Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/09

8 September 2024

10 September 2024

Deletion requests on 9 September 2024

September 9

File:Photograph of a Koch family in mid 18th.jpg

Photo of Rajbonshi Damily and the uploaded is trying to manipulate the Data of aboriginal Koch NerdKocha (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date looks odd, seems like a 1920s image. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1]https://kochrajbongshiculturalsociety.com/cultural-dance/#jp-carousel-106 NerdKocha (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Op den Graeff family in art by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

These are personal drawings that were uploaded by a globally locked user for the purposes of promoting the artist and their family. So the images should be deleted as OOS SPAM.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images are part of different articles. That request is not expedient and ridiculous! It seems like retaliation to want to delete hundreds of files. If the user has a concern, it is probably a case for the arbitration court. Regards 109.178.170.151 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user was apparently banned fairly because he mainly used two accounts at Wikipedia. But what Wikipedia isn't about is deleting everything here at Wikimedia Commons. --109.178.170.151 14:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Stop socking and lying. A09 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include images that are COM:INUSE. Cross those out, please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I have no problem removing the files from the DR that are in use if you really feel like making an issue out of it, but the guideline say usage doesn't count if it is being done in bad faith and from what I saw when I looked all the files that are being used on other projects were added to them by the uploader. So I think they should be deleted anyway considering the nature of the thing and that keeping them would allow for someone who was clearly using this and other projects in a promotional way to game the system. At the end of the day these images don't represent the people or time periods accurately anyway. A lot of them look like a child drawing of 1990s Disney characters. So there's absolutely nothing being lost here if the images are deleted. We just aren't allowing for Commons to be used for advertising by globally locked users. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could remove them from the articles where they're being used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People our end usually have an issue with that. It doesn't really matter anyway. The files can still be deleted by whomever closes regardless of if they are being used on other projects or not. I've made my case why I think they should be. I'll leave it up to the closing admin to decide if they should be deleted or not though. BTW, the IP editor who commented above is pretty likely a sock of the uploader. Do you really want to encourage that kind of behavior and side with a globally locked user who's still doing exactly what got them banned by keeping the images? I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing thumbnails from articles where they don't belong. As far as anything else is concerned, I suspect the closing admin will just delete "per nomination", but the whole point of COM:INUSE seems to me to be for us not to argue here about what should be used on sister sites. And there certainly is precedent for leaving pertinent images by banned users on sister sites and not deleting them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue it about it then. Per COM:INUSE "File not legitimately in use: A media file which is neither: Realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." It's certainly on us to figure out if those two things are being met or not since it's our guideline. Although I agree that you could argue the images shouldn't deleted due to them being uploaded by a banned user. That's not the only reason I've given though. There's clear evidence here that the drawings aren't "Realistically useful for an educational purpose" or "legitimately in use" due to the nature of the files and the promotional purpose behind them. So be guest and ignore the whole thing about the user being banned, there's still plenty of grounds to delete the images regardless and it's totally within our right to make that call. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose nor legitimately in use is not in scope. You are hanging your hat on "legitimately"? Then how do you explain "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose"? Better yet, how will the closing admin explain why the language in Commons:Project scope isn't clarified to mean what you want it to mean if they delete files that are in use? If you all want it to state what you want it to mean, Commons:Project scope should be edited per a proposal made on its talk page that gains a consensus. What I've found, though, is that admins do whatever they want, and the simplest proposals to even correct typos on page names like the one in the word "images" in COM:Quality images candidates never get a consensus behind them (I even volunteered to fix all the links to that page myself when that was said to make the grammar edit not worth it), with the result that there are many guidelines that are in black text on this site but not followed as stated and are in practice null and void. At least COM:INUSE is followed most of the time, unlike some other policies... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are hanging your hat on "legitimately"? No, that's why I also mentioned that the images are amateur artwork that look like early 90s Disney cartoons. Those types of images are inherently not educational due to the nature of the thing. A picture of historical person that looks like it was created by a 6 year old who drew it after watching Mulan or whatever can't be educational because it's clearly not an accurate representation of the people or time period. It's laughably ridiculous to treat me otherwise. I don't even disagree with most of your other points, but they don't really have anything to do with this and aren't my problem. I agree that spelling errors in COM:Quality images candidates should be fixed, but that's not relevant to the DR in any way what-so-ever. But sure, let's keep promotional third grade level drawings because "images" is spelled wrong in the guideline. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about keeping these images, but I think it's important not to second-guess sister sites, so I want the thumbnails removed there first. Once they are no longer in use, I would not oppose their deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest and remove them. I'm not going to do it myself because it would needlessly look like I'm trying to game the system or something though. It's not like there's a requirement in Commons:Project scope that images have to be removed from other projects before being deleted if they aren't educational anyway. So I really don't see why it matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're unintentionally correct here: "It's like there's a requirement in Commons:Project scope that images have to be removed from other projects before being deleted if they aren't educational anyway." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you point out where the guideline says anything at all like that? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not specified, but the language I cited is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think the part you cited overules the rest of the guideline about what types of usage on other projects is valid or not. Otherwise there would be zero point in that whole section to begin with. Its extreme cherry picking to take two sentences out of a multiparagraph guideline and act its the only thing that matters. Obviously everything within the context of wording i the rest of the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing more than an accurate reading of the plain phrasings of COM:SCOPE. If it's supposed to mean something different, the language should be changed to be crystal clear about that. That's all I ask for, but I don't think I'll get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that the guidelines could be clearer. I've been going about for a while now myself but it doesn't seem like there's any will to improve things in that area at this point. Hopefully there will be at some point though. As I do think it's an issue. One that causes a lot of needless drama and work. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete all. Historical sketches without proper sourcing, all sketches look very similar and are obviously based on a template. Also collages are falsely represented through wikiprojects, but they are just artistical imagery that shouldn't serve as "historical depictment". A09 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader is blocked for good reasons but now he cannot intervene in this different discussion. Some try to delete these files may through an inappropriate discussion. These are sketches of people in historical costumes and events, of which there are no public domain files! There are also coat of arms variants of which there are no public domain images on the Internet. That's why these sketches were uploaded to support something visually. Of course, this images will be deleted at will, since apparently some people may have a larger lobby here. But the artwork is by the artist and is accurate! Maybe there is a good solution? --212.95.5.142 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have wrongly suspected anyone, I of course apologize very much! 212.95.5.142 13:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admin: The IP was blocked as an IP sock of Donald1972. Discard the above vote as votestacking. A09 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Drawings of the Von Graben family by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

These are personal drawings of coats of arms that were uploaded by a globally locked user for the purposes of promoting the artist and their family. So the images should be deleted as OOS SPAM.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images are part of different articles. That request is not expedient and ridiculous! It seems like retaliation to want to delete hundreds of files. If the user has a concern, it is probably a case for the arbitration court. Regards 109.178.170.151 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user was apparently banned fairly because he mainly used two accounts at Wikipedia. But what Wikipedia isn't about is deleting everything here at Wikimedia Commons. Regards 109.178.170.151 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop socking. A09 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources were presented on how these people even looked. Did anyone notice how similar they are by face constitution? I reckon it's almost the same face, just different poses and claims that these are different persons. Best, A09 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader is blocked for good reasons but now he cannot intervene in this different discussion. Some try to delete these files may through an inappropriate discussion. These are sketches of people in historical costumes and events, of which there are no public domain files! There are also coat of arms variants of which there are no public domain images on the Internet. That's why these sketches were uploaded to support something visually. Of course, this images will be deleted at will, since apparently some people may have a larger lobby here. But the artwork is by the artist and is accurate! If I have wrongly suspected anyone, I of course apologize very much! Maybe there is a good solution? --212.95.5.142 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admin: The IP was blocked as an IP sock of Donald1972. Discard the above vote as votestacking. A09 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vendedor de afiches con la imagen del Presidente Chavez.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vendedor de afiches con la imagen del Presidente Chavez." => Poster seller with the image of President Chavez., main subject here is the Poster seller, not the poster --Wilfredor (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my friend, that's debatable, but the poster is really too evident. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Les métairies des Marsac en 1862 - annoté.jpg

This map appears to come from the The Institut national de l’information géographique et forestière in France and from what I can tell there isn't a PD clause in France for works created by the government there. Except in a few situations that apply here. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Adamant1, Je suis bien l'auteur des modifications apportées au fichier Les métairies des Marsac en 1862 - annoté.jpg et je désire qu'il soit publié sous licence libre avec mention comme auteur : GrosjeanVessot3 .

Puis-je le faire directement sur le fichier ?

GrosjeanVessot3 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official photos of Malaysian royalty and politicians

These photos of Malaysian royalty and prime ministers are official government-issued portraits. They are tagged with {{PD-Malaysia}}, but that template states that "Works by the government, governmental organisations and international organisations are subject to copyright for 50 years after publication" (copyright act here). A previous DR of a Malaysian PM Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tun Hussein Onn potrait (cropped).jpg closed as delete, so it seems that would apply here too.

CMD (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:رضا رمزي.jpg

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:محمد سمعان.jpg

Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:٢٣٤٥٦٧٨مراد.jpg

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toby Adams.png

copyvio unless the uploader is Mike Scott (photographer at New Zealand Herald) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hankai 1101 Series Hamadera-ekimae.jpg

Geen permissie om te controleren. Toestemming van de oorspronkelijke auteur moet gestuurd worden naar VRT. トトト (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete EXIF is not a deletion reason. See COM:DR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De uploader zegt dat de foto niet zijn eigen werk is. Ontbreekt aan elke vorm van informatie over de herkomst. --トトト (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation: "Uploader says photo is not his own work. Lacks any information about origin." That's different from the deletion reasons you gave above! If that's the case, this photo does have to be deleted! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in the Uffizi Gallery - Room 7, Lippi's

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. 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) 06:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Ostaszewski

Redundant gallery page. This gallery page has the same two photos that are also the only files in the category. So this gallery page does not add anything of value to the category page and merely serves as a duplicate of the category. JopkeB (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Agel.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alabasterstein as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence, that uploade is the photograpgher (Michael Agel), no permission visible
Converted to regular DR, to allow for discussion resp. the uploader to provide a formal confirmation, as circumstances suggest that he is the photographer. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here the uploader claims that the picture was even taken by another photographer. [2] Dubious thing Alabasterstein (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für das Link. War mir nicht bekannt. Hatte ihn auf seiner hiesigen Disku angeschrieben. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imgdownloader.com-20240909003721701333.png

Out of scope: unused AI-generated drawing with no claimed significance. Omphalographer (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BobWillsBlueYodelNo1.ogg

Obviously not public domain in the US, and not even based on a “folkloric composition” so the core tune isn’t public domain either. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DALL·E 2024-09-05 18.30.47 - Design a smaller logo for N2Dev System in a futuristic digital style with vibrant neon elements and a playful aura. The logo should be bright, glowing.webp

Out of scope: obviously AI-generated logo unused outside a user sandbox. Omphalographer (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billboards can be blurred as the subject of the photo is the building. Nakonana (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to blur them? Krd 07:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the tools to do that, unfortunately. Nakonana (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't they somewhat fall under de minimis anyway? Neither of them is the focus of the image. Isn't that a case similar to the "panorama of high-rise buildings where one or two of the buildings are copyrighted, but since neither of them is the focus, they are de minimis"? Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebisubashi - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the building can be photographed without a billboard. Here's another photo of the building (the building is on the right) and it also has a billboard: File:Dotonbori - panoramio (7).jpg. And in this photo, the building is on the left, and there's also a billboard on it: File:Ebisubashi - panoramio - DVMG.jpg. So, even if one takes photos of only part of the building, there are still billboard visible. Taking a photo of the complete building inevitably will have a billboard in the photo. Nakonana (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the billboard be censored out by blurring? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Administrative division of Poland (1998 - proposed).svg

It's my own creation, superseded by a way more detailed File:Poland administrative divisions (1998-06-19 project).svg. I have drawn the lines along the borders of the second degree units (powiaty), while on this new map it has been done along the third degree units (gminy). And there are some differences in favor of the new map. There's no point in me making laborious amendments to "my" file, while there is a perfect replacement ready. Aʀvєδuι ⁺ 08:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times Square, New York (7396755320).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this includes enough elements to be de minimis, but I'll be interested to see what the closing admin thinks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times Square New York City FLIKR 2 42nd Street.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really a street scene. Maybe de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1920x810.jpg

The Government of Poland has switched their license to CC-BY-ND since August 2022, images published afterwards (on the Polish page and not on the English page) is not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:07-06-2024 Kraków - stanisław Brzeżniak odznaczony Medalem "Reipublicae Memoriae Meritum" przez Prezesa IPN pod sztandarem słów - Naród, który traci pamięć, przestaje być Narodem.jpg

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PhD Anne-Lot Hoek Feb 2023.png

Misbruik van foto Ewout12345 (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mis use - is used normally on page of this author on nl-wiki and has been licenced properly as well. Hoyanova (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has a VRT-ticket and that ticket was already there when the filer nominated it for deletion. Where's the problem? Nakonana (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aegean Express at Afyonkarahisar Ali Çetinkaya railway station, 2009.jpg

also file:Aegean Express at Kütahya railway station, 2009.jpg
Per FBMD... in beginning of special instructions field of metadata, the files were published in Facebook before upload into Commons. Every file previously published must have evidence of free license, for example VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amiens, 8 rue Alexandre-Fatton.JPG

Il s agit de la photo de la maison. Je n'ai donné aucune autorisation pour la prise de la photo et la diffusion de mon adresse. Je demande la suppression express de cette photo. Merci 37.174.192.31 09:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je souhaite que soit supprimé ce cliché. Il s agit de ma maison et je n ai pas donné mon accord pour sa diffusion et la communication d information sur sa localisation. Merci 37.174.192.31 09:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Votre consentement n'est pas nécessaire. --Achim55 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bonjour, aucune donnée personnelle n'est communiquée et cette photo est prise depuis l'espace public. Il n'y a donc pas d'autorisation à donner, et je ne crois pas que cette photo de 2012 puisse vous causer quelque désagrément. Cordialement. HaguardDuNord (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-09-08 Amy Cheng visual artist.jpg

originally posted to WP as File:Amy Cheng Wiki photo by Nelson Vilarreall.jpg - we need VRT from Vilarreall Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is a VRT? Goldwing33 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldwing33Written permission COM:VRT Gbawden (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you will take care of that for sure Goldwing33 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:L-926330-1449664489-8558.jpg

Complex logo, i think this is above TOO Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think so, too. Too bad; it's beautiful and COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Manticore1962, if you can establish that you have the right to license the logo, please contact COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2021年函館記念（G3）1着.jpg

File:Jesús Jet Turiño.jpg

possible copyvio © Stefano Schröter - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right for this picture. Xuxo~dewiki (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a COM:VRT permission from Stefano Schröter to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cédric Blaisbois - Paris - 2024.png

The original one doesn't exist anymore. Original IMDB Link was deleted. Because the are no informations about origins and copyrighst, It's better to delete it. HectorXss (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pesquisa Cênica (talk · contribs)

DW's of a photo, we need VRT and a source for the original

Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oi por favor não delete as fotos, pq vc quer deletar? pode me explicar? Pesquisa Cênica (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete Pesquisa Cênica (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Réda Philippe El Arbi.jpg

possible copyvio Copyright: Ariane Pochon Lutheraner (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Ariane Pochon is the fotografer but all right are owned by Réda El Arbi, by me in person. Reda El Arbi (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Logo TVRI.png

Bukan logo yang dipublikasikan oleh LPP TVRI (Salah satunya tipe font yang salah) serta logo sebenarnya yang memang digunakan oleh LPP TVRI sudah diunggah pada Commons dengan nama File:TVRILogo2019.svg HxRWiki (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Центр знаний «Машук» 2023.jpg

Derivative of the mural by a modern artist, no FoP in Russia for such artworks. Quick1984 (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnnies britches in demand.jpg

this is a duplicate - a correctly licenced version has been additionally uploaded Kokatoni (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinische Dokumenta

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. 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. I have copied the text to the category. JopkeB (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Այգավանի բլուր-բնակատեղի.jpg

Poor copy of File:Այգավանի բլուր - հնավայր.jpg Kareyac (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asif k.jpg

Why is he here? 186.175.78.77 13:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are "two" of him here actually: File:Asif Kamal.jpg. There's a press release[3], and not sure what these are[4][5][6]. Nakonana (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hafiz Muhammad Asif Mukhtar looking forward.jpg

Mukhtar standing? 186.175.78.77 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolf01.jpg

Who is he? 186.175.78.77 13:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a draft article about him. Wait and see. 186.175.78.77 13:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted one? But even before that article, he got mentioned in two other wiki articles: [7][8]. Nakonana (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donja Kupčina, Jastrebarsko

Wrong redirection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitars (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per COM:CATRED. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 羅湖 Luohu 仙湖植物園 Fairylake Botanical Garden 弘法寺人文佛教博物館 Hongfa Temple Renwen Fojiao Museum staff recruitment post November 2023 R12S 03.jpg

This is a photograph of 2D work, could be copyrighted. Midleading (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Redaelli 1.JPG

A mail with the permission to the uploader has been sent, but VRT has never seen it. The copyright holder should send (o forward in this case if we assume GF) the mail to Italian VRT.

Also involved File:Maria Redaelli 1 (2012).JPG Ruthven (msg) 13:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephanie Schimmer - Portrait.jpg

no own work Dirk Lenke (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Despatch.jpg

Commons has far a higher-resolution version of this same photograph. Motacilla (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graafstroom

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. 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) 14:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halderberge

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. 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) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Juliopm (talk · contribs)

Artworks of Renato Signorini (1902-1966), VRT permission needed from the heirs (and the photographs if it's not the uploader).

Ruthven (msg) 14:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goedereede

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. 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) 14:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by YodelingCowboy (talk · contribs)

All of these are still under copyright; I don’t know why anyone ever thought they somehow weren’t. User has a long history of uploading copyvios under the same nonsense rationale (that covers of traditional songs are uncopyrightable which is patently not true)

Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters in Germany 2009

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:PiratenParteiPlakat Patente1.jpg. The cow photo used in the poster is a mirrored/edited version of File:CH cow 2.jpg by User:Dschwen (also attributed as "Daniel Schwen" on the election poster). This is noted in the file description since 2010. See also User_talk:Dschwen/Archive10#Plakat_Piratenpartei, de:Wikipedia:Diskussionen_über_Bilder/Archiv/2009/Sep#kleine_Foto-Bitte and de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier/Archiv/2009/09,_10#Wahlplakat_aus_der_Wikipedia. The rest is trivial text, and for the logo see Logos of Piratenpartei Deutschland. 2003:E5:373C:E800:4C8B:A3F9:B467:C79C 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:(VFN-Fictional) Antartica 1671.png

COM:OOS. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ysr unique.jpg

I wanna replace it Andy lone morwa (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manif du 1er mai 2023 (52862318686).jpg

This file was initially tagged by 156.67.196.148 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:DW of an unfree work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. I fail to see any "work" above threshold of originality in this shot. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Below COM:TOO--A1Cafel (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters in North Rhine-Westphalia

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velberter Straße: de minimis, die einzelnen Politiker-Fotos haben eine Auflösung, die eine vernünftige Verwertung nicht zulässt.

Mühlenstraße: das Ganze wird langsam lächerlich. Die beiden Plakate befinden sich am Rand des Fotos, machen nur einen kleinen Teil des Fotos aus und sind aus schrägem Winkel fotografiert. Wenn da das Urheberrecht der Fotografen beeinträchtigt sein soll, dann wird man nächstes Jahr, wenn es in NRW bis zu drei Wahlen geben wird, an Fotos der Innenstädte fast nichts mehr bei Commons hochladen dürfen. Verhältnismäßigkeit ist wohl ein Fremdwort für Dich? Im Fokus (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"dann wird man nächstes Jahr, wenn es in NRW bis zu drei Wahlen geben wird, an Fotos der Innenstädte fast nichts mehr bei Commons hochladen dürfen" - das dürfte korrekt sein, solange die Wahlplakate hängen (also für etwa 1 Monat, je nach der Sachlage der Gemeindeverordnungen, wie lange Wahlwerbung angebracht sein darf). Ja, und?

Beim Fotografieren muss man halt die Regeln zu Beiwerk, Panoramafreiheit und Schöpfungshöhe und weiteren Schranken des Urheberrechts im Hinterkopf behalten (eigentlich grundsätzlich empfehlenswert). Commons ist kein Blog, kein Social-Media-Kanal und kein Organ der Tagespresse, wo man mit "Berichterstattung über Tagesereignisse" argumentieren könnte und keine kleine Privathomepage, bei der kaum Reichweite bei der ggf. lizenzwidrig erfolgten öffentlichen Zugänglichmachung oder Wiedergabe (und damit Eingriffe in die Urheberrechte) vorhanden ist. Verhältnismäßigkeit ist gegeben, weil bei File:Mettmann, Mühlenstr. 25.jpg argumentiert werden kann, dass das Hauptmotiv die Häuserfassade ist (und das Wahlplakat am Rande Beiwerk ist, das Bild würde auch ohne Plakat ähnlich aussehen), noch besser geht das dergestalte Argumentieren hier: File:Velbert-Langenberg, Hauptstr. 66, über Eck von rechts, Panorama.jpg (das Plakat ist ziemlich klar Beiwerk zum Hauptmotiv des Schieferhauses). In File:Mettmann, Mühlenstr. 25, schräg von rechts.jpg funktioniert diese Argumentation nicht so gut, weil der Lampenmast mit den Plakaten in der Vordergrund gedrängt erscheint und daher eine motivistische Spannung zu der Fassade aufbaut. Damit ist das kein wegzudenkendes Beiwerk mehr, sondern klarer Bestandteil des Gesamtmotivs. Dass die Gesamtanmutung der Aufnahme die eines schnellen Schnappschusses ist insb. wegen der schiefen Linien und planlos abgeschnittener Gebäude), bei der keine wirklich durchdachte Bildgestaltung zu erkennen ist (eher: "Wie bekomme ich am meisten ins Bild?"), spielt bei der Überlegung, was Beiwerk sein kann, kaum eine Rolle. Wir, als Beiträger zu Commons, haben in meinen Augen eine gewisse Verantwortung für etwaige Nachnutzer. Diese Verantwortung beinhaltet ein lizenzrechtlich sauberes Arbeiten, um keine "Tretminen" zu legen, so dass Commons als seriöse Materialienquelle nutzbar ist. Falls Du dahingehende Anstrengungen für "lächerlich" erachtest, dann ist vielleicht Flickr die bessere Hostingseite für dich. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merkwürdig, da habe Ich doch auch gerade ein Foto mit planlos abgeschnittenem Gebäude gefunden:File:Rostock Margaretenplatz - Heiligengeistkirche.jpg. Aber das war wahrscheinlich auch ein langsamer Schnappschuss. - Das letzte, was bei meinen Foto-Exkursionen meinen Hinterkopf belastet, sind Beiwerk, Panoramafreiheit, Schöpfungshöhe und Schranken des Urheberrechts. Übrigens ist das auch gar nicht nötig, denn man kann das alles noch beim Hochladen nach Commons bedenken -oder man lässt auch dies, denn dann kommt ja Eure Putzkolonne.

Und dann habe ich da anscheinend wieder was falsch verstanden. Ich dachte, gerade während der Wochen oder Monate um den Wahltermin herum dürfte man Fotos mit Wahlplakaten zeigen, erst mit zunehmendem zeitlichen Abstand zur Wahl verlören die Fotos ihre FOP-Berechtigung. Anderenfalls wäre es doch auch merkwürdig, weshalb Ihr nicht schon 2021 ausgeschwärmt seid. Natürlich sind Eure Anstrengungen nicht per se lächerlich, aber in der Stringenz, mit der Ihr sie verfolgt, haben sie für für Alltagskomik empfängliche Gemüter wie meines schon mal diese Wirkung. Da drängen sich Wahlbewerber ihren Mitmenschen auf, indem sie den öffentlichen Raum mit Plakaten zupflastern. Wenn diese dann aber fotografiert werden und durch Veroffentlichung der Fotos die Intention der Bepflasterung unterstützen könnten, dann wird diese Veröffentlichung durch ein Urheberrecht des Fotografen/der Fotografin, den keine Sau/kein Eber kennt, hintertrieben. Wenn das nicht absurd ist ... Und nichts gegen Flickr! (Ist mir völlig unbekannt, es kommen aber immer öfter Bilder von dort nach Commons rüber, müsste Dir das nicht mächtig zu denken geben?) Grüße Im Fokus (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notabene: "Wie bekomme ich am meisten ins Bild?" ist manchmal keine so schlechte Strategie. Denn dadurch war hier eine kleine Transformation möglich, die ich erst vor knapp zwei Jahren für mich entdeckt habe, die bei vielen zuvor gemachten Fotos vieler Baudenkmäler aber auch gar nicht möglich gewesen wäre aufgrund der Topographie. Ich habe keine großen fotografischen Ambitionen, mir geht's um das Dokumentarische, von daher komplette Ablichtung des Objekts vor begradigten Fluchtlinien. Ich will hoffen, die angeschnittenen Plakate gelten jetzt als Beiwerk. Das schmale weiße Haus allein wirkt nämlich sehr magersüchtig.

File:Bürgermeisterwahl 2023 Malchow - René Putzar.jpg

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your evaluation, further more I disagree. This essay "Das Urheberrecht im Wahlkampf" by Betim Neziraj on rights.info exams the conformity of §59 UrhG on taking and publishing pictures of Election posters. It comes to the valid conclusion a public cation is lawful under §59 UrhG. Sumwiki (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betim Neziraj seem to totally disregard the Bundesgerichtshof ruling about the Wrapped Reichstag. At the very least, he does not provide any arguments why this ruling is not applicable. A lot of election posters (at the very least, those with pictures of people) are artworks in the eyes of the law, hence without difference to the Wrapped Reichstag. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bürgermeisterwahl 2023 Malchow - Michael Meyer.jpg

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your evaluation, further more I disagree. This essay "Das Urheberrecht im Wahlkampf" by Betim Neziraj on rights.info exams the conformity to § 59 UrhG on taking and publishing pictures of Election posters. This photo in particular shows an election poster in it‘s context - oddly mounted against a wall of a residential building. The election poster is only a minor part of the photograph itself. Sumwiki (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the author of the linked text, Betim Neziraj, has indeed a professional background in copyright law, he does not deal at all with the contents of the Bundesgerichtshof ruling about the Wrapped Reichstag (as your talk page contains lots of German messages and you provided this picture from a rather small municipality from the north of Berlin, you should be able to understand the German text at Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). Mr. Neziraj simply states „Da Wahlplakate in der Regel für mehrere Wochen im öffentlichen Raum aufgehängt werden und der öffentlichen Information dienen, gibt es gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sie als „bleibend“ zu werten sind.“ without further explanation what these "sound reasons" could be. There's at least another opinion by another professional at law that's contrary to applying FoP rules, please refer to Spezial:PermaLink/248438220#Wahlplakate und URV?. We could easily reason that on large billboards, where any advertisements got actually glued to the board, are works permanently fixed in public spaces (and that the artwork gets destroyed when a new printout is affixed, hence fulfilling the requirement of "permanently present for the lifetime of the work"). But this does not hold true for plastic ad panels that are fixed with zipties to lampposts or textile banners similarly presented with non-permanent fixtures. In fact, a local Piratenpartei candidate used the same poster motif (and I surmise, the same posters) for advertising for the European and the state election this year. That's everything else than the FoP requirement of being "permanently located in public spaces". I continue to hold up my opinion of a necessary deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC) PS. if it suits you better, we could very well use German too![reply]

I am afraid to say that this essay claiming that freedom of panorama applies to election posters under German copyright law is not trustworthy, even though irights.info us usually a great source. Please see this discussion Gnom (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters for the Kommunalwahl Brandenburg 2014

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine Schöpfungshöhe. Was soll der Quatsch? Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Panzer und das Flugzeug sind so stilisiert, dass ich die Schöpfungshöhe nach Commons-Maßstäben nicht unbedingt absprechen will. Es sollte zumindest diskutiert werden (und wenn mehrheitlich "keine Schöpfungshöhe" bei den Piktogrammen rauskommt, ist das völlig OK!). Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was Du in den letzten Tagen in diesem Projekt abziehst, nennt man wohl "man on a mission". Stepro (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Flugzeug Piktogramm findet man wahrscheinlich bei Microsoft Word unter der Schriftart Wingdings. Nakonana (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emy Luziano en Monitor Music Awards 2024.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Marbletan as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://elnacional.com.do/productor-emy-luziano-se-destaca-en-monitor-music-awards/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The provided hit is 2 days younger than our upload and has far lower resolution. Tineye didn't yield any hit and Google-Lens only hits in far lower resolution. May need more research. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a cropped version of File:Emy Luziano en los Monitor Music Awards 2024.png which has a bunch of hits on Google lens and has been reuploaded by the user despite being deleted more than once. Jonteemil (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irregular Webcomic strip 3626.jpg

Photographs of store-bought Lego figures fall under COM:TOYS, per past discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lego minifigures. The source comic site only says that:

LEGO® is a registered trademark of the LEGO Group of companies, which does not sponsor, authorise, or endorse this site. This material is presented in accordance with the LEGO® Fair Play Guidelines.

Those guidelines at https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/notices-and-policies/fair-play?locale=en-us don't appear to say anything about the copyright status of photos of their products, so COM:TOYS would still apply. Belbury (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kopieren.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grand-Duc as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This picture is derived from at least 4 other images, a log, a cartwheel, a car wheel and some optical storage media without citing their sources or licenses.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion and because there was a previous DR. The credit for the mentioned 4 images used in this advertisement (it seems to a magazine-advertisement, not an election-poster) is at the left border, though rather useless, as license-information is missing. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tommy and Jane Thomas (1928).tif

self request as the uploader SDudley (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are past the courtesy period, downstream users will be affected. --RAN (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soul of jaisalmer.jpg

This images is part of Documentary film soul of Jaisalmer but this image is not in use in any article Viplove t (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use is not a deletion reason. Is there a copyright issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pixeleap 1705047766686 Image Upscaler~1.jpg

ペニスが加工処理されていない為新・匿名希望 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ペニスが無修正な為新・匿名希望 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pixeleap 1705047766686 Image Upscaler~2.jpg

ペニスが無修正である為新・匿名希望 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kazama-Kuroya-map.png and another map

日本語: 地理院タイルの標準地図を使用。利用規約も参照。測量法が定める基本測量成果に該当し、利用には申請([9])が必要。

English: Maps contain Standard Tile of Japan GSI Maps that permission is required to use. See [10], [11].

--Peka (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of EDES.png

Per COM:NOTEDU: fantasy flag that is already being pulled by unwary users into Wikipedia articles as if it were the real thing... Constantine ✍ 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of ELAS.png

Per COM:NOTEDU: fictional flag that only has potential to be misused in WP projects Constantine ✍ 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'œil de feu (25520523732).jpg

COM:DICK? What's this? What educational function does it have? 186.172.100.144 18:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanoi Amsterdam football stadium, 2022.jpg

Doesn't look like an own work. 186.172.100.144 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yann-varia.jpg

Who is this fat guy? 186.172.100.144 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacob Anderson Louis.webp

Non-free image improperly uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam Reid Lestat.webp

Non-free image improperly uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assad Zaman Armand.webp

Non-free image improperly uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Homenaje al Ballet Nacional by Carlos de la Cárcova

Sculpture by Argentine artist Carlos de la Cárcova ( 1903-1974) installed in Buenos Aires in 1972. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in Argentina. We can undelete it in 2068 when it enters in the US public domain.

Günther Frager (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:تدريبات المدربين طرابلس 8.jpg

ملف مكرر قمت برفعه مرتين Moqdmi1 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Itechkeys logo.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burger-print logo.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pratisthakarya (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Joelsantinho (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Vaibhav1446 (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bimal-Das-Gupta-1917–1995-1568x2457.jpg

We need a permission from the photographer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento portaferiti.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy and the monument is modern. Artist's copyright is violated. Taivo (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copy-cooper logo.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Map crew eberswalde (talk · contribs)

These unused, nearly contextless uploads look like a COM:NOTHOST type situation. They appear to be related to critical cartography somehow, but I have been unable to determine whether they are educationally useful or otherwise meaningful contributions within the project scope.

Sinigh (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Associate Justice José Gutiérrez David.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Toniker0501 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Please delete this photo permanently because this is a copyrighted from Philippine government. Thank you!!! Yann (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Polenland Official (talk · contribs)

Low quality flag of nonexistent country (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Commons is not it's free hosting), past use in user space only on plwiki https://w.wiki/B9Ag

File:Flaga Polenlandii.png

InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ari Qasm (talk · contribs)

User blocked for copyvios twice. Derivative works. Uncertain copyright.

Yann (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waterloo-Wapping Tunnels.jpg

potential use of copyrighted aerial photo? Darrelljon (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imantt Logo.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Self-portrait with Paul and Mary. London, 1969 (cropped).jpg

Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Self-portrait_with_Paul_and_Mary._London,_1969.jpg. Taken by Linda McCartney, not the Flickr uploader. Not released in CC-BY 2.0 by Linda McCartney. JonasTisell (talk) 21:30, 9 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 uploaded by Aimery10

All those pictures uploaded by User:Aimery10 are:

AI generated or heavily edited without it being specified in the description
out of scope: I don't see in what kind of pages / articles those files could be useful
they're copyvios from this Facebook page and seem to have been made by someone else
the faces of personalities represented in the fake "carvings" are quite photorealistic and seem inspired by real photos the AI based itself upon (without being sure if those original photos are free)

List of files :

File:La création africaine 11.jpg copyvio from [12]
File:La création africaine 12.jpg copyvio from [13]
File:La création africaine 13.jpg copyvio from [14]
File:La création africaine 08.jpg copyvio from [15]
File:La création africaine 07.jpg copyvio from [16]
File:Un enfant génie 02.jpg copvyio from [17]
File:Un enfant génie 01.jpg copyvio from [18]
File:La création africaine 14.jpg copyvio from [19]
File:La création africaine 10.jpg copyvio from [20]
File:La création africaine 09.jpg copyvio from [21]

There are other AI files, like this one or this one, which bother me since they use a real Congolese city's name in their description, as if this was really an event that happened there. But I can't find an outside source and there doesn't seem to be much copyrighted material the AI based itself upon (like for the portraits) to create them.

Thanks --Titlutin (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these images are AI-generated "sludge". This content is all plainly fake and has no educational value whatsoever, regardless of its copyright status. @Aimery10: Please discontinue your uploads of AI-generated images immediately. Omphalographer (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright issues: unlikely to be own work and derivative works, additional issues. --Strakhov (talk) 08:03, 30 April 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 Aimery10 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: additional AI-generated images. Some of these depict obviously impossible objects (like File:Un enfant génie 19.jpg); the others follow the same pattern of oversentimental images of African children crafting "statues" out of wood, stone, or other materials. (For some context, read https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-users-say-amen-bizarre-ai-generated-images-jesus-rcna143965.) These images are not real, and they do not have educational value especially given their misleading nature.

Omphalographer (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OOS; same reason as above, no educational value. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of scope, misleading information in some files' description, pretending that the pictures are real. --Titlutin (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope and copyright issues (some of them are derivative works). --Strakhov (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aimery10 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused portrait photos of people with no meaningful categories or descriptions. Every single one is described as "soutenance de licence" and categorized as Category:Soutenance de christ; I don't understand what the intent is here.

(One exception: File:Frais 23.jpg is a screenshot of a web page login form. I'm even more confused as to what it's doing here.)

Omphalographer (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Heraldry drawings by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

These are personal drawings of coats of arms that were uploaded by a globally locked user for the purposes of promoting the artist and their family. So the images should be deleted as OOS SPAM.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low quality, no sourcing. A09 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader is blocked for good reasons but now he cannot intervene in this different discussion. Some try to delete these files may through an inappropriate discussion. These are sketches of people in historical costumes and events, of which there are no public domain files! There are also coat of arms variants of which there are no public domain images on the Internet. That's why these sketches were uploaded to support something visually. Of course, this images will be deleted at will, since apparently some people may have a larger lobby here. But the artwork is by the artist and is accurate! Maybe there is a good solution?--212.95.5.142 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have wrongly suspected anyone, I of course apologize very much! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.95.5.142 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admin: The IP was blocked as an IP sock of Donald1972. Discard the above vote as votestacking. A09 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/09

September 9

Files in Category:Op den Graeff family in art by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

Files in Category:Drawings of the Von Graben family by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

Official photos of Malaysian royalty and politicians

Files uploaded by Pesquisa Cênica (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Juliopm (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by YodelingCowboy (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Election posters in Germany 2009

Files in Category:Election posters in North Rhine-Westphalia

Files in Category:Election posters for the Kommunalwahl Brandenburg 2014

File:Kazama-Kuroya-map.png and another map

Files in Category:Homenaje al Ballet Nacional by Carlos de la Cárcova

Files uploaded by Pratisthakarya (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Joelsantinho (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Vaibhav1446 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Map crew eberswalde (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Polenland Official (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ari Qasm (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Aimery10

Files uploaded by Aimery10 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Aimery10 (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Heraldry drawings by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

Navigation menu

Search