Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/12

11 November 2023

13 November 2023

Deletion requests on 12 November 2023

• archive
• gallery
• purge this page's cache
• ±

November 12

File:Gunther Erna 2013.jpg

Over-reliance on bot processes has allowed this to escape scrutiny for nearly 11 years. The upload claimed it was licensed as BY-NC-ND (see here). A bot quickly appended a compatible license in spite of that. Looking at the source page, the photo is no longer there. The disclaimer at the bottom of the page states that CC only applies to the text, not the photos, because the photos have separate rights holders. The uploader has no other contributions to the project besides this upload. RadioKAOS (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:REnoir Madame Joseph Le Coeur.gif

Photograph is watermarked by the museum. We already have an other file without a watermark of the painting on commons here Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Uk-г.ogg

This file is File:Voiced velar fricative.ogg recorded with an audio recorder and passed off as something else. It's thus both a duplicate and contains incorrect metadata and licensing information. In fact, all 9 of this user's files are dubious and/or contain inaccurate descriptions. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Why with Nye - How Not to Get Lost in Space 1-html5-why-with-nye-how-not-to-get-lost-in-space-2-1-hls-8218.ogg

higher quality version here [1] Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:लिंग - श्री रेवणसिध्देश्वर मंदिर, सोलापूर फोटो - २.jpg

Almost exactly the same as File:लिंग - श्री रेवणसिध्देश्वर मंदिर, सोलापूर.jpg, which was uploaded first. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 01.jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. I wouldn't have uploaded this file in the first place, If I did not judge it as a work by Tasnim News Agency. First of all, not having a Tasnim watermark does not necessarily mean that the file should be automatically considered copyvio (while it can be a warning sign). I have documented several instances of Tasnim files that lack a typical watermark, yet evidently created by the agency's staff (please see User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim for details). Moreover, there are multiple facts that can help corroborate that this file is a Tasnim work. As mentioned in the file's information template, it is a known fact that Tasnim has presence in Lebanon. They opened an office in Beirut in 2014 and have several local correspondents there, including Zeynab Salloum, Ahmed Issa, Myriam Tahmaz, Noor Khalil, Ahmed Al-Najjar, Noor Yasin and possibly others. For a recent video interview with a Lebanese politician from Hezbollah, Tasnim had sent a crew of three from Tehran to Beirut. So, I would not be surprised if such a media organization covers an event in Lebanon, with their staff creating photographs and videos (in fact, the media affiliated with IRGC are there to give a favorable coverage of Hezbollah activities, like this military drill that the file depicts). Plus, Tasnim stresses on its report (source for these files) that the content is exclusive ("

گزارش اختصاصی تسنیم

") and that a reporter is sent from Tehran as well. All videos have an embedded watermark visible in the middle (@tasnim_military), and none of the files published by Tasnim are found in other sources. This particular file seems to be a screenshot taken from File:Tasnim News Agency - 2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta (16).webm. I have checked content published by other media present at the event (AP, AFP, Al Minar, Al Mayadeen and the Middle East Eye) and did not see a match. Also, a reverse search of the files on tineye and google does not show any publication before Tasnim. That being said, I see no valid reason to delete this file as copyvio. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep A presumption indicates a general guide or an idea that we assume to be true, even if we don't know for certain. A presumption is not an iron law. HeminKurdistan presented clear evidence that this specific photo (and others in this set) are works of Tasnim News and are freely licensed. So even if the presumption is that photos without watermarks are not freely licensed, that presumption is rebutted in this case because of the specific evidence to the contrary. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 02.jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep for the same reasons mentioned for Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 01.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 03.jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep for the same reasons mentioned for Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 01.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 04.jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep for the same reasons mentioned for Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 01.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 05.jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep for the same reasons mentioned for Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Hezbollah drill in Aaramta 01.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:वळेखण देवी Valekhan Devi.jpg

Non-free. Text at bottom left says "सर्व हक्क प्रकाशकाचे स्वाधीन" translating to "All rights reserved to the publisher". ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Vk.com/torpedomoscowfc

permission not supported by VRT ticket Krd 08:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:People Of The Morning Film.jpg

no permission - copyrighted material Hoyanova (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello This work is not copyrighted i am the creator of this work and i give permission to use it on wikipedia Ben Waloszek (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Quicker 20230311 231911.png

This file was initially tagged by Bernanke's Crossbow as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copied from Scheme 11 in the (paywalled) journal article; no evidence of permission from author or publisher|https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065305508600295 - Would Template:PD-chem not apply? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe; I'm not sure, which is why I tagged it. Certainly, Elsevier seems to think it requires payment (although I may not have used their tool correctly, nor have they any incentive towards accuracy). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Elsevier would love to charge you a monthly fee to breathe. :| The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Random Access Memories 10th Anniversary Edition.jpg

user:JonasTisell changed the license to -nd, which put it in the speedy deletion queue, however it has a license reviewed sign-off by user:Yann. Converting to regular DR. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

user:Yann also reviewed File:Daft Punk - Random Access Memories.jpg, which has since been deleted as a copyvio. If these are, in fact, under a free license, that one should be undeleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

At a time, it was considered that the licenses from mynewsdesk.com are valid. Recently discussion on COM:VPC seem to lead to the opposite conclusion, so I won't oppose deletion. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/mynewsdesk.com.se.atg/ and current undeletion discussion. Yann (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Petra Boušková.jpg

poor quality, dubious own work Jan Myšák (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Helene Hesters.jpg

possible copyvio (c) The Young Peloton M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:AD 2023 - portret van Gerardus Wassenberg - Abt van Bornem.jpg

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AD_2023_-_Abbas_Bornemensis_-_SUY.jpg Thieu1972 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I made the picture not the painting or the frame, so this is an artistic interpretation and own work.--Carolus (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Abhishek Desai playing at concert picture.jpg

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Ryanair Destinations.png

useless derivative of File:European countries in which ryainar operates2.svg — Racconish ^💬 10:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Victor Khorinyak.jpg

YouTube channel is not the proper copyright holder for this movie. VolnyiLev (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Corn starches.jpg

This photo was taken by Kathy Zinn and released into the public domain. But the packaging may be copyrighted. COM:PACKAGING. 0x0a (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Closantel.png

Tagged as {{Low quality chem}} since 2021, but while no reason was given, I think the colored symbols were the reason. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion, but only because there is a replacement for this EDUSE chemical: File:Closantel.svg. But User:Alfa-ketosav, remember to add categories when you create an image. As it stood, your .svg was poorly done because it had no cats at all...be sure to take the trivial step to copy them when you create a replacement. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. The file has an opaque (white) background and colored atom labels. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Karel Starý, matrika O.jpeg

neither published nor artwork Krd 12:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Dobrý den, já neumím anglicky, ale matrika jako taková je volné dílo ve stáří 70 let a déle. Načtená stránka je vlastně yobrazené dílo, která vzniklo v době zápisu. martin wolf

•  Keep An 1874 anonymous document is not copyrighted. Birth, marriage, and death records, as well as other legal forms, are not eligible for copyright. and are public documents. "Made public" doesn't mean just appearing in a magazine or newspaper. two people recording the information would fill in the same words and numbers. Whereas a prose obituary or a long form will, two people would write different things. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Karel Starý, matrika N.jpeg

neither published nor artwork Krd 12:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep 1832 document. Birth, marriage, and death records, as well as other legal forms, are not eligible for copyright, two people recording the information would fill in the same words and numbers. Whereas a prose obituary or a long form will, two people would write different things. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Merlettaia di Burano.jpg

This picture was printed on a postcard (ebay link) and attributed to GHEDINA. Please send a permission email to VRT to confirm the license. 0x0a (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:राज अकबर.jpg

Suspected copyright violation. Source not indicated despite being a historical photo. Not own work since it's been used before upload date. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of the French Walloon movement.svg

Repeating page compared to another page whose flag is modern. Sthubertliege (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Prieuré des Bénédictins.jpg

uploader is not the author of the photo Culex (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Alexandra Grimal 2023.jpg

This file is used for commercial purpose (see https://www.facebook.com/grimalalexandra/posts/pfbid0oNLKwMFWgQM4cyRLt7hsEFuZ9ckcs4RyZWUsCmhqL5CVwTWLBP5FgZuFvQ6nXPrbl) gpesenti (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It is fine, I have the rights to use it. 2A01:CB08:8AC:4D00:889D:7A19:72BA:6C55 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Facts2021 (talk · contribs)

2 are credited to Chelsi smith, 2 have no meaningful exif, PCP, unlikely to be own work as claimed

• File:The Tattooed Traveler in Thailand.jpg
• File:Todd Newton 1.jpg
• File:Todd Newton 2023.jpg
• File:Todd Newton 2022.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Hoo Bristol2023.jpg

High quality photo, no exif, unlikely to be own work. PCP Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

From the talk page: "The owner of the photograph of Lawrence Hoo gave me the image and have agreed to its use, so there is no need to delete it. They understand that they lose copyright on it." @Mclsssje: please post your comments here

@Mclsssje: you need to provide that permission in writing via COM:OTRS Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Barakat Qurtas (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work, PCP

• File:Dlshad Shahab.jpg
• File:NIB.jpg
• File:KRPLogo.png

Gbawden (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Eppinghoven Abtei.jpg

no proper source, seems to be scanned from a book/journal Carl Ha (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, may be deleted; it is a historical picture which is of no real relevance and should be replaced by a more recent picture anyhow. Günther Pabst (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

File:The News Is The News.jpg

No indication of CC-licensing on source website Bremps... 14:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Selección Venezolana 1972.jpg

The source is Facebook and doesn't state where this image was published originally to justify using {{PD-Brazil-Photo}}. The photo may be taken in Brazil, but it doesn't imply it country of origin, i.e., where it was published is Brazil. The Facebook post is in Spanish and the user seems to have worked for a Venezuelan club. If this was published originally in Venezuela, then it would be still protected by copyright. Without a clear provenance we cannot keep this images. Günther Frager (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: The post explicitly states that it was the squad used for the Brazil Independence Cup on 18 June 1972 which was around the time they would play their match against Peru at Vivaldão, Manaus. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45 Yes, the photo was taken in Brazil on 18 June 1972. Where does in the post says the image was published in Brazil? The country of publication is what is relevant for copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: Hence why the unknown author exists. As an addition to this, the image was likely published in Brazil given that the event wouldn't see much notability outside of Brazil and Portugal. So far, there's no actual basis to claim that it was published in Venezuela as that would constitute as original research. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So a football match between the national football teams of Venezuela and Peru was only important to Brazil? Why Portugal and not Brazil's neighboring countries or the other 13 international teams that participated in the competition? Here you have the front page of an Argentine newspaper talking about this "non-notable" tournament. The Facebook account that posted the scan was from Venezuela, if they made the scan is likely to be from an old Venezuelan newspaper and not from a Brazilian one. But as, I stated if there is no enough information about the initial publication of this image we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: So since this is apparently now a discussion about notability, allow me to give a brief rundown on notability in Wikipedia. Secondary sources are encouraged and One newspaper in Argentina from 51 years ago does notability meet not. In terms of web searches, sources that aren't tied with Brazil or Portugal that are fully dedicated to the Cup include 1 and 2. The Pageviews don't help either. Regardless, if a singular Facebook post is the only source of Venezuela in the Cup, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it largely went unnoticed in Venezuela and that a Brazilian source was more probable to publish it given that most secondary sources are in Brazilian Portuguese. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the DR is about a copyright violation, and it remains about copyright violation. Your only argument of why this image was published in Brazil was that all news related to this event at the time were published in Portuguese speaking newspapers. I only need to show one counterexample to disprove your bogus argument (a universal quantification). Also, the image you uploaded is only found, apart from Facebook pages of Venezuelans, on Venezuelan websites [2][3]. As, I explained before, we need to original source where this image was published to keep it in case it is in the public domain of its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:West Germany vs Morocco 1970.jpg

Image taken from a random Twitter account. The source is not serious to determine that this image was published in Mexico by an unknown photographer. Without a proper source we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: Other sources with the same image include 1 and 2, neither of which cite an author. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A random Wordpress blog and a random Pinterest account are as reliable as the source cited originally. None of them are citing where they obtained the image.Günther Frager (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: That's what the reverse image search results are giving me and I'm surprised you haven't decided to conduct one on your own given your other Deletion Requests. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I did a reverse image search and it gave hundreds of results, the first dozens were not from reliable sources like newspapers that normally cite their sources, or they were in Arabic, a language I don't understand. Günther Frager (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:England v West Germany 1970.jpg

Source is Pinterest and it not enough to justify it was first published in Mexico by an unknown author. The Pinterest user is from the UK and a reverse image search points that it belongs to Press Association, a UK news agency [4]. Günther Frager (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Peter Osgood 1970.jpg

The source is a UK-Manchester-fan Pinterest page. There is nothing to assume this image was first published in Mexico by an unknown author. The image is available on the web since 2006 at the BBC[5] (4th image). All the available information suggest that the source of origin, i.e., where it was first published is the UK. Günther Frager (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: So far, all arguments brought up are really nothing more than pure original research and speculation at best. The only information that is currently known about the photograph was that it was taken during the match between Czechoslovakia and England which occurred in Mexico. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45, it is your duty as uploader to provide accurate information about the date and place of publication. You are claiming the image was published in Mexico, where is your evidence about it? The photo was not taken on a local Mexican football match, the event was on during a World Cup match with hundreds of photojournalists from all over the world. Günther Frager (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: Except not really as even after your findings, no actual author could be found and the photographer could just about be anywhere as in your own words: the event was on during a World Cup match with hundreds of photojournalists from all over the world. Regardless, you were the one to file a deletion request, so it is your responsibility to find the original newspaper that had the source rather than relying on hypotheticals. The BBC article you cited is obviously not the original source as the only thing you can do with it is trace the original source for the Pinterest post. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are the one adding unverified PD claims, not me, and the fact that I didn't spend enough time to obtain the original source doesn't mean I cannot start a DR as suspected copyvio as I did. If I had the source, I would mark it as SD instead like I did with several of your other uploads. As you are not adding any argument, I will stop commenting here and wait for the admin decision. Have a nice day. Günther Frager (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: Time ultimately doesn't matter as you aren't under any immediate obligation to begin Deletion Requests without any genuine substantial evidence behind it, so forgive me if I'm not exactly convinced. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Low oblique port side (off center-line) view of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) Bob Hope class strategic heavy lift ship USNS MENDONCA (T-AKR 303) underway, on sea trials - DPLA - 0b76a3470b00ace69ef303fa4835679d.jpeg

Copyright violation. While the file is found at the National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6609105), the photographer is given as "Ricky Kellum Litton". Litton (rather its Avondale subsidiary, both later acquired by Northrop Grumman) is the company that built the ship. As such, the photographer is not an officer or employee of the U.S. Government. In addition, the photo was taken in 2000, according to NARA, meaning that copyright has not expired. – Recoil16 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This item was assessed by an archivist before the copyright determination was made. The National Archives catalog states that this is in the public domain (use "unrestricted") and that the creator is the US Defense Visual Information Center. Do you have any actual evidence that contradicts this? There are a number of reasons that what you've written may not result in a copyright in this image, such as that the original description was determined by the archives to be an error (you are quoting from an original caption, not the archival metadata) or that a government contractor may transfer contract as part of the terms of the contract. Dominic (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am simply operating on the information given at the source, which is what we have to work off. I personally think that the scenario that it was mistakenly categorized as "unrestricted" (especially given that it is a photo of a U.S. Navy ship, most of which are taken by sailors and which are in fact in the public domain) is more likely than the copyright being transferred to the U.S. Government and them releasing it into the public domain. I am happy to be proven wrong. – Recoil16 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you're "happy to be proven wrong", what would it take to do so? What if we went and got an official opinion from the actual agency authorized to preserve and mark copyright status for archival government records? Dominic (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have simply laid out why I believe that this image may not be in the public domain. Whatever steps you decide take to make a case that it is in the public domain, that is your prerogative. My being "happy to be proven wrong" is simply related to the closing of this discussion. If the closing admin believes this image is in the public domain, good, then we have another freely licensed image. If the closing admin deletes, so be it. – Recoil16 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My point was that Commons' burden of proof has already been met. Your only argument is speculation based on the same description that the archivist already reviewed in making their copyright determination. When an item is owned and described by a reputable institution, that determination is evidence of its copyright status. I even provided reasonable scenarios that would explain the copyright status. You are asking for the image to be deleted just because you, personally, are unconvinced, and unwilling to perform any research (such as contacting the institution) or provide any evidence that actually refutes the reasonable explanations (such as a copyright claim from the alleged rightsholder). Dominic (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Recoil16 says this image's description page, at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6609105 says " the photographer is given as "Ricky Kellum Litton". Litton..."

Meanwhile https://www.archivesfoundation.org/about/privacy-policy/ says "Images that are part of the National Archives’ collection are in the public domain and are free to use."

I don't care how the NARA archivists came to the conclusion this image was eligible to put online, where viewers should assume it is " in the public domain and are free to use".

Is Recoil16 asserting we should assume that the NARA archivist Made a mistake when they placed this image somewhere where viewers should assume it was in the public domain? Why?

Herman Kahn, the great Cold War theorist, used to repeat a Yiddish folk story, to warn about the dangers of overthinking things. Back in the old Imperial Russia, jews were oppressed, like in the movie "Fiddler on the Roof". They used to have follow a practice, like in the movie "Green book", and plan their trips so that they only stayed, overnight, in villages populated by fellow jews. In Khan's folk story a suspicious Rabbi, in one of these villages, confronts a visitor, saying, "You say you are going to Minsk. But I think you want us to think you are going to Pinsk. However, I am not fooled, because I already know you are going to Minsk."'

There is a danger in over-thinking things. There is a danger in taking the precautionary principle to bizarre and ridiculous extremes. Assuming the archivist made a mistake is, in my opinion, an abuse of the precautionary principle. Geo Swan (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• The EXIF data says the image was taken by Ricky Kellum Litton. I wonder whether User talk:Recoil16 jumped to the conclusion the picture was taken by an individual named Ricky Kellum who worked for the corporation Litton, even though that is not what the EXIF data says?

Litton is a surname. Litton corporation is almost certainly named after an individual with the Litton surname, and I think we should assume that Ricky Kellum Litton is another individual named Litton, who was a DoD employee. Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Another photo of USNS Mendonca is credited to "Ricky Kellum Litton-Avondale Ind", I think it's a fair assumption that that's the same person and that "Litton-Avondale Ind" (and just "Litton" in the case of the other picture) refers to the company, and is not somebody's surname. – Recoil16 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• User talk:Recoil16 asserted Litton (rather its Avondale subsidiary, both later acquired by Northrop Grumman) is the company that built the ship...

According to Litton Industries Northrup Grumman acquired Litton in 2001, seven years after this ship was built. Perhaps Recoil16 could explain how they came to the conclusion that Litton built the ship, when the site they cited says it was built by Northrup Grumman? Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Place Albert Rigoulet. © Christophe Gardner.jpg

uplaoder is not the author of the photo Culex (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Rue Puysseguin.jpg

uploader is not the author of the photo Culex (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Festival du Coeur à la Rue.jpg

uploader is not the author of the photo Culex (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bandera de Honduras 2023.png

Duplicate of File:Flag of Honduras.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:EliasSadaq.jpg

According to this, the photographer is a Sangria Valentino, thus not own work. TherasTaneel (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of National November.jpg

Duplication of File:Bandera Noviembre Nacional.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Pembangunan Stasiun kereta cepat Karawang.jpg

Invalid license NFarras (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Emilia und Helena Pieske (v.r.n.l.).jpg

Unbenutzt Alfonsxp (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Emilia Pieske (2017).jpg

Seit Jahren nicht benutzt Alfonsxp (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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:Patuakhali Launch Ghat.jpg

Author request Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Patuakhali Launch Ghat.jpg

Not used. Author Request Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep per last deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not used image. What's the point? Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That it's usable, as stated in the previous DR. Why do you want all your photos, which you irrevocably agreed to provide under a Creative Commons license, removed from the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not. There is no article related to this on any wikipedia or any project. Yeah I uploaded it in the early days. But, now I don't think it's an usable image. I guess you will agree. Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:尹光profilepic.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 218.103.253.184 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Missing essential information and no OTRS permission In use. Yann (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:ANAOLogo.svg

This file was initially tagged by Yeeno as Logo Kadı Message 17:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Logo is above COM:TOO Australia, which is extremely low. Yeeno (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Joe Kilroy - Combined Brisbane 1984.jpg

The term "Screen shot" throws into doubt whether this is actually own work Bremps... 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aftermath of anti-government protests in Bojnord, Iran (02).jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 18:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This deletion concerns a sentence someone added to the {{Tasnim}} template several years ago. We have since learned, as discussed in greater detail here User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim, that photographs taken by local offices of Tasnim are often not watermarked with the name of the photographer. This photo was taken by the Tasnim News Bojnord desk, as is written on the photo. Further, the photo does not exist in higher resolution or without the center Tasnim News watermark. So even if there is a general presumption that works without photographer credits are non-free, we have specific evidence to rebut that presumption in this case.

I also want to add that most photos from this gallery have been successfully license reviewed and that the nominator individually nominated everything pending review for deletion. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aftermath of anti-government protests in Bojnord, Iran (05).jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This deletion concerns a sentence someone added to the {{Tasnim}} template several years ago. We have since learned, as discussed in greater detail here User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim, that photographs taken by local offices of Tasnim are often not watermarked with the name of the photographer. This photo was taken by the Tasnim News Bojnord desk, as is written on the photo. Further, the photo does not exist in higher resolution or without the center Tasnim News watermark. So even if there is a general presumption that works without photographer credits are non-free, we have specific evidence to rebut that presumption in this case.

I also want to add that most photos from this gallery have been successfully license reviewed and that the nominator individually nominated everything pending review for deletion. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aftermath of anti-government protests in Bojnord, Iran (04).jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This deletion concerns a sentence someone added to the {{Tasnim}} template several years ago. We have since learned, as discussed in greater detail here User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim, that photographs taken by local offices of Tasnim are often not watermarked with the name of the photographer. This photo was taken by the Tasnim News Bojnord desk, as is written on the photo. Further, the photo does not exist in higher resolution or without the center Tasnim News watermark. So even if there is a general presumption that works without photographer credits are non-free, we have specific evidence to rebut that presumption in this case.

I also want to add that most photos from this gallery have been successfully license reviewed and that the nominator individually nominated everything pending review for deletion. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aftermath of anti-government protests in Bojnord, Iran (08).jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This deletion concerns a sentence someone added to the {{Tasnim}} template several years ago. We have since learned, as discussed in greater detail here User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim, that photographs taken by local offices of Tasnim are often not watermarked with the name of the photographer. This photo was taken by the Tasnim News Bojnord desk, as is written on the photo. Further, the photo does not exist in higher resolution or without the center Tasnim News watermark. So even if there is a general presumption that works without photographer credits are non-free, we have specific evidence to rebut that presumption in this case.

I also want to add that most photos from this gallery have been successfully license reviewed and that the nominator individually nominated everything pending review for deletion. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aftermath of anti-government protests in Bojnord, Iran (13).jpg

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} ^talk 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This deletion concerns a sentence someone added to the {{Tasnim}} template several years ago. We have since learned, as discussed in greater detail here User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim, that photographs taken by local offices of Tasnim are often not watermarked with the name of the photographer. This photo was taken by the Tasnim News Bojnord desk, as is written on the photo. Further, the photo does not exist in higher resolution or without the center Tasnim News watermark. So even if there is a general presumption that works without photographer credits are non-free, we have specific evidence to rebut that presumption in this case.

I also want to add that most photos from this gallery have been successfully license reviewed and that the nominator individually nominated everything pending review for deletion. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:ADTEC Entrance.jpg

Unlike an own work, incomplete EXIF, can be found on [6]. 0x0a (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Alfred F. Klausmeyer.png

wrong date (he died in 1927!!!) and wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Question Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The original photo was taken some time in the late 19th century, but the name of the studio has faded from the corner, so I have no way of knowing precisely when or by whom it was taken. It is well over 100 years old, who should I have listed as the author? Evansknight (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, but it shouldn't be deleted if it's public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

it is most certainly public domain, but i don't know how to prove that. Evansknight (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Charles Carrera 2323.jpg

wrong author, copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Vanil·lina (4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde).jpg

I did it another better version of it Maria Pons García (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20.USCM.V.Black.Red.RGB.MEC.png

Likely above COM:TOO US, especially due to the unique placement of Alaska Yeeno (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I disagree that that would be likely to make it over COM:TOO US. I don't think the U.S.'s TOO would be affected by the placement of part of Alaska. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Karnaugh6.gif

unused (except in User: space), superseded by File:Karnaugh map torus.svg;

same applies to File:Karnaugh map KV Torus 1.png which can also be deleted - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no strong reason to delete these files. But as File:Karnaugh6.gif is nominated by its author, it should be treated as a courtesy deletion. The same does not apply to File:Karnaugh map KV Torus 1.png. It is of rather low quality, and I would not miss it. But I want to remind you, that generally there is no reason to delete unused PNGs, just because someone made a similar SVG. Go ahead, but please don't get used to this kind of thing. --Watchduck (quack) 21:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Upesciema centrs.jpg

Copyright violation, photo from Facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=914268243579859&set=a.613856873620999 DJ EV (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Canal Capital (Bogotá) 2016 logo.svg

Unknown COM:TOO for Columbia, thus assumed "Not OK". Should be transferred to respective Wikipedias as non-free logo.

this AerCaribe logo upload to Commons in svg was Deleted , see the talk . --EEIM (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Canal Capital (Bogotá) 2016 logo (2).svg

Unknown COM:TOO for Columbia, thus assumed "Not OK". Should be transferred to respective Wikipedias as non-free logo.

this AerCaribe logo upload to Commons in svg was Deleted , see the talk .--EEIM (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Canal TeleAmiga logo 2020.svg

Unknown COM:TOO for Columbia, thus assumed "Not OK". Should be transferred to respective Wikipedias as non-free logo.

this AerCaribe logo upload to Commons in svg was Deleted , see the talk .--EEIM (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:La Silla Vacia logo 2020.svg

Unknown COM:TOO for Columbia, thus assumed "Not OK". Should be transferred to respective Wikipedias as non-free logo.

this AerCaribe logo upload to Commons in svg was Deleted , see the talk .--EEIM (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Logotipo de RCTV.svg

Unknown COM:TOO for Venezuela, thus assumed "Not OK". Should be transferred to respective Wikipedias as non-free logo .

this Meridiano Televisión logo upload to Commons in svg was Deleted , see the talk .--EEIM (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Cofounder NEMHOF.jpg

This is Angel Orsini and it looks like selfie. Should be deleted unless the uploader is miss Orsini herself. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Also affected:

• File:Loveandpeace1.jpg

--Achim55 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Brice Le Bevennec.jpg

This is the profile picture at https://be.linkedin.com/in/briceleblevennec but I cannot determine who copied whom 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Michele Cascavilla con il Presidente Silvio Berlusconi.jpg

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 🇺🇦 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Michele Cascavilla (talk · contribs)

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

• File:Michele Cascavilla - Presentazione libro Megastore Mondadori Piazza Duomo Milano.jpg
• File:Michele Cascavilla - Selfiestreet.jpg

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Abanoub Riad.jpg

FBMD in metadata. Unlikely to be own work. Copyvio? In addition 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 🇺🇦 23:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Giorgione, suonatore di flauto.jpg

very bad quality, very bad resolution, better files File:Titian - Boy with a pipe - Windsor Castle.jpg, File:Attributed to Titian (c. 1488-Venice 1576) - A Boy with a Pipe ('The Shepherd') - RCIN 405767 - Royal Collection.jpg, File:Titien (attr) - Berger à la flûte.jpg, and has no reliable source. Oursana (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)