Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/02

1 September 2024

3 September 2024

Deletion requests on 2 September 2024

September 2

File:Uohnmg.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Asdavdh as no source (No source since) Krd 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ATSC office.jpg

Request by me as the owner of image. The image is low in quality plus another same image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ATSC_office_at_Kuantan.jpg) also already existed / uploaded. Kistara (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMAF open day 2024 at RMAF Kuantan.jpg

Request by me as the owner of image. This image more to personal uses for my visit / vacation to the related place which is I wrongly uploaded in the past. It bring no impact to wikipedia in term of knowledge. Kistara (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright violation of the billboard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depicted 2D works is not be a main subject of this photo. This is panoramic view, that is presentes of architectural object (FoP in Russia). --Kaganer (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be hard to photograph a cinema without a movie poster. The poster can be blurred if necessary. Nakonana (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly opposing for deface of historical images! This is unacceptable. --Kaganer (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it might be the only alternative to deletion. Nakonana (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neubaugebiet Rosenbühl HOF00194 RAW-Export.png

Banners are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It stays there for many months, as it can be seen here File:Baufortschritt am Neubaugebiet am Rosenbühl 20230907 HOF08689 RAW-Export cens.png several months later, so it's not really "temporarily". --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Building constructions take a lot of time. Information boards of construction sites by the state or the local city persist usually for half a year, or longer, too, while the construction site exists for many months --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Files in Category:Gazprombank

TOO for logos of Russia is not clear, this particular one doesn't look like a simple geometric pattern.

Quick1984 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Dajianpang Benzhu Temple

Photos of copyrighted text.

File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 01.jpg - 重修赤男灵昭威光景武帝庙碑序大建旁村老龄协会全体叩立邑庶杨尚周撰序一九九八年八月五日
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 02.jpg - ditto
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 03.jpg - 修整我村本主庙功德碑记公元一九九八年仲夏洱源县双廊乡大建旁村全村居民立
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 04.jpg - 大建旁村本主庙重建碑序云南省大理市双廊镇大建旁村庶民同建同立邑人李正标撰序 2011

沈澄心 ✉ 04:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araxá-minas-gerais-brasil-escadaria.jpg

There are visible items in the image that may not be appropriate for Wikimedia. Mani Amistad (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What items? It looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rana sauteri 20121103.jpg

Source indicated on site is BY-NC-SA Taiwan 2.5. No evidence this page/license has changed since 2012 when this image was uploaded. NC images are not allowed on Commons. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm also going to say this meets CSD F4 as it has failed license review. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Tomica

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tomica models of automobiles

メイド理世 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg-markatplatz-roller4.jpg

Source "own work" for a photograph taken in 1921 (= 103 years ago) apparently is incorrect; connected license self|cc-by-sa-4.0 equally unrealistic. Actual source of image (file) missing. Archie02 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case the file is kept it should be renamed to Salzburg-makartplatz-roller4.jpg to reflect the correct spelling of that square in Salzburg (see D:Q110305248) - use renaming rationale 3 or 6. --Archie02 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ssrayarchitect (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: various selfies, awards, and personal correspondence.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naixue x Arknights Ads.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China メイド理世 (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mehdiolfati.jpg

Copyright violation: exist on the internet - For example: https://www.imna.ir/news/761699/%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%BE%D8%B1%DA%86%D9%85-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%A9-%DB%B2%DB%B0%DB%B2%DB%B4-%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B3-%D8%A2%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B4%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF MJXVI (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20220809-shhswary-png62d026-image.jpg

Invalid license MJXVI (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lippstadt Rathaus 2024.jpg

Auf Wunsch des Hochladenden, Datei wurde ersetzt durch File:Rathaus Lippstadt 2024.jpg Gisbert K (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sammani 11.jpg

No FoP in Ghana (could be close-cropped to the person) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Romanmalikkhan (talk · contribs)

Probably oos. Nothing seems to make any sense, even with the help of Google Translate and DeepL.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like someone treated file naming like Twitter hashtags and tried to list as many keywords as possible in an perceived character limit frame. Anyways, I tried to Google and it appears that this is the family clan / tribe tree of a pashtun / Pakistani tribe. Or rather of several tribes. The file caption offers some (more) keywords for that. We have articles on En Wiki for those tribes: Yusufzai, Mandanr, and Abakhel. We also have an image of the tribe tree, but it looks less complete than the deletion nominees: w:en:File:Sadu Zai subtribe.jpg and w:en:File:Yusafzai ancestors.JPG. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole all the way to the bottom, so that's just an excerpt of what this files are likely about, but I think this information is sufficient to put the files into some context and to justify

Keeping them. Nakonana (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please check file history. I have no clue what the uploader is trying to achieve there. Nakonana (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader removed all useful information from one of the file (including categories that I had added per my above research). Nakonana (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giuseppe Mengoli.jpg

non è opera propria, foto presa da qui https://seminariomolfetta.org/la-diocesi-di-san-severo-accoglie-il-nuovo-vescovo-mons-giuseppe-mengoli/ Almàr23 (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Intini.jpg

non è opera propria, foto presa da qui https://www.chiesacattolica.it/annuario-cei/vescovo/14048/s-e-r-mons-giovanni-intini/ Almàr23 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:לוגו מגדל אור.jpg

This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific VRT (formerly, OTRS) release note from the owner. I will ask the uploader to upload it to he.wikipedia in Fair Use. Ldorfman (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Francesco Pio Tamburrino.jpg

non è opera propria, foto presa da qui https://www.chiesacattolica.it/annuario-cei/vescovo/551/s-e-r-mons-francesco-pio-tamburrino/ Almàr23 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SWT Logo.svg

Logo ist veraltet und darf seit 2012 nicht mehr verwendet werden. 212.88.148.226 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a reason for deletion, we keep historic logos. If necessary rename the file to indicate a year or similar. --Rosenzweig τ 08:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forcakochi.jpg

It's JPG file, it need PNG file United Blasters (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverton–Latham, Illinois EF2 tornado March 31, 2023.png

This photograph was taken by w:Jeff Frame in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[1] and currently offers prints of it for sale.[2] When you right-click on that image, the following copyright notice appears: "These photos are copyrighted by their respective owners. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited."

[edit: correction] This photo was uploaded on the grounds that it was ineligible for copyright because it was taken by an employee of the US federal government in the course of their duties.

~~There is no claim that Frame was a US Federal government employee performing their duties,~~ However, there is no evidence that Frame was working for the federal govenment at the time, or if he was, that this photo was taken as part of his duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image ~~was uploaded to~~ has been hosted on the Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template ~~at the time~~; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Central Illinois office).

Without clearer evidence that Frame intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per @Rlandmann and PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn’t even put it under that tag; someone else did. The tweet also says @NWSLincolnIL. How do you tweet a picture to a federal government agency that puts things in public domain and then say it’s copyrighted and people have to buy it? I don’t “buy” that.

Comment The guy has a Twitter account; why can’t we just ask him via a message? ChessEric (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, @ChessEric -- you uploaded it as a work of a US government employee. I have corrected the DR text accordingly.

To your first question, I think there's a couple of points to clarify:

with only some very specific exceptions, every photo taken in the United States since March 1, 1989 is protected by copyright from the instant it is taken. The owner doesn't have to "say it's copyrighted" -- it just is. (the main exception we come across in weather photos is that the photo was taken by an employee of a federal government agency) That copyright exists until and unless the person or business who owns the copyright (and nobody else...) says it doesn't, or the copyright has expired due to age. When we say that we need evidence of permission on the Commons, it's this "until they say it doesn't" that we're looking for. We just don't have that with this photo.
the NWS does not, and indeed cannot put people's photos in the public domain. (This would be a case of the US federal government seizing citizens' private property...)
there's no evidence that Frame sent or submitted the image to the NWS; we have no idea how it ended up on weather.gov. It's equally, if not more, likely that an NWS employee spotted the image and asked him whether the NWS could use it. And whether he sent it to them, or they asked permission is actually irrelevant -- all that matters is what terms he agreed to.

This is, along with a few dozen similar photos, simply a case of a copyright owner giving the NWS permission to post their image on their website. That is not the same as placing an image in the pubic domain, or even allowing anyone else but the NWS to use the image.

To the second question, I've posted a more in-depth reply on my talk page, but the short answer is that of course anyone can reach out at any time to clarify with Frame what he agreed to, and if he didn't already release the image into the Public Domain or under a free license, whether he would be willing to now. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the following reasons:

Image originates on this web site by the National Weather Service. The caption of the image says, "Source: Jeff Frame", as with every other NWS-made image (automatically PD) on the webpage. At the bottom of the web page, it states, "Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site." At the very bottom of the web page, there is a Disclaimer button. According to that disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

The photograph is used by FarmWeek Now in this article. The photo is attributed: "Photo by Jeff Frame, courtesy of National Weather Service Lincoln office".
Importantly, the photo uploaded by FarmWeek Now was created on April 4, 2023. This photograph was uploaded to Wikimedia on April 18, 2023, removing any possibility of the PD-NWS template from possibly being a cause of license laundering from the news station.

To me, all the things above point to this image being in the public domain and free-to-use. PD images may also be used for any purposes whatsoever, including commercial uses, meaning the selling of this photograph does not mean anything for the discussion nor does it take away the PD-nature of the photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingrés i mort Mathausen 1.jpg

Not own work Brunnaiz (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingrés i mort Mathausen 2.jpg

Now own work Brunnaiz (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avanhard 07.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 2013. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erwin Biswanger Metropolis 1927.jpg

Per Category:Metropolis (film), this screenshot is from a film still protected by copyright in its source country. Eureka Lott 14:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked before using the image. On 1 January 2023 the film's American reserved copyright expired, thereby entering the film into the public domain. Therefore the screenshot is free to use. Jack1956 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film is in the public domain in the U.S., but not in Germany, and both are required for this film. Please see Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law and Metropolis_(1927_film)#Copyright_status. - Eureka Lott 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough. It can be deleted. I’ve found a studio still of him I can use instead. Jack1956 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phoenix supercell 2021.jpg

This photograph was taken by Spike Davis in the United States in 2021. He published it on his X feed,[3] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSPhoenix: Great photos! May we share one of your photos (with credit) in a report about yesterday's storms?

@AZStormChase: Of course! Anything to help.

@NWSPhoenix: Great! How would you like to be credited?

@AZStormChase: Sorry for the late response, Spike Davis is fine

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain.

There is no claim that Davis was a US Federal government employee performing their duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was uploaded to Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use. And, of course, in this instance we can see that the photographer merely gave the NWS permission to use the image, and he is simply credited "Credit: Spike Davis".
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Phoenix office).

Without clearer evidence that Davis intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Files uploaded by Wildvepr (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Фото сграфито на стене жилого дома размещены в соответсвтующей статье об арт-объектах города (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82_%D0%BE%D0%B1%E2%80%99%D1%94%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA) и не могут быть никак представленые другим способом, размещены в низком качестве. Таким образом считаю, что можно применить Вікіпедія:Добропорядне використання Wildvepr (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a shame if we have to delete them because part of it might have been destroyed.[4][5]. Can at least a local copy be made under fair use? Nakonana (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Satyam3196 (talk · contribs)

Author added {{Delete}} tag incorrectly with rationale "No longer needed".

—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PG O'Dea song "Dear Love" easter rising westmeath independent.jpg

Non-free newspaper Astrinko (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be required to use this as a source? It appears to have been omitted from the newspaper's free online archive, and no other url is available as a source Kokatoni (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As non-free copyrighted material that is not Commons-eligible. And definitely not "own work" / "cc-zero" as claimed. If the uploader needs a place to upload newspaper snippets (to support a Wikipedia article) they need to look elsewhere. (Like Flickr or someplace.) Wikimedia is not (and CANNOT) be a repository for non-free copyrighted images and materials. Guliolopez (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HiT Entertainment 2007.webp

Seemingly above COM:TOO US and COM:TOO UK (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Captains of the 5 Premier Hockey League teams along with the President of the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) Shri K.P. S. Gill presenting a Hockey stick to the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam in New Delhi on November 29, 2005.jpg

a low resolution version of File:The_Captains_of_the_5_Premier_Hockey_League_teams_along_with_the_President_of_the_Indian_Hockey_Federation_(IHF)_Shri_K.P._S._Gill_presenting_a_Hockey_stick_to_the_President_Dr._A.P.J._Abdul_Kalam_in_New_Delhi.jpg 源義信 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lomasontfo Dludlu.png

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Fair use (fair use) Might be in the public domain due to age. What is the duration for old pictures of Swaziland? Yann (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chondrule Textures.jpg

No indication of permission for any of the images used especially the ones only surfaced in a journal article after being provided on a CD to the authors. Very useful picture but unfortunately probably a copyright violation. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:73 GAMEBOY.jpg

Copyrighted video game console box art. Unlikely to be COM:De minimis. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Моят-пионерски-хор-Младен-Статев.jpg

I haven't already received the publishing house's authorisation. Mitkostatev (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mein-Schulchor-Mladen-Statev.jpg

I haven't already received the publishing house's authorisation. Mitkostatev (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:001 Моят пионерски хор - М. Статев.jpg

I haven't already received the publishing house's authorisation. Mitkostatev (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:002 Mein Schulchor - M. Statev.jpg

I haven't already received the publishing house's authorisation. Mitkostatev (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharmin.jpg

Not public Sharmin Akter Brisry (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wired Productions Logo.png

Above COM:TOO UK, which is extremely low. Yeeno (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BOSS great wall.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know there is a more encyclopedic version of this image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOSS_Great_Wall#/media/File:28261Lietzen.jpg, but why do you claim that image is misleading? I do not understand why this is misleading, and people may want to use it. You nominated several of my contributions for deletion. It took effort to create and upload them; several of them are now used in various Wikipedias, including this one. Celestialobjects (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:U111LQG.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete it; it took effort to create and upload. Why do you think it is misleading? Is it because the black background and realistic style make people believe it is a real photo? Celestialobjects (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huge-LQG.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete it; people are using it, and I do not believe it is misleading. The actual galaxy supercluster may look something like this. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant grb ring.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete it. It took a lot of effort to create and upload, and this user tagged several of my images for deletion in 10 minutes. Why is it misleading? It is just a concept, as stated in the description. It is my original work, and it is used in several Wikipedias. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ton618.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. It is my original work, and it took some effort to create and upload. It is being used. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ULASJ1342+0928.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:11, 2 September 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:Aibawk

Duplicates and needless derivatives of File:Aibawk khua a ni.jpg and File:Aibawk,Mizoram Aibawk mini comlex play a round Aibawk khua Aibawk Aizawl,mizoram, Mizoram.jpg.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Chhanchhana zote hmar

Files uploaded by LTA user frequently editing these pages with sock accounts. We should not keep those files uploaded by someone who never intended to contribute in a useful way.

GPSLeo (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. These pictures have educational value, most of them, and their licensing is fine. Yes, the uploader has been a pain in the buttocks but the files are fine. Bedivere (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unsure with the licensing. There are many different phone cameras used what is a bit suspicious. GPSLeo (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, there doesn't seem to be an overlap of the cameras timewise. All photos that were taken with a Redmi Note 5 were taken before 2023 (with one exception in the first half of 2023). The majority of the photos appear to come from the Redmi Note 5. For photos taken in 2023, Vivo V2253 was used. And photos in 2024 were taken with Vivo T2x 5G. If the camera usage was all over the place, it would be very suspicious, but here it looks like someone used a Redmi from 2020 to 2022 (or roughly 2023), then the model V2253 in 2023, and then switched to T2x 5G in 2024 (or late 2023). Redmi Note is not an expensive brand, if I'm not mistaken (~100-200€). I don't know about the other brand, but it might be in the same range, so could be possible that they just switched phones.

There are, however, also some photos that lack exif data. Nakonana (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just googled, and it turns out that Vivo V2253 and Vivo T2x 5G are actually different names for one and the same phone[6]. And the phone costs around 150€. So, there are only two phone, Redmi from 2020 to 2022, and Vivo from 2023 onwards. Nakonana (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Many if not all of the photos are useful. The watermarks on some of them are annoying but could be removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping these files will just encourage to create more socks, and uploading more files. Yann (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if it's the other way around? What if the puppet master gets bored when Commons stops paying attention to them and caring about them? It looks like previous deletions have not stopped the socking. But do we know what will happen if the files are not deleted? Has this been tried before? Nakonana (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GN-z11.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMBsphere.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coma wall.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Okroy Cloud illustration.jpg

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The adelitas or soldaderas.jpg

Not an own work but dont delete outright, maybe its PD. 186.173.178.42 19:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saraswati supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asassn15lh.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caelum supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant void.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corona borealis supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horologium reticulum supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. While the images Special:ListFiles/Celestialobjects are admittedly beautiful, they seem to be fakes or pirated. en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_34#File:Thelocalgroup.png -- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects (all deleted, one later reuploaded). @User:Celestialobjects Taylor 49 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shapley supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sculptor wall.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern local supervoid.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kbc void.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spending her summer holidays.jpg

Mabel, chata, tu no eres Wikipedista ni lo fuiste nunca. Tal vez eres hermana de un bibliotecario? Pitutada? Any serious admin that sees your scarce and meaningless contributions to Wikipedia will "borrarte de la faz de la tierra". (Not even posing in swimwear will save you honey. :) 186.173.178.42 19:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavo indus supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alnilam star.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This must be a 3D render or some other form of artificial image; as far as I'm aware, stars outside the solar system cannot be imaged at this level of detail. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alnitak.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mintaka.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meissa black background.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regor.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rigel.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adhara.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete it. It took work to create and upload. I do not understand why it is misleading. Is it because the pair is too close? It is a concept intended to depict the pair's overall appearance. It is my original work, and others may want to use it. This user nominated 20 of my images for deletion in 10 minutes. I am trying to improve my style. They claimed that the images were overly saturated, and while some had been copied from other sources, these were not. I don't see any reason for deleting these. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg

We currently have no evidence that this file is actually in the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for why I’ve went ahead and nominated it now. I’d rather get all the high profile pictures that are affected straightened out first. This one was promoted to featured picture status on EnWiki. And as of now; there isn’t any evidence that we have permission to use this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ping @Rlandmann for their take on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep per WeatherWriter.

@Hurricane Clyde: You can’t ping other editors into a discussion that needs a consensus. That is considered canvassing and WILL get you into trouble. ChessEric (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric, that definitely wasn’t my intention. I had actually (for a small time) been in agreement with WeatherWriter and pinged Rlandmann because I know that they had a good understanding of the law that neither of us had; and because I knew that they would scrutinize the posts to find evidence (or lack thereof) of permission, whereas WeatherWriter (no offense intended) sees a PD attribution or a disclaimer that supposedly releases stuff into PD and doesn’t look any further to see if it’s legit. And secondly; sometimes when you see me “ping” other users in the middle of a discussion, I usually am doing that because it’s easier for me to create a ping than it is to type out the username, and not because I’m trying to canvass. (And yes I know very well that canvassing is wrong and will get me in trouble because I’ve seen plenty of accusations towards WeatherWriter over it); that said, I will admit that I’m not very good at differentiating between what is and isn’t canvassing. Next time I’ll ping everyone who’s recently been involved in discussions, would that be canvassing? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as for that last statement. Is pinging the entire group of people plus a few more (who has historically had differing opinions) any better than pinging only one person? Especially when my intent is to try to get more editors in the discussion to achieve a consensus (in a neutral, nonpartisan manner I will add) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because if that is the case; then I probably need to be whaled, or more likely slapped with a user warning template because I’ve pinged 8-10+ people before (especially in cases where there was a previous DR, I would ping everyone involved in that DR, plus every person that I could think of at the time so that the discussion could quickly be facilitated). Please tell me that isn’t canvassing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for reminding me @ChessEric; do you mind continuing this conversation on my talk page? That way we don’t go too off-topic. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the canvassing information page says that merely encouraging participation is ok; I’m going to ping quite a few people here, including everyone involved in past discussions (that I know of) pings: @Moonreach @Geni @Hamid Hassani @Giles Laurent @Sir MemeGod @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @HikingHurricane @LightandDark2000 @Runningonbrains @TornadoLGS @GeorgeMemulous @TornadoInformation12; we’d really appreciate everyone’s opinion to hopefully build a consensus. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about @Consigned and @Berchanhimez; they have also been active in previous NWS-related deletion requests. Trying to get EVERYONE’s take on this because of the featured picture status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @ChessEric, my mass ping was done within the policies on canvassing. “In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus” (from Wikipedia policy). Secondly; deletion requests on Commons are neither votes nor consensus; especially when based on copyright issues (see Commons:Canvassing). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the following reasons:

Image originates on this web site by the National Weather Service. The caption of the image says, "Courtesy Anthony Constans." At the bottom of the web page, it states, "Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site." At the very bottom of the web page, there is a Disclaimer button. According to that disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov/).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

This image is directly used by The Business Times, a New York newspaper in this article. In the article, the image is captioned: "(Photo: Anthony Constans / Public domain)".
This image is used in the thumbnail of this YouTube video by meteorologist Trey Greenwood (known as Convective Chronicles). In the video description, the thumbnail image is credited, "Thumbnail images from Andrew Constans via NWS Omaha".
This image is used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (parent organization to the NWS...branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce) in this Facebook post. No attribution is given to anyone.
This image is used by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (a branch of the U.S. Department of Defence) in this Facebook post. No attribution is given to anyone.
This image is used by the Association of Certified Meteorologists in this article. The photograph is attributed: "Image sourced from the NWS, original work by Anthony Constans."

To me, all the things above, as well as the review of the public-domain status of this image over on the English Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates (note, this is a Featured Picture on EN-Wiki), there is sufficient evidence to point to this image being in the public domain. Any doubt would not be significant, which is what Commons:PRP states. PRP does not state "any doubt", but rather "significant doubt". We have news articles and the U.S. government indicating this is a public domain image. Therefore, my vote will remain Keep. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to see where the government explicitly indicates that it’s PD. Until then; I don’t care if it’s featured. I’m still going to support deletion Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove it’s PD status; then I’m more than happy to withdraw my nomination. But until then my opinion isn’t changing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Business Times indicates it is “Public Domain”, citing the author and not NWS. (2) On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. So right there is 2 very easy evidence points on it being free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — NOTE: The NWS general disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request (closed September 2024) for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; can you please post a link to these articles and particularly government agencies that indicate PD status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But until I see proof. I’m still going to support deletion under the precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of Copa del Rey

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iniciativa 2021 logo.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain. Jonteemil (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc Natural de la Muntanya de Montserrat.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain. Jonteemil (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the logo of a public natural park made by the Generaliat de Catalunya, a Spanish public administration, and is available for download at https://identitatcorporativa.gencat.cat/ Capa23 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From https://web.gencat.cat/ca/ajuda/avis_legal/: (Google translate from Catalan) The use of logos, brands, shields and distinctive symbols of the Generalitat de Catalunya in publications and websites that are not participated in or sponsored by this institution is not authorized under any circumstances. These corporate graphic identity elements are the exclusive property of the Generalitat de Catalunya and are protected by the current applicable legislation. Jonteemil (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of the UEFA Champions League

Above COM:TOO Switzerland. The UCL logo has been deleted before as copyvio as well.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:FC Basel

Possibly above COM:TOO Switzerland. Enwiki uses the logo as non-free/fair use.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely not above TOO in Switzerland. Misjudgment in en.wikipedia is not of relevance here. 194.230.147.217 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this is below Swiss TOO. Gnom (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:SVG logos of Asian Football Confederation

Possibly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gocanar (talk · contribs)

Are these all free works?

Jonteemil (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IFFF Logo.svg

Possibly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julián Sáez durante la presentación de las Fiestas Mayores de Sueca.jpg

Delete becouse the page is eliminated UsuWiki123456789 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion given. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Simon fiddler sculpture Slack Plaza downtown Charleston WV July 2022.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in the United States, and I would strongly guess this is a recent enough sculputure to still be in copyright. Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Simon banjo player sculpture Slack Plaza downtown Charleston WV July 2022.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in the United States, and I would strongly guess this is a recent enough sculputure to still be in copyright. Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1991-04-26 Red Rock, Oklahoma, tornado.jpg

This photograph was taken by Gene Moore in the United States in 1991. He published it on his (now defunct) website Tornado Chase Day.(from here, click "rain and hail" to find the image here). At the time this image was published on his site, Moore was selling licenses to use his weather images online, and specifically states that a copyright release is necessary.[7]

There is no claim that Moore was a US federal government employee performing their duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was uploaded to the Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Norman, OK office).

Without clearer evidence that Moore intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Durante la presentación de las Fiestas Mayores de Sueca.jpg

Eliminar ya que la página en la que aparecia esta foto ha sido borrada UsuWiki123456789 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/02

September 2

Files in Category:Gazprombank

Files in Category:Dajianpang Benzhu Temple

Files in Category:Tomica

Files uploaded by Ssrayarchitect (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Romanmalikkhan (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Wildvepr (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Satyam3196 (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Aibawk

Files uploaded by User:Chhanchhana zote hmar

Files in Category:Logos of Copa del Rey

Files in Category:Logos of the UEFA Champions League

Files in Category:FC Basel

Files in Category:SVG logos of Asian Football Confederation

Files uploaded by Gocanar (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search