Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
31 March 2024
2 April 2024
Deletion requests on 1 April 2024

April 1[edit]

File:Club Nintendo logo.svg[edit]

I question if this is really below the threshold of originality, it clearly depicts Mario's hat. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above Ahri.boy (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - You may also want to consider nominating File:My Nintendo logo.svg. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep TOO in Japan is considered to be pretty high. "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts" are not copyrightable - the "hat" is way too simple to be considered an artistic work in this context. {{TOO-Japan}} applies. TheImaCow (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Indonesia Raya by Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra.wav[edit]

Even though the song is in the public domain based on Indonesian law, but the performance by Addie MS itself is copyrighted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Masgatotkaca. Silencemen21 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add something, notice that the sound in YouTube (the source in this description of the file) and SoundCloud is exactly the same (except for the loop in the YouTube source which starts from 0:00-0:05). If you see the description in SoundCloud, you will notice that a copyright notice is placed in the very bottom (you can do this by clicking "show more"). Silencemen21 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kulindroplax perossokomos.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia Levi bernardo (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the User:T-rex-wiki was an account I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epanterias2.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naukri.png[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Yes, uploader’s account was used only to upload this logo of the company. Self promotion Wizardofwords25 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The company is notable (has an English Wikipedia article at least) and this seems to be below the threshold of originality in India, which is noted to be currently similar to the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cutleria.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinisaura.png[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mussaurus.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ד"ר יהודית המנדינגר.jpg[edit]

Way better source info is needed 45.74.67.64 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ammosaurus.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiwaxia taijiangensis.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lexovisaurus1.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ortinopoda.jpg[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edsattic Logo 2024.png[edit]

no permission, no author copyvio from https://edsattic.wixsite.com/edsattic Hoyanova (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banner Edsattic.png[edit]

no permission, no author copyvio from https://edsattic.wixsite.com/edsattic Hoyanova (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ihme logo web.png[edit]

This is a logo of IHME Helsinki and it's not licenced for free use. Puppe100 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norway chess 2023.png[edit]

Maybe PD-textlogo but not sure. Obviously not a CC. I am smiling (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Telecom Italia Mobile (2014-2016).svg[edit]

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Even if the red part of the logo is simple (not sure), the blue part has 3D effect, which makes the logo complex. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment COM:TOO Italy is a high threshold, and there is no link to the AC Parma logo that was deleted, but if it's this, that would support your point. I would strongly urge someone who knows which AC Parma logo was deleted to link it, because as things stand, COM:TOO Italy is silent about 3D effects. To be clear, I assume you're right, but there's no actual evidence for that provided on COM:TOO Italy, only the absence of examples with 3D effects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep COM:TOO Italy Appartei (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ordesa - Vilas.jpg[edit]

copyright violation Florenciac (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dúo Dídyma.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Picture on this flyer in January the same year https://duodidyma.com/images/alloz.jpeg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:River stone D3BFB766-5035-4ACC-A3B9-9F52AEE626BB.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Deciding by other uploads of the user, this seems to be a recent artwork. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valen Low Singapore arm wrestler.JPG[edit]

Appears to be a screenshot, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian Pilot Primo Gibelli.jpg[edit]

This photo needs to be deleted: It is not an Italian photo because Gibelli was not in Italy at the time, he was in the Soviet Union so Russian copyright laws apply. The provenance of the photo is known - the first known publication is Ogonyok magazine No 36 of 1965, meaning it will not be PD in Russia until 2036 and PD in the US in 2061. Kursant504 (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It looks like a studio image and it would have been "made public" when it left the custody of the photographer and went to the sitter. 1965 Ogonyok magazine would be first appearance in a magazine. --RAN (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Wrong. You are falsely applying your interpretation of American copyright law on Russia. Russian copyright law is not bound to the American legal definition of publication. No Russian court has ever accepted such a broad definition of published. This photo has all the signs of being a private/personal photo (since he is smoking, the angle of his body towards the camera - this is obviously not an official portrait) and the historical context of the photo, being a photo of Primo Gibelli, further supports the notion that this photo was not made public (ie, available to be seen by the Soviet public, not just a few people in a private setting) since Gibelli was involved in lots of top-secret work, being a test pilot and participant in the Spanish Civil War when Soviet participation in the war was a state secret. So unless you can show that this photo was made public to the Soviet people (not just a few family members of Gibelli or other private situation) we cannot assume that this photo was legally published durin Gibelli's lifetime. Kursant504 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We apply US case law against the wishes of other countries based on rulings by the Wikimedia Foundation. See: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp and National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, where we apply US case law to images from the United Kingdom against their wishes. See also Monkey selfie copyright dispute. --RAN (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "We apply US case law against the wishes of other countries based on rulings by the Wikimedia Foundation" has NEVER been done on deciding on a different copyright countdown on photos based on differing definitions of publication, it has ONLY been done when Wikimedia contends that something was never copyrighted in the first place (like the Monkey selfie) or that there was not enough sweat of the brow to constitute a derivative work. I cannot emphasize this enough, the WMF does not disregard other countries definition of PUBLICATION and respects each countries copyright countdown rules. Russia is a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, not a US state, and forcing the US definition of publication here is denying the sovereignty of the Russian Federation.Kursant504 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Павел Александрович Ермилов.jpg[edit]

Clearly not "own work" Kursant504 (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MoA of cardiac glycosides.png[edit]

This was done for trial, full and accurate information is not provided Yellow1379 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament.bg[edit]

False claim about Creative Commons on the website of bulgarian parliament, which in reality is clearly marked as "© 2021 Народно събрание на Република България" ("© 2021 National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria"). Though terms of use say: The contents of the portal of the National Assembly may be used freely, unless it is explicitly stated that it is subject to protection under the current Copyright and Related Rights Act. , I believe that marking the content with "© 2021 Народно събрание на Република България" explicitly states that it is subject to protection under the current Copyright and Related Rights Act, because what else it is supposed to mean? Additionally may be used freely doesn't define precisely whether the content may be re-used, modified and so on. Summing everything up: no evidence for Creative Commons (so marking these files as CCed is wrong, disregarding their legal status), content is explicitly marked as (c), therefore free use (according to the terms of use) cannot be applied, and finally, lack of definition of the "free use". All linked files shall be also deleted. Masur (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masur, the exact text in the copyright information page of the The National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria states the following:

The National Assembly is the holder of the copyright of the software ensuring the functioning of the Internet portal and its design. (Hense the © 2021 Народно събрание на Република България in the footer.) The content of the portal of the National Assembly can be used freely, unless it is explicitly stated that it is subject to protection under the current Law on copyright and related rights. Therefore, the use of textual content, photos, video materials and other visual elements found on the portal is public and requires only citation. All web portal content is accessible in real-time via a public REST API. View API documentation - click here.

Thank you for considering and taking stance on this information making the final judgement. Pelajanela (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masur I carefully read the teams and conditions and my opinion is the same as the one of @Pelajanela. The use of textual content, photos, video materials and other visual elements found on the portal is public and requires only citation.
I want to ensure you that I carefully considered the license terms before uploading the pictures. There were informal disucssions with other members of the bulgarian Wiki community and other bulgarian NGO members that has focus on copyright related to state institutions. Dbalinov (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:US National Archives series: Photographs Relating to Agency Activities, 2001 - 2016[edit]

All images are extremely similar, and therefore out of scope. ("Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" per COM:PERSONAL)

File:David Halberstam 2001.jpg and File:David Halberstam 441-GD-01-092-A-03.jpg are enough.

TheImaCow (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arne Duncan at the Council of Chief State School Officers' Teacher of the Year event (April 28, 2010)[edit]

All files listed are extremely similar to other files within the category, therefore de facto duplicates & out of scope (the images were likely made in very quick succession). Listing them all with what exactly is the duplicate would be a lot of effort, but just look at the category itself, the duplicated files are all next to each other.

TheImaCow (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my experience, this is not usually considered a valid reason to delete files that come from a GLAM. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any practical nor policy based reason why GLAM files should be except from normal COM:SCOPE/COM:HOST rules - per COM:SPAM "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" are not realistically useful for an educational purpose and therefore out of scope. Large amounts of very similar files (or even defacto duplicates in this case) are difficult to navigate, maintain & use - and resulting, they also put the GLAM in a bad light, even if the majority of uploads are excellent (like here). TheImaCow (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep They are not identical, just similar. Let the end user decide which of the two or three similar ones to use. We do not actually delete the images, so no space is saved, the images are just hidden. --RAN (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So similar that they are basically the same and it wouldn't make any difference if one uses one or the other. I know that they are "only" hidden - that is exactly what is needed in this case. There is absolutely no value in maintaining de facto duplicate collections, it is actively disruptive to both editors and potential re-users of the images. TheImaCow (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it "actively disruptive", you just choose the one you prefer. How is any different than the number of similar images at Getty Images. --RAN (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it makes finding useful images harder. If you want to find pictures of this event, you need to go through a category with almost 200 images - and half of them are basically duplicate. This is not useful for anyone - for example, let's look at this and this image - this is a random unidentified person speaking. Not "Arne Duncan" as it's stated in title, categorisation or file description. If we have those two images of this unidentified person speaking at this event, why would we need more pictures like this, this, this or this, which are from exactly the same angels? All files on Commons are generally supposed to be in scope - and "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" are not in scope. Those 4 files mentioned here, and all other nominated do not add anything "educationally distinct". Quality goes above quantity.
    Also, note that the entire event is in itself is likely not notable - nothing of even slightest significance happened there apparently, there is no Wikipedia article on this "Teacher of the year" award - and there is just no realistic educational use for hundreds or hundredthousands of images of random people at random events. The only person of intrest there is Arne Duncan, the rest are apparently random people standing next to him. We also don't need thousands of selfies of people standing next to celebrities, and this is just the same situation here. TheImaCow (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Al Kamal Al Azra (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible problem? The file names seem to imply the different photographers of the images, and all are uploaded under one account. Supposedly, one account should be good for one person. Possible need for COM:VRTS confirmation of photographers' identities and of their commercial CC licensing choices?

Note that the different camera models of some images also imply the images are not taken by a single photographer/uploader.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete we need permission(s) from author(s)
  • -- already deleted image with modern architecture because of no FoP in UAE.
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarolinaWren23.jpg[edit]

Very low quality, the lowest by far, of over 400 photos of this species on Commons, with misleadingly bad colour balance as well as minuscule size MPF (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per COM:PERSONAL, "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" are not realistically useful for an educational purpose and therefore out of scope. This image is a perfect example of that. {{Low quality}} images should be replaced with higher quality versions, and if no longer in use, deleted (as they are out of scope then). TheImaCow (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The relatively precise geolocation makes the image more educationally useful. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IronGargoyle: It isn't geolocated at all, let alone relatively precisely. USDA photos like this were frequently used on multiple different USDA, USFWS, and USNPS websites from a shared library. Just because this file was obtained from the Ouachita & Ozark-St. Francis National Forests website, does not mean the photo was taken at that site. - MPF (talk) 16:28, 16 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:GRAND MOSQUE.jpg[edit]

no FoP in Abu Dhabi / UAE Ralf Roleček 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:GRAND MOSQUE.jpg[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sharjah Mosque. No FoP in U.A.E., and this commercially-licensed image infringes mosque architect's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharjah Fish Market Road - panoramio (3).jpg[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.A.E.. The building dates to 2005. This commercially-licensed image infringes the building author's copyright; the author of the mosque is Architectural Academic Office per English Wikipedia article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Interior of Al-Noor Mosque (Sharjah) in 2018[edit]

Interior architecture. Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharjah Fish Market Road - panoramio (3).jpg.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Balqeesazzouz (talk · contribs)[edit]

Same case as both Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Sheikh Zayed incategory:"Images from UAE in Lens Competition" and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by João José da Silva Pereira (talk · contribs)[edit]

These files were all uploaded as current "own works" with CC licenses, which is obviously not correct. They show various historical figures, most of them not identified, with useless file names like "Comunismo9". Some of them might actually be in the PD, others are probably still protected, but without proper identifications, sources, dates, authors we cannot determine the copyright status of the photographs. So the files should all be deleted per the precautionary principle.

Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not own work, nor created in 2024. But what is the source? Sets of images of Hitler don't just lie around everywhere, so I suspect they're taken from a book or so. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabs from random web sources, forums and so on. Note the colorizations, disparate Exif data, webp files, watermarks in images and so on. --Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Göring Detention Report mugshots.jpg seems fine to me, not all of them are copyvios. JayCubby (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That file is not in the list above, it's not nominated for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 12:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandera de grecia.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Greece.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandera de belgica.jpg[edit]

Duplicate of File:Government Ensign of Belgium.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Low-quality images that were not used and were replaced by high-quality vector graphics. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-ISIL Flag.jpg[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Iitdharwad (talk · contribs)[edit]

Logo seems above TOO; discussion needed

Эlcobbola talk 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State flag Parody.svg[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's vandalism. Speedy. 186.173.202.52 02:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Islamic State of Iran.png[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A suspected IS militant has been dragging out of rubbles of Mosul by Iraqi army soldiers.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. The user who uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons is not the author of the photo. Julie13666 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State Of Morocco.png[edit]

Not educationally useful Julie13666 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISIL describing how they defeated the Chakamari citizens.jpg[edit]

Possible copyright infringement. The copyright holder is ISIS. Julie13666 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Topeka, Kansas (1977–2019).png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag was created in 1977 and would have required a copyright registration, which does not exist. If it was created after 1989 registration and displaying a copyright symbol on each perceivable copy was no longer needed. See for instance File:Flag of Kansas City, Missouri (1992–1995).svg which has a copyright symbol. --RAN (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Shreveport, Louisiana.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Bossier City.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of North Yarmouth, Maine.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lincoln, Maine.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hyattsville, Maryland.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The flag consists of simple geometric forms and text and would not be eligible for a copyright. The center is just the Maryland state flag which is not under an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of College Park, Maryland.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The flag was created in 1962 and would have required a copyright registration and a copyright renewal, non of which exist in either database. If it was created after 1989 registration and displaying a copyright symbol on each perceivable copy was no longer needed. --RAN (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Winthrop, Massachusetts.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Whately, Massachusetts.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Tisbury, Massachusetts.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Swansea, Massachusetts.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Buckland, Massachusetts.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). License already present on page is appropriate. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Faribault, Minnesota.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Too simple for copyright protection. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Comprised of standard non copyrightable elements. --RAN (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Jennings, Missouri.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Too simple for copyright protection. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Frivolous DR. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Comprised of standard non copyrightable elements. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Kansas City, Missouri (1972–1992).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Current license on page is appropriate. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Frivolous DR. Current license on page is appropriate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Superseded by a PNG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lexington, Massachusetts.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Seal has likely lost copyright protection due to age. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The flag consists of simple geometric forms and text and would not be eligible for a copyright. The central line drawing of the minuteman statue is not copyrightable and appears and several flags we host as public domain. --RAN (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Needham, Massachusetts.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page is valid. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Springfield, Missouri (1938–2022).gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Too simple for copyright protection. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Comprised of standard non copyrightable elements. --RAN (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files by FalparsiParsifal[edit]

I am afraid but these photos depict stage designs that are protected by copyright, and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder. --Gnom (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trytique Pierre-Fabre de Yan Pei Ming.jpg[edit]

Copyright Infringement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Les Arènes de Pablo Picasso. Musée Goya.jpg[edit]

Copyright Infringement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Œuvre de Pablo Picasso.jpg[edit]

Copyright Infringement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lithographie et pointe-sèche de Dali.jpg[edit]

Copyright Infringement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asnaria de Pilar Albarracin.jpg[edit]

Copyright Infringement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg[edit]

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

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

File:Berlin demonstration after Navalny's murder asv2024-02-18 img01.jpg[edit]

It shows me and my husband and we are clearly recognizable. We request removal of this image. IUP (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep: Picture of noteworthy public event COM:INUSE. If you were that worried about being photographed, you shouldn't have demonstrated publicly. Do you think the Russian authorities wouldn't have had information about you if this photo weren't on Commons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nobody is really prominently placed in this image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep per Ikan. And in general: In street or event photography, random people + not prominently depicted = may be published. --A.Savin 00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it that much of a burden on you to simply remove this image? I had written to you directly and you never responded. I am not worried about Russians etc. We simply do not want our faces on the internet. I would very much appreciate you simply removing this image or at the very least blur the faces. Thank you. 2003:CB:7706:5C00:21BB:3B81:B223:85F4 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "We simply do not want our faces on the internet" => fine, then please sit at home all the time and don't go to public events. --A.Savin 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not up to any single individual participating in this thread to unilaterally remove a properly-licensed, legal image. You see that the consensus is against you. Wikis run on consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UP7EFhb1 400x400.jpg[edit]

Not own work, logo of a handball team MinervaAustral (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yulong River Bamboo Rafting.jpg[edit]

Tineye has an identical low resolution photo, first found in 2017. Likely a copyright violation. William Graham (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OPERA E PARE SHQIPTARE MRIKA.jpg[edit]

most probably wrong license on Flickr. Image from 1958 widely used on the web https://en.ata.gov.al/2018/12/01/first-albanian-opera-mrika-marks-its-60th-anniversary/ https://www.koha.net/de/Kultur/132281/sechs-Jahrzehnte-seit-der-ersten-albanischen-Oper-Mrika etc. I assume that picture is originally from a state archive Albinfo (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20230116-CMC Off portrait-004.jpg[edit]

Unlikely "own work" by uploader. File name suggests an official photo of NATO. No source given. Ooligan (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mircea-geoană-2023.jpg[edit]

Copyright symbol is on the bottom left of the image's archived webpage here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200810201021/https://mirceageoana.ro/index.php/bio-mircea-geoana/ Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villa Maxim-Gorki-Straße 1.jpg[edit]

Dublette VSchagow (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Rama with arrows (2).jpg[edit]

Invalid source. This file was was moved from File:Lord Rama with arrows.jpg where it was overwritten, but now since it is independent file, please provide appropriate source. Sreejith K (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rene-heinzl-a1.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) A1/APA-Fotoservice/Juhasz M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Душан Николић Сима, Ретроспективна изложба, Народни музеј Шабац, 2016-.jpg[edit]

Copyright infrigement. Author of paintings died in 1998, field of panorama does not apply as it is temporary exhibit inside a museum Ђидо (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use copy is present on Serbian Wikipedia. This file is not used. Ђидо (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сима Николић.jpg[edit]

Unclear copyright status. Image has to be created at least before 1998. Serbian Wikipedia has a fair-use copy Ђидо (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use copy is at sr:Датотека:Душан Николић Сима.jpg Ђидо (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wren.jpg[edit]

Tiny, very low quality, blurred, no location data; over 400 better photos of the same species MPF (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeoDocto.png[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HYCM Logo.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside abandoned sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Miss Planet International[edit]

These three files have the same information, so two of them should be deleted as duplicates. The remaining one should have spelling and grammar checked.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 1 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.

File:Crocus City Hall amphitheater after terrorist attack (2024).jpg[edit]

From COM:AN/B: "I ask you to remove the protection from the file early, as this makes it impossible to apply for the removal of an image that is not in the specified source and that violates copyright. A better replacement has already been uploaded under a free license and can be used in all language sections of Wikipedia to illustrate the facts stated in the article. Thank you! — ArtSmir (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)". I have no opinion on this request. Bedivere (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
An archive of the source page shows it was on it.
Where is the better replacement?
Greetings, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Sidney.Cortez. Bedivere (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep per uploader's evidence. --Quick1984 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: evidence by uploader is sufficient. --Bedivere (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocus City Hall amphitheater after terrorist attack (2024).jpg[edit]

Unfortunately, I was not given time to respond in the first discussion. Therefore, I am forced to nominate this image again - I reported this in COM:AN/B.

This file is not on the site, that is, it is not there statically, it is presented only temporarily to update the news agenda and is positioned solely as a link to the profiles of representatives and the government organization itself on the VKontakte social network, and the archive of the site page confirms the fact that these previews are constantly are updated and are not located directly on the Moscow government website. Take a closer look, if you click on any of these previews, you will immediately be transported to the Russian social network VKontakte, where these full-fledged files will be located, from where their use anywhere under the free Wikimedia Commons license is prohibited. Believe me, I am perfectly familiar with the licensing policy of the VKontakte website, which does not provide for and, accordingly, prohibits the placement of files published on this social network anywhere under free licensing conditions. Thank you!

By the way, here is a high-quality replacement: File:Elimination of the consequences of a fire in "Crocus City Hall" (March 25, 2024).jpg, that was requested in a previous discussion by the participant who uploaded this file. — ArtSmir (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question The file was generated/produced by VKontakte or the Moscow government? If the response is the latter, the terms of VKontakte are irrelevant to the discussion because the file's copyright is still owned by the Moscow gov. Bedivere (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This file was created by the Moscow government, but hosted on a different platform. Please understand that it is not possible to publish content under a valid government website license on another platform that has a different licensing policy, in which case it may be considered a conflict and violation of licensing rights. The situation is exactly the same with the official telegram channels of government officials, the materials of which are not posted here. But they are posted from their official websites, which provide for the distribution of full-fledged materials on the site under a free license, and are not published temporarily as a link to the final material in any social network, messenger, etc.
Also, in the context of our conversation, I would like to remind you of the global practice of licensing agreements on the Internet, when when interacting with most information services, the end user is asked to accept the terms of their licensing policy or find out better. I think this was done for a reason. — ArtSmir (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty clear:
  1. The file was generated by the Moscow Oblast Government
  2. The file was published and appeared on the official Moscow Oblast Government
  3. The Moscow Oblast Government website is released under a free license, and so it is free to be uploaded here
  4. The file was published on VKontakte
  5. VKontakte, just for merely hosting the file, does not generate a new copyright and certainly cannot restrict how the legal copyright holder releases their material under a non-restrictive license
  6. VKontakte's terms have nothing to do with the legal status of the file's copyright
Bedivere (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I just gave a little read to VKontakte's terms. "7.2.4.By posting his/her Content in any part of the Site, the User automatically grants the Site Administration free of charge the non-exclusive right to use it by copying, public performance, reproduction, processing, translation and distribution for or in connection with the purposes of the Site, including for the purpose of increasing its popularity. For these purposes, the Site Administration may produce derivative works or insert the User’s Content as components in relevant collections or take other actions for these purposes". Where exactly does that mean VKontakte owns or forbids relicensing materials? Could you please elaborate citing specific articles or legal documents? --Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colleague, you were probably in a hurry, because I don’t know where you found such text in this paragraph, but I just went to the VKontakte license agreement and found the same sub-clause 7.2.4, where the following is written verbatim: do not otherwise violate intellectual property rights The Licensor in relation to the Social Network or any element thereof, in particular, the Licensee does not have the right to copy, broadcast, distribute, publish, or otherwise distribute and reproduce materials posted by the Licensor on the Social Network (text, graphics, audio-video) without written consent of the Licensor. — ArtSmir (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on your 6 points:
  1. The file was created by the Government of the Moscow Region.
  2. I deny the existence of a full publication of the file on the website of the Government of the Moscow Region, since it was used exclusively as a preview with a link to a third-party source (VK) on which it was posted.
  3. The website of the Moscow Region Government provides the opportunity to distribute files located directly on its website under free licensing conditions.
  4. The full file is published on the VKontakte website.
  5. VKontakte does not create new copyrights, but acts in accordance with its licensing policy, according to which the distribution of any materials of the VKontakte social network that are the subject of user copyrights is prohibited. Despite the fact that there is not even a hint about the admissibility of using free licenses.
  6. The social network, as an organization, regulates user relations on the basis of agreements, which means a priori related to the legal status of copyright for all files located on this social network.
    . — ArtSmir (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag Sukhum City.jpg[edit]

the coat of arms is real but the flag is fake and has no source, if it is real confirm it by a real source Tgbsww (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 261asourabh (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Kangaroux Online Emporium.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company rep, no use outside wikidata and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment. Wikidata usage is sufficient for an image being in scope. Should the Wikidata entry be deleted? Probably. But until it is, this should be kept if we believe the image was released by a legitimate representative of the company. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Next Level Diplome.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Diploma CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Presidential Palace in Abudhabi ($490M) - panoramio.jpg[edit]

The building appears to be the central focus here and is being used on Wikipedia articles about the palace itself. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. This means this 2017 building cannot be freely photographed for commercial Creative Commons licensing distribution. A licensing permission from the building designer is a must. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will vote  Keep for this composition, IMO the palace is not the principal subject on the image. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyolf77 no, it is right the center of the image, and the building is the central theme. Not incidental or trivial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Segregated water fountain.png[edit]

Smithsonian says the photograph is from 1950, the uploader did not provide a URL where the license could be verified. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ziah615 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Circassian Alphabet.jpg[edit]

Not self-created. Was uploaded to File:CircassianAlphabet.jpg 13 years ago, where it was deleted as unsourced. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Easter Bouquet.webp[edit]

Low-res version of File:Multicolored tulips alstroemeria Peruvian lilies roses spider mums in blue mason jar glass vases with napkins and decorative Easter Egg on counter in kitchen.png Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver Chinatown.png[edit]

Unclear if the image is freely licensed. Per Flickr description, this is a scan of a postcard, not the Flickr user’s work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04/01&oldid=876803090"