Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/21

20 July 2024

22 July 2024

Deletion requests on 21 July 2024

July 21

File:Seal of Campechuela.jpg

Seal has unknown date, and CoA have to be before 1947 based on Template:PD-Cuba CubanoBoi (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also

File:Flag of Communist Afghanistan (Fake).png, fictional unused flag CubanoBoi (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Flag of Cuba with the Chevron blue.png CubanoBoi (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[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:Superstraight

All of these images are for a fictional flag having to do with a fake, transphobic sexual orientation that never went anywhere outside of a single online message board. There's no reason we need to host images of fictional flags for every random meme or online message board posting out there. In fact we don't as the upwards of three hundred deletion requests for fictional flags that were deleted in Category:Fictitious symbol related deletion requests/deleted shows. The clear consensus is against hosting these types of images on Commons. So they should be deleted as OOS since they clearly serve absolutely no educational value what-so-ever.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to start with, at least one is COM:INUSE. Next, if by “a single message board” you mean /pol/, a very notable board on the very notable website 4chan, then that is enough to both make it marginally notable and notable enough for commons’ extremely low standards. Finally, there is a difference between a made-up thing that originated outside WM and a thing made up one day. This is the former. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only in use file I saw was being used in a 2 old draft article that clearly isn't going to be put in mainspace anytime soon, if ever. So I don't think the usage is a valid reason to keep the image. As far as the where this orginated from, your correct that 4chan is notable. That obviously doesn't mean every single random thing that gets posted there is notable, eductional, or otherwise worth hosting on Commons though. Files don't get a free pass from Commons:Project scope just because someone might have posted them to 4chan once. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Straight Flag.svg is in extensive use (and if you game the system by going to every single wiki it’s on and removing it you will be reported). You should actually check these things before indiscriminately nominating everything in a category. And I don’t get why you seem to think this is just some random thing that never received any media attention— it’s discussed on the w:/pol/ article of enwiki— I quote, “ Colors associated with ‘super straight’, often used in the form of flags, were black and orange.” (Emphasis mine) It’s also discussed extensively at w:Straight flag, where one of these files is in use. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have missed checking that one. I don't plan on removing it from anywhere and I'd appreciate it if you laid off the needlessly confrontational, accusatory tone about this. Its really not helpful. I explained why I don't think its a thing in the other DR. Plenty of random, benial facts are mentioned in Wikimedia articles. That doesn't make them "things" though, whatever that means. Do you have any evidence of these flags actually beinf IRL or refered to outside of the transphobic angle? If not then at least IMO these images clearly aren't worth keeping. Although their eductional usefulness would still be questionable regardless. But actual usage of the flags IRL would at least be better then your claim that they should be kept simply "because 4chan." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are living in some kind of alternate universe where a pride flag must be used in real life by some kind of legitimate sexual or gender minority to be in-scope. I have literally presented extensive evidence that these are non-trivially COM:INUSE and you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over when they have nothing to do with what I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to argue this is at all comparable to the pride flag? Come on. You know they aren't at all comparable to each other. Regardless, just because one image is in use doesn't automatically mean the other 9 images I nominated for deletion should be kept. You clearly have no actual arguement for keeping the imaged outside of making bad faithed, personal accusations though. I hear what your saying perfectly fine. I just think your wrong. Get over it and spare me the defense bad attitude about this. There's really no need for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“If superstraight isn’t a pride flag then you must delete” isn’t a coherent argument. I really don’t care what happens to the unused ones as long as the ones that are actually being legitimately used are kept. That’s literally all I’m vouching for here. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing none of the reasons I said the images should be deleted have anything to do with the pride flag then. Your the one who brought it up to begin with. The only noncoherent argument here is you bringing up the pride flag and then treating me like it has anything to do with why I think the images should be deleted. "the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation." That's literally all you've been doing. I guess there's nothing more to say about it if you don't care about the unused files being deleted though. Although I think the one that's in use should be deleted to, but I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this. Maybe drop it on your end going forward in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still completely baffled about why you think your reasons to delete make any sense whatsoever, but I’m more baffled by your resistance to acknowledging COM:INUSE applies to File:Super Straight Flag.svg and multiple others. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since your apparently incapable of dropping this for some reason how exaxtly is me saying I just missed that the one file was being used in a Wikipedia article not an acknowlegement of COM:INUSE? With the other file, I could be wrong but I thought COM:INUSE didn't apply in cases were the image is being used on a draft article that has essentially no chance of ever being put into mainspace. The standard here isn't just "use" after all. There's also "realistic utility" and that's kind of negated by it being used in a draft article that's been stalled out for multiple years. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince me that you actually understand what INUSE is, just remove File:Super Straight Flag.svg, please. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it if you promise not to come in so hot about things next time ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In use in at least 13 pages across all projects, including Catalan-, Persian-, Italian-, and English-language Wikipedias, besides of course Wikidata. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them being the mainspace, just noting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked and most of them aren't being used. One file File:Super Straight Flag.png is being used in a draft that's been there for 2 years and I'm pretty sure we delete images in that case since it doesn't have "realistic utility" at that point. Then there's a couple of random uses with other files in bot galleries, which again, doesn't meet the whole ""realistic utility" thing. That's all the usage I can find though. So can you point out which file is used in at least 13 pages across all projects since I'm not seeing it on my end for some reason? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:SuperStraightFlag.svg as a notable internet meme. Delete the rest as not useful--Trade (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, even if some of them aren't currently being used, there's no reason not to keep them for future use. JoePhin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before Adamant1 tries to argue that “most of them aren’t in use”, again, I’ll point out that since most of them are functionally identical to ones in use they’re kind of inherently in-scope. The only legitimate reasons to delete them are redundancy (which isn’t a particularly strong argument anyway) and being in undesirable formats for simple geometry like PNG/JPG over SVG (again also a weak argument). Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to argue that, actually. Thanks for assuming though. Honestly, I don't expect anything even slightly related to sex or gender issues to be deleted, or at least for anyone to vote that way, but it what it is. I still think the images should be deleted regardless. Maybe at least leave the mind reading at the door next time though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some are identical and kinda useless, but others are not. MikutoH (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Superstraight

Unused close variants of File:Super Straight Flag.png or File:SuperStraightFlag.png.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACP LOGO(360x360).jpg

Unused and inferior in size/quality to file:ACP LOGO(5000x5000).png The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jakob Sundevall

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Epting Mundy Junior

This is not a gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Correns

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as long as the photo is not deleted, go a ahead and delete the gallery (I don't know who created it, isn't this an automatic thing?). The photo should be kept, of course.--Nina (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photo will be kept. You can find it (and more) in Category:Carl Correns. No, gallery pages are not created automatically, according to the history you created it yourself (that is why you've got an alert). JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know hot to do that (anymore :). What if you add the other photo of Correns? Still not enough to build a gallery? --Nina (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed. And the category has only seven files, so there is no need to have a gallery page as well. It just makes sense to have a gallery page if there are a lot of files and/or subcategories, then a gallery is a great tool to create order out of chaos. But not for so few, then the category is enough. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and delete it, please. --Nina (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I have no authority to delete a page, an administrator will do so. JopkeB (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Christian Rafn

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Borivoj Presl

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category has not so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Blümel

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. The category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Banks

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment It has more than one image. I see what you mean but there are a bunch of gallery pages with only a few images. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about other pages.

Why should this page be kept? What is the added value of it above the category, that also has three files? JopkeB (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now three images, the same as in the category. Again: What is the added value? JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Abraham Pihl

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Anton Larsen

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[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:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

The image has no source. Its provenance is not established and descriptive information is not verifiable (e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with). Included with this deletion request is the duplicate:

File:Xiang Yu.png

Its source also provides no helpful information. It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known. --Cold Season (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. At least one of the files is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Cold Season: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file pages, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: There is NO SOURCE that verifies the images as a public domain image. The fact that we do not know what this image is, means that this falls under the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is definitly not a {{fact disputed}} case. The fact that you closed this without participation in discussion, while waiting for the close statement to provide unilateral counter-arguments is highly inappropriate. --Cold Season (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

This is an artwork that remains unidentified. There is no provenance or source that tells us what it is or its public domain status. In conclusion, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Included with this deletion request is the duplicate File:Xiang Yu.png.

To @Ellywa: in the previous deletion request, {{fact disputed}} does not override this. Cold Season (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, this image is used 15 times on various Wikipedia articles, in several languages. The other version is used 3 times. Based on this, we cannot delete the image from Commons, based on our policy, as users on Wikipedia are considering the image valuable. The precautionary principle is used only in case a copyright violation might exist. Please ask additional questions on the village pump. I note you have re-nominated the image. In that case another admin will reconsider my decision. Ellywa (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The deletion request is based on COM:PRP, because there is no information that identifies anything of this artwork and, as such, its public domain status is not established. I am not stating that the incorrectness in file description is the reason for deletion (which you keep using as a straw man argument), but I am explaining why it fails COM:PRP ("to explain more clearly" to you... again, as I shouldn't have assumed that everyone reads between the lines).

(2) Your mention of COM:EDUSE is irrelevant, as no argument with that as basis was raised here.

(3) COM:INUSE does not state that image usage is a reason to not delete or to maintain an image. Your argument has no merit. In fact, I hope you understand this instead, me saying that I'm not familiar with such a policy was just an indirect way to say that your claim is wrong (as no policy supports it).

(4) Your suggestion that the artwork is a "variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg" is incorrect, as it is simply not a scan of the same print. Feel free to overlay them in photoshop and look again, if you can't spot the differences. These are two distinct artworks with their own copyright status and, as such, it does not diminish the onus to establish this image's copyright status.

In conclusion, I see no credible argument that overrides COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this is not a Qing Dynasty image? What makes you believe there is a chance it's not in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you neglect to provide any appropriate evidence of the copyright status (just like her), which violates official policy COM:PS#Evidence.

Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old without any proof, which violates official policy COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange reply... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get more discussion from me. See what the closing admin rules. Again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carex x boenninghauseniana

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carex secta

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carel Gabriel Cobet

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add another picture from his category but couldnt. Sure you know better how to do it. Why dont YOU do it?! 186.173.170.14 06:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not add photos to this gallery page:

Because it is not my job to take care that such a page meets the standards (that is the job of the person who started a gallery page).
Because the category only contains seven files, which is not enough to distinguish a gallery pages as meaningful, not even if you would add all these seven images.

I do not know why your attempt to add another picture to the page caused a failure, it looks good. Did you copy paste the file name (which is best) or typed it? Long ago my ":" gave errors too, but after a while the problem was miraculously solved. JopkeB (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honda L15A7 Engine.jpg

I accidentally included my Location in this Wikimedia Upload, Please delete this. H982Falklands (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful photo. Revdel lat/long and perhaps altitude from EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ธงตราสัญลักษณ์ฉลองพระชนมายุ 60 พรรษา สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ สยามบรมราชกุมารี.png

This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as no license (No license since) Krd 10:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo on the flage is extracted from the Office of the Prime Minister website. Please note that the exact artwork of the government is not a public domain. --Wutkh (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NizamiBakhmanov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Dr.Wiki54 as no source (No source since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blum Zoltan.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the author is not specified, the shooting date is not specified, we should consider 120 years from a date and the only one we have is that the portrayed subject died in 1959 so it would be in the public domain in 2079 ZioNicco (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff crank family (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff crank family.jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharm.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ArcticSeeress as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original Wikipedia uploader, W:User:Dibi58, originally uploaded the image W:File:Sharmagne-Leland-St-John.jpeg, which was deleted in May 2009 for violation WP's copyright policy. In July, the user uploaded a low-quality version File:Sharm.jpg (which was ported to Commons) and then finally W:File:Sharmagne.jpg. The description of all of these files claims this to be a self-portrait. There is little likelihood that Dibi58 is Sharmagne Leland-St. John. I also found a non-cropped version of the photo at Michael Butler's website (direct link to the image). ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sf121wiki (talk · contribs)

B&W photo is not free - Commercial use is not allowed "For permission to copy or use any part of the Photographic Archive for any commercial purposes, please contact" - the other one is unlikely to be own work. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gbawden,

Thank you for the note.

I attach the instructions from the University of Chicago.

Images in the University of Chicago Photographic Archive may be used for educational and scholarly purposes, but any such use requires that a credit line be included with any image used. Any use of images from the Chicago Maroon, the independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago, requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon (see below).

Credit Line:

University of Chicago Photographic Archive, [apf digital item number, e.g., apf12345], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Thanks and take care, Sf121wiki (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon" means that we would have to have permission from them to host here Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanremo 1977 Homo Sapiens.jpg

Photo taken in Italy in 1977, and published in the newspaper Corriere della Sera. The photo is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ragy96 (talk · contribs)

All copyvios. Still frame = screenshot, photos taken by Mayar Kotb and by Doa Aly, none of which are own work

Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

All artwork is now updated with source/author Ragy96 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monica-sabata.jpg

Google finds this on twitter 10 years ago, I think we need VRT Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found Monica Sabata a few weeks ago and ask her to take a photo of her. She preferred to send me this one which was made by herself. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertgarrigos, ask her to contact COM:VRT stating that it's a selfie and she gives permission for the photo to be licensed in such a way as to include its commercial use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ikan Kekek, but I won't be able to do that. Monica Sabata is a public person here, and I just found her at an event by chance. It was the first time in years I met her in person. I told here what the photo was for and she agreed. Robertgarrigos (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but in that case, since you didn't take the photo and Commons won't just accept your say-so on how she would license the photo, it will unfortunately be deleted (hidden) on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillem-nivet.jpg

Clearly a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertgarrigos This is clearly a screenshot. It was taken from a TV screen? by a mobile phone. Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, just my mobile phone. I took it myself. Not a good quality, I know, because I was not close to the subject. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Leniston

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have that many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sacramento Regional Transit 2024 (transparent background).jpg

Upload was created in error and is functionally a duplicate of File:Sacramento Regional Transit 2024.jpg ReneeWrites (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since I intended it to be a transparent version of that file anyway. It has since been superseded by the nearly-identically named File:Sacramento Regional Transit 2024 (transparent background).png, anyways.

Thank your for nominating this for deletion!

- SleepTrain456 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation 202102049425215728 189746.pdf

Duplicate of File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation Cropped.jpeg and potential privacy violation.

Although other people's personal information has been redacted, there are transaction IDs and dates of receipts that may be used to track and doxx irrelevant individuals. These information is also unnecessary and not useful for educational purposes. Plus, this file is only used in the Wikipedia namespace, not in articles. Of course we can redact these information, but as we already have the photo which is specifically used to show the donation record of Thomas Crooks, there is no valid reason to keep this PDF file. See also the relevant discussion. SCP-2000 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is available unredacted on a federal government website: it is trivial to search for it on the FEC's website. The source link goes to an unredacted version (click "view image" there). So the doxxing concern seems pointless. This nomination is more or less like saying that it would be doxxing to list the address of the White House as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I have said before and will say again: this document seems to me to be perfectly in scope. It documents a fact that has figured in the news, and it is a document that there is no reason we cannot host. While use in a Wikipedia article would be a clincher to keep it, non-use is not a reason to delete: a good 90% of what is on Commons is not used in Wikipedia articles. Being a host for Wikipedia is one of Commons' purposes, but only one.

I helped redact our copy to meet others' concerns, but I thought then and think now that even those concerns were largely without merit for the reason I just stated.

In terms of whether it is in scope, a comparable case would be Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security card, which as far as I can tell no one has questioned in the decade we have had it posted, and which has even long been used as the example in Identity documents in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I was one who suggested deletion, I'm not able to specify a concrete or policy-based reason to delete this. Observations:

It's so redacted that it's of limited educational value (especially while the complete PD original is freely available)
Some commenters have questioned whether we got the correct Thomas Crooks with this evidence, so I hope that news sources have done their due diligence on the address/other PII
Wikipedia policies, such as BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY, while they may be of limited relevance here, are based in US law, and should give us pause: Oswald's long dead, but as recently deceased, BLP (BDP) still applies to Crooks and all other involved parties, IMHO. In fact, Crooks was 17 as of the date of these transactions, so his parents may bear responsibility for it.

Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Commons hosts unused PDFs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we do. Many entire magazines or books, for example. In this case this might not be the best choice of format because it is only one page; it could easily enough be downloaded to a PC and re-uploaded as a JPG or PNG, if there is a consensus to do so, but I believe the discussion here should focus mainly on the content, not the format. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Can you please point to the guidelines that allow Commons to host unused text files? Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content states that "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" are out of scope. Do you figure this is not raw text? I figure the "entire magazines or books," absent illustrations, are, and therefore should be removed from Commons on the basis of the policy I quoted. But of course admins can choose to disregard Commons policies if you like... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not exactly a "text file". We host hundreds of government forms from various governments, enormous amounts of manuscript correspondence, and, as I've said, the entire runs of many publications, a large number of which are almost entirely text. I can't point you to chapter and verse on this being OK, but I can confidently say it has been the prevailing practice for at least 15 years. See, for example, the majority of documents directly or indirectly under Category:Government documents. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me, Commons should edit or delete policies the site (in other words, admins) is (are) not observing, because people make the mistake of relying on Commons policies and guidelines to be binding... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Place Docteur Jorrot, Beaune - mural by Patrick Bidaux (35313230010).jpg

Mural installed in 1996 in Beaune, France where there is no freedom of panorama. Günther Frager (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amici del Vento 07.jpg

Photo published in Italy in 1977. Notice that the usage of {{PD-1996}} is wrong because copyright protection in Italy for simple photograph is 20 years ppd. That is, it was copyrighted in its country of origin until Jarnuary 1, 1998. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrick Dewaere et AuroreClement en 1977.jpg

Image taken from a film film released in 1977 and still copyrighted in France, its country of origin. Notice that this a derivative work of File:Patrick Dewaere Aurore Clément.jpg a file deleted because it has missing permission and uploaded by a user with plenty of copyvios. Unless we have a explicit premisison from the actual photographer we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankara Üniversitesi logosu.png

Questionable if this specific logo is indeed under the given license. The logo is claimed to be created at a date that is more than a decade older than the actual creation of the university itself. At the same time, legitimately questions could be asked regarding the fact that the university has kept for almost a century the very same logo that it had on the date of its creation. All these need clarification, for sure. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mireille-Eurovision-1964.jpg

The source from the Dutch National Archives states that it has an unknown copyright holder (Auteursrechthebbende onbekend). Notice that their T&C specify that only the images with a download link and an explict CC0 marking have the CC0 license. This image satisfy neither of these conditions. Moreover, on the download tab it states: U kunt de foto niet downloaden omdat deze niet rechtenvrij is. (You cannot download the photo because it is not royalty-free.) Günther Frager (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no metadata seems to be available for this file. It certainly seems possible for it to be found elsewhere as well, however, since we're talking about a really old photo (almost twenty years since it was taken) it looks like it's almost impossible to find the original source. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puligadda-Penumudi Bridge.jpg

Not "own work", from https://wikitravel.org/shared/File:Puligadda-Penumudi_bridge.jpeg, no license there Nutshinou ^Talk! 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Григорівський бір 15.jpg

poor quality, too dark and blurry, there are many better pictures in the category Hryhorivskyi Bir Luda.slominska (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Johnmazik (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio: Seems to come from videos, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024080610010267 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: VRT agent (verify): we've received Ticket:2024080610010267 regarding File:Dana Leonardi.jpg. Impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's just a pic there is no reason to delete it. It's a nice pic. 2600:8802:3B0F:9600:7072:A241:578D:9AC2 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified person, unknown notability, bad quality, unusable. --Krd 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VioEdu logo.jpg

Not sure if it is a copyright violation or not, they provided a source. I'm not sure if the file is just placed under the wrong licensing or not allowed on Commons. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Stooges Stop Look And Laugh 1960 Trailer GIF.gif

Is this trailer in the public domain or no? If so, we can keep it and upload the video of the original trailer on Wikimedia Commons. PlahWestGuy2024 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/21

July 21

Files in Category:Superstraight

Files in Category:Superstraight

Files uploaded by Sf121wiki (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ragy96 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Johnmazik (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search