Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/25

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
24 May 2024
26 May 2024
Deletion requests on 25 May 2024

May 25

[edit]

File:WillCarlRufus.webp

[edit]

User claims own work, however the user almost certainly is not the owner of the work and is not able to publish it under the CC license. Nfutvol (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this photo appears to have been lifted from [1]. The photo is possibly almost old enough to fall out of copyright protection, but the digital representation has a more recent copyright by University of Michigan. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Attribution fixed, I can not find any registration or renewal for the circa 1920 image. As to: "recent copyright by University of Michigan", those rote copyright notices are for any original text on the page, not for any historical images they display. "Copyright © 2024 Michigan Astro History" the web software adds it automatically. --RAN (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZellner.jpg

[edit]

User claims ownership of work, however the user almost certainly is not the owner of the work and is not able to publish it under the CC license. Nfutvol (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfutvol I agree that it's almost certainly not own work but the image might still be available for free use given that it is a part of some NASA documents. I think there is a specific license for that. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the image description, it's by some corporate event photographer from a conference of the American Astronomical Society, held in Honolulu, unrelated to NASA. The question is whether we can accept the text in the image description as (1) legitimate, and (2) conveying a license we can use. Searching for the string "Below is your complimentary Profile Photo that you can use in any way you see fit. Feel free to share with friends and tag your photo #AAS235" finds many instances across the web of similarly composed and lit headshots of astronomers, so I think that part is accurate as far as it goes. Does it mean that the photographer released the photo under essentially a CC-0 license? Does it mean that the photographer conveyed the copyright to the subject and that now we must ask the subject for a copyright release? I don't know. David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Konan Aichi ohter version.png

[edit]

File:Flag of Konan Aichi ohter version.png is a duplicate of File:Flag of Konan, Aichi.png OperationSakura6144 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigClitoris.jpg

[edit]

Random vulva photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I don't agree. There's a lot of unique stuff here. and this photo will be useful in the corresponding article Greatredactor (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: This file was categorized in Clitoromegaly by the uploader, which is consistent with the filename. That category contains only 17 files, including two others from the same uploader. Do you actually look at file descriptions before nominating files for deletion? Brianjd (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above. Brianjd (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Filename and description only said big clitoris, with no mention on clitoromegaly. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel:
  1. You comment might be technically true, but one could also argue that categories are part of the description.
  2. The filename and description of ‘big clitoris’ should be enough. Comparing this with other files in the category Close-up photographs of human vulvas, the clitoris does look unusually big. Therefore, this file is special.
  3. Regardless of the above, before describing a file as ‘random’ and ‘nothing special’, the onus is on the nominator to check that. Otherwise you’re just insulting a new user. Worse, you’re insulting a new user who is uploading valuable files (the two photos they uploaded so far are definitely valuable).
Brianjd (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Greatredactor (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:عودة بن زويد البرطمي الرفاعي الجهني.jpg

[edit]

Is this a free file? 181.203.42.82 03:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, looks old. Don't lie as own work please. 181.203.42.82 14:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Imperial War Museum dates the image to 1917 and credits Capt. Evan MacRury, a intelligence officer based in Cairo who was working with Lawrence. Given MacRury's role and the photo was likely taken as part of his official duties, a Crown copyright would apply. Per COM:CROWN, copyright would have expired in 1967. Proper license should be {{PD-gov-UK}} and the file information needs to be corrected. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Movie scar of shame.jpg

[edit]

The film was shot in 1927, but it premiered in 1929, so it is not in the public domain until 2025. hinnk (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't close the discussion for 6 months and a few
days... 181.203.42.82 14:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like massive copyright paranoia, but the deletion rationale is valid unfortunaly. TheImaCow (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to en-wiki where Fair Use would apply (and where the image is in use). Can bring back to commons in 2025. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:خريطة قبائل قضاعه بن معد في الجاهلية.png

[edit]

Unused. Same user uploaded bigger one. 181.203.42.82 03:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himanekihachimandaijinja 20240421 (1).jpg

[edit]

撮影者を特定される恐れがあるため。 CT-May (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himanekihachimandaijinja 20240421 (2).jpg

[edit]

撮影者を特定される恐れがあるため。 CT-May (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Герб и флаг Яковенково (Крым).jpg

[edit]

ОРИСС. Официально не существует kosun (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Shaikhah Salamah Mosque, Al-Ain

[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the UAE; commercial use is only for broadcasters, not other users. Per enwiki article, the mosque was completed in 2011, and authored by architect w:en:Ja'afar Tuqan (died 2014). A commercial Creative Commons licensing permission from his heirs is required.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This mosque is not the property of the architect or the contractor, but rather the property of Sheikha Salama. I did not understand the objection Dedaban (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban property ownership is irrelevant. What matters is the copyright over the building. Unless the architect transferred his economic rights to the owner, he is still the holder of the copyright (and as he is dead, his heirs). If the architect indeed transferred his copyright to the owner, then the owner is the person or entity that should be contacted for authorization of the use of commercial Creative Commons licensing over these images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is public property and a place of worship. I do not believe that photographing public places requires permission, whether from the owner or the artistic owner Dedaban (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban it does not matter if a work is permanently located in public spaces. Public buildings are still under artistic copyright. The Freedom of Panorama provision of the UAE law itself has clues on this fact: under Article 22(7) of the Federal Decree Law No. 38 of 2021 (with emphases added by me): Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places. From the provision, it is only legal without harming the economic rights of architects or sculptors if their public landmarks are reproduced only in broadcasts, not commercially-licensed photographs like all these three nominated images under commercial Creative Commons licensing. So, unless the UAE authorities desire to expand FoP to include photos of such works, these images need to go, like hundreds of thousands of images deleted since 2010 (likely more than 60% of UAE as a result). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But mosques basically lose their ownership rights and become endowments and do not become property that can be disposed of by the person who spent money on the builder or contractor for himself. In other words, there is no ownership of mosques in Islamic culture. I do not think this law applies to mosques. Dedaban (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban not so. The architects or their heirs typically retain copyright, until 50 or 70 years (depending on the country's posthumous durations) after he/she died. There is an existing case concerning a mosque in Germany, in which a modification to the existing architecture of the mosque was ruled by a German court to be an infringement of the mosque architect's copyright, and that modification (a glass canopy) must be removed at once. It is certain that court rulings concerning the architectural copyrights of the mosques in other countries are going to be similar. Perhaps the only difference is who are going to be the plaintiffs (depending if the mosque author transferred his/her rights to the mosque owner or not). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Germany has its own laws as it is not an Islamic country. The prevailing custom in Islamic countries is that property rights and other rights are forfeited and transformed into endowments, and the owner has no right to do anything. If you have a disagreement with this, please bring it up. Dedaban (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban in the case of UAE, the said customs are superseded by the country's federal law on copyright (as last-amended in 2021). My searching of the terms "forfeit" and "surrender" did not yield results. Searching for "folk" (the beginning syllable for folklore and folkloric) only gives results found at the definition (a bit weird since they are defining a term that is absent in the law itself, perhaps it existed in the older versions of the law). So, in terms of copyright, the architectural copyright is not forfeited. If the architect or his heirs no longer hold the copyright, then either his estate or the mosque owner (if copyright was transferred) holds that right. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you are talking about the law of photographing people without consent, not buildings. As for mosques, as I explained to you previously, this custom is that if there is a document stipulating artistic rights, this will often be an exception, and often Muslim architects or those with an Islamic culture know this well in advance. Dedaban (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban no, I am talking about photographing publicly-accessible works of art and architecture without their designers' licensing permissions. Read again the UAE FoP rule: "Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places." The law does not distinguish between skyscrapers and mosques. If the law did indeed applied Islamic customs on mosque architecture, then the clause would have been written as "Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places, with the exception of works of Islamic heritage, which can be presented in photographs and broadcasting programs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But regrettably, the architectural copyright provided by the law applies to all architecture made by architects who haven't died for more than 50 years (so still under their posthumous copyrights). Mosques designed by them included. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are things by custom that laws do not need to stipulate. Like charitable drinking water outside homes, it does not require the homeowner’s permission to drink or fill it, and there is no requirement that it be permissible to drink from it. As for taking water from someone’s home without permission, it is a crime. You are obligated to bring the text of the law that criminalizes photographing mosques Dedaban (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban we are not talking about "freedom of photography". We are talking about the freedom to publish, share, and distribute under free-culture licenses (that mandate commercial reuses) images of copyrighted architecture of UAE like many of their mosques. The UAE law itself simply does not allow distributions of UAE architecture under commercial licensing, and so we cannot host these images of a mosque still under the architect's posthumous copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume that the architect has rights? I have previously explained the status of mosques in Islamic culture. The issue of commercial use is also fundamentally enslaved Dedaban (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban nothing in the copyright law removes architectural rights from the mosques. Reread the entirety of the 2021 UAE copyright law. Any removal of architects' rights has to be explicit as copyright is a statutory right. Any provision that limits the rightholders' control should be explicitly stated in the law, not to be dictated by Islamic culture. For sure, the Emirati courts will use the copyright law as the basis of infringements to architects' copyrights instead of using Islamic customary rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding commercial, the permitted free culture licenses here, like {{CC-BY}}, {{CC-BY-SA}}, and {{CC-zero}}, as well as {{PD-user}}, are inherently commercial licenses. Commons does not accept non-commercial licenses like {{CC-BY-NC-SA}} (in fact, going to the NC license tag link is a redirect to speedy deletion tag). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you previously included does not work.
It was stated in Federal Law No. H of 2002 regarding copyright and related rights
Works that have become public domain
In fact, I searched for an amendment for the year 2021, but I only found an amendment regarding photographing people.
According to this article, mosques are essentially public property. Dedaban (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban the link does work in my case. It is a download link to the 2021 copyright law. The 2002 law you mention is already repealed, but the FoP rules in both laws are identical, not allowing free presentation of copyrighted art and architecture through photographs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mosque falls under the Public Property Law, as I previously explained to you, so neither its owner nor the architect has the right to dispose of it, nor is it bequeathed, therefore the Architectural Arts Law does not apply to it. Dedaban (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban can you cite the "Public Property Law"? And does it have any provision waiving authors' rights? Note that an architect is an "author" in the context of copyright. And no, there is no such thing as "Architectural Arts Law". What you're referring to is Federal Decree Law No. 38 of 2021 which is the prevailing copyright law of UAE, and does not have any provision stating that any work dedicated to Islamic culture is in public domain (so architects and sculptors still hold copyrights). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this to you previously in the law, and not everything related to Islamic culture is public property, but the mosque is known to be public property. How can public property become subject to rights?.
The law that I mentioned to you previously in Article 1 states: All works excluded from protection initially, or for which the period of protection for their economic rights has expired.
Does the mosque have financial rights? Absolutely not. Is it public domain? Yes Dedaban (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban just provide a link to the copy of the law. Whether in English or in Arabic (which I may translate using Google Translate). And again, it is the architect's rights we are talking about, not physical owner's rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the law, but in Arabic Dedaban (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedaban is that the "Public Property Law"? A glance of it appears to be the Arabic text of the Federal Law No. 7 of 2002 Concerning Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (essentially the copyright law itself before being superseded by the 2021 law). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2021 amendments were in photographing people, and the rest of the provisions were not changed. Because I did research, I only found amendments to the rights to photograph people. Dedaban (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Public Property" that you are referring to (at Article 1 of the 2002 law) is identical to what is written on the 2021 law: "Works Transferred to or Falling into the Public Domain – All Works originally excluded the protection or whose economic rights protection term expires." Under article 3 of the 2021 law, copyright does not protect: 4. Works transferred to the public domain. This is no different from the Article 3 of the 2002 law (here is the WIPO copy in English). For the mosque to be confirmed as in public domain, there should be a proof – typically an email correspondence from the management or the heirs of the architect confirming that the mosque is in public domain. Mere guess using the Islamic customary rules is against COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle #5: "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained." Let's reword this false argument in the context of this mosque: "The mosque is a public property, courtesy of Islamic customary rules. The mosque does not have financial rights and the architect or his heirs haven't complained." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mori Empire at it's maximum peak under Dhaval Maurya(644 AD).jpg

[edit]

Poorly worked map , please delete. चन्द्र वर्धन (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png

[edit]

Not educationally useful + mediocre quality 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep unless you can point to another example of transformation fetish art on commons. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the clarity of this discussion, I uploaded File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png alongside three other transformation drawings by the same artist (File:Scooter'd by voltmop.png, File:Laptop charger transformation fetish drawing by voltmop.png, and File:New Years Resolution - Marathon by voltmop.png). I would agrue that each of the images are educationally useful because they illustrate the transformation fetish. For this reason, I added two of them to the English Wiktionary entry for "TF". They are also individually useful in contrast to each other because each showcases variation within the genre. The file under discussion in particular shows an example in a comic format with explicit panels and plot while File:Scooter'd by voltmop.png has no plot and File:New Years Resolution - Marathon by voltmop.png has no clear lines which separate the stages of the transformation in panels. Lastly, although the level of artistic detail may not be high, I would argue that that is unrelated to the question of how well the image communicates the subject of transformation art which my understanding is what is at issue in policies like Commons:Project scope. The image is of a high resolution (1,858 × 1,840 pixels), has crisp lines without blurring, and has a straightforward composition which together lead me to consider it a quality image useful for illustrating the fetish and related art genre. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 21:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izhevsk Reservoir-25.jpg

[edit]

Duplicates Izhevsk Reservoir (June 2019) - 6.jpg (my own mistake) Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siłownia plenerowa.jpg

[edit]

Pomieszały się dwa pliki, tylko ten z miniatury jest mojego autorstwa DentArt (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem został rozwiązany, więc nie ma potrzeby usuwania pliku. DentArt (talk) 18:51, 31 May 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 Ucelovp (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The same uploader as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election maps of the Czech Republic, the same problems. The uploader is trying use these maps on cs.wiki, but there is an consensus among more editors to not use these badly done maps in the articles.

Harold (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (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 Ucelovp (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The same uploader as above and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election maps of the Czech Republic, the same problems. Very strange and unreadeable graphic presentation with many languages errors and typos, JPG format, watermarks, non-existent administrative units.

Harold (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nechapu které kazisvět zase chce něco mazat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelovp (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC) u voleb prezidenta my nepřijdou dulezité administrativní celky . je zájem ukázat rozdíly v preferencich voličů . Na tech "admin-krajich" se přece nevoli samostatně ( vitěz (ne)bere vše ) , ale do celkového součtu se posílají hlasy pro všechny tam volené kandidáty !!!! ja naopak považuju za manipulaci vybarvit barvou jen jednoho kandidáta část mapy kde získal jen část hlasu, často méně než 1/4 s oprávněných voličů nebo meně jak 1/2 s odevzdaných hlasů. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelovp (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Připomínky různých editorů k vámi vytvářeným "mapám" jsou dostupné na cs:Diskuse s wikipedistou:Ucelovp, žádná však nebyla v minulosti reflektována. Pokud vám "nepřijdou důležité administrativní celky" a místo nich do map vkládáte neexistující územní jednotky, tak mi přijde, že jakékoliv pokusy o diskusi s vámi jsou zbytečné. Wikimedia Commons není skládka nepoužitelného (graficky, jazykově, typograficky) a nesmyslného (neexistující územní jednotky) balastu. --Harold (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Not useful for Commons, and only used in user pages. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ucelovp (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The same uploader as above and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election maps of the Czech Republic, the same problems. Very strange and unreadeable graphic presentation with many languages errors and typos, JPG format.

Harold (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

přesně nevím o co jde , zas řádí nějaké cenzor ?
nevím jakému kazisvětovi muže vadit nějaká presentace dat , kterou jsem ani nedal k "oficielnimu" zdroji?!
jaké ma být měřítko hodnocení přízpěvků na wikipedii ? jenom líbí/nelíbí to je podle mě hodně subjektivní. myslím že by se mělo argumentovat s hlediska , jak je to blízko pravdě .myslím že komunální volební systém v česku je hodně nepřehledný , taky počet municipalit atd.
učel proč jsem to kdysi dělal byl nějaký přehled s hlediska "volebních stran " , především pro menší obecní uřady  .  
překlad přes google angličtina
I don't know exactly what it's about, is there a censor on the loose?
I don't know what kind of scumbag could be bothered by a presentation of data that I didn't even add to the "official" source?!
what should be the rating scale for wikipedia posts? just like/dislike is very subjective in my opinion.
I think that one should argue from the point of view of proximity to the truth.
taught why I used to do it was some overview for voters here in places where there are a lot of municipal offices Ucelovp (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ucelovp: Doporučuji si pročíst COM:SCOPE, abyste zjistil, k čemu Wikimedia Commons slouží. Určitě to není skládka souborů, které jsou graficky, obsahově, typograficky, pravopisně a gramaticky na zcela tragické úrovni. --Harold (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
řekl bych nemějte přehnané iluze o své kompetenci. Ucelovp (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Prolete (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Files have promotional descriptions and aren't in use. Due to the large amount of potental G10 tags, Opening a DR instead for the first 200 odd files.

Group 1 file list

All the best -- Chuck Talk 23:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per the message I just left on your talk page, these descriptions (although not necessarily promotional but with unnecesary detail perhaps) can be modified, trimmed down, rewritten or entirely removed if needed. The images may be worthy of use and they are free, too. Bedivere (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The second group (below) contains images of a variety of subjects, many of which do not have promotional descriptions. That nomination casts doubt on this nomination as well, even if this nomination consists of more narrow subject matter.
These files should be more carefully checked before deletion. Brianjd (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Prolete (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

Files have promotional descriptions and aren't in use. Due to the large amount of potential G10 tags, opening a DR instead for the second group of 1442 odd files (the rest of the user's uploads).

Group 2 file list

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep some/many of those. Some seem useful and just copied the description from source like lots or most of other media from other places like youtube (V2C does it by default). Lots of those files could be deleted but I'll probably go with keep for all the other files users other than the uploader list here as worth keeping. The ones I noticed getting DRd and which seem useful are File:Venice Beach 4K Drone in Los Angeles CA.webm and File:Lightning at Devlins Inlet.jpg. The latter only links at the source page as it should, what would be wrong with it?! Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep I found one of the files nominated here while browsing a category.
According to the filenames listed here, and my random sampling of the actual files, this collection of images is of a reasonable quality and covers a variety of interesting subjects. The fact that they are not in use is irrelevant. Many of them do not have promotional descriptions; those that do can be fixed.
There needs to be some kind of rule against mass nominations, except where there is evidence that the entire collection that is nominated is worthy of deletion, and no such evidence has been presented here. Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is very confusing. When I wrote the comment above, I did not even realise there were two nominations on this page.
Jeff G. was just picking up where Chuck left off, per the discussion on Chuck’s talk page. Since the nominations were intended to be a single nomination from the beginning, and only became separated for technical reasons, I suggest merging them. Brianjd (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an intermediate step, I have collapsed the file lists. Brianjd (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the files have promotional descriptions and I hope "not in use" is not reason enough on its own to delete files. No propmotional description found in:
The first two are good photographs, the last one I have doubts about.
These three are a very small sample which I tested because I recently made changes and I got an alert for. Before nominating files for deletion, you should be certain that all nominated files are indeed out of scope, not guessing, especially not if you nominate so many files. JopkeB (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Brianjd: OK, sorry.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider withdrawing this deletion request [Files uploaded by Prolete (talk · contribs) 2]. JopkeB (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue with the descriptions rather than the images, then the fix is to change the descriptions, not delete the images. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley, Some clarification about my DR: Prolete uploaded 300ish images from flickr about wrestling with promotional titles in their EXIF data. I looked over 210 of them with VFC, and nominated them for deletion, with a note that I would look for the rest of the uploads later. Based on my unclear rationale, Jeff G. tagged the rest of Prolete's uploads using the same rationale. I had seen these earlier uploads, and they all were fine, so I erred on the side of caution when tagging file for the initial DR. Sorry for the mess.
All the best -- Chuck Talk 21:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a 'worst case' for the 'promotional content' File:2024-02-17 14-40-31 ILCE-7CM2 DSCCT7709 DxO (53714159417).jpg
Japan Con 2024 - Brussels Manga - WCL - Day 1 - Sheikh Kamel Vs Aaron Rammy, Darkmondo

Sheikh Kamel (c) Def. (Pin) Aaron Rammy, Darkmondo

For : World Catch League Championship (No Title Change)

Referee : Chris James Bizige

( Located in the beautiful halls of Tour&Taxis in Brussels, 


JAPAN CON/BRUSSELS MANGA is a new convention celebrating the awesome Asian pop-culture! So for all the true fans of Manga, Anime or just Asian Pop Culture in general this event is especially for you!
Arigato Gozaimasu! )
I am not going to delete an image on that basis alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the Japancon thing could be removed but the rest is not promotional. Even that first sentence could be kept eventually. Bedivere (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Opheffingsuitverkoop.jpg - I do not see anything that looks like a promotional description, not in the Dutch description, nor the English one (which is a good translation of the Dutch). On the contrary, this is about a closeout (sale), so the shop does not exist anymore. And it is the only photo in color that I could find for Category:Closeouts (sale) in the Netherlands. So please keep it. --JopkeB (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-05-19 Maria Hubmer-Mogg ORF Pressestunde.png

[edit]

possible copyvio (c) ORF M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Ich bin sehr gespannt was die Diskussion ergibt. Ich hatte schon selbst bei den Urheberrechtsspezialisten angefragt, ob und wie das mit Screenshots von Fernsehsendungen geht. Für mich ist völlig ergebnisoffen wie das entschieden werden könnte. --Dieter Zoubek (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Albion Hotel 19-07-2023 (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Royal Albion Hotel 19-07-2023.jpg which has been cropped identically. Harrz (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ev. Carpentier - Le nourrissage des poules.jpg

[edit]

Les couleurs de l'image ne sont pas bonnes. J'ai remplacé le fichier par une reproduction au couleurs plus fidèles à la réalité. Merci de supprimer. Cafedelyon 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mari van der Vlis (talk · contribs)

[edit]

More information is needed about the source and copyright status of these older images, which look professionally made.

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Solar Eclipse (53710290148).jpg.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2024 Solar Eclipse (53710535335).jpg

[edit]

Hideous quality for a 2024 photograph, but the main reason I'm nominating it to deletion is that it doesn't even portrait what it is supposed to, that is, the solar eclipse. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: The file description (which probably should be shortened) makes it clear what the image is supposed to depict. Please read file descriptions before nominating files for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Solar Eclipse (53710535335).jpg.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2024 Solar Eclipse (53710290148).jpg

[edit]

Hideous quality for a 2024 photograph, but the main reason I'm nominating it to deletion is that it doesn't even portrait what it is supposed to, that is, the solar eclipse. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Evangelical churches in the United Arab Emirates

[edit]

All of the images show a building that was built in 1998 and inaugurated in 2003 as per w:en:United Christian Church of Dubai. As the United Arab Emirates does not provide suitable Freedom of Panorama, these images under commercial Creative Commons licensing infringe the church building designer's copyright.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Wniosek do rady gminy Szudziałowo z dn.15.04.2024.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokładnie taki dokument został wysłany do Rady Gminy w Szudziałowie i skutkował uchwałą Rady. Jarasłau Janowicz (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:-tretiyput.jpg

[edit]

Not used. 181.203.42.82 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:10-10 contratto.jpg

[edit]

What is this? 181.203.42.82 14:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:9az234.png

[edit]

He Is not a user but an abuser. 181.203.42.82 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:コイコイ

[edit]

May not be governmental works; source is credited as 作成：（社）日本科学飼料協会 ("Created by: Japan Scientific Feeds Association") and 編集・デザイン：つしまみかこ ("Editorial and Design: Mikako Tsushima"). The Ministry of Environment of Japan does not necessarily directly states third party contents, and if this is the case, {{GJSTU-2.0}} is not applicable despite being from the government website. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

承知しました。勉強不足でした。削除で問題ありません。 コイコイ (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bablu Islam (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these files have nothing more than "Word A" vs "Word B" -> sure that has no use. The last one, a diagram about evaporation vs condensation is educational and in scope. --Enyavar (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly convinced of the utility of that one either. It's effectively just a table of text, and a poorly formatted one at that. Omphalographer (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SCC MRI.png

[edit]

No evidence this is available under a free license * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep {{PD-automated}} -- as an MRI image, no human creativity was involved. —holly {chat} 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Holly. PD-medical could also work. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SCC MRI.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Ahecht as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Images from an MRI machine are not CCTV or traffic enforcement camera footage, so PD automated doesn't apply.. Previously kept at DR. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-medical}} would presumably be the more approprivate PD tag if this is indeed in the public domain. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery {{PD-medical}} links to meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging, which generally only endorses the idea that medical images are public domain in the United States. I'm not sure whether it applies to images created in Turkey. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Imam Al-Tayeb Mosque

[edit]

w:en:Imam Al-Tayeb Mosque was completed in 2023 and authored by architect w:en:David Adjaye. As there is no suitable Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates, these commercially-licensed inages infringe his copyright.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Hatcher side of the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment on the Diag at the University of Michigan.jpg

[edit]

Anonymous photo from a private chat is still copyrighted A1Cafel (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo mark of National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience.png

[edit]

Redundant to File:防災科学研究所.svg * Pppery * it has begun... 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astrid Fendt im Infopoint.jpg

[edit]

Urheberrechtsverletzung, keine Rechte an gezeigten Fotos und Texten. Martin Sg. (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bei den Plakaten im Bild und den Fotos und Texten handelt es sich um Auschnitte aus diesen Plakaten, die vom Urheber und Rechteinhaber CC-frei gestellt wurden. Wobei die Freigaben jeweils via Wikimedia-VRT bestätigt sind. --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thilina Kuruwita1.jpg

[edit]

Claimed own work but file EXIF shows "Author chamodh delpearachchi Copyright holder chamodh delpeachchi". Uploader is likely the subject, but copyright belongs to the photographer. MKFI (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by صلاح ٢٠٠٠ (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Doubtful own work: Low quality (File:منطقة السويب.png), no metadata, watermarks (File:بوابة متنزه الزوراء.jpg bottom left). User has an history of copyright violations: User talk:صلاح ٢٠٠٠. --

Nutshinou Talk! 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acer Chromebook 11 (24394834161).jpg

[edit]

This appears to be a common desktop background. Not likely to be owned by the photographer. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/02/05/how-safe-chromebooks-malware/97463864/ Schierbecker (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bio suisse logo (cropped).png

[edit]

Logo not released under a free license. COM:TOO Switzerland says "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose" are copyrighted, to me this logo exceeds that threshold. Consigned (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DMG-Lastwagen von (1896).jpg

[edit]

low resolution duplicate of File:DMG-Lastwagen von 1896.jpg Delta 51 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uyghur flag (2).svg

[edit]

This is an exact duplicate of File:Uyghur_flag.svg by the same uploader. Smasongarrison (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signing the Partial-Birth Abortion ban.jpg

[edit]

The person or figure depicted standing on the left end is pretty obviously an manipulated image (Photoshopped RoslinTollcross (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person or figure depicted on the left is pretty clearly Photoshopped in, and not part of the original image; this image appears to have been digitally manipulated rather than original. RoslinTollcross (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Steffi 2016.jpeg

[edit]

Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think relevance is the wrong word here. But I fail to see the "educational media content" as mentioned in COM:SCOPE. (see also Commons:PERSONAL).
The category/Wikidata-argument is, in my opinion, a bit of a circular reasoning. “Pictures exist, so we need a category/Wikidata. -> A category/Wikidata exist, so we need pictures.” --Dandelo (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be, but i see Steffi Renz in Common's project scope, i.g. "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." She is a presenter and newspaperwoman and perhaps the next Chancellor, who knows. Where is the problem for our free media repository in conjunction with three images?
@Dandelo: you're the deletion requester, you can not vote twice for the file's removing. Please remove the  Delete tag und replace it with the  Comment tag! Regards --Ras67 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SteffiRenz2.jpg

[edit]

Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think relevance is the wrong word here. But I fail to see the "educational media content" as mentioned in COM:SCOPE. (see also Commons:PERSONAL).
The category/Wikidata-argument is, in my opinion, a bit of a circular reasoning. “Pictures exist, so we need a category/Wikidata. -> A category/Wikidata exist, so we need pictures.” --Dandelo (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Dandelo, ich habe erst jetzt wieder in mein Wiki-Profil geschaut. Wahrscheinlich zu spät und auch jetzt hier nicht die richtige Stelle für meine Anmerkung. Ich finde es grundsätzlich schade, dass die einzige weibliche Stadionsprecherin im deutschen Profifußball keine Relevanz für Wikipedia (mehr) hat, nachdem sich über 10 Jahre scheinbar niemand daran gestört hat. Aber gut, eigentlich dachte ich, dass die Entwicklung in die andere Richtung laufen sollte, aber das ist natürlich nur meine private Meinung. Beste Grüße! Frank Frankaehlig (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be (section above), but i see Steffi Renz in Common's project scope, i.g. "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." She is a presenter and newspaperwoman and perhaps the next Chancellor, who knows. Where is the problem for our free media repository in conjunction with three images?
@Dandelo: you're the deletion requester, you can not vote twice for the file's removing. Please remove the  Delete tag und replace it with the  Comment tag! Regards --Ras67 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Leikstjórinn

[edit]

This user has uploaded multiple logos of political parties as his own work and published them under CC license without permission. He has also uploaded a few images of houses and people found online and published them as his own. Here are links to the original source of these images: Inga Sæland, Kristrún Frostadóttir Borgarspítalinn and Sólheimar 23. Two of the images I could not find the source, but given that all the other images are uploaded without permission I think it's fair to assume that these are also uploaded without permission. --Steinninn ♨ 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text logos and/or simple geometric shapes like File:Nútíminn.svg and File:Ættarmorðið.png are unlikely to be copyrightable. See Category:Icelandic-language logos. However, they should not be listed and licensed as the uploader's own work. Sinigh (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carpentier de Changy achievement.svg

[edit]

I am the original uploader. This file contains errors and I wish to have it deleted. Brookford (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carpentier arms.svg

[edit]

I am the original uploader. This file contains errors and I wish to have it deleted. Brookford (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carpentier primitive arms.svg

[edit]

I am the original uploader. This file contains errors and I wish to have it deleted. Brookford (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ialta Conference.png

[edit]

This is an altered version of a historic image, with two women inseted in the background who were not present in the origanal - link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Big_Three_at_the_Yalta_Conference.jpg Catsmeat (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Un giorno dopo laltro (1504002285).jpg

[edit]

The description contain a quote of Luigi Tenco. But the image it self doesn't seems very useful. Pretty out of scope.--StomboyCarGeek (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/05/25&oldid=887382648"