck, I'd also be fine having this procedurally closed and re-nominating some of the more obviously bad images for deletion. It's ridiculous to treat me like I'm just here to play the “Deletion discussion: The Game” or whatever when your the one who made the personal, bad faithed comments to start with and haven't even given me the chance to deal with the images that you think shouldn't have been included. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: procedurally kept per nominator's request. Requests like this should be narrow. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:2008 in Thailand[edit]

These images are low quality travel shots and selfies from someone's wedding trip to Thailand that were imported from Flickr. So they should be deleted as OOS per COM:PERSONAL "private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on" are not realistically educational.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Adamant1: File:Suede in Thailand new.jpg, at least, is a picture of a rather well-known rock band, and is used in the article about the band in several languages. I didn't go through the rest, but that suggests that you didn't go particularly carefully through these before nominating them for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I must have accidentally added it. It's been removed regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HMS Jaguar Crest.jpg[edit]

It appears to be a graphic taken from the web, and a modern computer drawing not a 50-year old one. Parts of it appear identical to images from vector-images.com, such as this one, so part of the underlying drawing appears to be from a private source and government anyways. It's possible that part is licensed somewhere, but we'd need some evidence for it. It is nearly identical to an image on this forum page (direct image here), credited to a K.W. Vestergaard and a credit to shipbucket.com . It has the same crest and the same jaguar drawing. We would need to show a free source for these drawings -- the current license tag claims it's a UK government drawing made more than 50 years ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:0105 Stone Chalk Portraits 25thFeb 2016.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uplaoder is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:0106 Stone Chalk Portraits 25thFeb 2016.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uplaoder is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:26SENDAK-superJumbo.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: A copyright appears on this article https://www.thedailybeast.com/maurice-sendak-knew-enough-to-put-the-bite-back-in-childrens-stories CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nick Jr. 1988.svg[edit]

I highly doubt these specifically-drawn human figures can be PD-ineligible. I'm willing to see, though, if maybe there's some merchandise or print advertisement from 1988 that lacks a copyright notice. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Avila Plaza Santa Teresa 1908 01.jpg[edit]

Esta tarjeta postal con huellas de oxido ha sido copiada sin autorización de la web svilas.es. : https://www.flickr.com/photos/avilas/4732311693/in/photolist-8dapPr-8dbkoV-8fabpu 90.161.248.121 00:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Presumably PD-Art. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep La web referida no posee el copyright de la fotografía ya que se encuentra en el dominio público, el copyright ha expirado, y PD-Art. DPC (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/08&oldid=822131355"