Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/29

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
28 July 2024
30 July 2024
Deletion requests on 29 July 2024

July 29

[edit]

File:Pajorita Matta, The Witch's Cradle (1943).jpg

[edit]

The date given is when the film Witch's Cradle was shot, but likely not the publication date. According to the source linked, "The Witch's Cradle is an unfinished Maya Deren film made in the Guggenheim Gallery during a surrealist 'Art of this Century' exhibit. It was assembled long after her death [in 1961] by staffers within the preservation department at Anthology Film Archives." Based on reviews of the film, it seems like it was edited and published in 1988, which is after {{PD-US-no notice}} could apply. hinnk (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rzeka Tarczynka po drugiej stronie Tarczyna.jpg

[edit]

Wniosek autora.https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Zg%C5%82o%C5%9B_b%C5%82%C4%85d_w_artykule#Plik:Rzeka_Tarczynka_po_drugiej_stronie_Tarczyna.jpg Pamulab (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader make a delete request on Polish Wikipedia. This is a beginner user. I wasn't sure if it qualifies for removal in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 mode in this case --Architekt1024 (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The request to remove on pl-wiki happened within a day or so of uploading, so a courtesy deletion could be warranted. That said, the file is in use (and was placed on the article pl:Tarczynka (dopływ Jeziorki) by the uploader), so maybe not. —Tcr25 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan Hrušínský DivadloNaJezerce.jpg

[edit]

Fotografie je komerční. Nejsou vyřešeny autorská práva. Prosím tedy o potvrzení autora. Simca 05:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:AD40431-1wi.jpg

[edit]

Very similar to File:AD40431-1wiki.jpg, and this image is just a little darker. This caused by Andy king50's retouch and the original image had the same brightness as the “AD40431-1wiki”. Tmv (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latwis NAC.jpg

[edit]

No proof of publication date and publication. PD-anon and PD-Poland doesn't apply. 159.205.179.12 09:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zbigniew Osuchowski.jpg

[edit]

No valid source. 159.205.179.12 09:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piotr Dudziński w Giraltarze.jpg

[edit]

No publication date, no publicator - pd-poland and pd-anon doesn't apply. 159.205.179.12 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piotr Dudziński przed rajdem alpejskim.jpg

[edit]

No publication date, no publicator - pd-poland and pd-anon doesn't apply. 159.205.179.12 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/File:Wikipedia on GLAM-Tour Kulturkooperationen für lokale Wikipedia-Gruppen.webm

[edit]

Emtpy files, without an image or other medium

JopkeB (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rate of fatal shootings by police in USA, per racial category.png

[edit]

I made a new graph that better represents the data, without using a screen capture from the source site. Fookault (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Constitution of Moldova

[edit]

License is claimed {{PD-MD-exempt}}, but I'm not sure this extends to the former entity that was Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. Maybe {{PD-Soviet}} or something like that?

Gikü (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:P 20170801 075905 BF.jpg

[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:SZ 深圳市 Shenzhen 福田區 Futian 當代藝術館 MOCAPE Great trend in Pear River 大潮起珠江 Guangdong Economic open reform history 廣東改革開放40周年展覽 40th years Exhibition in October 2019 SSG 177.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS, This Boonie Bears toy as copyright-protected. メイド理世 (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:SZ 深圳市 Shenzhen 福田區 Futian 當代藝術館 MOCAPE Great trend in Pear River 大潮起珠江 Guangdong Economic open reform history 廣東改革開放40周年展覽 40th years Exhibition in October 2019 SSG 178.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS and COM:DW メイド理世 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Amina1.png

[edit]

This image is pixelated and orphaned. There are good alternatives in the Category:Primary_amino_group 162.23.30.48 12:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Pablo Ángeles David statue (Bacolor, Pampanga)

[edit]

Infringement of sculptural copyright, considering the Philippines not granting Freedom of Panorama for free sharing and distributions of images of copyrighted Philippine monuments and architecture. Per this site, the statue was erected in 1982. Not in public domain.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


User talk:Dryuyrueryueyue

[edit]

No need for this page Dryuyrueryueyue (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC) No need for this page Dryuyrueryueyue (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Dryuyrueryueyue: We usually do not delete user talk pages. --Rosenzweig τ 06:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Dvorak during 1904 Summer Olympics.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image from 1904, author unknown, 120 years from the time the photo was taken must apply, i.e. we can have it from 2025. ZioNicco (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the image would be eligible on 3 September 2024. We could just call it close enough and move on. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Keep. 186.175.164.3 08:09, 5 August 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 uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

seem not to be own work (upload pattern mismatch, exif, ...)

McZusatz (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I went and called 2 offices on the matter. I consider that the USA laws and Commons are the same, and Philippine copyright laws were borrowed from USA. Hence, I needed some enlightenment on the legal ramifications on copyright law. Specifically, the issue here is whether or not these uploaded images violated copyright or any other laws? Let me share my legal opinion and thoughts on the matter. First, the CBCP allows reproduction of any and all religious images. Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+. A photographer would not in his right sense give to the internet for public use or consumption, like Facebook, etc. big or his or her original images. I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small. In fact, the reasons I uploaded them here in Commons are: a) I love the sun images, and I desire to share beautiful pics in Commons when the sun fails me in my photography, b) I test the speed of the falling internet here, and c) most of the times, I fail to meet on time the parish priest of the Church, so I get permission from the office or the parishioners to get their pics of the this church or the priest. However, they would not allow their names to be revealed for privacy. Second, I asked about 3 lawyers of a legal department of the Copyright law office, and they opined that images, like books must comply with copyright deposit rules and regulations issued due to the Law requirement. More importantly, photographs of churches of priests and parishioners in churches when uploaded or copied for religious and moral reasons, etc. are not violative of the law, especially when the size is so small. Why should I get from the internet small images when I personally spend huge sums to go to the church and landmark sites, and spent more money in uploading these images from 11 pm to 4am daily more or less? In good faith, I love them and I ponder legally, that there is no obstacle in law, when I share them in Commons, Fair use so to speak. I do have the express but verbal permission of the CBCP and the churches to use their pictures especially as I said, I failed to capture a sunny facade of the church and the parish priest was away when I shot. Let me put here some parts of the law as basis of my above submissions: [Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines[1] and [2] - Republic Act No. 8293. K: Photographs and cinematographic works made in a process similar to photography - Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for fair use of copyrighted material. The criteria for fair use is almost identical to the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law, with the exception that even unpublished works qualify as fair use under Philippine copyright law.[3]SEC. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. CHAPTER IX DEPOSIT AND NOTICE SEC. 191. Registration and Deposit with National Library and the Supreme Court Library. –SEC. 192. Notice of Copyright. –xxx.)]

IN FINE, I respectfully submit the above legal argument. And I stress that I failed to get a written legal opinion from the CBCP and our Copyright law office. I think this mater had already been exhaustively talked about or discussed by the editors in [4] Tambayan. I have no objection to the fair discretion of older editors to delete my above images, for the good of Commons. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
com:fair use is not allowed on commons therefore they need to be  Delete. (Fair use is allowed on en.wiki, though) --McZusatz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyrightviolations (com:fair use) McZusatz (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2013 (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 uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 8

[edit]

Suspicious early uploads of Ramon FVelasquez. While his recognized tool is Nikon COOLPIX AW100 (or Sony DSC-T200 for his 2012-era uploads like File:Churchpuljf.JPG), the following nominated images have either different camera models or are missing exif metadata (and some very small resolutions). These may have come from his apprentices or other people then passed on to him. No indication of proper copyright transfer via COM:VRTS correspondence if this is true. Likely similar case to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez#Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 2. See the nomination proper for added details.

List of files
NIKON D60
NIKON D80
NIKON D200
NIKON D300
DSC-S650
Canon PowerShot A570 IS
Canon PowerShot A3000 IS
Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Canon EOS 500D
Canon EOS 1000D
KODAK CX7430 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Assorted metadata
No EXIF metadata

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be noted that Ramon FVelasquez's reply to the second thread above seems self-contradictory: "Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+." and afterwards then "I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small." Plus he introduced the concept of fair use, even if fair use is eternally not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:03, 18 March 2022 (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 uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 9

[edit]

Photos of non-descript darkness and objects/person by a former sock of Judgefloro (talk · contribs). Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. More usable photos are found at Category:Casa Hacienda de Tejeros.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:37, 27 April 2023 (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 uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Poor quality, objects obscured by dark side of the objects not facing the sunlight, and the sunlight caused glare in the image. COM:NOTUSED and out of COM:SCOPE.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs), group 1

[edit]

Uploads by another sock of en:Florentino Floro, using Commons as cloud storage. Handling with a DR per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#JFVelasquez Floro.

List of files for group 1

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible  Keep High resolution photos of cityscapes, in scope. Somewhat properly categorized, at least one image I checked is in use of two wikipedias. Almost everything I checked are strongly differing views (not 500 photos of the same thing from the same persepective or so)
No clue whats up with this AN report which alleges "severe mental illness", "ridicoulus categories", "terrible images" without any evidence whatsoever. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings of nude Mexican women by state

[edit]

My nomination includes all the images listed on this page. The idea of demonstrating human phenotypical variation is useful, but the variation of postures shown makes it difficult to compare these body types, and there are no sources, leading to this potentially being more harmful than helpful as an educational tool since it suggests homogeneity within states and promotes stereotypes. Daask (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reasoning for deletion request. All Wikipedians that have ever request deletion of any of my images would put the most simplistic of reasoning —- if any. In this case, I truly value your concern. My only issue is about this being wrongly viewed as a non-Mexican. This, because Wikimedia and Wikipedia is plagued with unsourced stereotypes. And I see no one doing anything, and when I try I get frowned upon with “well, we see it this way in America” or “if I haven’t heard of it then it’s not true”. The irony is that this exact issue (unsourced stereotype of Mexican issues/history) is what prompted me to volunteer as a Wiki editor. And boy oh boy, do I face backlash. Hence my motto on my userpage: “Wikipedia is not Europe, and Europe is not Wikipedia.
So, to your point, I will address your points of concern:
Yes, variation of poses is something deep down has bothered me. But being an artist, I took the artistic flair, so they could also be used in wiki projects (which they are). But ideally I would have done a generic anatomical pose. Sadly, I can’t anymore, since I did this drawings based on consent photos I took of friends and people I’ve met as a photographer.
About sources, I don’t understand. Other than, like you say, lack of proof of someone being of a specific state would otherwise need to be someone public/noteworthy. Here is one of my main issue. Because whenever I see anatomical drawings/photos on wikipages I don’t you guys giving same reasoning.
About stereotype. Like I explained, there is a heavy bias and latent stereotype on many things related to Mexico (be it in Wikimedia or Wikipedia). By this reasoning, you would also need to tag deletion requests to almost half of Wiki content related to Mexican issues/history. But you won’t do it. Because we intrinsically accept stereotypes, but, like you said, rarely do we stop to actually analize. Sadly, as always, such burden falls on me, a Mexican doing a categorization of Mexican topics. Getting used to it —- though still sad about it.
Thanks for bringing this up, and until we could come to a common-ground solution, for now, I stand against deletion. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per the nominator for both the gallery and images. We don't usually host amateur artwork by users. Especially without some kind of sources, but these don't have any and it seems like the only answer to that is a screed about how only Mexicans should have an opinion about it. What makes this file of a woman in Chihuahua though? Let me guess, I'm just being biased by asking and should just keep my opinion to myself because I'm American? OK. Sounds like a reasonable way to do this. BTW, some of these are being used on Wikipedia but I'd argue in a totally inappropriate way. For instance File:Nude Mexican woman of Aguascalientes.svg is being used in the Wikipedia article for strippers. But come on. There has to be better images of strippers on here and it's totally bias to portray Mexican women as overly sexualized sex workers. Apparently that kind of stereotype is cool though. If I have an opinion about this as an American, that's bad. But if the uploader wants to portray Mexican women as cartoonish sex objects that mainly exist for mens pleasure then that's totally fine. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep firstly, this not a proper bundle nomination. Secondly, the drawings themselves are high quality and in-scope. Thirdly, several of these images are COM:INUSE. I don’t think they’re all good uses per se like the example provided by Adamant1, but what’s wrong with this use? Or this? Or any of the uses of this image? I would support deleting the page as unhelpful but as the nomination claims to be about all the contents of the page I can only support its closure as malformed and a violation of in-use policy. Dronebogus (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the page being deleted for now and the files being nominated separately. I was actually going to suggest it myself but I didn't want to wikilawyer. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the last file's usage, because it's frankly weird that these files would be in use in any mainspace page. It was added to Wikidata by an account that somehow only edits items that have images by Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas on them. Almost certainly a sock. That Wikidata addition accounts for two of the Wikipedias. The last Wikipedia, Chinese, was added manually by that same account. There's some funny business afoot. — Rhododendrites talk |  09:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TepeyacPilgrim's user page on Wikidata is a dead give away that they are a sock. "I decided to contribute to Wiki after reading for years and years a lot of misinformation, and sometimes blatant bias, about the region where I'm from, its people, as well as Mexico and its pre-Hispanic history....The Wikipedia community needs to change its attitude towards non-European/non-American Wikipedians." That's litterally the exact same thing Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas has been going off about here. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TepeyacPilgrim is blocked on enwiki as a CU-confirmed match to User:Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Although I didn't check every single images but the ones I did look at on other projects served absolutely no useful purpose to where they were being used what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:P 20170811 002542.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France. Also, the Eiffel Tower's lighting and sparkling lights are protected by copyright. Waqar💬 14:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:P 20170810 123017.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France. Waqar💬 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Virtua Fighter da Sega.jpg

[edit]

Obviously not "own work" Stego (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep if my understanding is right, this is a logo from a Japanese company; Japanese TOO is pretty low so this would be PD-TEXT Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete It is obviously not own work and most likely a screenshot from the official logo. I would argue that File:VIRTUA-FIGHTER-logo.svg already meets the need for a Virtua Fighter logo with a much more transparent source and higher quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuccaSSC (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:My wife handmade the felt-book for her second daughter. (36939687805).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:DW. This is a derivative work that reproduces creative elements of Anpanman characters. IDCM (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sanrio, Pompompurin Café-1. Orchard Central, Singapore, July 2017 (cropped).jpg

[edit]

According to COM:FOP Singapore: "This means that the Singaporean freedom of panorama does not apply to two-dimensional works such as billboards, posters and paintings in a gallery, even if these are permanently displayed in a public place." IDCM (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Georgia County Government license plate 1998.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio, US state publication, not own work. Georgia is not one of the states which automatically releases works into PD. P1 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фомин Александр Григорьевич.png

[edit]

Russia’s licensing template missing, no evidence provided that the author died 70+ years ago to meet COM:Russia requirements. 188.123.231.47 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Macedonian Colony in Petrograd, Russia.jpg

[edit]

There is no source for this 1914 flag. Jingiby (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag proposed for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1983).svg

[edit]

It's completely fake as far as I can tell. I could find no reliable sources on it, and it's been passed off as a real flag even though it was most likely never even proposed, and was the original creation of the person who uploaded it. Creativeusername18 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adib Signature.png

[edit]

I can't find any link for the licensing of this file. SafariScribe (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikki Catsouras after fatal car crash, 2006.webp

[edit]

Gore/Disrespect to Family 2601:41:C900:1DB0:7DEC:EA52:F26C:90E1 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. This is an unusual case; see en:Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy. These (extremely graphic) photos were leaked online by police officers against policy, and the family subsequently won a lawsuit against the department for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Nikki's family has suffered considerable trauma from the continued distribution of these photos; it is a matter of basic human decency that Commons should not perpetuate that trauma by hosting them. Omphalographer (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete. 186.174.109.253 21:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. These images are the subject of the Wikipedia article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep COM:NOTCENSORED. Every year, over 40,000 traffic fatalities occur in the US alone, but this is the only photograph depicting the immediate aftermath of such an accident on Commons, even rarer is that it is actually freely licenced/PD. The educational value is exceptionally high here, i'd say something like in the top 0.5% of media on commons. Regarding personality rights, In most countries, these issues only affect photos where the person is identifiable and still alive. (COM:BLP) Neither is the case here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete:I don't think this should be public. It just shouldn't. Kyile256 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Settori Autostazione Trento.jpg

[edit]

Inutilità. Rappresenta un'aggregazione delle vecchie grafiche (riprodotte in digitale) dell'autostazione di Trento. Non possiede valore enciclopedico. ElegantFox (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don Gorske.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Already in the internet in 2017 according to TinEye; VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copertina anima e cuore.jpg

[edit]

This painting was painted by the Japanese painter KaburaKi Kiyokata[5]. He died in 1972, so it is copyrighted until the end of 2042 in Japan. Y.haruo (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of the Bauhaus-Gebäude Dessau

[edit]

The architect of the building was Walter Gropius who died in 1969 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years and no FoP for interior views. I suggest to undelete in 2040

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Traditional region inhabited by the Murusade in Galguduud.png

[edit]

Inaccurate Map Solanif (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clou français

[edit]

These files are Original Research and have no use in an Encyclopedia. The drawing is based on a pencil sketch by user Mittlerer Weg, who was infamous for inventing weapons and their characteristics (See this discussion on clean-up.) There are no reputable sources for this particular shape. Pictures of the real thing exist on Commons. Affected file:

--Minderbinder (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the illustration at a time when the current photo was not yet available on Commons. My goal was to create a better version of the pencil sketch (used at the time).
Since realistic photos now exist, the illustration can be deleted.
However, the source for the illustration should then also be deleted.
Just for Info, – regarding "Original Research": Here is a photo with the wide blade (tenth from the top). Kind regards, Auge=mit (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking this in stride, and sorry for the time spent. I added the sketches to this NOM. Since these were individually crafted, many different versions exist. This is all the more reason to not come up with your own version. —Minderbinder (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/07/29&oldid=919758520"